Illinois eavesdropping law ruled unconstitutional - Melongo released after two years in jail - Lisa Madigan's "role"

Good news is that Annabel Melongo is now out of jail after being wrongfully incarcerated for two years with grossly excessive bail set by the incompetent and Dishonorable Judge Mary Margaret Brosnahan on two fraudulent charges of eavesdropping ($30,000 bail) allegedly for recording phone conversations with a court reporter and for remote computer tampering ($500,000 bail increased from personal recognizance when arrested for eavesdropping then reduced to $300,000 and then reduced to personal recognizance bail when eavesdropping  charge dropped).  Tell me why recording conversations with a court reporter, a public employee, is a crime! Write your legislator to change this law!

The complete story about Melongo is on a web site that purportedly was written by Melongo here. Apparently Carol Spizzirri, CEO of now defunct Save-A-Life foundation that had through fraud obtained millions in government grants from Homeland Security, Illinois, Chicago Public Schools and many other agencies by snowing such prominent politicians as Chicago Public Schools Chairman (now Secretary of Education) Arne Duncan, Sen. Richard Devine, Rep. Jan Shakowsky, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan and many others, who failed to use due diligence to check her out. Spizzirri put on her government grant applications that she was a senior nurse, although she was never more than a candy striper. She is a big con artist.

It is particularly surprising that Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan has not indicted her and cannot explain how the $50,000 her office gave to SALF was spent.

Melongo is still fighting the charge of computer tampering.  Her pending motion to dismiss is here.

Dr. Linda Shelton tried to get her out of jail with filing two next-friend petitions for writs of habeas corpus - read them here and here.  For this LEGAL act she was charged with contempt of court and summarily, unconstitutionally sentenced to 16 months in jail.  The Illinois courts all the way up to the Illinois Supreme Court have been violating the law.  So her appeal has now been sent to the U.S. Supreme Court - read it here. Her complete story about this whole situation with many links is on this blog here.

It appears that the State of Illinois, pushed by IL AG Lisa Madigan and certain judges will go out of their way spending millions on fraudulent prosecutions of Shelton and Melongo to discredit them and keep this story out of the public eye.

Its time the public spoke up.  PLEASE WRITE THE FOLLOWING OFFICIALS AND COMPLAIN about the wasteful use of your tax dollars and the cover-up of corruption and fraud!

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

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

The Honorable Eric Holder
United States Attorney
Attention: Public Corruption Task Force (Re: Judiciary)
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

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

United States Judicial Conference
Care of Honorable Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court
The Honorable John Roberts
United States Supreme Court
1 First Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20543

The following are excerpts from Melogo's Internet web site which gives all the details about her cases including copies of all legal documents, discovery, and orders.

 

How It All Started

·  April 27th, 2006 : discussion arose between Carol Spizzirri and Annabel Melongo on salary issues. Carol Spizzirri wanted to pay her 47K for being both the computer software and network administrator but Annabel wanted 60K. An agreement was never reached, so Annabel was fired. ·  April 28th, 2006: Annabel called to inquire about her check. She's told to pick it up coming Monday, May1st, 2006. ·  May 1st, 2006: Annabel stopped at SALF on her way to Chicago. While waiting for her check, Saquan Gholar and Bob Cokinis informed her of computer issues. She's told some people can't access the network to view files whereas some can. This is later confirmed by other employees. After receiving her check, she demanded to see Carol . Carol was in a meeting with Rita Mullins, the former palatine mayor. On her way back from Chicago, she stopped again at SALF to see Carol, which still wasn't available. She then called Vince Davis, one of Carol's manager and she's told that the computer issues were taken care of and that her help wasn't needed. Later that day, she gets an email forwarded to her, in the email she's accused of creating the incident. She replied to the email by forwarding it to various SALF employees and calling Carol a pathological liar. Other than requesting tax documents months later, that's the last time Annabel was in touch with SALF officially. Little did she know that this small incident will spawn a case that will challenge Illinois' political and legal system.

 

Timeline With ABC Report

For an untrained eye, it seems ABC investigative report has nothing to do with Annabel's case. Well, not so fast!!! ABC report might have well triggered the senseless complaint even though the investigation conducted by the Attorney General Office didn't warrant such charges. Let's look closer at the timeline. At the end of the report, [Emmy award-winning investigative reporter] Chuck Goudie says, "After terminating that interview three weeks ago...." The report aired November 16th, 2006. Which means the actual interview took place around October 26th, 2006. The charges, the arrest warrant, the complaint and the detective visit to Annabel's apartment all happened on October 31th, 2006. More over, ABC didn't just walk to SALF without warning. Common sense dictates, a notice was given to the organization to prepare for the interview. The nicely decorated room testify to that. Let's say ABC gave SALF 3-4 weeks notice, it then becomes apparent that SALF knew of ABC's visit around September 29th - October 6th, 2006. Are you curious to know when the Attorney General Office called the meeting to determine the charges? October 20th, 2006. Bingo!!! Here's what might have happened. SALF had an ongoing project estimated at around 40M with the Homeland Security which would have propelled the organization nationwide. However, it had no statistics proving the 1.6 million children being trained claim. Also it was legally in big troubles for unaccounted federal and state money. With the help of Lisa Madigan office, a black ship had to be created. Annabel, the helpless black sheep, was then charged to have remotely deleted all the files in the organization along with all the quickbooks and the annual reports that SALF ever had. Moreover, Carol's credibility having taken a toll at the end of the interview, the charges became the means to discourage further investigation. In that way, even when the ABC report aired, she still had the weapon to tell America and the Homeland Security ( See Section 'Who's Carol Spizzirri' ) to overlook her lies and to consider the fact that over 1.6 Million children were trained even though she couldn't prove it. Very clever!!!

By unknown on web site http://www.illinoiscorruption.net

Like actor Jack Nicholson in the movie A Few Good Men [from Wikepedia - "a 1992 American drama film directed by Rob Reiner and starring Tom Cruise, Jack Nicholson, and Demi Moore. It was adapted for the screen by Aaron Sorkin from his play of the same name. A courtroom drama, the film revolves around the court martial of two U.S. Marines charged with the murder of a fellow Marine and the tribulations of their lawyer as he prepares a case to defend his clients"]

Here's "what [Illinois Attorney General ]Lisa Madigan might say [about corrupt Save-A-Life Foundation and their felony funding fraud - obtaining government grants from Homeland Security, Chicago Public Schools, State of Illinois, etc.]

“ You can't handle the truth. Son, we live in a world with expensive political campaigns and those campaigns need to be financed by someone. Who's going to do it? You Annabel Melongo? You ABC? I have a greater gubernatorial ambition that you can possibly fathom. You weep for the money and curse Carol Spizzirri. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what a campaign costs. Carol Spizzirri's though full of lies and deceptions saves political lives. My refusal to prosecute Jon Burge though calculated and incomprehensible to you saves my career. I don't want them prosecuted because deep down I know that's what we do in Illinois. I need Carol Spizzirri in that role. I want her in that role. In Illinois we use words like earmarks, connections, pay-to-play. We use these words as the backbone of our politics. Other states use them as punch lines. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to people who rise and sleep under the blanket of the legal system I provide and then question the manner in which I provide it. I would rather want they say thank you and go on their way otherwise I suggest they go through a campaign. Either way, I don't give a damn what people think they're entitle to.” “
 

Illinois Pay-to-Play articles:

here

Articles by Shelton:
 http://www.scribd.com/doc/54734783/Melongo-denied-Constitutional-Rights-court-retaliates-by-Linda-Shelton-5-6-10

http://www.scribd.com/doc/54734782/Judges-commit-treason-cover-up-fraud-by-SALF-by-Linda-Shelton-4-21-10

Criminal Acts IL Attorney General Lisa Madigan & Judge Kathleen Pantle

I believe the following Petitions to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division provide evidence of the felony conduct of Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan and Cook County Circuit Court Judge Kathleen Pantle. Specifically their crimes are as follows and they should be prosecuted:



IL AG Madigan:



1. felony conspiracy to violate rights under color of law in conspiring with Bill Bradley, IL State Police Investigator William Reibel, Patrick Keenan, Nicholas Cozzolino, John Fearon, Patrick Murphy, and Judges Kathleen Pantle, Jorge Alonso, and Lon Schultz, as well as other unnamed or unknown individuals to intentionally retaliating against those who are whistle blowers against government corruption in Illinois and Cook County in that she conspired to illegally prosecute providers of mental health services to those on Medicaid so as to deny care for mental health services to those on Medicaid - this is a gross violation of her oath of office in that prosecutions without personal or subject-matter jurisdiction are forbidden;



2. violation of civil rights under color of law as above;



3. aiding and abetting felony forgery in that she permitted Inv. Reibel to forge the signatures of Dr. Maisha Hamilton on alleged fraudulent bills for psychiatric services used to indict Dr. Hamilton by cutting out the handwriting exemplars produced by Dr. Hamilton and placing them on phony bills which were faxed to the crime lab in Illinois;



4. felony subornation of perjury in that she and her staff assisted Inv. Reibel in making false statements to the grand juries that indicted Dr. Hamilton, Dr. Shelton, Naomi Jennings, and Mr. Glass, including false statements about the law and about evidence;



5. violating her oath of office in prosecuting Dr. Hamilton, Dr. Shelton, Naomi Jennings, and Mr. Glass for Medicaid Vendor Fraud without jurisdiction and in violation of the United States Federal Medicaid Code and the Constitution's Supremecy Clause, as well as prosecuting these persons when she had evidence they were not guilty of the alleged acts;



6. malicious prosecution against Dr. Hamilton, Dr. Shelton, Naomi Jennings, and Mr. Glass in that all these persons were whistle blowers against corruption in Illinois government and these fraudulent and malicious prosecutions amounted to retaliation for exposing the criminal conduct of members of the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, as well as officials in the City of Chicago, County of Cook, and State of Illinois;



7. permitting her attorneys, namely AAGs Fearon, Murray, and Nimrod to grossly violate due process in not only prosecuting these persons without subject matter or personal jurisdiction, but also in doing so in a process indicative of gross prosecutorial misconduct in violating many rights required by due process under the Constitution;



8. other unnamed or unknown criminal acts.



Judge Kathleen Pantle:



1. felony conspiracy to violate civil rights under color of law as above;



2. violation of civil rights under color of law as above;



3. violation of her oath of office in blatantly violating the IL Constitution in incarceration Dr. Shelton on December 14, 2005 without legal process and with no bail, without a legal charge, and then repeating this act on January 6, 2006, while snubbing her nose at the IL Appellate
Court order freeing Dr. Shelton and overturning the previous illegal incarceration order, again without legal process and without formal charge or conviction, this time with an excessive and unconstitutional $500,000 bail;



4. kidnapping Dr. Shelton and Mr. Glass in that she held them for trial on fraudulent vendor fraud charges without personal or subject matter jurisdiction;



5. slavery concerning Dr. Shelton in jailing her without legal process in violation of the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution;



6. other unnamed or unknown offenses as described by the following documents.



http://www.scribd.com/doc/9694342/Shelton-Federal-Habeas-PetitionCriminal-Contempt-Conviction2008

Lawless, Corrupt, Incompetent, Wacko Cook County Judge Thomas More Donnelly Arrests Defendant for Calling Himself Pro Se

Judge Thomas More Donnelly appears to be irrational, arrogant, incompetent, and extremely biased against pro se litigants. He MUST be removed from the bench and undergo extensive training on the law. He repeatedly violates his oath of office to uphold the law and constantly blatantly violates the Bill of Rights.

In the Circuit Court of Cook County the Clerk of the Court enters the appearance of attorneys by putting their attorney code number into her docket computer. For pro se counsel she has assigned the number 99500. This number is listed on the apparance forms as "pro se". Litigants who are pro se put this number by their name on their pleadings.

Judge Donnelly wrote to the Cook County States Attorney and requested a review for charges of "indirect criminal contempt" for "practicing law without a license" when falsely arrested defendant and civil rights activist Robert J. More filed pleadings in his case pro se writing the "attorney code" 99500 on his documents.

The Cook County States Attorney Charise Valente, Supervisor of the First Municipal Division revealed her extreme ignorance of the law and violation of her oath of office by actually writing a "Petition for Adjudication of Indirect Criminal Contempt" against Mr. More, which was granted by Dishonorable Judge Donnelly. Mr. More was then arrested on this charge and is awaiting trial.

Please write Chief Judge Evans of the C[r]ook County Circuit Court, Judge Wright the presiding judge of municipal 1 division, Anita Alvarez the newly elected Cook County State's Attorney and the press to express your outrage. Thank you for any help you provide. There addresses are:

Anita Alvarez
Cook County State's Attorney
Daley Center
50 West Washington, Room 500
Chicago, IL 60602

Chief Judge Timothy Evans
Circuit Court of Cook County
Daley Center
50 W Washington, Room 2600
Chicago, IL 60602

Presiding Judge Kenneth Wright
First Municipal Division
Circuit Court of Cook County
Daley Center
50 W. Washington, Roomm 1303
Chicago, IL 60602

Illinois Supreme Court Upholds Judge Maddux's Blatant Violation of Law

On November 26, 2008 the Illinois Supreme Court in a Motion for Leave to File Complaint for Mandamus with attached Complaint for Mandamus denied Leave to file without explanation.

This means that the Illinois Supreme Court has publicly condoned Judge Maddux's violation of statutes that require a judge to grant a Petition for indigent status and waive filing fees for a tort (lawsuit) when a Plaintiff is indigent.

See details of the illegal conduct and ruling by Judge Maddux in denying a Petition for Indigent Status. http://illinoiscorruption.blogspot.com/2008/10/crook-county-presiding-law-judge-maddux.html

I will now take this to the U.S. Supreme Court for a supervisory order. They will probably deny review, thus condoning violation of statute and due process rights as well as violation of the First Amendment right to redress of grievances.

Thus another example of [in]justice and the Myth of American Justice!

Solving the Problem of Pervasive Judicial Arrogance, Incompetence, Political Corruption, and Fecklessness

In Illinois judges are selected by vote or by temporary appointment of the Illinois Supreme Court. To be retained every few years, they must garner 60 % of the vote. There is no requirement for judicial training, no college for judges, and no certification for judges. Its kind of like a physician with a few years experience in family practice being allowed to do brain surgery, open heart surgery, or psychiatry. The result is disaster. Even when all the legal societies evaluate and rate judges it is useless. In 15 years or more, no judge has been removed from office by vote, even if rated as unqualified by all legal societies. It is worse than a joke. It is scary!

The Bill of Rights means NOTHING in Illinois. The Constitution means NOTHING in Illinois. Democracy means NOTHING in Illinois. The innocent are convicted. The guilty are free. The mentally ill are negleted and abused. The abused are kicked when they are down. The poor have no hope and are scapegoats. The rich and powerful are unfettered in their greed and inhumanity. Bullies, thieves, sociopaths infect the ranks of prosecutor’s offices, honorable police departments, and correctional departments.

I offer the following solution:

Judges in Illinois should be appointed by a panel of 9 persons. Five must be law professors who question the candidates as if they were defending a dissertation to make sure they have the fund of knowledge and intellect necessary to be a judge. Three of the panel would be citizens from different walks of life (doctors, accountants, tradesmen [like "Joe the Plumber"] and housewives). One would be a politician. The law school deans would have a rotating responsibility to appoint the law professors. Public interest groups would have a rotating responsibility to appoint the citizens. The Governor would appoint the politician.
There would be developed a College for Judges which awards a diploma or certificate after one year. No judge could take the bench unless he was certified.

Perhaps, then we might move Illinois from [in] justice and the fact that it presently is a totalitarian police state where judges are influenced by politics, corrupt prosecutors, and police, rather than by the Bill of Rights, to the fair and honorable democracy that we all dream of.

Protecting Defendants Charged for Political Reasons

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

THE TIME MAY BE NOW!

The State of Illinois through first Attorney General Jim Ryan and now Attorney General Lisa Madigan along with incompetent, ignorant, and/or corrupt officials in Illinois Medicaid including Bill Bradley, Investigator Reibel in the State Police, and Patrick Keenan in the State Police Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, with tacit approval by many other corrupt officials in the State of Illinois, have perpetrated a scheme for ten years to deny mental health services for persons on Medicaid in violation of the Federal Medicaid Code. See my other posts on Medicaid on this blog.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Rec. Upon the common law."

"Penn. Where is that common law?"

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

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

"Rec. Sir, will you plead to your indictment?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Penn. That is according as the answers are."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As to the Pullman strike and the Debs case, see L. Pfeffer, This Honorable Court 215-216 (1965); A. Lindsey, The Pullman Strike, cc. XII and XIII (1942); Commons, supra, at 502-508.
As to the Mooney case, see the January 18, 1922, issue of The New Republic; R. Frost, The Mooney Case (1968).

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

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

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

Oxford Eng. Dict.