Cook County Court Clerk grossly negligent; rap sheets useless & inaccurate; failure to transmit notices of appeal; failure to file lawsuits from indigent plaintiffs; call for her resignation

                                                                                  Cook County Circuit Court Clerk Dorothy Brown-official portrait

The principle job of the Cook County Court Clerk is to keep accurate records and in the case of the criminal courts transmit these records to the Illinois State Police. She is also by statute required to transmit Notices of Appeal filed with her office to the Illinois Appellate Court within five days, as well as orders granting or denying indigency petitions to the litigant (plaintiff or defendant) "promptly" or by mail if the llitigant isn't present.

The ISP is required by law to maintain records of criminal histories on Illinois residents. These records help to generate a rap sheet for persons arrested including a record of convictions, acquittals, and bond forfeitures. These records are also sent to the FBI for their criminal database.

Rap sheets are used by law enforcement officers and judges to determine bail amounts when someone is arrested. If the person has lots of bond forfeitures for failing to appear in court or has a heavy record of convictions for serious crimes, then the judge will set a high bail amount.

Rap sheets are also used by companies, schools and government in employment decisions and can seriously affect a person's ability to obtain a job if they reveal information of careless behavior like refusing to come to court or convictions.

Failure to keep accurate court records and to transmit them to the ISP violates civil rights as it subjects arrestees to excessive bail without due process, a violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments to the constitution which mandate due process in criminal procedures, as well as discrimination regarding obtaining a job. False statements on rap sheets amount to defamation of character.

This writer reviewed over 30 cases in the criminal courts in Cook County where Clerk Brown oversees maintenance of records. She compared them to the judge’s notes and orders hand written in the files and to the ISP criminal history or rap sheet. The following were some of the numerous errors noted:

There was NO record in the docket transmitted to the ISP and FBI of any preliminary bond forfeiture orders which were quashed, where the defendant did not show up in court, a warrant was issued, and a preliminary bond forfeiture order was entered, and then the defendant later showed up with a good excuse such as they were in the hospital or in jail and were not brought to court due to no fault of their own.

One defendant who was arrested on misdemeanor battery, was disabled, and had four preliminary bond forfeitures which were quashed because she was in hospital or had other good excuses. She has a history of coming to court. The Court Clerks failed to transmit to the ISP court dispositions quashing the bond forfeitures. The writer checked with the court assistant clerks and found out that they NEVER transmit notic to the ISP that bond forfeitures are quashed, which happens at least 1/2 the time.

The ISP records do not have any records that the bond forfeitures were quashed so the prosecutor told the judge that the defendant was a "flight risk" with a history of ignoring court orders, which is totally false. The rap sheet appeared to have four bond forfeitures as they only listed the preliminary bond forfeiture orders. Despite the defendant's attorney, acting as an "officer of the court," stating that the ISP rap sheet was incorrect, Judge Feerick refused to believe him and set bail at $50,000 instead of the usual $1,000 for a misdemeanor case. This caused the defendant to be needlessly and wrongfully incarcerated. This defames the defendant and affects her ability to obtain a job. This was clear bias by Judge Feerick to believe the states attorney and not the defendant's attorney.

There were numerous instances where the court records reveal that the defendant was out on bond, but the ISP were told the defendant was in custody and vice versa. There were numerous entries in the docket that clearly were incorrectly placed in one case's docket but belonged in another case.

The errors are endless. Total error rate, regarding significant entries in the court's docket (computerized record) revealed a 37% error rate (number of cases with significant errors divided by total number of cases). Significant errors included failure to record dispositions correctly, failure to record orders correctly, entries in the wrong docket, and failure to record an order.

This writer discussed the above with a number of low ranking court clerks.

They all wished to remain anonymous, but said that Clerk Brown almost never visits their offices; there appears to be no mechanism to catch errors; over the past few years the clerk's have become demoralized, feel abused and neglected and therefore have a careless attitude about their jobs. One admitted that many of them just don't care anymore and that is why the error rate is so high. They admitted that the jobs of the supervisors have more to do with patronage than with talent. They do not believe their supervisors know what they are doing. They think Clerk Brown is unqualified to do her job and is only concerned about things like computerizing the filing of complaints. They wish that a concerned, energetic, and qualified person would be appointed as Clerk, who would provide true oversight.

This error rate is so large that the rap sheets in the ISP hands should be considered totally unreliable and the judges and police should not use them to set bail or for any other reason. This is a very serious dereliction of duty of the Cook County Court Clerk.

The ISP should investigate this and confirm what I have written here. This is a major catastrophe for law enforcement and the courts. It must be corrected quickly.

This failure of the Court Clerk to perform her statutory duties to keep accurate records is outrageous and serious. In conjunction with Clerk Brown's corruption of the appeal process, the only thing for her to do at this point is resign immediately. The FBI and U.S. Attorney should investigate this also to see if pay-to-play or "theft of honest services" is the reason for this gross negligence of the Cook County Court Clerk.

This writer met with Clerk Brown in December 2009. She said she would look into the issue of corruption of the appellate process, failure to transmit dispositions to the ISP and other issues. One of the other issues was that she violates her statutory duty to transmit Notices of Appeal to the Illinois Appellate Court within five days as required by the Illinois Supreme Court Rule She systematically fails to do so, instead, as she admitted transmitting a "notice of notice of appeal." Even though the County Circuit Court loses jurisdiction the moment a notice of appeal is file, Clerk Brown transmits the notices of appeal to Presiding Criminal Court Judge Biebel - this is illegal. He then decides whether or not to transmit them to the Illinois Appellate Court. He has no jurisdiction to withhold them, decide anything about them, or to order them transmitted. This has been going on for more than a decade and is a flat out violation of Illinois law. Both Clerk Brown and Judge Biebel are aware of this!  Brown has made NO contact with this writer since December 2009 about this issue, after our meeting witnessed by her attorney, her chief clerk, and a private attorney.

Brown also allows her clerks to follow Judge Maddux's illegal order to NOT promptly give orders (decisions) on indigeny petitions presented to his office to the litigant (plaintiff) waiting in the courtroom. They instead take them down to the Clerk's law division office, along with any other papers that the litigant had attached for the judge to view. The litigant is then forced to go down several floors and wait in line for their orders that should have been handed to them in the courtroom. All attorneys (and pro se counsel) are routinely given copies of orders issued by judges in the courtrooms of the Daley Center without charge. The statutes and Illinois Supreme Court Rules also state that the Clerk must file any lawsuits filed by indigent defendants who have filed an indigency petition at the same time WITHOUT CHARGE, regardless of the judge's order. If the judge denies the indigency petition then the litigant will be allowed to make a payment schedule if that is what the judge writes. Judge Maddux purposely refuses to tell the litigant his decision in the courtroom so if he denies the petition, the petitioner will have to re-motion it up to ask for a payment schedule and delay filing his/her suit. There would be no delay if Brown filed the lawsuit, but if the petition is denied, her clerks are instructed not to file the suits until they receive payment. This is illegal and a violation of statute. The act of Judge Maddux's clerk taking the lawsuit and order to the clerk's office and placing it on the desk is also illegal, as clerks are not allowed to perform the act of filing a lawsuit for a litigant. Only the litigant may present the lawsuit and judge's order to the filing clerks.

Judge Maddux has this illegal scheme to inhibit the filing of indigent pro se lawsuits that includes limiting presenttio of such indigency petitions in his courtroom to only between 11:30 and 12 noon each day. He leaves the bench and during this time his clerks gather the petitions and take them to his chambers. It is rumored that his clerks make the indigency decision, which would be an illegal act. Judge Maddux refuses to sit on the bench and consider the petitions in front of the litigants or ask them questions, or allow them to explain their situations and ask for reconsideration if he rejects their petitions.. Judge Maddux makes sure to inconvenience (harass) the pro se litigants by making them wait through lunch until at least 1:00  pm or 1:30 pm before he has the clerk go out to the courtroom and tell the litigants to follow him to the court clerk's 8th floor law division office and wait in line by the filing clerks. The filing clerks then will take the pile of papers handed to them by Judge Maddux's clerk including the petitions for indigeny and attached lawsuits and if they had not already been filed, they will file them if the order approved the indigency petition and refuse to file them without payment of the filing fee if the order denied the indigency petition.

____________________________________________

In the interest of full disclosure, the disabled defendant is this writer. During a  court hearing on a fraudulent trespass charge against me (see below for details)  Sheriff Deputy Stanislavski stepped in front of my walker (I am disabled) and pushed his body against it after I complained that Deputy Sheriff Norris inappropriately grabbed my arm and told me to shut up in a courtroom where I was representing myself on a wrongful arrest and fraudulent misdemeanor trespass charge. Judge Hyland failed to speak up and admonish the deputy.

The Sheriff courtroom deputies are inadequately trained in that they are trained to tell defendants to shut up in the courtroom. However, when a defendant is representing themselves as pro se counsel, they have the same rights as an attorney to speak up, object, etc. I was successfully representing myself as the charge was later dismissed by the state (nolle prosequi) without explanation.

I told Deputy Sheriff Norris to stop "assaulting me" and that I had a right to speak up like an attorney when I was representing myself. Stanislavski said quietly under his breath so the court reporter wouldn't hear him: "if you're going to charge her with assault, I'm going to charge you with battery." He claimed no injury. The judge said nothing as their was no assault to see.

The transcript of the hearing I was in reveals there was no battery. Judge Hyland was inappropriately yelling at me when I politely interrupted her and said she had made an error of law in stating that trespass to real property was a class A misdemeanor. I told the judge it was actually a class B misdemeanor and the judge got annoyed. I later copied the law and showed the judge she was in error. Judge Hyland then transferred the case to another judge.

That trespass case is also fraudulent against this writer because I was arrested for ringing the doorbell of a house, no one answered, and there was NEVER any notice not to come on the property. There is no probable cause on a trespass charge if there was no notice by the owner or occupant or no posted sign against trespassing. Without notice, a charge of trespass is unconstitutional as it violates the Fourth Amendment which prohibits arrest without probable cause. The Evergreen Park Police corruptly claim that they notified writer by phone not to come on the property. There are six Linda Sheltons in the Chicago area. Their records reveal they called the wrong Linda Shelton and therefore there was no notice and therefore no crime committed and no probable cause - the phone number on their records is NOT mine. The charge was later dropped by the States Attorney (nolle prosequi) without explanation. For more info see:

____________________________________________________________________

Illinois Trespass to Real Property law:

720 ILCS 5/21-3
Sec. 21-3. Criminal trespass to real property.
(a) Except as provided in subsection (a)(5), whoever:
(1) knowingly and without lawful authority enters or remains within or on a building; or

(2) enters upon the land of another, after receiving, prior to such entry, notice from the owner or occupant that such entry is forbidden; or

(3) remains upon the land of another, after receiving notice from the owner or occupant to depart; or

(3.5) presents false documents or falsely represents his or her identity orally to the owner or occupant of a building or land in order to obtain permission from the owner or occupant to enter or remain in the building or on the land; commits a Class B misdemeanor.

For purposes of item (1) of this subsection, this Section shall not apply to being in a building which is open to the public while the building is open to the public during its normal hours of operation; nor shall this Section apply to a person who enters a public building under the reasonable belief that the building is still open to the public.

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.

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?

Will County Judge Denies Indigent Status to Disabled Transgender Woman

Will County Circuit Court Judge Stephen White believes in omnipotent power for judges and defied his oath of office on July 6, 2007 in denying a petition to litigate as an indigent person by Daunn Turner. Ms. Turner is a severely disabled individual, now unable to work, who receives supplemental social security after a terrible illness. She was assigned the sex of male at birth and has a female gender identity. Ms. Turner has been successful in her careers as a bank vice-president, a member of the Illinois State Police, a caseworker for the Illinois Department of Public Aid, and a customer service manager for the Wall Street Journal. She was attempting to pursue a career as a stage and television actress when she became seriously ill. Ms. Turner has been undergoing medical treatment to facilitate her gender reassignment.

As a pre-requisite to the final surgery pertaining to gender reassignment, she is following medical advice and changing all aspects of her life to living as a woman. She wanted to obtain a name change from her legal name of Donald to Daunn. This required filing the appropriate documents in court in Will County. She went to the Court with the appropriate pleadings to change her name and a petition to litigate this cause as an indigent person with fees waived.

Judge White denied the petition stating that he refused to force the County to pay "for something like this." He said this was "not that important" and that there was "no urgency."

The Clerk refused to file the name change papers and assign a case number. This is a violation of 735 ILCS 5/5-105. This statute also requires that judges grant indigent status to anyone who is on social security, food stamps, or Medicaid. The judge and clerk have clearly violated statutes.

Ms. Turner has sued the judge and clerk in a complaint for mandamus asking the Illinois Supreme Court to order the judge to grant the indigency petition and the clerk to file the papers as of July 6, 2007. These are NOT discretionary administrative duties of the judge and clerk, but are mandatory. Please read 735 ILCS 5/5-105 (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?ChapAct=735%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B5%2F&DocName=073500050HArt%2E+V&ActName=Code+of+Civil+Procedure%2E&ChapterName=CIVIL+PROCEDURE&ActID=2017&ChapterID=56&SeqStart=30300&SeqEnd=33100&Print=True) which states that anyone on supplemental social security and food stamps automatically qualifies for indigent status.

This is yet another example of the lack of oversight of judges in Illinois, who after given a little power, completely defy their oaths of office to follow the law and the constitution and rule based on emotions, bias, personal prejudices, and faith. This is not an option for them. Judges who do so should be removed from the bench. Denial of access to the courts on cases with legitimate controversies is a violation of our First Amendments right to redress of grievances with the courts and Fifth Amendment rights to due process.

I ask my readers to show their support to Ms. Turner by writing her attorney Christopher Clark at the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. 11 East Adams, Suite 1008, Chicago, IL 60603, as well as write to newspapers and ask that this case be covered by the press.

10-25-08 Lambda legal defense informs me that the IL S. Ct in January ordered the Clerk to file the Petition for name change without paying the fee and ordered the judge to either grant petition for indigent status or put in writing details why Ms. Turner should be denied indigent status. I am told she was eventually able to obtain a name change.