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
http://illinoiscorruption.blogspot.com/2008/10/criminal-scheme-of-il-attorney-general.html .
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 OPINION 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, insofaras 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.
ONE THING IS FOR SURE - HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF!
_______________________________________________
[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.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Monday, December 8, 2008
Confirmatory Bias by Judges Against Pro Se Litigants, [In]Justice Extremes
Judges in the Circuit Court of Cook County should all be charged with practicing medicine without a license. They are very arrogant and end up being quite unfair due to their confirmatory bias. Confirmatory bias is when a person has preconceived ideas. In this case their ego will not allow them to acknowledge a non-attorney quoting cases or statutes which they either are not aware of or do not understand. They fail to acknowledge to themselves that they are NOT omnipotent repositories of all law, that they are ignorant of much law and rely on the attorneys to educate them on areas where they are weak through motions quoting case law. This is why they "defend" their egos and arrogance with "shoot-from-the-hip" irrational and unconstitutional rulings in fits of unconscious emotion. They unconsciously, through arrogance, ignorance, and inexperience, selectively listened and absorbed only misinterpreted facts and unverified hearsay that support this bias. This is the nature of the beast called confirmatory bias.
MY RECOMMENDATION TO THE JUDGES IS TO BACK OFF, TAKE A DEEP BREATH, AND QUESTION WHETHER YOU REALLY UNDERSTAND THE ISSUES OF THE CASE OR ARE SUBJECT TO EMOTION AND CONFIRMATORY BIAS WHEN CONFRONTED WITH A VERBOSE, EMOTIONAL, INTELLECTUAL, OVERLY ENTHUSIASTIC DEFENDANT. MAYBE HE HAS SOMETHING IMPORTANT TO SAY BUT YOU CAN'T SEE THE FOREST AMONG ALL THE TREES HE IS POINTING OUT TO YOU. IT IS YOUR JOB AS A JUDGE TO TAKE CONTROL OF AND CLARIFY THIS EXCEEDINGLY (TO YOU) ANNOYING SITUATION.
There is a great mismatch between the style of judges/attorneys and physicians. Judges/attorneys are taught to narrow the issues and make statements using the least words. Decisions are based on as few issues as possible. Physicians are taught to cover every issue (don't miss a possible diagnosis in their differential and see the global health of the person). When physicians are wronged they tend to mix together the two issues of criminal law and civil law. In a criminal case they will try to discuss every irrelevent but connected issue so, as they perceive, the "court" will understand motive and circumstance. They are not aware that the "court" doesn't care about motive and circumstance in all its details but just wants to limit the testimony and discovery to issues concerning elements of a crime. They are not aware that criminal courts are not the place to litigate torts or air grievances.
Judges/attorneys falsely believe that every pro se litigant is a rambling, irrational, incoherent nut. Therefore, they don't even try to listen to or read the pleadings of a pro se physician or self-taught, ragged, and, to the uninformed and unwilling to listen, seemingly confused "legal expert" no matter how factual and accurate their statements and arguments may be. It is simply too much for their inflated egos to handle. Instead through confirmatory bias the judge will immediately order a fitness exam and ignore the defendant. Judges simply do not comprehend the fact that many defendants are "normal" but on the fringe in terms of extremely adamant positions on social and civil rights issues. For example: Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Ghandhi, anti-war protesters, civil rights activists are not all mentally ill. They are just determined, passionate, and adamant. Failure to accommodate these people in the courts, treating them like raving maniacs, harassing them and defaming them is a great injustice. The courts should have RESPECT and TOLERANCE for defendants with extreme and adamant social viewpoints.
Fitness for trial has a very low bar. All that is needed is an understanding of the players (what is a judge, jury, etc., and what do they do), the charge, the possible sentences, and the consequences of conviction, as well as an ability to interact with his attorney or tell the story and answer questions in some meaningful but minimal fashion. The defendant can be florridly psychotic, but if he meets these criteria he is legally "fit" although mentally ill. It is not necessary to make this basic determination to have a full mental health evaluation.
In fact it is a gross waste of resources to constantly refer defendants who are clearly fit to forensic clinical services (a department with notoriously incompetent and arrogant phsychiatrists who blanketly deny even the defendants's request to tape record or write down the interview on paper, which denies the defendant a record of the interview to have another psychiatrist of his choosing review for accuracy of the diagnosis - even the Supreme Court has implied through dicta that it is not unreasonable to record the interview - and professional psychiatric organization ethical rules do not bar such a recording).
For the judges to constantly defer to Dr. Markos' innane rule barring any recording and other psychiatrist's self-serving (to prevent proof of their malpractice, which shouldn't be a concern as they have total immunity from malpractice torts) rule of not even allowing note-taking by the defendant is obscene in my view and firmly denies the write to confrontation when informaton from the interview is used against a person regarding sanity.
I recommend that judges when faced with a verbose, overly intense and emotional intellect in a defendant, especially a physician, should satisfy their curiosity about defendant's fitness by asking some simple question and making the following statement to inform the person that courts are apples compared to the oranges in the practice of medicine (or other professional field) in the way they approach issues.
"I am going to give you some basic instruction about courtroom procedure and how attorneys and judges approach the practice of law to make your hearings run smoothly. I am not hear to solve your personal issues regarding retaliation against you or harassment of you by rightful or wrongful conduct of others against you. The purpose of this court is to decide if you committed a crime. A crime is defined by elements. For example with the crime of trespass the State only has to prove you were told to leave a place and you refused to leave. Any arguments between you and the owner of the place are irrelevant to the determination of you innocence or guilt. They may however later be introduced at the sentencing hearing if you are found guilty as mitigating or aggravating factors. For the same reason, this court will find irrelevant and not allow the introduction at trial of any factos that occurred before or after this incident of an alleged crime as irrelevent. The issues in criminal court are narrowed to the elements of the crime and I will not allow this court's time to be wasted or the court to be distracted by irrelevant materials. The court does recognize that under unusual circumstances factors that may superficially seem irrelevant may actually relevant. Therefore, for purposes of efficiency and judicial economy I ask both sides to put these issues in writing in a motion for leave to present them at trial."
This would be a start in ending the war between pro se litigants who are not nuts (physicians, self taught "legal experts", etc.) and moving cases along more efficiently and rationally.
It is my hope that this web site and the companion sites: http://cookcountyjudges.wordpress.com/ and
http://prosechicago.wordpress.com/
will be used both by judges/attorneys and the public (particularly pro se community) to reduce tempers, calm nerves, bring understanding, encourage justice, and move cases along more efficiently and less traumatically for all involved.
MY RECOMMENDATION TO THE JUDGES IS TO BACK OFF, TAKE A DEEP BREATH, AND QUESTION WHETHER YOU REALLY UNDERSTAND THE ISSUES OF THE CASE OR ARE SUBJECT TO EMOTION AND CONFIRMATORY BIAS WHEN CONFRONTED WITH A VERBOSE, EMOTIONAL, INTELLECTUAL, OVERLY ENTHUSIASTIC DEFENDANT. MAYBE HE HAS SOMETHING IMPORTANT TO SAY BUT YOU CAN'T SEE THE FOREST AMONG ALL THE TREES HE IS POINTING OUT TO YOU. IT IS YOUR JOB AS A JUDGE TO TAKE CONTROL OF AND CLARIFY THIS EXCEEDINGLY (TO YOU) ANNOYING SITUATION.
There is a great mismatch between the style of judges/attorneys and physicians. Judges/attorneys are taught to narrow the issues and make statements using the least words. Decisions are based on as few issues as possible. Physicians are taught to cover every issue (don't miss a possible diagnosis in their differential and see the global health of the person). When physicians are wronged they tend to mix together the two issues of criminal law and civil law. In a criminal case they will try to discuss every irrelevent but connected issue so, as they perceive, the "court" will understand motive and circumstance. They are not aware that the "court" doesn't care about motive and circumstance in all its details but just wants to limit the testimony and discovery to issues concerning elements of a crime. They are not aware that criminal courts are not the place to litigate torts or air grievances.
Judges/attorneys falsely believe that every pro se litigant is a rambling, irrational, incoherent nut. Therefore, they don't even try to listen to or read the pleadings of a pro se physician or self-taught, ragged, and, to the uninformed and unwilling to listen, seemingly confused "legal expert" no matter how factual and accurate their statements and arguments may be. It is simply too much for their inflated egos to handle. Instead through confirmatory bias the judge will immediately order a fitness exam and ignore the defendant. Judges simply do not comprehend the fact that many defendants are "normal" but on the fringe in terms of extremely adamant positions on social and civil rights issues. For example: Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Ghandhi, anti-war protesters, civil rights activists are not all mentally ill. They are just determined, passionate, and adamant. Failure to accommodate these people in the courts, treating them like raving maniacs, harassing them and defaming them is a great injustice. The courts should have RESPECT and TOLERANCE for defendants with extreme and adamant social viewpoints.
Fitness for trial has a very low bar. All that is needed is an understanding of the players (what is a judge, jury, etc., and what do they do), the charge, the possible sentences, and the consequences of conviction, as well as an ability to interact with his attorney or tell the story and answer questions in some meaningful but minimal fashion. The defendant can be florridly psychotic, but if he meets these criteria he is legally "fit" although mentally ill. It is not necessary to make this basic determination to have a full mental health evaluation.
In fact it is a gross waste of resources to constantly refer defendants who are clearly fit to forensic clinical services (a department with notoriously incompetent and arrogant phsychiatrists who blanketly deny even the defendants's request to tape record or write down the interview on paper, which denies the defendant a record of the interview to have another psychiatrist of his choosing review for accuracy of the diagnosis - even the Supreme Court has implied through dicta that it is not unreasonable to record the interview - and professional psychiatric organization ethical rules do not bar such a recording).
For the judges to constantly defer to Dr. Markos' innane rule barring any recording and other psychiatrist's self-serving (to prevent proof of their malpractice, which shouldn't be a concern as they have total immunity from malpractice torts) rule of not even allowing note-taking by the defendant is obscene in my view and firmly denies the write to confrontation when informaton from the interview is used against a person regarding sanity.
I recommend that judges when faced with a verbose, overly intense and emotional intellect in a defendant, especially a physician, should satisfy their curiosity about defendant's fitness by asking some simple question and making the following statement to inform the person that courts are apples compared to the oranges in the practice of medicine (or other professional field) in the way they approach issues.
"I am going to give you some basic instruction about courtroom procedure and how attorneys and judges approach the practice of law to make your hearings run smoothly. I am not hear to solve your personal issues regarding retaliation against you or harassment of you by rightful or wrongful conduct of others against you. The purpose of this court is to decide if you committed a crime. A crime is defined by elements. For example with the crime of trespass the State only has to prove you were told to leave a place and you refused to leave. Any arguments between you and the owner of the place are irrelevant to the determination of you innocence or guilt. They may however later be introduced at the sentencing hearing if you are found guilty as mitigating or aggravating factors. For the same reason, this court will find irrelevant and not allow the introduction at trial of any factos that occurred before or after this incident of an alleged crime as irrelevent. The issues in criminal court are narrowed to the elements of the crime and I will not allow this court's time to be wasted or the court to be distracted by irrelevant materials. The court does recognize that under unusual circumstances factors that may superficially seem irrelevant may actually relevant. Therefore, for purposes of efficiency and judicial economy I ask both sides to put these issues in writing in a motion for leave to present them at trial."
This would be a start in ending the war between pro se litigants who are not nuts (physicians, self taught "legal experts", etc.) and moving cases along more efficiently and rationally.
It is my hope that this web site and the companion sites: http://cookcountyjudges.wordpress.com/ and
http://prosechicago.wordpress.com/
will be used both by judges/attorneys and the public (particularly pro se community) to reduce tempers, calm nerves, bring understanding, encourage justice, and move cases along more efficiently and less traumatically for all involved.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
10 Cook County Correctional Officers Arrested for Cocaine Drug-Deals in UnderCover FBI Sting
U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney
Northern District of Illinois
Patrick J. Fitzgerald Federal Building
United States Attorney 219 South Dearborn Street, 5th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60604
(312) 353-5300
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE PRESS CONTACTS:
TUESDAY DECEMBER 2, 2008
AUSA M. David Weisman (312) 353-2119
www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln AUSA April Perry (312) 886-5966
Randall Samborn (312) 353-5318
FIFTEEN SOUTH SUBURBAN LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AMONG 17DEFENDANTS CHARGED IN FBI UNDERCOVER PROBE FOR ALLEGEDLYPROVIDING ARMED SECURITY FOR PURPORTED LARGE-SCALE DRUG DEALS
CHICAGO – A six-passenger, twin propeller engine aircraft flew on May 13 this year into west suburban DuPage Airport where three men awaited its arrival. Two of them – Ahyetoro A. Taylor and Raphael Manuel, both Cook County Sheriff’s Office Correctional Officers – accompanied an individual whom they believed brokered large-scale drug transactions but, in fact, was an undercover FBI agent. They boarded the aircraft, which was operated by two other undercover agents, and began counting packages of what was purported to be at least 80 kilograms of cocaine stashed inside four duffel bags. Taylor, Manuel and the undercover agent they accompanied removed the duffels from the plane and took them through the airport lobby to the trunk of the agent’s car in the parking lot. Taylor and Manuel, in a separate car, followed the agent to a nearby retail parking lot, where the agent parked and got into the officers’ vehicle. Together, the trio watched as yet another undercover agent arrived, removed the duffels from the trunk of the parked car, placed them in a Mercedes and drove away. The FBI agent posing as the drug broker then paid Taylor and Manuel $4,000 each - allegedly their most profitable payday in the corrupt relationship they began with the undercover agent at least a year earlier.
The undercover agent, while posing as an employee of a business in south suburban Harvey, was the hub in multiple spokes of police corruption in which Taylor and Manuel – often together with other officers they recruited – allegedly provided armed security for purported cocaine and heroin transactions throughout the south suburbs in 2007 and 2008. The investigation resulted in the unsealing today of federal charges against 17 defendants – 15 of them sworn law enforcement officers, including 10 Cook County Sheriff’s Office Correctional Officers , 4 Village of Harvey police officers and a Chicago police officer. The defendants allegedly accepted between $400 and $4,000 each on one or more occasions to serve as lookouts and be ready to intervene in the event real police or rival drug dealers attempted to interfere with any of a dozen different purported transfers of kilogram quantities of cocaine and heroin.
Today’s arrests and charges were announced by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, and Robert D. Grant, Special Agent-in-Charge of the Chicago Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. They commended the assistance of the Cook County Sheriff’s Office in the investigation.
All 17 defendants were charged with conspiracy to possess and distribute kilogram quantities of cocaine and/or heroin in eight separate criminal complaints that were unsealed following arrests early today. Seven of the eight complaints were supported by a single, 61-page FBI affidavit that tells the story of an undercover investigation that involved such activity as police officers allegedly protecting a purported high-stakes poker game, protecting transportation of large amounts of cash and two law enforcement officers actually selling powder cocaine, in addition to the routine activity of providing security for purported narcotics transactions.
Fourteen of the defendants were either arrested or surrendered today and were expected to appear at 3 p.m. before U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael Mason in U.S. District Court. Arrest warrants were issued for Taylor, 28, of Joliet, and Jermaine E. Bell, 37, of Lynwood, also a Cook County Sheriff’s officer, both of who are on active military duty with Army National Guard units in Afghanistan. Another defendant, Archie Stallworth, 36, of Harvey and a Harvey police officer, was arrested on Nov. 19 but the charges remained under seal until today. He was released on bond and a preliminary hearing was scheduled for Dec. 4.
Stallworth was accused of also accompanying the undercover agent to the DuPage Airport in a second, separate sting that occurred there on Aug. 11 this year. Armed with a Smith and Wesson handgun, Stallworth allegedly accepted $1,000 after assisting the undercover agent obtain three duffels purportedly containing 30 kilograms of cocaine from a second undercover agent who was waiting in the airport lobby. After placing the duffels in the first undercover agent’s car, Stallworth and the agent drove separately to a nearby retail lot and then sat together in Stallworth’s car as they watched yet another undercover agent remove the duffels and drive away, according to the charges.
While sitting in the car with their conversation being recorded, Stallworth allegedly said: "It’s kinda suspect, you walk in, he come in with three bags, you walk out with three bags. He go this way, you go that way. In an airport, that’s probably cause. It arouses suspicion."
About two weeks earlier, in another recorded conversation, Stallworth allegedly told the undercover agent: "The best spot for ya’ll to do that, believe it or not, is the train station. Fast food places, that’s where we (law enforcement) be looking. Sit there all day or they set up surveillance cameras," according to a separate affidavit that was attached to the complaint against him.
"Ideally, it should be hard to find one corrupt police officer and it should never be easy to find 15 who allegedly used their guns and badges to protect people they believed were dealing drugs instead of arresting them," Mr. Fitzgerald said. "And the involvement of some in off-loading and delivering what they thought were large shipments of drugs flown in by plane is particularly shocking," he added.
Mr. Grant said: "The almost systemic corruption that this investigation uncovered is quite troubling, especially given that most of those charged are sworn law enforcement officers. One would have hoped that the many public corruption investigations that have previously been announced would have served to deter this type of conduct. Apparently, that is not the case."
According to the common affidavit, the undercover agent paid a total of $44,000 to 16 of the defendants, not including an additional $1,000 to Stallworth. The largest shares allegedly were paid to Taylor ($15,000) and Manuel ($14,500), respectively, for providing security during alleged drug transactions. The "deals" involving the agent’s purported drug sources and customers – all of whom were undercover FBI agents – typically occurred in retail and hotel parking lots in the south suburbs of Homewood, Tinley Park, Oak Lawn, Matteson and Bolingbrook and were captured on audio and video recordings by the undercover and surveillance agents.
In each instance, the undercover agent allegedly would determine that each officer was carrying a firearm and advised them that they were providing protection for transfers of narcotics, providing the specific amount of purported cocaine and/or heroin that was involved. The undercover agent would then pay each defendant after each transaction was completed. After establishing an allegedly corrupt relationship with Taylor and Manuel, the agent typically contacted them and asked them to recruit a specific number of other officers to work each security detail, the charges allege. The undercover agent also would meet with the members of each crew beforehand to discuss the quantity and type of drugs that were purportedly being transferred.
The escalating series of 12 purported drug transactions occurred between Aug. 1, 2007 and Aug. 11, 2008, with one additional staged deal that was planned but cancelled. After Taylor alone allegedly provided the undercover agent with security for the first transaction, Taylor and Manuel teamed up with another defendant, Tavis Ramsey, 31, of Chicago, who is not a law enforcement officer, to provide security for the second staged deal on Aug. 22, 2007. Discussing his close relationship with Taylor, Manuel allegedly told the undercover agent during a recorded conversation a week earlier that he and Taylor could intercede with local law enforcement if needed. "We know how to politic with the local authorities in case they try to stick their noses in that stuff like that. Then that way it gives everybody else a chance to split," Manuel said.
Manuel, 32,of Glenwood, allegedly sold an ounce of cocaine to the undercover agent on Dec. 5, 2007, and Manuel and Taylor allegedly sold the agent two ounces of cocaine on April 18, 2008.
In the third staged deal, on Aug. 29, 2007, the undercover agent allegedly paid $400 to each of two Harvey police officers – Dwayne Williams, 42, of Country Club Hills, and Antoine D. Dudley, 28, of Harvey – for providing security. According to the affidavit, in late May 2007 before the security stings began, Williams had accepted $400 for providing security for a purported $100,000 poker game being staged by undercover FBI agents, and Dudley had received $400 for providing the undercover agent with a security escort to a local business.
Williams and Dudley allegedly teamed-up again – this time with fellow Harvey police officer James Engram, Jr., 41, of Calumet City – in providing protection for a purported deal involving 25 kilograms of cocaine on Feb. 29, 2008. During a recorded conversation preceding the deal, Engram allegedly discussed his background with the undercover agent, saying: "I ain’t always been in law enforcement .... So I know about other dealers watching. I use my street knowledge as well as what they taught me on the force to watch and learn body language, cars and we can do things on an as to know basis."
The following lists the eight separate cases and defendants charged in each complaint:
United States v. Manuel and Bell
Manuel allegedly accepted a total of $14,500 for providing security for eight separate staged drug transactions, including one on Sept. 14, 2007, with Taylor and Bell, who allegedly accepted $500 for working a single staged deal on that date.
United States v. Ramsey and Kyle T. Wilson
Ramsey allegedly accepted a total of $1,900 for providing security for four separate purported drug transactions, including one on Oct. 24, 2007, with Taylor, Manuel and Wilson, 31, of Chicago and a Chicago police officer, who allegedly accepted $500 for working a single staged deal.
United States v. Timothy Funches, Jr., and Diallo S. Mingo
Timothy Funches, 26, of Bellwood and Mingo, 34, of Calumet City, both of the Cook County Sheriff’s Office, allegedly accepted $1,000 each for providing security with Taylor and Manuel for a single purported transaction involving 50 kilograms of cocaine and 2 kilograms of heroin on Nov. 16, 2007.
United States v. Taylor, Antwon Funches and Antonio B. McCaskill
Taylor allegedly accepted a total of $15,000 for providing security for nine separate staged drug transactions, including one on Nov. 30, 2007, with Manuel, Antwon Funches, 34, of Chicago, a Cook County Sheriff’s officer, and McCaskill, 30, of Harvey, who is not a law enforcement officer, with the latter two allegedly accepting $1,000 each for working a single staged deal.
United States v. Daniel L. Lee and Julius L. Scott, Jr.
Lee, 31, of Chicago, and Scott, 34, of Richton Park, both of Cook County Sheriff’s Office, allegedly accepted $1,000 each for providing security with Taylor and Manuel for a single purported transaction involving two kilograms of heroin on Dec. 10, 2007.
United States v. Richard O. Hall, Jr., and Robert L. Kelly, Jr.
Hall, 35, of Chicago, and Kelly, 32, of Glenwood, both of the Cook County Sheriff’s Office, allegedly accepted $1,000 each for providing security with Taylor and Manuel for a single purported transaction involving two kilograms of heroin on Dec. 17, 2007.
United States v. Dudley, Engram and Williams
In events described above, Williams allegedly received a total of $1,400, including $400 for a May 2007 security escort, and Williams and Engram received $1,000 each, and Dudley accepted $1,200, the charges allege, for providing security for a purported transaction involving 25 kilograms of cocaine on Feb. 29, 2008.
United States v. Stallworth
As described above, Stallworth allegedly received $1,000 for providing security for the purported transfer of 30 kilograms of cocaine at the DuPage Airport on Aug. 11, 2008. The Government is being represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys April Perry and M. David Weisman. If convicted of conspiracy to possess and distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine and/or one kilogram of heroin, faces a mandatory minium sentence of 10 years in prison and a maximum of life in prison and a maximum fine of $4 million. The Court, however, would determine the appropriate sentence to be imposed under the advisory United States Sentencing Guidelines. The public is reminded that complaints contain only charges and are not evidence of guilt. The defendants are presumed innocent and are entitled to a fair trial at which the government has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. # # # #
7
United States Attorney
Northern District of Illinois
Patrick J. Fitzgerald Federal Building
United States Attorney 219 South Dearborn Street, 5th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60604
(312) 353-5300
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE PRESS CONTACTS:
TUESDAY DECEMBER 2, 2008
AUSA M. David Weisman (312) 353-2119
www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln AUSA April Perry (312) 886-5966
Randall Samborn (312) 353-5318
FIFTEEN SOUTH SUBURBAN LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AMONG 17DEFENDANTS CHARGED IN FBI UNDERCOVER PROBE FOR ALLEGEDLYPROVIDING ARMED SECURITY FOR PURPORTED LARGE-SCALE DRUG DEALS
CHICAGO – A six-passenger, twin propeller engine aircraft flew on May 13 this year into west suburban DuPage Airport where three men awaited its arrival. Two of them – Ahyetoro A. Taylor and Raphael Manuel, both Cook County Sheriff’s Office Correctional Officers – accompanied an individual whom they believed brokered large-scale drug transactions but, in fact, was an undercover FBI agent. They boarded the aircraft, which was operated by two other undercover agents, and began counting packages of what was purported to be at least 80 kilograms of cocaine stashed inside four duffel bags. Taylor, Manuel and the undercover agent they accompanied removed the duffels from the plane and took them through the airport lobby to the trunk of the agent’s car in the parking lot. Taylor and Manuel, in a separate car, followed the agent to a nearby retail parking lot, where the agent parked and got into the officers’ vehicle. Together, the trio watched as yet another undercover agent arrived, removed the duffels from the trunk of the parked car, placed them in a Mercedes and drove away. The FBI agent posing as the drug broker then paid Taylor and Manuel $4,000 each - allegedly their most profitable payday in the corrupt relationship they began with the undercover agent at least a year earlier.
The undercover agent, while posing as an employee of a business in south suburban Harvey, was the hub in multiple spokes of police corruption in which Taylor and Manuel – often together with other officers they recruited – allegedly provided armed security for purported cocaine and heroin transactions throughout the south suburbs in 2007 and 2008. The investigation resulted in the unsealing today of federal charges against 17 defendants – 15 of them sworn law enforcement officers, including 10 Cook County Sheriff’s Office Correctional Officers , 4 Village of Harvey police officers and a Chicago police officer. The defendants allegedly accepted between $400 and $4,000 each on one or more occasions to serve as lookouts and be ready to intervene in the event real police or rival drug dealers attempted to interfere with any of a dozen different purported transfers of kilogram quantities of cocaine and heroin.
Today’s arrests and charges were announced by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, and Robert D. Grant, Special Agent-in-Charge of the Chicago Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. They commended the assistance of the Cook County Sheriff’s Office in the investigation.
All 17 defendants were charged with conspiracy to possess and distribute kilogram quantities of cocaine and/or heroin in eight separate criminal complaints that were unsealed following arrests early today. Seven of the eight complaints were supported by a single, 61-page FBI affidavit that tells the story of an undercover investigation that involved such activity as police officers allegedly protecting a purported high-stakes poker game, protecting transportation of large amounts of cash and two law enforcement officers actually selling powder cocaine, in addition to the routine activity of providing security for purported narcotics transactions.
Fourteen of the defendants were either arrested or surrendered today and were expected to appear at 3 p.m. before U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael Mason in U.S. District Court. Arrest warrants were issued for Taylor, 28, of Joliet, and Jermaine E. Bell, 37, of Lynwood, also a Cook County Sheriff’s officer, both of who are on active military duty with Army National Guard units in Afghanistan. Another defendant, Archie Stallworth, 36, of Harvey and a Harvey police officer, was arrested on Nov. 19 but the charges remained under seal until today. He was released on bond and a preliminary hearing was scheduled for Dec. 4.
Stallworth was accused of also accompanying the undercover agent to the DuPage Airport in a second, separate sting that occurred there on Aug. 11 this year. Armed with a Smith and Wesson handgun, Stallworth allegedly accepted $1,000 after assisting the undercover agent obtain three duffels purportedly containing 30 kilograms of cocaine from a second undercover agent who was waiting in the airport lobby. After placing the duffels in the first undercover agent’s car, Stallworth and the agent drove separately to a nearby retail lot and then sat together in Stallworth’s car as they watched yet another undercover agent remove the duffels and drive away, according to the charges.
While sitting in the car with their conversation being recorded, Stallworth allegedly said: "It’s kinda suspect, you walk in, he come in with three bags, you walk out with three bags. He go this way, you go that way. In an airport, that’s probably cause. It arouses suspicion."
About two weeks earlier, in another recorded conversation, Stallworth allegedly told the undercover agent: "The best spot for ya’ll to do that, believe it or not, is the train station. Fast food places, that’s where we (law enforcement) be looking. Sit there all day or they set up surveillance cameras," according to a separate affidavit that was attached to the complaint against him.
"Ideally, it should be hard to find one corrupt police officer and it should never be easy to find 15 who allegedly used their guns and badges to protect people they believed were dealing drugs instead of arresting them," Mr. Fitzgerald said. "And the involvement of some in off-loading and delivering what they thought were large shipments of drugs flown in by plane is particularly shocking," he added.
Mr. Grant said: "The almost systemic corruption that this investigation uncovered is quite troubling, especially given that most of those charged are sworn law enforcement officers. One would have hoped that the many public corruption investigations that have previously been announced would have served to deter this type of conduct. Apparently, that is not the case."
According to the common affidavit, the undercover agent paid a total of $44,000 to 16 of the defendants, not including an additional $1,000 to Stallworth. The largest shares allegedly were paid to Taylor ($15,000) and Manuel ($14,500), respectively, for providing security during alleged drug transactions. The "deals" involving the agent’s purported drug sources and customers – all of whom were undercover FBI agents – typically occurred in retail and hotel parking lots in the south suburbs of Homewood, Tinley Park, Oak Lawn, Matteson and Bolingbrook and were captured on audio and video recordings by the undercover and surveillance agents.
In each instance, the undercover agent allegedly would determine that each officer was carrying a firearm and advised them that they were providing protection for transfers of narcotics, providing the specific amount of purported cocaine and/or heroin that was involved. The undercover agent would then pay each defendant after each transaction was completed. After establishing an allegedly corrupt relationship with Taylor and Manuel, the agent typically contacted them and asked them to recruit a specific number of other officers to work each security detail, the charges allege. The undercover agent also would meet with the members of each crew beforehand to discuss the quantity and type of drugs that were purportedly being transferred.
The escalating series of 12 purported drug transactions occurred between Aug. 1, 2007 and Aug. 11, 2008, with one additional staged deal that was planned but cancelled. After Taylor alone allegedly provided the undercover agent with security for the first transaction, Taylor and Manuel teamed up with another defendant, Tavis Ramsey, 31, of Chicago, who is not a law enforcement officer, to provide security for the second staged deal on Aug. 22, 2007. Discussing his close relationship with Taylor, Manuel allegedly told the undercover agent during a recorded conversation a week earlier that he and Taylor could intercede with local law enforcement if needed. "We know how to politic with the local authorities in case they try to stick their noses in that stuff like that. Then that way it gives everybody else a chance to split," Manuel said.
Manuel, 32,of Glenwood, allegedly sold an ounce of cocaine to the undercover agent on Dec. 5, 2007, and Manuel and Taylor allegedly sold the agent two ounces of cocaine on April 18, 2008.
In the third staged deal, on Aug. 29, 2007, the undercover agent allegedly paid $400 to each of two Harvey police officers – Dwayne Williams, 42, of Country Club Hills, and Antoine D. Dudley, 28, of Harvey – for providing security. According to the affidavit, in late May 2007 before the security stings began, Williams had accepted $400 for providing security for a purported $100,000 poker game being staged by undercover FBI agents, and Dudley had received $400 for providing the undercover agent with a security escort to a local business.
Williams and Dudley allegedly teamed-up again – this time with fellow Harvey police officer James Engram, Jr., 41, of Calumet City – in providing protection for a purported deal involving 25 kilograms of cocaine on Feb. 29, 2008. During a recorded conversation preceding the deal, Engram allegedly discussed his background with the undercover agent, saying: "I ain’t always been in law enforcement .... So I know about other dealers watching. I use my street knowledge as well as what they taught me on the force to watch and learn body language, cars and we can do things on an as to know basis."
The following lists the eight separate cases and defendants charged in each complaint:
United States v. Manuel and Bell
Manuel allegedly accepted a total of $14,500 for providing security for eight separate staged drug transactions, including one on Sept. 14, 2007, with Taylor and Bell, who allegedly accepted $500 for working a single staged deal on that date.
United States v. Ramsey and Kyle T. Wilson
Ramsey allegedly accepted a total of $1,900 for providing security for four separate purported drug transactions, including one on Oct. 24, 2007, with Taylor, Manuel and Wilson, 31, of Chicago and a Chicago police officer, who allegedly accepted $500 for working a single staged deal.
United States v. Timothy Funches, Jr., and Diallo S. Mingo
Timothy Funches, 26, of Bellwood and Mingo, 34, of Calumet City, both of the Cook County Sheriff’s Office, allegedly accepted $1,000 each for providing security with Taylor and Manuel for a single purported transaction involving 50 kilograms of cocaine and 2 kilograms of heroin on Nov. 16, 2007.
United States v. Taylor, Antwon Funches and Antonio B. McCaskill
Taylor allegedly accepted a total of $15,000 for providing security for nine separate staged drug transactions, including one on Nov. 30, 2007, with Manuel, Antwon Funches, 34, of Chicago, a Cook County Sheriff’s officer, and McCaskill, 30, of Harvey, who is not a law enforcement officer, with the latter two allegedly accepting $1,000 each for working a single staged deal.
United States v. Daniel L. Lee and Julius L. Scott, Jr.
Lee, 31, of Chicago, and Scott, 34, of Richton Park, both of Cook County Sheriff’s Office, allegedly accepted $1,000 each for providing security with Taylor and Manuel for a single purported transaction involving two kilograms of heroin on Dec. 10, 2007.
United States v. Richard O. Hall, Jr., and Robert L. Kelly, Jr.
Hall, 35, of Chicago, and Kelly, 32, of Glenwood, both of the Cook County Sheriff’s Office, allegedly accepted $1,000 each for providing security with Taylor and Manuel for a single purported transaction involving two kilograms of heroin on Dec. 17, 2007.
United States v. Dudley, Engram and Williams
In events described above, Williams allegedly received a total of $1,400, including $400 for a May 2007 security escort, and Williams and Engram received $1,000 each, and Dudley accepted $1,200, the charges allege, for providing security for a purported transaction involving 25 kilograms of cocaine on Feb. 29, 2008.
United States v. Stallworth
As described above, Stallworth allegedly received $1,000 for providing security for the purported transfer of 30 kilograms of cocaine at the DuPage Airport on Aug. 11, 2008. The Government is being represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys April Perry and M. David Weisman. If convicted of conspiracy to possess and distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine and/or one kilogram of heroin, faces a mandatory minium sentence of 10 years in prison and a maximum of life in prison and a maximum fine of $4 million. The Court, however, would determine the appropriate sentence to be imposed under the advisory United States Sentencing Guidelines. The public is reminded that complaints contain only charges and are not evidence of guilt. The defendants are presumed innocent and are entitled to a fair trial at which the government has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. # # # #
7
Cook County Jail Supervisor Charged In Felony Theft of Inmate Trust Funds
Cook County jail supervisor charged in felony thefts www.privateofficer.com
Posted on August 27, 2008 by privateofficernews
Cook County jail supervisor charged in felony thefts www.privateofficer.com
CHICAGO IL. Aug 27 2008 — A former Cook County Jail employee was indicted Thursday on charges of allegedly stealing more than $370,000 from inmates’ commissary accounts.Elizabeth Hudson, 61, of the 9700 block of South Woodlawn Avenue, was arrested July 31 at her home after an investigation involving a series of audits showed that between September 2004 and June 2008, she allegedly stole money from accounts set up for inmates, according to a release from the Cook County Sheriff’s office.Hudson was formally charged Tuesday with one count of theft of governmental property over $100,000, a Class X felony, one count of theft over $100,000 and one count of official misconduct, according to Cook County State’s Attorney’s office spokeswoman Tandra Simonton.Hudson had been employed at the jail for more than 15 years and had been the supervisor in the jail’s Inmate Trust Department for 10 years, the release said. She was responsible for reconciling money turned in by incoming inmates and setting up commissary accounts for them. She resigned from her position June 24.Commissary accounts are set up for inmates so they can purchase items such as snack foods, toiletries and clothing during their incarceration.After the initial discovery of the unreconciled funds, several safeguards were put into place to prevent further discrepancies, according to the release.The Cook County Sheriff’s Office and the Sheriff’s Office of Finance handled the investigation that led to Hudson’s arrest.Hudson is scheduled for arraignment on Sept. 4, Simonton said.
Posted on August 27, 2008 by privateofficernews
Cook County jail supervisor charged in felony thefts www.privateofficer.com
CHICAGO IL. Aug 27 2008 — A former Cook County Jail employee was indicted Thursday on charges of allegedly stealing more than $370,000 from inmates’ commissary accounts.Elizabeth Hudson, 61, of the 9700 block of South Woodlawn Avenue, was arrested July 31 at her home after an investigation involving a series of audits showed that between September 2004 and June 2008, she allegedly stole money from accounts set up for inmates, according to a release from the Cook County Sheriff’s office.Hudson was formally charged Tuesday with one count of theft of governmental property over $100,000, a Class X felony, one count of theft over $100,000 and one count of official misconduct, according to Cook County State’s Attorney’s office spokeswoman Tandra Simonton.Hudson had been employed at the jail for more than 15 years and had been the supervisor in the jail’s Inmate Trust Department for 10 years, the release said. She was responsible for reconciling money turned in by incoming inmates and setting up commissary accounts for them. She resigned from her position June 24.Commissary accounts are set up for inmates so they can purchase items such as snack foods, toiletries and clothing during their incarceration.After the initial discovery of the unreconciled funds, several safeguards were put into place to prevent further discrepancies, according to the release.The Cook County Sheriff’s Office and the Sheriff’s Office of Finance handled the investigation that led to Hudson’s arrest.Hudson is scheduled for arraignment on Sept. 4, Simonton said.
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
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
Lawless, Corrupt, Incompetent, Wacko Cook County Judge Marie Kuriakos Ciesil Jails Defendant for Being 40 min Early for Hearing
In this case I was arrested by Judge Kuriakos Ciesil for being late to court with an arrest warrant issued at 9:05 a.m. despite the fact my court hearing was scheduled for 10:00 a.m. Judge Ciesil was a new judge on the case and failed to listen to me or read the court file that revealed that the previous hearings were ALL scheduled at 10:00 or 11:00 a.m. by the previous judge. I came to court at 9:20 a.m. and waited in the hall because the there was no room in court. The deputy came out at 9:40 or so and asked me to find my attorney. I looked for him in other rooms and he had not yet arrived. He told me to come at 9:30. I then went into the courtroom and the judge called my case and arrested me. Later my attorney came and pointed out the orders on the file to the judge and stated "as an officer of the court I can tell you the hearing was scheduled for 10:00 a.m., please vacate the warrant." Judge Ciesil threatened to arrest him. She was totally irrational, arrogant, and nasty. She claims to be a "tigress." She raised bail on each of two cases from $1000 personal recognizance to $25,000 each. Please write Judge Wright and the press about this one!!!
Despite the following letter to the presiding judge of Municipal 1 District of the Circuit Court of Cook County, the only action taken was to temporarilty re-assign Judge Ciesil. I will petition the court post-trial to vacate all her orders which were illegal and refund the 10% of the bond money held by the Clerk for costs after bond was refunded. I should not have to pay for the gross judicial misconduct of Dishonorable Judge Ciesel.
October 4, 2007 LETTER
Honorable Judge E. Kenneth Wright, Jr.
Presiding JudgeFirst Municipal District
Circuit Court of Cook County
1303 Richard J Daley Center
50 W. WashingtonChicago, IL 60602
IN RE: Outrageous and illegal conduct of Judge Maria Kuriaskos Ciesil
Dear Honorable Judge Wright:
I am writing to you to inform you of the inappropriate, unethical, and frankly lawless conduct of Judge Ciesil and ask for your immediate intervention by removing her from any duties on the bench involving defendants and reassigning her to a desk job until she is completely evaluated by you and perhaps the JIB. This should include a psychiatric examination because her behavior and rulings are so inappropriate and bizarre that it must be considered that she has a severe personality disorder making her unable to make fair judgments and causing her to boost her ego by irrational attacks against defendants and attorneys. If she is found not to be unfit for duty then, at the very least, you should order direct and constant supervision and tutoring by a senior judge for at least 3 months before she is allowed to return to the bench unsupervised.
I am a defendant in several misdemeanor cases as a result of retaliation against me by corrupt county and state officials, as well as a result of police brutality and unlawful arrests. In Branch 46, before Judge Sheehan, I was able without an attorney to have six (6) bogus cases dismissed against me. As you know, I at first was before Judge Ballard, who proved to have inappropriate conduct (being in great need of training on demeanor, the law, judicial procedure, etc.) and you have reassigned him elsewhere.
Judge Sheehan replaced Judge Ballard on my cases. She is an outstanding judge, who is intellectually honest, attempts to be unbiased and fair, does not show preference to the prosecution, treats defendants with respect assuming they are innocent until proven guilty, clearly follows the rulings of higher courts, takes a step back and does not make knee-jerk decisions when she is unsure of the law during a hearing, and has potential to be one of the finest judges on the bench in the Circuit Court of Cook County because her demeanor, actions, and ethics are of the highest judicial level, besides the fact that her IQ is clearly very high.
Then when Judge Sheehan was reassigned to juvenile court there has been a succession of judges on my remaining two cases in branch 46. One Judge, Kenneth Fletcher also proved to be unfortunately ignorant of the law and inappropriate. I wrote a motion for SOJ for cause and he recused himself.
Judge Katz replaced him and his conduct was very appropriate and judicial. All the judges have been ordering that my pretrial hearings be held at either 11:00 a.m. or 10:00 a.m., because I have brought up motions that are quite advanced legally, appropriate, and challenging to the court.
Almost every continuance was set for 10:00 a.m. or later. I have throughout all these cases always arrived early to court or on time except for several days where I was hospitalized. My attorney, J. Nicolas Albukerk (I have decided to allow donors to pay for an attorney on my remaining cases as my health has deteriorated and the stress of representing myself is now too much), instructed me to meet him at 9:30 a.m. outside courtroom 304 at 555 Harrison St. My attorney told me this court date was at the usual time and I should be outside the court by 9:30 to talk with him. On 9/26/07 I arrived in the area around 9:00 a.m. and was unable to find a parking space at a meter due to construction in the surrounding area. I therefore parked in the lot next to the courthouse. I avoid parking there because of financial difficulties and I don’t want to keep borrowing money to pay the parking fees. I cannot take public transportation due to my disabilities [severe reactions to perfumes and fumes]. I walk with a cane due to spinal problems.
I arrived in the courthouse around 9:15 a.m. and up to the courtroom at 9:20 a.m. There were no seats in the courtroom so I sat on the bench outside of court. There was a crowd outside the courtroom including about six CPD officers. I had a pleasant conversation with one of them. At about 9:40 a.m. Sgt. Rankus came out of the courtroom and asked me where was my attorney, that the “judge wanted to call my case.” I told her that he had two other cases in 401 and 404 and he told me to wait for him. She told me to go find him and I slowly walked to the fourth floor and was unable to find him. I arrived back at courtroom 304 about 5-10 minutes later and went in and sat on a bench in the gallery because a seat had opened up and Sgt. Rankus was telling everyone to come into the courtroom.
After several other cases were called, my case was called and I stood up in the gallery and told the judge that Mr. Albukerk was involved in several other cases upstairs and told me to ask for the judge to hold my case until he arrived. Judge Ciesil very firmly told me to come stand before the bench. I did that. Then she took a paper out of one of the files and announced that she had issued an arrest warrant because I “was late” and told the Sheriff to execute the warrant. She raised my bail on each of the two cases from a $1,000 I-Bond to $25,000 D-Bond (total of $50,000 D-Bond)! This is an outrageous and unconstitutional excessive bail, especially for a disabled, indigent person!
I was stunned. She didn’t want to listen to a word I said and was very rude. She did not ask for any explanation or attempt to discuss the issue. I rapidly and frantically told her that my hearing was not scheduled until 10:00 a.m. and that I was not late, while the deputies were trying to drag me to the lock-up. I told her I arrived at 9:20 a.m. and had a conversation with a CPD officer in the hall [these 6 or so officers were seated in the courtroom in the front row of seats] as the courtroom had no seats available. I told her Sgt. Rankus had told me to find my attorney. I pleaded with the CPD officers and Sgt. Rankus to speak up and they remained silent. The judge was OBLIGATED to question the officers, read the file, which details that almost every other court date started at 10:00 a.m. or later. Instead she yelled that her court starts at 9:00 a.m. and that she had issued the warrant at 9:05 a.m. because I was “late”. She made NO EFFORT to read the previous file orders or to contact Judge Katz.
I was taken to the lock-up and not allowed to use medication. I have been fighting a virus for a week and asthma attacks that are not well controlled. I had been in the emergency room at Mt. Sinai Hospital all day on 9/21/07 with a severe asthma attack. I then went into an asthma attack and the deputies called an ambulance and I was taken to the U. of I. ER in custody and remained there under treatment until about 5:00 p.m., when I was returned to 555 Harrison lock-up and then transported to CCDOC.
My attorney arrived as I was being transported by the paramedics out of the courthouse, in custody, accompanied by several deputies, fully restrained [in a wheelchair]. I was released on bond from the jail at 3:00 a.m. and immediately, at the exit to the CCDOC had someone call an ambulance, which took me back to the hospital because I was so ill. I was unable to attend the hearing ordered by Judge Ciesil the next day, 9/27/07 at 9:00 a.m. because I had to be hospitalized and was released from the hospital on 10/2/07. My attorney has written a motion for Substitution of Judge for Cause which is attached and was filed the next day when he appeared on my behalf before Judge Ciesil.
Mr. Albukerk, my attorney, told me that after I was removed by paramedics as he arrived at court, Judge Ciesil refused to read the court file to see that the other dates were at 10:00 a.m. or later, so he read them into the record. He said the judge refused to quash the warrant and threatened him with contempt. He said he stepped back from the bench, put his hands behind his back and stated firmly to her that he was fully prepared to be taken into custody if the Judge thought that pointing out the truth and making arguments constituted contempt.
Please contact Mr. Albukerk at 773 847-2600 for further details. He told me that on 9/27/07 Judge Ciesil refused to transfer the case to you and insisted she would do nothing until I appeared in her courtroom, setting the next status date for 10/24/07 at 9:00 a.m. Judge Ciesil’s interaction with Mr. Albukerk is so unbelievable and outrageous that you cannot ignore it. Mr. Albukerk is writing an amended SOJ for cause motion, to include a lot more of what happened and it is all too astonishing to explain indirectly. Please get the facts directly form Mr. Albukerk and from the transcripts, which he has ordered and should be available shortly.
Mr. Albukerk also stated to me that Judge Ciesil used also as an excuse to issue the arrest warrant that I had refused to cooperate with a limited BCX [mental fitness exam] ordered. When Dr. Lourgos of FCS told me to sit in a back corner behind a table in a small interview room, I refused to do so and reminded him he was under written orders of Judge Sheehan to accommodate my disabilities [flashbacks of being attacked induced by small rooms] and he replied that he didn’t have to follow that order. I asked to sit by the door or to be interviewed in a larger room and he then said “the interview is over, leave.”
Please note the limited BCX was ordered upon MY request in a motion that I had filed for a forensic clinical exam for the issue of temporary insanity during the alleged “crime” possibly resulting from post-traumatic stress disorder – see attached motion. As temporary insanity was a possible defense because I have a lack of memory of some of this incident where I am alleged to have battered a lock-up aide by “kicking her” it was necessary to determine if temporary insanity due to a flashback related to a post-traumatic-stress disorder from which I suffer occurred at the time of the alleged “crime.” This flashback was induced by an illegal attack on me by a lock-up aide during this incident – see motion.
Judge Ciesil said that the report from FCS said I refused to cooperate with the exam. Judge Ciesil should know that statutes state that a defendant may choose to refuse to answer questions and bail cannot be changed or revoked due to this refusal.
725 ILCS 5/104‑14
(c) The court shall advise the defendant of the limitations on the use of any statements made or information gathered in the course of the fitness examination or subsequent treatment as provided in this Section. It shall also advise him that he may refuse to cooperate with the person conducting the examination, but that his refusal may be admissible into evidence on the issue of his mental or physical condition.
Mr. Albukerk pointed out that I refused to cooperate because Dr. Lourgos from FCS refused to obey Judge Sheehan’s order to accommodate my disability (see order in file) by allowing me to sit by the door in a small room or interviewing me in a large room with a window. Mr. Albukerk read this order into the record and Judge Ciesil stated “that’s not my understanding.” I am unable to tolerate discussions of the life-threatening and terrifying incidents causing the flashbacks except with these accommodations and end up becoming out of touch with reality, unresponsive, frozen, crying, with a look of terror on my face, often frantically hiding under a table or cowering against a wall.
Please replace her immediately as the judge in that courtroom and quash the arrest warrant, expunge the warrant, and order that the entire $5,000 bond be immediately returned. Judge Ciesil’s order for a warrant and increase in bail is null and void due to judicial error and outrageous conduct.
I and my attorney are initiating ALL appropriate legal actions in response to this outrage and lawlessness with the Illinois Appellate Court, the JIB, and if necessary with the press.
Please respond to this letter ASAP, if not to me to my attorney. Judge Ciesil has illegally harmed me in ways that are too upsetting for me to describe – other than to say I was attacked by a correctional officer after being taken into custody and medically neglected at the CCDOC resulting in hospitalization from the moment I was released on 9/27/07 to 10/2/07 and my health has been damaged. Please contact Mr. Albukerk for details. I have been under treatment by a psychiatrist to help diminish the symptoms of PTSD.
I REFUSE TO APPEAR IN COURTROOM 304 AGAIN UNTIL THIS MENTALLY UNSTABLE, UNETHICAL, LAWLESS, AND DANGEROUS JUDGE IS REPLACED! I will come to court on 10/24/07 but will remain seated outside the courtroom unless I see that there is a different judge on the bench. You may consider this contempt. I CONSIDER THIS MY CIVIC PATRIOTIC DUTY, LIKE THE FOUNDERS OF OUR COUNTRY, TO STAND AGAINST TYRANNY. Judge Ciesil has brought the court into disrepute and is unethically filling up the jail with unfortunate defendants who are five minutes late and have good excuses! Judge Ciesil made knee-jerk, rash, and unethical decisions without reading the file pleadings, orders, or attempting to verify anything. She clearly is biased and assumes all defendants are worthless scum who should be slammed.
Sincerely with utter despair over this tyranny and with utter determination to fight it,
Linda Lorincz Shelton, Ph.D., M.D.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOISMUNICIPAL DEPARTMENT, FIRST MUNICIPAL DISTRICT,CRIMINAL SECTION
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Plaintiff
V.
LINDA SHELTON, Defendant,
Case No 06-221401, Honorable Colleen Sheehan Presiding
MOTION FOR FORENSIC CLINICAL EXAM
NOW COMES, the Defendant, Linda L. Shelton, Pro Se who respectfully requests that this court order a forensic clinical exam of defendant concerning state of mind during alleged act and in support of this motion states as follows:
1. Defendant was arrested for disorderly conduct on March 4, 2006 [charges later dismissed] and brought to the 1st District Woman’s lock-up for processing.
2. As she was being released on a personal recognizance bond she was brought out of a cell to her possession, sealed in plastic bags on a table.
3. [Chicago Police Department] Detention Aide Shell ripped open the bags, when defendant was too weak to do so and told her to organize her possessions.
4. As defendant organized her possessions back into her briefcase she noticed her bottle of prednisone, prescribed by a physician. She takes an extra dose of this medication when stressed due to a relative steroid deficiency to prevent an asthma attack and to prevent complications of neurocardiogenic syncope.
5. Defendant opened her bottle and attempted to take a dose of medication.
6. Detention Aide Shell then violently grabbed defendant and body slammed her against the table causing contusions and yelling that she was not allowed to take any medication. Several other aides and/or officers ran at defendant and aided and abetted this felony attack on the handicapped defendant.
7. This caused defendant to attempt to pull away in self-defense and struggle while she yelled to stop assaulting her.
8. Then defendant went into a flashback due to her illness post-traumatic-stress disorder.
9. This illness has resulted from several previous attacks on her by officers at the First District causing injuries and great fear.
10. Defendant remained in this altered state of consciousness and next found herself being dragged to a cell and then beaten in a cell by a female aide or officer. Defendant is unable to remember much of the incident when she was in an altered state of consciousness due to the PTSD.
11. Defendant will use the defenses of self-defense, temporary insanity and outrageous government conduct (due to the history of repeated false arrests, beatings and medical neglect by First District Chicago Police).
12. Defendant is indigent and requires an exam by a forensic psychiatrist regarding the defense of temporary insanity.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Pro Se, respectfully requests this honorable court toorder a psychiatric exam of defendant by Forensic Clinical Services regarding the issue of temporary insanity during this alleged act.
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.
Dated: October 17, 2006
Respectfully submitted,
Linda L. Shelton
Pro Se Defendant
Despite the following letter to the presiding judge of Municipal 1 District of the Circuit Court of Cook County, the only action taken was to temporarilty re-assign Judge Ciesil. I will petition the court post-trial to vacate all her orders which were illegal and refund the 10% of the bond money held by the Clerk for costs after bond was refunded. I should not have to pay for the gross judicial misconduct of Dishonorable Judge Ciesel.
October 4, 2007 LETTER
Honorable Judge E. Kenneth Wright, Jr.
Presiding JudgeFirst Municipal District
Circuit Court of Cook County
1303 Richard J Daley Center
50 W. WashingtonChicago, IL 60602
IN RE: Outrageous and illegal conduct of Judge Maria Kuriaskos Ciesil
Dear Honorable Judge Wright:
I am writing to you to inform you of the inappropriate, unethical, and frankly lawless conduct of Judge Ciesil and ask for your immediate intervention by removing her from any duties on the bench involving defendants and reassigning her to a desk job until she is completely evaluated by you and perhaps the JIB. This should include a psychiatric examination because her behavior and rulings are so inappropriate and bizarre that it must be considered that she has a severe personality disorder making her unable to make fair judgments and causing her to boost her ego by irrational attacks against defendants and attorneys. If she is found not to be unfit for duty then, at the very least, you should order direct and constant supervision and tutoring by a senior judge for at least 3 months before she is allowed to return to the bench unsupervised.
I am a defendant in several misdemeanor cases as a result of retaliation against me by corrupt county and state officials, as well as a result of police brutality and unlawful arrests. In Branch 46, before Judge Sheehan, I was able without an attorney to have six (6) bogus cases dismissed against me. As you know, I at first was before Judge Ballard, who proved to have inappropriate conduct (being in great need of training on demeanor, the law, judicial procedure, etc.) and you have reassigned him elsewhere.
Judge Sheehan replaced Judge Ballard on my cases. She is an outstanding judge, who is intellectually honest, attempts to be unbiased and fair, does not show preference to the prosecution, treats defendants with respect assuming they are innocent until proven guilty, clearly follows the rulings of higher courts, takes a step back and does not make knee-jerk decisions when she is unsure of the law during a hearing, and has potential to be one of the finest judges on the bench in the Circuit Court of Cook County because her demeanor, actions, and ethics are of the highest judicial level, besides the fact that her IQ is clearly very high.
Then when Judge Sheehan was reassigned to juvenile court there has been a succession of judges on my remaining two cases in branch 46. One Judge, Kenneth Fletcher also proved to be unfortunately ignorant of the law and inappropriate. I wrote a motion for SOJ for cause and he recused himself.
Judge Katz replaced him and his conduct was very appropriate and judicial. All the judges have been ordering that my pretrial hearings be held at either 11:00 a.m. or 10:00 a.m., because I have brought up motions that are quite advanced legally, appropriate, and challenging to the court.
Almost every continuance was set for 10:00 a.m. or later. I have throughout all these cases always arrived early to court or on time except for several days where I was hospitalized. My attorney, J. Nicolas Albukerk (I have decided to allow donors to pay for an attorney on my remaining cases as my health has deteriorated and the stress of representing myself is now too much), instructed me to meet him at 9:30 a.m. outside courtroom 304 at 555 Harrison St. My attorney told me this court date was at the usual time and I should be outside the court by 9:30 to talk with him. On 9/26/07 I arrived in the area around 9:00 a.m. and was unable to find a parking space at a meter due to construction in the surrounding area. I therefore parked in the lot next to the courthouse. I avoid parking there because of financial difficulties and I don’t want to keep borrowing money to pay the parking fees. I cannot take public transportation due to my disabilities [severe reactions to perfumes and fumes]. I walk with a cane due to spinal problems.
I arrived in the courthouse around 9:15 a.m. and up to the courtroom at 9:20 a.m. There were no seats in the courtroom so I sat on the bench outside of court. There was a crowd outside the courtroom including about six CPD officers. I had a pleasant conversation with one of them. At about 9:40 a.m. Sgt. Rankus came out of the courtroom and asked me where was my attorney, that the “judge wanted to call my case.” I told her that he had two other cases in 401 and 404 and he told me to wait for him. She told me to go find him and I slowly walked to the fourth floor and was unable to find him. I arrived back at courtroom 304 about 5-10 minutes later and went in and sat on a bench in the gallery because a seat had opened up and Sgt. Rankus was telling everyone to come into the courtroom.
After several other cases were called, my case was called and I stood up in the gallery and told the judge that Mr. Albukerk was involved in several other cases upstairs and told me to ask for the judge to hold my case until he arrived. Judge Ciesil very firmly told me to come stand before the bench. I did that. Then she took a paper out of one of the files and announced that she had issued an arrest warrant because I “was late” and told the Sheriff to execute the warrant. She raised my bail on each of the two cases from a $1,000 I-Bond to $25,000 D-Bond (total of $50,000 D-Bond)! This is an outrageous and unconstitutional excessive bail, especially for a disabled, indigent person!
I was stunned. She didn’t want to listen to a word I said and was very rude. She did not ask for any explanation or attempt to discuss the issue. I rapidly and frantically told her that my hearing was not scheduled until 10:00 a.m. and that I was not late, while the deputies were trying to drag me to the lock-up. I told her I arrived at 9:20 a.m. and had a conversation with a CPD officer in the hall [these 6 or so officers were seated in the courtroom in the front row of seats] as the courtroom had no seats available. I told her Sgt. Rankus had told me to find my attorney. I pleaded with the CPD officers and Sgt. Rankus to speak up and they remained silent. The judge was OBLIGATED to question the officers, read the file, which details that almost every other court date started at 10:00 a.m. or later. Instead she yelled that her court starts at 9:00 a.m. and that she had issued the warrant at 9:05 a.m. because I was “late”. She made NO EFFORT to read the previous file orders or to contact Judge Katz.
I was taken to the lock-up and not allowed to use medication. I have been fighting a virus for a week and asthma attacks that are not well controlled. I had been in the emergency room at Mt. Sinai Hospital all day on 9/21/07 with a severe asthma attack. I then went into an asthma attack and the deputies called an ambulance and I was taken to the U. of I. ER in custody and remained there under treatment until about 5:00 p.m., when I was returned to 555 Harrison lock-up and then transported to CCDOC.
My attorney arrived as I was being transported by the paramedics out of the courthouse, in custody, accompanied by several deputies, fully restrained [in a wheelchair]. I was released on bond from the jail at 3:00 a.m. and immediately, at the exit to the CCDOC had someone call an ambulance, which took me back to the hospital because I was so ill. I was unable to attend the hearing ordered by Judge Ciesil the next day, 9/27/07 at 9:00 a.m. because I had to be hospitalized and was released from the hospital on 10/2/07. My attorney has written a motion for Substitution of Judge for Cause which is attached and was filed the next day when he appeared on my behalf before Judge Ciesil.
Mr. Albukerk, my attorney, told me that after I was removed by paramedics as he arrived at court, Judge Ciesil refused to read the court file to see that the other dates were at 10:00 a.m. or later, so he read them into the record. He said the judge refused to quash the warrant and threatened him with contempt. He said he stepped back from the bench, put his hands behind his back and stated firmly to her that he was fully prepared to be taken into custody if the Judge thought that pointing out the truth and making arguments constituted contempt.
Please contact Mr. Albukerk at 773 847-2600 for further details. He told me that on 9/27/07 Judge Ciesil refused to transfer the case to you and insisted she would do nothing until I appeared in her courtroom, setting the next status date for 10/24/07 at 9:00 a.m. Judge Ciesil’s interaction with Mr. Albukerk is so unbelievable and outrageous that you cannot ignore it. Mr. Albukerk is writing an amended SOJ for cause motion, to include a lot more of what happened and it is all too astonishing to explain indirectly. Please get the facts directly form Mr. Albukerk and from the transcripts, which he has ordered and should be available shortly.
Mr. Albukerk also stated to me that Judge Ciesil used also as an excuse to issue the arrest warrant that I had refused to cooperate with a limited BCX [mental fitness exam] ordered. When Dr. Lourgos of FCS told me to sit in a back corner behind a table in a small interview room, I refused to do so and reminded him he was under written orders of Judge Sheehan to accommodate my disabilities [flashbacks of being attacked induced by small rooms] and he replied that he didn’t have to follow that order. I asked to sit by the door or to be interviewed in a larger room and he then said “the interview is over, leave.”
Please note the limited BCX was ordered upon MY request in a motion that I had filed for a forensic clinical exam for the issue of temporary insanity during the alleged “crime” possibly resulting from post-traumatic stress disorder – see attached motion. As temporary insanity was a possible defense because I have a lack of memory of some of this incident where I am alleged to have battered a lock-up aide by “kicking her” it was necessary to determine if temporary insanity due to a flashback related to a post-traumatic-stress disorder from which I suffer occurred at the time of the alleged “crime.” This flashback was induced by an illegal attack on me by a lock-up aide during this incident – see motion.
Judge Ciesil said that the report from FCS said I refused to cooperate with the exam. Judge Ciesil should know that statutes state that a defendant may choose to refuse to answer questions and bail cannot be changed or revoked due to this refusal.
725 ILCS 5/104‑14
(c) The court shall advise the defendant of the limitations on the use of any statements made or information gathered in the course of the fitness examination or subsequent treatment as provided in this Section. It shall also advise him that he may refuse to cooperate with the person conducting the examination, but that his refusal may be admissible into evidence on the issue of his mental or physical condition.
Mr. Albukerk pointed out that I refused to cooperate because Dr. Lourgos from FCS refused to obey Judge Sheehan’s order to accommodate my disability (see order in file) by allowing me to sit by the door in a small room or interviewing me in a large room with a window. Mr. Albukerk read this order into the record and Judge Ciesil stated “that’s not my understanding.” I am unable to tolerate discussions of the life-threatening and terrifying incidents causing the flashbacks except with these accommodations and end up becoming out of touch with reality, unresponsive, frozen, crying, with a look of terror on my face, often frantically hiding under a table or cowering against a wall.
Please replace her immediately as the judge in that courtroom and quash the arrest warrant, expunge the warrant, and order that the entire $5,000 bond be immediately returned. Judge Ciesil’s order for a warrant and increase in bail is null and void due to judicial error and outrageous conduct.
I and my attorney are initiating ALL appropriate legal actions in response to this outrage and lawlessness with the Illinois Appellate Court, the JIB, and if necessary with the press.
Please respond to this letter ASAP, if not to me to my attorney. Judge Ciesil has illegally harmed me in ways that are too upsetting for me to describe – other than to say I was attacked by a correctional officer after being taken into custody and medically neglected at the CCDOC resulting in hospitalization from the moment I was released on 9/27/07 to 10/2/07 and my health has been damaged. Please contact Mr. Albukerk for details. I have been under treatment by a psychiatrist to help diminish the symptoms of PTSD.
I REFUSE TO APPEAR IN COURTROOM 304 AGAIN UNTIL THIS MENTALLY UNSTABLE, UNETHICAL, LAWLESS, AND DANGEROUS JUDGE IS REPLACED! I will come to court on 10/24/07 but will remain seated outside the courtroom unless I see that there is a different judge on the bench. You may consider this contempt. I CONSIDER THIS MY CIVIC PATRIOTIC DUTY, LIKE THE FOUNDERS OF OUR COUNTRY, TO STAND AGAINST TYRANNY. Judge Ciesil has brought the court into disrepute and is unethically filling up the jail with unfortunate defendants who are five minutes late and have good excuses! Judge Ciesil made knee-jerk, rash, and unethical decisions without reading the file pleadings, orders, or attempting to verify anything. She clearly is biased and assumes all defendants are worthless scum who should be slammed.
Sincerely with utter despair over this tyranny and with utter determination to fight it,
Linda Lorincz Shelton, Ph.D., M.D.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOISMUNICIPAL DEPARTMENT, FIRST MUNICIPAL DISTRICT,CRIMINAL SECTION
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Plaintiff
V.
LINDA SHELTON, Defendant,
Case No 06-221401, Honorable Colleen Sheehan Presiding
MOTION FOR FORENSIC CLINICAL EXAM
NOW COMES, the Defendant, Linda L. Shelton, Pro Se who respectfully requests that this court order a forensic clinical exam of defendant concerning state of mind during alleged act and in support of this motion states as follows:
1. Defendant was arrested for disorderly conduct on March 4, 2006 [charges later dismissed] and brought to the 1st District Woman’s lock-up for processing.
2. As she was being released on a personal recognizance bond she was brought out of a cell to her possession, sealed in plastic bags on a table.
3. [Chicago Police Department] Detention Aide Shell ripped open the bags, when defendant was too weak to do so and told her to organize her possessions.
4. As defendant organized her possessions back into her briefcase she noticed her bottle of prednisone, prescribed by a physician. She takes an extra dose of this medication when stressed due to a relative steroid deficiency to prevent an asthma attack and to prevent complications of neurocardiogenic syncope.
5. Defendant opened her bottle and attempted to take a dose of medication.
6. Detention Aide Shell then violently grabbed defendant and body slammed her against the table causing contusions and yelling that she was not allowed to take any medication. Several other aides and/or officers ran at defendant and aided and abetted this felony attack on the handicapped defendant.
7. This caused defendant to attempt to pull away in self-defense and struggle while she yelled to stop assaulting her.
8. Then defendant went into a flashback due to her illness post-traumatic-stress disorder.
9. This illness has resulted from several previous attacks on her by officers at the First District causing injuries and great fear.
10. Defendant remained in this altered state of consciousness and next found herself being dragged to a cell and then beaten in a cell by a female aide or officer. Defendant is unable to remember much of the incident when she was in an altered state of consciousness due to the PTSD.
11. Defendant will use the defenses of self-defense, temporary insanity and outrageous government conduct (due to the history of repeated false arrests, beatings and medical neglect by First District Chicago Police).
12. Defendant is indigent and requires an exam by a forensic psychiatrist regarding the defense of temporary insanity.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Pro Se, respectfully requests this honorable court toorder a psychiatric exam of defendant by Forensic Clinical Services regarding the issue of temporary insanity during this alleged act.
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.
Dated: October 17, 2006
Respectfully submitted,
Linda L. Shelton
Pro Se Defendant
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Congratulations to Attorney General Designee Eric Holder - Stop Corruption!
Mr. Holder:
Congratulations on your appointment as AG.
Due to this appointment, I write to make you aware that there is a large group of individuals who litigate pro se, who are patriots and have been fighting for civil rights and against government corruption for a long time. I am one of them. Please see that the information that I have provided to the FBI and US Attorney over the last five or so years is reviewed and dealt with. Government corruption, retaliation against whistle blowers, torture in state prisons, and blatant, violation of the Bill of Rights by high government officials must stop, and should be priorities for your department.
Please occasionally review the evidence laid out on a new blog: http://illinoiscorruption.blogspot.com/
I pray that our/my long nightmare will be over. Please consider the words of Justice Douglas:
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 criminal conduct of the Illinois Attorney General in laundering money for kickbacks in Illinois, denying mental health care to persons on Medicaid, and continuing in her position when she is not qualified, along with the pervasive corruption in Illinois demonstrated by the Daleys should not be tolerated.
God bless and may righteousness, fairness, and love of fellow man guide your actions in the coming years.
Most sincerely and prayerfully,
Dr. Linda Lorincz Shelton
Congratulations on your appointment as AG.
Due to this appointment, I write to make you aware that there is a large group of individuals who litigate pro se, who are patriots and have been fighting for civil rights and against government corruption for a long time. I am one of them. Please see that the information that I have provided to the FBI and US Attorney over the last five or so years is reviewed and dealt with. Government corruption, retaliation against whistle blowers, torture in state prisons, and blatant, violation of the Bill of Rights by high government officials must stop, and should be priorities for your department.
Please occasionally review the evidence laid out on a new blog: http://illinoiscorruption.blogspot.com/
I pray that our/my long nightmare will be over. Please consider the words of Justice Douglas:
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 criminal conduct of the Illinois Attorney General in laundering money for kickbacks in Illinois, denying mental health care to persons on Medicaid, and continuing in her position when she is not qualified, along with the pervasive corruption in Illinois demonstrated by the Daleys should not be tolerated.
God bless and may righteousness, fairness, and love of fellow man guide your actions in the coming years.
Most sincerely and prayerfully,
Dr. Linda Lorincz Shelton
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
