Pro Se Chicago's Weblog

August 1, 2014

Federal Petiton proving corrupt judges, sheriff, & state’s attorney in Cook County


SIC color_edited-1

PLEASE come to court and show support for Shelton at the next court date on October 3, 10am, 2600 S California, Chicago IL, courtroom 506.

Write letters to the U.S. Attorney, Sen. Durbin, Sen. Kirk, your senator, Rep. Lipinsky or your representative, and the press. Some addresses are at end of post. Spread the word through social media that Shelton needs public support to continue these blogs and fight unlawful attacks against her in retaliation for them and for helping so many with pro se litigation and defense.

This is a petition for writ of habeas corpus to the federal district court in Chicago. The Cook County Sheriff in retaliation for Shelton filing civil rights suits has been falsely arresting Shelton repeatedly and maliciously prosecuting her for battery to officers. Of NOTE: She is never charged with battering anyone else and has a lifelong history of non-violent pacifism.  For more information go here.  Also read Shelton’s other blogs: http://cookcountyjudges.wordpress.com  http://chicagofbi.wordpress.com   http://cookcountysheriffdeputies.wordpress.com   http://illinoiscorruption.blogspot.com and search them for posts about Madigan in particular.

They have beaten her so many times and so viciously that she now has post-traumatic-stress disorder and when aggressively approached by officers goes into a flashback where she cries, screams, tries to protect herself from imagined blows swinging her arms randomly (as she is reliving attacks) and cowers. If she is pushed, carried, or dragged, due to disabilities and severe balance problems she grabs at things to steady herself – all the while being out of touch with reality during these brief PTSD flashbacks.

She has been arrested and charged with FELONY battery to an officer with a possible sentence of 3-14 years for “touching an officers ear and pulling her hair until her hand slipped off”.

She has been held in jail one year on no bail and only recently released on $300,000 bail. This is unconstitutional excessive bail

She has been denied notice, counsel of choice, discovery of evidence, and has been fraudulently accussed of being psychotic and unfit for trial, illegally without notice or jury trial, without any professional saying she was psychotic or unfit, sent to a secure mental health facility who after a few months said in court she was never unfit and is not psychotic and sent her back to jail.

As a result of this lawlessness Shelton has now filed at Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus to the Federal District Court asking for relief and presentment of the criminal conduct of judges, sheriff staff, state’s attorney, court clerk, and other corrupt persons to the U.S. Attorney for  prosecution.

You can read it here: (download will be 24 pages) fed habeas 6-12-14 final

Full Petition with evidence (download will be 400+ pages) Habeas Petition

Asst. US Attorney Zachary T. Fardon
United States Attorney’s Office
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division
219 S. Dearborn St., 5th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: (312) 353-5300
______________________
FBI,Special Agent in Charge – Chicago
Robert J. Holley
2111 W. Roosevelt Road
Chicago, IL 60608
Phone: (312) 421-6700
Fax: (312) 829-5732/38
E-mail: Chicago@ic.fbi.gov
_________________________

Senator Durbin
WASHINGTON, D.C.
711 Hart Senate Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510
9 am to 6 pm ET
(202) 224-2152 – phone
(202) 228-0400 – fax
____________________

Senator Kirk
Washington, DC
524 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington DC, 20510
Phone: 202-224-2854
Fax: 202-228-4611
___________________
Congressman Lipinsky
Washington, D.C. Office
1717 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515
P (202) 225 – 5701
P (866) 822 – 5701
F (202) 225 – 1012

July 31, 2014

Inability to pay child support, court fee, & court-appointed counselor or examiner


A COURT MAY AWARD THE NONCUSTODIAL PARENT CHILD SUPPORT IF THE CUSTODIAL PARENT IS MUCH WEALTHIER THAN NONCUSTODIAL PARENT. THIS IS SO THAT CHILD CAN LIVE SAME LIFESTYLE WITH BOTH PARENTS.

In re Marriage of Turk 2014 IL 116730

 

Appellate citation: 2013 IL App (1st) 122486.

 

      JUSTICE KARMEIER delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

            Chief Justice Garman and Justices Freeman, Kilbride, and Burke concurred in the judgment and opinion.

      Justice Theis specially concurred, with opinion, joined by Justice Thomas.

 

            The parties to this Cook County child support dispute divorced in 2005 and have two sons, now ages 17 and 15. In 2012, the circuit court entered an agreed order establishing the father as custodial parent and setting up a visitation schedule for the mother under which she had regular visitation with the older boy once a week, for dinner on Wednesdays, and regular visitation with the younger boy, with weekly visits from Monday to Wednesday mornings, plus alternating weekends. This system gave her nearly equal time with him. At this time it was determined that the father earned approximately $150,000 per year and that the mother was earning less than $10,000. The father asked for termination of his obligation to pay support based on his custodial status, but the circuit court’s order required him to pay $600 per month in child support and to fund medical expenses not covered by insurance. The father’s claim that his designation as custodial parent meant that statute precluded requiring him to pay child support to a noncustodial parent was rejected by the circuit court, and the father appealed.

            The appellate court, like the circuit court, rejected the father’s claim of no obligation to pay child support, and it affirmed this aspect of the trial court’s ruling. However, it remanded for an evidentiary hearing for reconsideration as to the support amount. It did not, however, interfere with the circuit court’s ruling as to medical expenses.

            In this decision, the Illinois Supreme Court said that the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act expressly confers on courts the option to order either or both parents to pay an amount that is reasonable and necessary for the support of the child, and, in its discretion, to order payment of various expenses determined to be reasonable, including health needs not covered by insurance. The supreme court explained that a parent who is technically noncustodial may have visitation rights which place the child in that parent’s care for periods of time which involve commensurate cost. This can be problematic if the noncustodial parent has fewer resources to meet the substantial support costs of an extensive visitation schedule. This would not only be unfair, but would leave the poorer parent with insufficient resources to care for the child in a manner even minimally comparable to that of the wealthier parent. A child should not end up living commensurate with the wealthier custodial parent’s income only half the time, when staying with the wealthier custodial parent. This could be detrimental to the child. Therefore, a trial court may order a custodial parent to pay child support where the circumstances and the best interests of the child warrant it.

            While rejecting the custodial father’s claims as to the meaning of the statute, the appellate court had remanded for an evidentiary hearing, with directions for the circuit court to clearly explain the basis for any support awarded. It was correct in this regard, but the supreme court held that, on remand, the circuit court should also revisit with specificity the issue of what portion of uninsured medical expenses the father should be required to pay.

            The appellate court was, thus, affirmed in part and reversed in part.

________________________________________________________________

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT BEFORE A PERSON CAN BE JAILED FOR NONPAYMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT HE MUST BE GIVEN DUE PROCESS AND IN SOME CASES AN ATTORNEY – IF THE COURT DOES NOT PROVIDE THAT DUE PROCESS AS DEFINED IN THIS CASE

Turner v. Rogers, 131 S. Ct. 2507, 180 L. Ed. 2d 452 (2011) [2011 BL 161240]

If incarcerated for failing to pay child support must have been given due process – notice, due process evidentiary hearing where it must be proven that defendant has ability to pay child support, and counsel. In a civil case, due process does not always involve appointment of counsel.

This is true only if there are procedural safeguards:

These include (1) notice to the defendant that his “ability to pay” is a critical issue in the contempt proceeding; (2) the use of a form (or the equivalent) to elicit relevant financial information from him; (3) an opportunity at the hearing for him to respond to statements and questions about his financial status; and (4) an express finding by the court that the defendant has the ability to pay,

and the opposing counsel (parent) is pro se, then the court is not required to appoint counsel.

 

December 19, 2012

Discovery in misdemeanor cases in Illinois


Discovery in misdeemanor cases in Illinois do NOT follow the Illinois Supreme Court Rules on discovery which only apply to felony cases.

The rules in misdemeanor cases are described in a case called People v. Schmidt, 56 Ill.2d 572 (1974). They required the states attorney to give the defense a 1) witness list, 2) copy of confessions, and 3) any exculpatory evidence (evidence that proves the defendant or suggests the defendant is not guilty).

The defendant is NOT obliged to provide the state anything including witness lists in misdemeanor discovery.  The defendant’s witnesses can decide to refuse to speak to the state’s attorney’s investigators.

There are exceptions, but the state or defendant must ask for additional discovery by motion and have a hearing before the court about this issue.

The only change in the law was in a case called People v. Kladis,  2011 IL 110920 ¶ 23, 355 Ill.Dec. 933, 960 N.E.2d 1104    [#110920, 2011 IL 110920, 2011 Ill. Lexis 2236, 2011 IL 110920] where the court ruled that the state must also provide videos from police cars capturing the incident in discovery.

See this page describing all this in more detail.

http://prosechicago.wordpress.com/criminal-defense-procedures-in-misdemeanor-court/

March 7, 2012

IISBA members retaliate against activists in family court fighting against extortion of family assets by court-appointed attorneys


Read complaint here.

On February 29, 2012 a group of moms and dads who were victims of court ordered extortion of their families appeared to testify before the Illinois House Judiciary I Committee in support of HB 5544, which would set a limit on fees that child representatives and guardian ad litems can bill families for services in divorce cases, when they are court-appointed to represent the minor children.

These moms and dads made compelling testimony that proved that judges were rubber stamping orders to pay these lawyers exorbitant amounts, from $300 to $1200 per hour, amounting to up to around $100,000 per divorce case. These fees which are often one to two times an average family’s yearly income, not including the fees the parents pay each of their own attorneys, cause the corrupt family court judges to ignore the law, 750 ILCS 5-506, that requires them to approve only “reasonable and necessary” fees, and order the families to use the children’s’ college funds to pay the court-appointed attorneys as well as to sell their homes – often making them homeless or end up living in trailer homes or with friends and relatives, to pay these fees.

Surely, this was not the intent of the legislature when they enacted these statutes to look after the “best interest of the children” – notably a term that the Nazis used 60 years ago to take Aryan looking from their parents and place them with good German couples in order to ensure a pure race!

For details of this scheme to rape the estates of families in divorce court to enrich lawyers see the complaint filed with the ARDC, Illinois Supreme Court Chief Justice Kilbride, with the attached copies of the slide show that these activists gave to the Illinois House Judiciary I Committee on February 29, 2012 to document this atrocious, immoral, and illegal scheme supported by the ISBA, whose member testified that they NEED these exorbitant fees and the families should have a penalty that impoverishes them for arguing with each other!

Read complaint here.

February 12, 2012

Illinois Supreme Court motion for supervisory order to force Illinois HFS Child Support Division to hear requests to change child support


Federal and State law, Social Security Title IV-D and 305 ILCS 5/10, require the administrative law courts in the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services (HFS) hear petitions to change child support by a non-custodial parent or custodial parent. For a summary of these laws see this link here.

The HFS Child Support Division and their Administrative Law courts have been illegally refusing to hear any non-custodial parent’s request for change in child support for 20 years. They do not even have forms for the non-custodial parent to apply for a hearing before the Administrative Court Law Judge or to request a change in child support!  The above codes and statutes require that this be allowed and done. Therefore, their refusal to do their job is being challenged in the courts – see link below.

HFS-CSD directed by Pam Lowery has been refusing to do their job. Non-custodial parents have been illegally forced to pay as much as 110 % of their income for child support and have even been illegally jailed. Even if in arrears a non-custodial parent may not be ordered to pay more than 65 % of his/her income to child support after garnishment for taxes per the federal Consumer Protection Act.

Trial courts lose jurisdiction to hear post-trial requests for change in child support according to these laws and regain it only after the HFS-CSD administrative law court investigates the financial circumstances (with subpoenas to the parents) and holds a hearing before the administrative law judge in their division with the parents present and then makes a recommendation that goes to the Trial Judge. Then the trial judge can rubber-stamp it if the parents agree or hold a trial to determine the appropriate amount of child support if the parents disagree.

See a 383 Motion for Supervisory Order to the Illinois Supreme Court , which purpose is to ask the Court to ORDER the HFS-CSD administrative law courts to do their statutory duty and to order the family court judges to stop holding post-trial hearings on child support until AFTER they receive the recommendations from the HFS-CSD administrative law courts. here

January 25, 2012

Motion for Supervisory Order – Illinois Supreme Court


The reason to file a motion for a supervisory order with the Illinois Supreme Court (IL S Ct) is if a person is unable to file  direct appeal on the issue. For example in a divorce case where the judge endlessly keeps an issue “in reserve” for more than a year, and therefore, there is no final appealable order because all issues are not dealt with, then it is appropriate to file a motion for supervisory order to the IL S Ct in order to ask for an order to force the trial judge to make a decision on the case. The following is a quote from the Illinois Supreme Court explaining about 1203 motions with citations.

*** the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2–1203 (West 2006)). Section 2–1203 provides as follows:
“Motions after judgment in non-jury cases. (a) In all cases tried without a jury, any party may, within 30 days after the entry of the judgment or within any further time the court may allow within the 30 days or any extensions thereof, file a motion for a rehearing, or a retrial, or modification of the judgment or to vacate the judgment or for other relief. (b) A motion filed in apt time stays enforcement of the judgment.” 735 ILCS 5/2–1203 (West 2006).

One purpose of a section 2–1203 postjudgment motion is to alert the circuit court to errors it has made and to afford an opportunity for their correction. See In re Marriage of King, 336 Ill. App. 3d 83, 87 (2002); Federal Kemper Life Assurance Co. v. Eichwedel, 266 Ill. App. 3d 88, 98-99 (1994); Regas v. Associated Radiologists, Ltd., 230 Ill. App. 3d 959, 967 (1992). Another recognized purpose of a section 2–1203 motion is to bring to the court’s attention newly discovered evidence which was not available at the time of trial, changes in the law, or errors in the court’s previous application of existing law. See Korogluyan v. Chicago Title & Trust Co., 213 Ill. App. 3d 622, 627 (1991); Kaiser v. MEPC American Properties, Inc., 164 Ill. App. 3d 978, 987 (1987). Information cognizable under a section 2–1203 motion includes actions taken by other courts. See, e.g., Federal Kemper Life, 266 Ill. App. 3d at 98-99 (affirming circuit court’s grant of section 2–1203 motion to vacate judgment and consolidate action with another case based on being informed of other judge’s rulings). The motion is addressed to the circuit court’s sound discretion. Whether a trial court has abused its discretion turns on whether the court’s refusal to vacate violates the moving party’s right to fundamental justice and manifests an improper application of discretion. See In re Marriage of King, 336 Ill. App. 3d at 87 (and cases cited therein); Federal Kemper Life, 266 Ill. App. 3d at 98-99 (and cases cited therein). Relevant here, section 2–1203 makes no distinction between those judgments entered before an appeal and those entered after an appeal. [(Il. Supreme Ct. 2007)]

Also see info from the Illinois Pro Bono organization: here

The following is an example of a motion for supervisory order. The sample IL S Ct motion for supervisory order is here.

To file it, if the court is in session you send the original and 9 copies to the IL S Ct in Springfield at their office. If they are not in session and you are in Chicago, you file an original and five copies in the Chicago office of the IL S Ct and then send one copy to each of the four justices outside of Chicago – their local offices. Recently (2013) the IL S Ct made rules on how to E-file. See their web site for updated information.

Included must be notice of service to the judge (who is the respondent) and to the other parties, an order with a place for the judges to circle either “denied” or “granted” and a place to sign it., a verified statement that you are complying with the 20 page limit to the pleading, a cover for the appendix, an affidavit that the documents in the appendix are true and accurate copies, a table of contents with page numbers for the appendix, an affidavit if you are pro se (verified statement if you are an attorney) that you have served notice and the motion to the parties and judges, and a check for $25 dollars.  See IL S Ct rules 383,341-343.

The supporting record must be authenticated by the trial court clerk or verified by affidavit by attorney or  pro se counsel as required in IL S Ct rule
328

January 17, 2012

How to win a legal argument


    The “argument” either orally or in writing in a pleading such as a motion or petition is the manner in which a litigant can win or lose in court. This may seem simple but it is not. There is a lot of confusion and most people think that if a law says something, it must be followed. This is a delusion and is NOT how the law works in the United States.
    The court does not care about the truth or facts. It cares about who convinces them that their argument is correct or the best. It comes down to whoever shouted loud enough, did the best magic act, used the best smoke and mirrors, or denigrated the other side enough so that the judge didn’t listen to them wins.
    First understand that we are the UNITED States of America. There is a concept known as state’s rights.
    Federal law DOES NOT always trump state law. If you have a federal right that is CLEARLY delineated by federal law or the constitution such as the right in a CRIMINAL trial to have a jury decide your fate, then any state law depriving you of that right is unconstitutional and is trumped by your federal right.
    However, federal rights such as the constitutional Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Due Process right does not always trump state law. For example, if there is a state law that says you have to stop at a stoplight, the federal due process constitutional right is NOT violated if someone doesn’t stop at the stoplight, hits you and the police fail to give them a ticket. There is no federal law that says a person has to stop at a stoplight and no federal law or right that says police must give someone who violates the law a ticket.
    Therefore DO NOT PRESUME YOUR FEDERAL DUE PROCESS RIGHTS ARE VIOLATED WHEN THE STATE COURT OR POLICE DO NOT FOLLOW STATE LAW.
    Next remember that EVERY argument MUST be backed-up by case law that is on point supporting that argument. You should Shephardize your cases. That means look in the ” Shephard’s Citations” volumes and see if there is a more recent case that overturns or that supports the decision in the case you are looking up. This is how you verify the validity of the authority (case law) that you quote. If you don’t know how to use Shephard’s Citations ask a law librarian to teach you.
    If you state an argument but fail to develop it and back it up with case law, the court can THROW OUT that argument for “failure to develop it.”
    If you have an argument where there is NO case law available and this is the FIRST time it is being argued in any court, then this is an ” issue of first impression .” You still have to develop it or the court may throw it out for failure to develop it. You need to review the historical “common law” and then explain the “line of reasoning” including quoting any cases that have a similar line of reasoning although about a different issue. If you say: “I am right because the statute says this,” you will likely lose because you did not develop your argument.
    Laymen think that if a statute says an official “shall” do X, then that doing X is mandatory. You are wrong. The Illinois Supreme Court has ruled that sometimes the word “shall” is interpreted as a discretionary duty. This is what I call “perverted logic.” Then you have to explain, while quoting case law, why the word “shall” in the argument you use that claims that “shall” means the action is mandatory, really is mandatory. In other words you have to explain the issue of “statutory construction” or the line of reasoning from case law that explains when the word “shall” is mandatory and when it is discretionary. Then you have to explain citing case law on the line of argument from other cases that you are using why this line of argument applies to your case. “Statutory construction” is the issue of how you interpret a legal statute written by the legislature. This includes the issues of “legislative intent” which you can find by reading the “legislative record” (the verbatim copy of the arguments of the legislators when the bill was debated before passage). It also includes the issue of “clear language interpretation” where the courts have held in case law that if the language is clear then it should be interpreted clearly (which is open to interpretation as illustrated in above discussion of the word “shall”). This also includes the fact that if two statutes are conflicting and contradictory, then case law says that the statute that is more specific controls.
    Another difficult concept is the fact that criminal law and civil law have DIFFERENT procedures. Look at the Illinois code of civil procedure v. the Illinois Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore case law concerning civil procedure may not translate into precedent for criminal procedure. The same applies for federal v state laws, codes and rules as well as appellate v. local trial rules and procedures.
    Stare decisis is the principle in law that previous appellate or supreme court decisions are controlling and must be followed, especially if they are long-standing.
    I am developing this article, so the above is introductory, but you get my point. See the code of civil procedure section on “pleadings” posted to the right under “pages” on this blog and read it carefully.

December 9, 2011

Time for Fourth branch of government to clean up corrupt Cook County Courts


When the British government acted like dictators and ignored the laws we had the Boston Tea Party and then the revolutionary war.

 

It is time for a new awakening of the Fourth branch of government – this time to clean up the courts. It is past time to talk the talk -we must walk the walk -no fear – just act! When the judge violates the law – file everything possible in state and federal court (complaint for supervisory order; complaint for mandamus; Section 1983 federal civil rights suit for injunctive relief – justices have immunity from suits for monetary damages but not from suits for injunctive relief or mandamus; Attorney Regulatory Commission Complaint; Judicial Inquiry Board Complaint; Judicial Council complaints; complain to the press; complain to officials in charge of the County or State; complain to your representatives and senators; make a request for impeachment to the speaker of the house; complain to the press, put ALL details of your case on the Internet.

The Declaration of Independence states:

      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Our right to justice is not something that the judiciary should play with. Our justice system is not a tool of self serving lawyers to use to allow lawyers to take advantage of the misfortunate and victimize them. Our courts are to serve the people and not as a profit center to protect the incomes of lawyers. We the people hereby give notice to the judiciary that you are acting in contempt of the people and that you will refrain from continuing to do so or face the consequences.

For more details see this link: http://www.perkel.com/politics/issues/fourth.htm

October 27, 2011

IL Supreme Court returns father’s parental rights when not informed of case


This decision of the Illinois Supreme Court defines the concept of due diligence in notifying a parent that there is a case where they can lose parental rights. Attempts at service by mail or personal service is NOT enough!

Supreme Court Summaries
Opinions filed October 27, 2011

In re Dar. C., 2011 IL 111083
Appellate citation: No. 4-10-0267 (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23).

CHIEF JUSTICE KILBRIDE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Justices Thomas, Garman, and Karmeier concurred in the judgment and opinion.
Justice Burke specially concurred, with opinion, joined by Justice Freeman.
Justice Theis specially concurred, with opinion.

In this McLean County case, a father whose parental rights had been terminated on March 7, 2008, challenged that result for lack of personal jurisdiction. Under the Code of Civil Procedure, he filed a petition for relief from that judgment, claiming that, under the Juvenile Court Act of 1987, it was improper to serve him only by publication in Bloomington after attempts at personal service or service by certified mail were unsuccessful. Statute requires a “diligent inquiry” before a parent may be served by publication. The failed attempts had been based on potential addresses obtained through the use of computerized database searches. The State simply mailed letters but made no visits to the addresses to seek further information. The appellate court affirmed the termination order.
The termination took place in proceedings that began pursuant to 2006 charges that the respondent father’s two minor children, who were living with their mother, were neglected. It was known that the mother was receiving Social Security benefits, but no effort was made to determine their source or to obtain a release of Social Security information. Later that same year, a separate proceeding to collect child support from the father was initiated by a different attorney in the same prosecutor’s office, with the complaint being signed by a caseworker in the termination proceeding. In the collection matter, the father’s birth date, Social Security number and physical description were listed. The State indicated that it had located the respondent at a treatment center in Lake County and obtained his consent for entry of a child support order using the funds from his social security disability benefits.
In this decision, the supreme court said that “the State’s ability to obtain respondent’s contact information in the separate child support action casts significant doubt on the diligence of the State’s inquiry into respondent’s location in the termination proceedings” and that “relying on a computerized database search of a parent’s name while ignoring, or otherwise not investigating, other potentially useful information, does not constitute a diligent inquiry.” These circumstances indicate that there was a lack of personal jurisdiction over the father in attempting to serve him by publication on these facts. The appellate court was reversed and the termination of the father’s rights concerning his children was vacated as void. The cause was remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings.

October 24, 2008

Vigorous Defense is NOT Contempt – Intent Must be Shown


 

I was unlawfully convicted of criminal contempt for telling Dishonorable Judge Kathleen Pantle that she was aiding and abetting the criminal and impeachable conduct of IL Attorney General Lisa Madigan, as well as the fact that she was violating her oath of office by continuing with the criminal case against me although she had no jurisdiction.

 

In order to preserve the issue for appeal and because Dishon. J. Pantle refused to appoint a public defender after de facto removing me as Pro Se Counsel by making a written order that I was NOT ALLOWED to file any pleadings [an unconstitutional act that violates her oath of office], I firmly but politely stated I was leaving and not coming back (because she had no jurisdiction and the case was bogus) and turned around and tried to leave.

 

I was immediately arrested and immediately summarily convicted of criminal contempt and sentenced to 30 days in CCDOC. [More about all this later!] This memorandum was given to IL Supreme Court on my direct appeal of this criminal contempt conviction [a petty offense]. The IL Supreme Court denied leave to appeal – [ignored my appeal and made no ruling and refuse to consider it.] This criminal contempt case is presently before the U.S. District Court on a habeas corpus petition, as I have exhausted state remedies. If denied the Circuit Court of C[r]ook County may lift the stay on my sentence and I will have to serve the remaining 13/30 days of the sentence and surrender to the C[r]ook County Sheriff. This would be a gross injustice [see next post also]. 

 

As you all should know, under the IL Constitution a citizen has NO RIGHT to an appeal to the IL Supreme Court. Appeals there are by permission and they only take about 5/100 cases, usually if they find it interesting. Only Capital Cases have a right to appeal to IL Supreme Court. Therefore, the IL Appellate Court is ususally the end of the line except you can appeal by means of habeas corpus to Federal District Court AFTER you exhause all state remedies. [Appeal through IL Supreme Court AND file IL habeas corpus petition by means of motion for leave to file it to IL Supreme Court - which takes two to three years in IL - 6 mo to two years in other states].

 You might also want to note the discrimination against Pro Se Defense Counsel and the double standards. In similar cases regarding defense attorneys the judges usually sentence them to $500 fine. I don’t think 30 days for a pro se counsel = $500 for an attorney. This is grossly disproportionate.

 

No. 105037

 

 

 

 

______________________________________________________________________________________

 

In the

 SUPREME COURT

Of The State of Illinois

______________________________________________________________________________________

 

)  Petition to Appeal as a Matter of Right

) or in the Alternative Petition for Leave

) to Appeal

                                                                        ) 

LINDA SHELTON                                         )  On Appeal from Appellate Court, First

            Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner             )  District, No. 05-2053

) 

v.                                             )  There Heard on Appeal from Circuit

)   Court of Cook County, County

)   Department, Criminal Division

                                                                        )  

)   No. ACC 050087-01

            )  

STATE OF ILLINOIS                                    )   Honorable Judge Kathleen Pantle,

            Plaintiff-Appellee-Respondent              )           Trial Judge

                                                                        )   Order of Trial Court May 10, 2005

)   Order of Appellate Court

)                       June 19, 2007

 

MEMORANDUM OF LAW – VIGOROUS DEFENSE IS

NOT CONTEMPT

 

            Defendant, Pro Se, respectfully presents to this Honorable Court the following memorandum of law concerning statutes and case law regarding a vigorous defense and criminal contempt.

            “We will reverse a finding of direct criminal contempt if the contemnor can show that his conduct was a good-faith attempt to represent his client without hindering the court’s functions or dignity.” In re Marriage of Bartlett, 305 Ill.App.3d 28 (1999).

            In People v. Coulter, 228 Ill.App.3d 1014 (1992), “trial court’s remarks, taken as a whole, exhibit hostility toward the defense”. The courts have stated that overzealous, inappropriately sarcastic, and lack of civility in language of counsel during a vigorous defense does not automatically constitute contempt. Intent must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and provocation in the underlying proceedings may be considered in determining intent.

 “In attempting to obtain a favorable ruling on their motion for reconsideration, contemnors could have made better use of the English lexicon to further their client’s cause, and the cause of professional civility, but we conclude that the language employed was not, in itself, sufficient to prove intent to embarrass or hinder the court beyond a reasonable doubt.” People v. Griffith, 247 Ill.App.3d 21 (1993)

 

Search for essential elements of crime of contempt must be made with full appreciation of contentious role of trial counsel and attorney’s duty to zealously represent client’s interests, if conduct complained of is that of attorney engaged in representation of litigant; vigorous, independent bar is indispensable to system of justice. Griffith, id.

 

Even though defense counsel may have been overzealous or improperly sarcastic at times, record disclosed that his conduct in courtroom constituted good faith attempt to represent his client’s without hindering court’s functions or dignity and therefore did not constitute direct contempt of court. People v. Miller, 51 Ill.2d 76, 21 N.E.2d 292 (1972)

           

            Although provocation is not a defense, the circumstances of the underlying proceedings may be weighed to determine whether the offense of criminal contempt was proved   beyond a reasonable doubt. In re Marriage of Bartlett, 305     Ill.App.3d 28 (1999); People v. Pearson, 98 Ill.App.2d 203, 240 N.E.2d 337 (1968)

 

In determining whether direct criminal contempt has occurred, the reviewing court may consider provocation by the trial court and erroneous trial court rulings that may have triggered the contemnor’s comments. Bartlett, id

 

Courts should not confuse a vigorous defense with contempt.  Intent must be shown beyond a reasonable doubt to sustain a conviction for contempt. Without intent, a criminal contempt conviction must be reversed.

 

Dated August 12, 2007.

                                                            Respectfully Submitted,

 

                                                                                _____________________________

                                                                                Linda L. Shelton

Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner Pro Se

 

 

Prepared By:

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

 

Older Posts »

The Silver is the New Black Theme. Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 708 other followers

%d bloggers like this: