Pro Se Chicago's Weblog

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

Advertisements

2 Comments »

  1. RICK BECKHAM JUST ABOUT DONE
    P.O. BOX 1013
    DIXON, ILLINOIS 61021

    State of Illinois
    Judicial Inquiry Board
    100 West Randolph Street
    Suite14-500
    Chicago, IL 60601

    RE: NO. 93-CF-109A, Ricky O. Beckham, Defendant

    REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
    OF THE FOLLOWING JUDGES/JUSTICES ALL MEMBERS OF THE DEMOCRAT POLITICAL PARTY FOR THEIR
    VIOLATIONS OF THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT
    AND UNLAWFUL ACTIONS IN VIOLATION OF THE
    LAWS OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, THE CONSTITUTION
    OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS AND THE CONSTITUTION OF
    THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

    FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT JUDGES

    1. Judge Ronald Spears
    2. Judge Dennis Middendorff
    3. Judge James Roberts

    FIFTH APPELLATE JUSTICES

    1. Justice Richard Goldenhersh
    2. Justice Thomas Welch
    3. Justice Kuehn

    INTRODUCTION

    I am presenting documents of a long history of willful misconduct in office, due to Jack Mazzotti, Democrat Chairman for Christian County, Taylorville, Illinois influence in the judicial process resulting in persistent discrimination by denying me the right to appeal my unlawful conviction pursuant to the 14th Amendment right to due process and equal protection of the law. The above named judges/justices failed to perform their jurisdictional duties, and other conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings both their judicial office and the entire Illinois judiciary into public disrepute. Judges should strive to maintain confidence in our judicial system (Preamble to Code of Judicial Conduct), but these judges/justices actions have destroyed confidence in the judicial system. These judges have committed ACTS OF TREASON against the United States Constitution by their actions of refusing to acknowledge their jurisdiction in the case at bar. Unless they are severely disciplined or removed from office, they will continue to violate the United States and Illinois Constitution, Code of Judicial Conduct, violate the laws of the State of Illinois and of the U.S. Government.

    BACKGROUND

    When I met my ex-wife in 1986, she was attending St. John’s School of Respiratory Therapy in Springfield, Illinois going by the name, Carol Butler. She said she was A “BORN AGAIN CHRISTIAN” from Joliet and had moved to Springfield to stay with her aunt to attend school. At this time, I was the Clinical Instructor for St. John’s School of Respiratory Therapy. Miss Butler informed me that her father had gotten into drugs and abandoned her family when she was young and had not had any contact with him since he left. Sometime after we were married, Carol Beckham revealed to me that her father was imprisoned on drug charges. It was not until seeking custody of my daughter, Allison Beckham that I learned the real name of my ex-wife: Carol Eddington, the daughter of James Eddington, convicted of drug dealing and conspiracy to murder an undercover FBI agent and numerous felony convictions dating back to 1958 in Springfield, Illinois.
    In September of 1993, Defendant was seeking full custody of my then (6) six year old daughter, Allison Beckham from her mother, Carol Eddington-Butler-Beckham due to Mrs. Beckham and James Sullivan exposing Allison and her two other children, Amanda and Stephen to graphic sex, drug use, violence and being left alone with strangers for many days at a time. (Read Affidavit of Allison Beckham) Directly after filing for custody of Allison, I was arrested for manufacture/possession of cannabis with intent due to a conspiracy involving State’s Attorney, Gregory Grigsby in an to attempt to extort $100,000.00 to drop the charges against me. After a jury trial where my so-called defense counsel, Mike Metnick was in obvious collusion with the prosecutor, Defendant was convicted of both offenses 720 ILCS 550/8(d) and 720 ILCS 550/5(e). When I refused State‘s Attorney, Gregory Grigsby’s attempted extortion, Judge John Coady sentenced me to 4.5 years in prison and fined me $38,000.00 for the alleged cannabis plants of which, the court could never prove ever existed based on testimony by law enforcement officials along with the glaring fact that Prosecutor Grigsby produced no evidence a crime had been committed, much less, I committed the crime charged. ( Read Attached Court Records)
    During the jury selection phase of the criminal proceedings, Judge Coady excused the potential juror. Judge Coady stood up and proceeded to leave the jury selection room. As Judge Coady turned to his right to step up on the bench, Defendant observed Judge Coady turn back toward Defendant smiling. Prosecutor Gregory Grigsby then approached Defendant and stated, “Give me $100,000.00 and I will drop the charges against you.” Defendant told Prosecutor Grigsby to go to Hell. Counselor Michael Metnick stated, “We came here to try this case.” (Vol.IV.C. 1075) Through testimony of law enforcement officers, the charges against Patrick Buchanan, the only person living at the residence where the alleged cannabis was growing, where dropped by State’s Attorney, Gregory Grigsby (Vol.IV,C.991) U.S. v. Jones, N 4 In order to prove claim of selective prosecution, defendant bears heavy burden of showing: that he has been singled out for prosecution although others similarly situated who have committed the same acts have not been prosecuted; and that government’s selective prosecution of him has been constitutionally invidious. Id. at 924. Defendant asserts and reasserts he was prosecuted for the sole purpose of extortion of $100,000.00 from Defendant’s family by State’s Attorney, Gregory Grigsby. Defendant asserts and reasserts he was sentenced to 4.5 years in prison and fined $38,000.00 for a drug assessment of cannabis that Judge Coady could never prove existed, for refusing to comply with said extortion attempt. Officer Roy Wilbur testified at the trial Defendant had no toiletries, toothbrushes, shaving cream, or clothes indicating Defendant lived at the residence. And many witnesses that were available to testify that Defendant and his daughter, Allison were not living at the R.R. 2, Box 72, Edinburg, Illinois house at the time the house was raided by Christian County Police. (Vol.III,C.674-76,C.695) Otherwise, why did State’s Attorney Grigsby drop the charges against Patrick Buchanan, who by testimony of law enforcement officers the only person living at the R.R. 2, Box 72, Edinburg, Illinois residence when said residence was raided by Christian County Police?
    The United States Constitutional 14th Amendment guarantees: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    Defendant has yet to see a judge that has not been prejudiced and biased against him, proceeding pro se, in my relentless attempt to obtain a direct appeal in compliance with the 14th Amendment. Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 (1963) Held: “Where the merits of the one and only appeal an indigent has as of right are decided without benefit of counsel in a state criminal case, there has been a discrimination between the rich and the poor which violates the Fourteenth Amendment” Id. At 353-358.
    JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT/POLITICAL INTERFERENCE IN THE JUDICIAL PROCESS
    Democrat Chairman for Christian County, Jack Mazzotti’s Political Influence Denying Me the Right to a Direct Appeal

    Defendant was sentenced July 22, 1994. On August 22, 1994, Defendant filed, pro se, Motion for Reduction of Sentence. (Vol.1,C.12-13) after Counsel Metnick failed to file said motion to perfect Defendant’s appeal. Counsel Metnick stated in open court “Um, Mr. Beckham and his family have discussed an appeal with me and have expressed an intention to appeal the verdict, the ruling on the motion, um, and ‘sentence’.” (Emphasis added) (Vol.II,C.473) People v. Wilk, 124 Ill.2d 93, 529 N.E.2d 218 (Ill. 1988) “Obviously, the divisions of the appellate court do not want defendants to suffer because of the incompetence of counsel. To preclude this result, they have declared that failure to file a motion to perfect an appeal amounts to ineffective assistance of counsel.” Id. at 222. Justice Clark, concurring in part and dissenting in part, joined by Justice Stamos: “I also agree that the failure to file may constitute ineffective assistance (whether it is ineffective depending, in crucial measure, upon whether the defendant communicated to counsel a desire to appeal)”, Ante, at 225. People v. Reed, 282 Ill. App.3d 278, 668 N.E.2d 51 (Ill. App. 1 Dist. 1996) “Effective August 11, 1993, however, section 5-8-1(c) was amended to read as follows: ” ( c ) A motion to reduce a sentence may be made, or the court may reduce a sentence without motion, within 30 days after the sentence is imposed. A defendant’s challenge to the correctness of a sentence or to any aspect of the sentencing hearing ‘shall’ be made by a written motion filed within 30 days following the imposition of sentence,. . . we agree with the other panels of this court that have held that the amended statute creates a precondition for a defendant’s appeal of sentencing issues.” Ante. At 52-53. In People v. Macke, 224 Ill. App,3d 815, 587 N.E.2d 1113, 167 Ill. Dec. 498, the Court held, “Requiring a defendant to file a motion to reduce his sentence is similar to requiring a post-trial motion to preserve issues on appeal (Ill.Rev.Stat. 1989). Ch. 38, par. 116-1 (b) and requiring a defendant who pleads guilty to move to withdraw that plea before appealing. (134 Ill.2d R. 604 (d) .) Failure to file these motions denies the trial court the opportunity to correct any error that might have occurred and hereby burdens appellate counsels and the court of review with the time and expense of preparing and processing appeal.” Id at 114.
    In the case at bar, Defendant communicated a desire to prefect his appeal to counsel, subsequently, filed a Motion for Reduction of Sentence and accompanying documents, at which time, the Court stated, that, a notice of appeal was filed 8-12-94. As the court understands the law, the trial court no longer has jurisdiction of the case and cannot hear a Motion For Reduction of Sentence. If this understanding of the law is incorrect, the state’s attorney or defendant is ordered to immediately inform the court in writing of its error. The clerk is to mail a copy of this entry to the defendant and provide the state’s attorney a copy. (Vol.I,C.12-13) People v. Hook, 248 Ill. App.3d 16, 615 N.E.2d 6 (Ill. App. 2 dist. 1993) N.1 Reviewing court is stripped of jurisdiction when defendant files timely motion to reduce sentence after filing notice of appeal. Sup.Ct. Rules 309, 606(b); Ill. Rev. State. 1991, Ch. 38 § 1005-8-1 ( c ).
    After Defendant was incarcerated, Defendant called counsel Michael Metnick and asked counsel to represent Defendant on a motion for reduction of sentence. Since the 30 day time limit for filing a motion for reduction of sentence was soon approaching, and Defendant had not received conformation from counsel Metnick, Defendant filed the motion for reduction of sentence, pro se. (Vol.1,C,12-13)
    Affiant, Gertie Beckham, arranged to have Defendant call Mike Metnick collect from prison concerning counsel Metnick’s representation for Defendant’s Motion for Reduction of Sentence. Affiant was present in counsel Metnick’s office when Defendant called. Counsel Metnick displayed the forms for an amended motion of reduction of sentence, and the four forms that Affiant’s daughter-in-law, Terrie Beckham had faxed counsel Metnick. (See par. 28, affidavit of Gertie Beckham) Three months later, counsel Metnick sent Affiant a letter stating. “There is no state court mechanism for a reduction of sentence.” (See attached to Gertie Beckham’s affidavit correspondence dated November 3, 1994 from counsel Metnick)
    My late beloved Mother, Gerite Beckham had done business with Rene’s Pharmacy since our family had moved to Christian County in 1954. Mrs. Beckham considered the members of the Mazzotti Family to be her friends. Mrs. Beckham had spoke with Jack Mazzotti, Democrat Chairman for Christian County and owner of Rene’s Pharmacy on several occasions concerning the conspiracy that lead to Defendant’s illegal conviction.
    When Defendant was released from the Decatur Work Release Center and placed on home monitor, Defendant’s mother, Gertie Beckham arranged a meeting with Defendant and Democrat Chairman for Christian County, Jack Mazzotti to discuss defendant’s intention to file in the trial court, a Petition for Post Conviction Relief. Defendant informed Democrat Chairman, Jack Mazzotti, the criminal conspiracy that led to Defendant’s illegal arrest, trial and conviction. Defendant discussed the many constitutional issues defendant planned to raise in his Post Conviction Petition with Chairman Jack Mazzotti. Defendant was instructed by his Mother, Gertie Beckham, to write Chairman Mazzotti a letter. In the letter to Chairman Mazzotti, Defendant complained of the incompetence of counsel Michael Metnick and especially the
    incompetence concerning Defendant’s Motion for Reduction of Sentence. During my first meeting with Mr. Mazzotti, he gave me the letter I sent him from prison. (See attached letter to Chairman Mazzotti)
    One evening when I arrived Rene’s Pharmacy, Taylorville, Illinois for a meeting with Jack Mazzotti, owner of Rene’s Pharmacy, I noticed several men in suits sitting at a round table to my left next to the wall where refreshments are served to patrons waiting for their prescriptions to be filled. Chairman Jack Mazzotti explained to me that the men where circuit court judges and justices from the Fifth Appellate Court that were meeting to decide rulings on pending cases. I looked over the group of judges trying to see if I recognized any of them. At this time, I never recognized any of the judges sitting at the round table. One large heavy set man was sitting across the round table facing my direction. During one of my trips to Mt. Vernon, Fifth Appellate Court to file motions in pursuit of appealing the denial of my Post Conviction Petition, I recognized the large, heavy set man I saw in Rene’s Pharmacy walking down the hall of the Fifth Appellate Court building. I asked the clerk of the court the name of the large, heavy set man. She replied,” Justice Goldenhersh.” Justice Goldenhersh wrote the opinion that my Post Conviction Petition was time barred. Obviously, Justice Goldenhersh already decided the fate of my pro se, Post Conviction Petition before I filed the petition in the trial court. Defendant asserts that, one of the issues that was discussed with Democrat Chairman Jack Mazzotti was the fact that, State’s Attorney Gregory Grigsby, during the time of the jury selection, in the presence of counsel Michael Metnick, had attempted to solicit a bribe from defendant for $100,000.00 in order to drop the charges against defendant.
    Defendant asserts, that Democrat Chairman for Christian County, Jack Mazzotti had guaranteed Defendant that he would arrange with Judge John Coady to vacate defendant’s criminal conviction after Defendant filed his pro se, Post Conviction Petition. Chairman Jack Mazzotti instructed Defendant to file his Post Conviction Petition to the attention of Judge John Coady. (See attacked cover, Post Conviction Petition)
    Defendant asserts, that, since Democrat Chairman, Jack Mazzotti had guaranteed Defendant that he would make arrangements with Judge John Coady for Defendant’s conviction to be vacated, defendant was sure he could file his Post Conviction Petition without concern for any time limitations. Defendant asserts, that, Democrat Chairman for Christian County, Jack Mazzoti informed defendant that he needed some time to review Defendant’s pro se, Post Conviction Petition in order to edit any issues that he did not want raised in the Post Conviction Petition before Defendant filed said petition. Chairman Jack Mazzoti expressed his concern that some issues concerning the criminal conspiracy that led to Defendant’s illegal arrest, trial, and conviction may reach the news media and cause harm to his Democrat Party’s monopoly over the citizens in Christian County .
    After some time had passed since Defendant gave a rough copy of his Post Conviction Petition to Democrat Chairman for Christian County, Jack Mazzoti, Defendant conferred with Chairman Jack Mazzotti to discuss the issues Defendant had raised in his Post Conviction Petition. Chairman Jack Mazzotti informed Defendant that, due to State’s Attorney Gregory Grigsby’s arrest for possession with intent to deliver, cocaine, that, the Democrat Party was through with Prosecutor Grigsby since the most of the citizens of Christian County had become aware of his arrest for drugs. (Prosecutor Grigsby was never prosecuted in any court after his arrest for narcotics.) Chairman Mazzotti instructed Defendant to file his Post Conviction Petition in the trial court with the issue of State’s Attorney Gregory Grigsby’s attempted solicitation of a bribe. Chairman Jack Mazzotti further instructed Defendant to call him soon after Defendant filed his pro se Post Conviction Petition; in order to make sure defendant’s conviction was vacated by Judge John Coady.
    On or about (3) three days after defendant filed his pro se, Post Conviction Petition, Defendant called Democrat Chairman Jack Mazzotti and informed him that Defendant filed his post conviction petition in the trial court. Chairman Jack Mazzoti asked Defendant if he had raised the issue of State’s Attorney Gregory Grigsby’s attempted solicitation of a bribe of $100,000.00 in order to drop the charges against defendant. Defendant explained to Chairman Jack Mazzoti that he kept the issue of the attempted solicitation of a bribe in his post conviction petition as he had instructed. Chairman Jack Mazzotti then began screaming and cursing at Defendant, stating that Defendant should not have raised the issue of the attempted solicitation of a bribe. Defendant attempted to explain to Chairman Jack Mazzotti that he had instructed Defendant to raise the issues of attempted solicitation of a bribe, but Chairman Jack Mazzotti would not allow Defendant to speak. Chairman Jack Mazzotti then informed Defendant that because of his political influence, Defendant would never obtain any relief from his post conviction petition in either state, or federal courts.
    The following represents indisputable evidence that Defendant was denied any meaningful access to the courts because of Democrat Chairman for Christian County, Jack Mazzotti’s influence on the following judges/justices.
    Judge Ronald Spears. Judge Middendorff
    Judge Ronald Spears is the Deacon at Bethel Baptist Church, Edinburg, Illinois. Judge Spears and his wife, Annette Spears regularly attend services at Bethel Baptist Church. Defendant’s Mother, Gertie Beckham, Defendant’s daughter, Allison Beckham are also members of Bethel Baptist Church and attended services along with Defendant.
    When Defendant was released on home monitor, Defendant and his Mother, Gerite Beckham proceeded to gain guardianship of Defendant’s daughter from Defendant’s ex-wife, Carol Eddington-Butler-Beckham-Disney of Allison Beckham. Annette Spears, wife of Judge Ronald Spears, informed Defendant’s Mother, Gertie Beckham that she would help Mrs. Beckham gain guardianship of Defendant’s daughter through her influence being the wife of Judge Spears on condition that Defendant’s daughter, Allison Beckham would spend time with Mrs. Spears going shopping and other activities. Defendant’s daughter, Allison Beckham later informed Defendant and Defendant’s Mother, Gertie Beckham that during these activities with Judge Spears wife, Annette Spears, Mrs. Spears would always prod Allison Beckham concerning her wanting to adopt Allison and wanting Allison to live with her family. Allison Beckham explained to Defendant and his Mother, Gertie Beckham that she waited until after the supervised visits with her ex-mother to inform them of the foregoing, Carol Beckham fearing that Judge Davison would force her to live with Mrs. Eddinton-Beckham and her live in boyfriend, Jim Sullivan. Allison Beckham feared again, that Mrs. Beckham and Mr. Sullivan would force her to watch pornography videos; watch Mrs. Beckham and Mr. Sullivan have sex; be left with strangers for days at a time; and feared that she would get physically abused when her Mrs. Beckham, Jim Sullivan, James Eddington and others would become violent after drinking alcohol with using illegal drugs.
    CANON I “An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing, and should personally observe, high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved. The provisions of this Code should be construed and applied to further that objective.” Ibid. CANON 2 A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All of the Judge’s Activities A. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should conduct himself or herself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
    B. A judge should not allow the judge’s family, social, or other relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment. A judge should not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of others; nor should a judge convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. A judge should not testify voluntarily as a character witness. Ibid.
    Judge Spears and his wife, Annette Spears violated the above Canons in their pursuit of attempting to adopt Defendant’s daughter, Allison Beckham by conspiring with Judge Middendorff to “get rid” of Defendant’s Post Conviction Petition after Judge Joy docketed the petition pursuant to 725 ILCS 5/122-2.1(b) leaving Defendant convicted of an alleged crime he did not commit, and unable to provide support for his daughter, Allison Beckham.
    During the hearing on Defendant’s pro se, Motion for Rehearing on denial of Defendant’s Post Conviction Petition, Defendant had before the court, affidavits that had been filed the same date of the court’s ruling, 9/17/96, which stated “The defendant accuses each of his attorneys of ineffective assistance, which he attributes to conflict of interest. None of these claims are [sic] supported by the attachment of affidavits or any other instruments of proof. Copy of Judge’s docket entry dated 9/17/96 furnished to State’s Attorney and Defendant. (Vol.IV,C.1173) (Vol.I,C.14A-E) At no time did the court appoint counsel, even though defendant had filed a Motion To Proceed In Forma Pauperis And Appointment Of Counsel. (Vol.IV,C.1170)
    During the hearing on the Motion for Rehearing From Denial of Defendant’s Post Conviction Petition, Defendant stated that the Court errored by not allowing the trial judge to rule on the petition; and that, the record did not reflect any administrative ruling assigning the cause before any judge. (Vol.IV,C.1209) In contradiction Judge Middendorff states, “a different judge can’t come in and sit in review of my order.”; however, by not appointing counsel, Judge Dennis M. Middendorff has done exactly that. Judge Middendorff created a procedure not authorized under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act. Nothing in the Act gives one judge the power to “review and reverse” another trial judge’s decision to docket a post-conviction petition for further consideration under the Act. Once Judge Joy declined to dismiss defendant’s post-conviction petition as have as having merit, the other provisions of the Post-conviction Hearing Act were triggered and defendant was entitled, inter alia, to appointed counsel.
    In total contradiction to the Post-Conviction Hearing Act, by over ruling Hon. Judge Joy’s ruling, ‘docketing’ the petition under 725 ILCD 5/122-2.1(b) and not appointing counsel; the Court in essence caused the denial of appointed counsel to be double-flawed. Defendant filed post-conviction petition on August 22, 1996; the petition was docketed under 725 ILCD 5/122-2.1(b) on September 5, 1996; on September 10, 1996, the State filed a motion to dismiss; a different trial judge, ‘denied’ the petition after considering constitutional issues; on September 17, 1996; on March 18, 1997, the Court stated, “Now, Judge Joy, reviewed your petition and did docket the matter for hearing. But then Judge Joy recused himself (The record does not reflect Judge Joy recused himself) almost immediately after making that finding and I was appointed to hear this case. I have the right to review Judge Joy’s ruling and under those circumstances, and I did in fact review judge Joy’s ruling and determined that Judge Joy’s ruling was in fact in error because Judge Joy did not consider the question of whether your petition was timely filed.” By the fact that, Judge Middendorff, has at this time claimed to have over-ruled Judge Joy’s docketing the petition, this would trigger the 90 day rule. People v. Oury, 259 Ill.App3d 663, 631 N.E.2d 822 (Ill.App. 2 Dist. 1994) “Some 10 years ago, the legislature amended the Act by adding section 122-2.1 to provide that, without further input from the State or further pleadings from the defendant, the trial court was to determine whether a defendant’s petition was frivolous or patently without merit.” Id. at 825. In the case at bar, the State filed a motion in regard to the petition being untimely; thus, Defendant was entitled to appointment of counsel. In the case at bar, Defendant’s petition was decided two times to have withstood ‘dismissal’; ” a petition “‘ need only contain a simple statement which presents the gist of a claim for relief which is meritorious when considered in view of the record of the trial court proceedings.'” Oury, Ibid. at 825. People v. Saunders, 261 Ill.App.3d 700, 633 N.E.2d 1340,1343 (2d Dist. 1994) “Because the trial court never determined, within the time prescribed, whether to dismiss summarily the petition pursuant to section 122-2.1(a) (2), it was without the power to do so at the original hearing, and it may not do so on remand.” Ibid. In the interim approximately (7) seven months passed; notwithstanding, procedural law dictated that, Defendant should have had counsel appointed upon Judge Robert E. Davison ruling on constitutional issues; (Vol.IV,C.1059-60 likewise, upon Judge Joy docketing petition pursuant to 725 ILCS 5/122-2.1(b).
    Defendant filed, Petition For Post Conviction relief and Memorandum In Support Of Post Conviction Petition, 8/22/96. (Vol.I,C.14) (Vol.IV,C.974-1057) Defendant addressed the petition to the presiding judge that presided at the conviction, Judge John Coady pursuant to Democrat Chairman for Christian County, as Chairman Jack Mazzotti had instructed. People v. Wilson, 37 Ill.2d 617, 230 N.E.2D 194 (Supreme Court Sept. 29, 1967) “the trial judge who heard the cause in the first instance presumably would know whether the facts sought to be presented in the supplementary proceeding are facts which were unknown to the court at the time of judgment was entered and which, if known, would have precluded the entry of judgment,” Id. at 196. In the case at bar, no entry reflecting the chief judge made assignments to any other judge other than Judge John Coady. 730 ILCS 5/10-124 (1) Where the court has exceeded the limit of its jurisdiction, either as to the ‘matter’, place, sum or person. Ibid. Moreover, no request for recusal was made; therefore, all entries made thereafter is void and null. In Re Dominique F, 145 Ill.2d 311, 583 N.E.2d 555 (Ill. 1991) “Where a petition for change of venue is timely filed and in proper form, it must be granted and any order entered after its presentation is a nullity. Id at 561. People v. Joseph, 133 Ill.2d 36, 494 N.E.2d 501 (Ill. 1986) N.6 “Authority of judge designated as administrative judge of county by chief judge of Ninth Circuit, to assign post conviction petitions in case, even though he had presided over original jury trial in which defendant had been convicted of murder, flowed directly from provisions of Constitution, Supreme Court rule governing Appellate Court and circuit court rules and general order. S.H.S. ch 38, ¶ 122-8; ch. 11oA, ¶¶ 21, 21 (a,b) Id. RULES OF PRACTICE CIRCUIT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT. Rule 2. JUDICIAL ADMINISTATION. 2-2 acting Chief Judge: The Chief Judge shall designate one of the Circuit Judges to act as Chief Judge in his absence, who shall have the same powers and duties as Chief Judge. Id. The record does not reflect any order assigning the case to any judge; the record arbitrarily reflects, “Judge Spears recuses himself. Case assigned to Judge Davison.” (Vol.I,C.14) The Hon. Judge Robert E. Davison, filed a Order of Recusal; then ruled of Constitutional issues… The Chief Judge of the fourth Judicial Circuit will be notified today, by letter, of this Order,” (Vol.IV,C.1059-60) Again, the record does not reflect the chief judge appointing any judge; however the next entry by the Hon. Judge Joy states: “The Court orders the Post Conviction Petition docketed pursuant to 725 ILCS 5/122-2.1 (b)-The state is granted 30 days to answer or move to dismiss-Clerk to notify Petitioner & SA.” (Vol.IV,C.14) The State filed Motion To Dismiss; (Vol.IV,C.14) Hon. Judge Dennis M. Middendorff, entered an order ‘denying’ defendant’s Post Conviction Petition after ruling on Constitutional issues, 9/17/96; together with the State’s Motion to Dismiss without appointing counsel as required by the Act.
    After Defendant received Judge Middendorff’s Order denying Defendant’s Post Conviction Petition, Defendant went to the circuit clerk’ s office to review the court records. Defendant asked Beverly, a clerk of the circuit clerks office, where Judge Middenforff presides, and inquired if there was such a judge that was in the Fourth Judicial Circuit. The clerk responded that Judge Ronald Spears called Judge Middendorff from Carlyle, Illinois and asked him if he would come up to Taylorville and “get rid” of defendant’s Post Conviction Petition.
    ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION
    KNOW THY ENEMIES
    Defendant had worked in his chosen professional field of work as a Respiratory Therapist after graduating First in his Class from St. John’s School of Respiratory Therapy on August, 1979, then ranked fourth in the United States. Defendant started working for St. John’s Hospital on October 15, 1979.
    On January 1, 1996, congress passed The Respiratory Care Practice Act. The Act provided for disciplinary action against a licensed Respiratory Therapist, or refusal to issue a license pursuant to: 225 ILCS 106/95(3) Conviction of any crime under the laws of the Unites States or any state or territory thereof that is a felony or misdemeanor, an essential element of which is dishonesty, or of any crime that is directly related to the practice of the profession. Id
    Defendant had applied for his Respiratory Care License in 1997 stating to the effect, that refusal to issue his license would violate the ex post facto clause of the U.S. Constitution and Illinois Constitution and at no time, violated the above grounds for disciplinary action.
    After many letter writings and phone calls, Defendant was finally granted a Preliminary Hearing concerning Defendant’s application for his respiratory license. Before issuing Defendant’s respiratory therapy license, the Illinois Department of Professional Regulation’s (I.D.P.R.) attorney wanted to place Defendant’s license under an “ Indefinite Probation Status”. During this preliminary hearing, Defendant gave the IDPR. Attorney a copy of Defendant’s pro se, Post Conviction Petition. Now codified and amended in Defendant’s pro se, Motion to Dismiss pursuant to 725 ILCS 5/114-1 filed on or about April 7, 2006 and then filed Motion to Supplement and Amend Motion to Dismiss on September 20, 2007.
    After Defendant refused to be placed on an “Indefinite Probation”, Defendant was finally granted a formal hearing. After the formal hearing, the parties agreed that Defendant would submit to (1) year probation term; (4) random drug screenings and (10) CEU’S in addition to the required (24) CEU’S . The order further stated that, “If the screenings are negative, then no further action should be taken, and the probation restriction removed from Petitioner’s license. Director of the I.D.P.R., Leonard A Sherman signed the order dated October 30, 2000.
    After Defendant completed the agreed (1) year probation period, he finally received his license on or June of 2001 after writing a letter to Administrative Law Judge, Howe, that he was under extreme duress that would be terminated from his job at Neumann’s Home Care, Dekalb, Illinois if he did not receive his license. About (2) weeks later, Defendant received his Respiratory Care Practioner’s License.
    On or about December 21, 2001, Defendant accepted a position as Home Care Manager with Symphony Respiratory Services. Due to problems associated with Symphony Respiratory Services past bankruptcy, the home care store closed.
    On or about December 2003, Defendant’s former Director for Symphony Respiratory Services, William Gardner called Defendant and informed him that a “disciplined” had been placed on the internet while doing an internet license search on the I.D.P.R. website. Director Gardner further explained that on or about December 21, 2001, as a condition for hiring Defendant for the Home Care Manager’s position, there was no disciplined status on the IDPR website under Defendant’s license. Defendant had applied to over (164) health care organizations and received only one response from Delnor Hospital were he received a harsh tongue lashing for being disciplined in the year 2000 during an interview. It would be absurd not to recognize the replacement of the “Probation Restriction” on Defendant’s respiratory license to be a harsh determinate for Defendant to ever gain any meaningful employment in his chosen professional field.
    The Home Care Manager position in which I was hired in 2001 would be the last real job Defendant would ever obtain being forced to work for temporary medical staffing agencies having to drive over 100 miles, one way through Chicago’s horrendous traffic.
    Defendant, after making several phone calls and letter writing including a Freedom of Information Request to the IDPR, filed, pro se, suit in the Northern District Federal court requesting the IDPR comply with Director’s Sherman order to remove the probation restriction.
    During the process of this case, it has been alleged, that, Megon O. Maine, Assistant Attorney General representing defendant IDPR, drove down to Christian County Illinois and prompted the Probation Department and Judge Coady to seek payment of the drug assessment fine, of which count was vacated during the first appeal. Her effort was to stop Defendant from pursuing his law suit against the IDPR. She was successful and therefore the reason Defendant was able to bring to the court’s attention, the Motion for Reduction of Sentence was still pending in the trial court. Although illegal, I would like to thank Assistant Attorney General, Megon O. Maine for finally allowing me access to the trial court.
    JUDGE ROBERTS
    Judge Coady recused himself from defendant’s case on defendant’s Motion to Substitute Judge Coady for Cause.
    On September 20, 2007, after my pro se, fruitless attempt to obtain an impartial judge by first filing Motion to Substitute All Judges in the Fourth Judicial Circuit, thereafter, petitioning the Illinois Supreme and the United States Supreme Court to appoint an impartial judge as required by the 14th Amendment, Judge James Roberts, former prosecutor and personal friend of former State’s Attorney and extortionist, Gregory Grigsby, Defendant was finally allowed a hearing on his amended, pro se, Motion for Reduction of Sentence by the State’s Motion to Strike said motion by Judge James Roberts of the Fourth Judicial Circuit. The Illinois Supreme Court had previously complied with other defendant’s Motion to Substitute All Judges in their prospective circuits in People v. Craig, 313 Ill. App.3d 104, 105, 728 N.E. 2 nd 1288, 1289 (2000), People v. Saltzman, 342 Ill.App.3d 929, 796 N.E. 2d 653, 277 Ill.Dec. 567.
    During the hearing on the State’s Motion to Strike defendant’s pro se, Motion for Reduction of Sentence, the State could not overcome defendant’s arguments so Judge Roberts took up the State’s cause. Judge Roberts tended to agree with Defendant’s arguments, specifically, Defendants Ineffective Assistance of Trial and Appellate Counsels for failure to perfect Defendant’s appeal. People v. Wilk, 124 Ill.2d 93, 529 N.E.2d 218 (Ill. 1988) “Obviously, the divisions of the appellate court do not want defendants to suffer because of the incompetence of counsel. To preclude this result, they have declared that failure to file a motion to perfect an appeal amounts to ineffective assistance of counsel.” Id. at 222. Justice Clark, concurring in part and dissenting in part, joined by Justice Stamos: “I also agree that the failure to file may constitute ineffective assistance (whether it is ineffective depending, in crucial measure, upon whether the defendant communicated to counsel a desire to appeal)”, Ante, at 225.
    On September 20, 2007, defendant filed Motion to Supplement and Amend Motion to Dismiss. On October 31, 2007, Judge Roberts noted that he was still reviewing and considering issues on Motions and pending issues further Ct status 11/16/07 @ 9:am. On November 16, 2007, Judge Roberts entry: Per Judge Roberts, status continued to December 17, 2007 at 10:00 A.M. No one needs notice, paper work for Judge Roberts only.
    Some time later, after defendant had not heard anything from Judge Roberts, Defendant drove down to Edinburg to visit friends and relatives. Defendant went to the Circuit Clerk’s office to enquire of the status of his filed motions. Defendant was greeted by a newly elected circuit clerk that informed defendant that Judge Roberts has ordered Defendant’s case closed.
    Therefore, Defendant has presented a clear denial of his right to due process and equal protection of the law.

    FIFTH APPELLATE JUSTICES
    1. Justice Richard Goldenhersh
    2. Justice Thomas Welch
    3. Justice Kuehn
    Defendant moved the Fifth Appellate Court to appoint an Appellate Defender from the Fourth Appellate Court and the Court approved said motion appointing Judith Libby, Appellate Defender for the Fourth Appellate.
    Defendant, being forced to proceed pro se due to Judith Libby, Appellate Defender for the Fourth Appellate Court, refused to raise the issues of ineffective assistance of defense counsels Thomas Lacy, Edward Graham and Michael Metnick; Deputy Defender for the Fifth Appellate Court; Daniel M. Kirwin, and Appellate Defender Dan Evers in his Post Conviction Petition for failure to comply with appellate procedure pursuant to Defendant’ pro se, Motion for Reduction of Sentence by filing his appeal from denial of his pro se, Post Conviction Petition in the Fourth Appellate Court. Appellate Defender, Judith Libby did not believe Defendant was entitled to his Fourth, Fifth , Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights afforded by all other defendants. (C-1012-1016,1076)
    Defendant was sentenced July 22, 1994. On August 22, 1994, Defendant filed, pro se, Motion for Reduction of Sentence. (Vol.1,C.12-13) after Counsel Metnick failed to file said motion to perfect Defendant’s appeal. Counsel Metnick stated in open court “Um, Mr. Beckham and his family have discussed an appeal with me and have expressed an intention to appeal the verdict, the ruling on the motion, um, and ‘sentence’.” (Emphasis added) (Vol.II,C.473) (See enclosed Affidavit of Gertie and Ricky Beckham and other supporting documents)
    Defendant first raised ineffective assistance of counsel for failure file Motion for Reduction of Sentence in pro se, Post Conviction Petition filed August 22, 1996 based on the Fifth Appellate Court’s opinion in People v. Macke, 224 Ill. App,3d 815, 587 N.E.2d 1113, 167 Ill. Dec. 498, the Court held, “Requiring a defendant to file a motion to reduce his sentence is similar to requiring a post-trial motion to preserve issues on appeal (Ill.Rev.Stat. 1989). Ch. 38, par. 116-1 (b) and requiring a defendant who pleads guilty to move to withdraw that plea before appealing. (134 Ill.2d R. 604 (d) .) Failure to file these motions denies the trial court the opportunity to correct any error that might have occurred and hereby burdens appellate counsels and the court of review with the time and expense of preparing and processing appeal.” Id at 114. ( See attached section Post Conviction Petition)
    On January 22, 1999, Justice Goldenhersh, Justice Welch and Justice Kuehn of the Fifth Appellate Court issued a slip opinion in People v. Everage, IlI.App.3d_, _N.E.2d _(5th Dist. No. 5-98-0371. (1/22/99) and is now a published opinion cited as People v. Everage, 712 N.E.2d 830 (Ill.App. 5 Dist. 1999) which held, “The statute clearly provides that if a post-sentencing motion is timely filed, then the circuit court is required to consider the motion, and for purposes of perfecting an appeal, no final judgment shall be considered entered until the motion is disposed of by order entered by the trial court. Read together, Supreme Court Rule 606(b) and section 58-( c) provide that if a “motion directed against the judgment” is timely filed, in this case, a post sentencing motion, the appeal period is tolled until that motion is ruled upon. Id at 832. The Everage, Court, citing People v. Reed, 177 Il1.2d 389, 394, 226 Ill. Dec. 801, 686 N.E.2d 584, 586 (1997) “The court noted that requiring a written post sentencing motion allows the trial court the opportunity to review a defendant’s contention of sentencing error and saves the delay and expense inherent in an appeal if the are meritorious. Such a motion focuses the attention of the trial court and gives the appellate court the benefit of the trial court’s reasoned judgment on those issues. Reed, 177 Ill.2d at394, 226 Ill.Dec. 801,686 N.E.2d at 586.
    Defendant again raised the issue that Counsel Michael Metnick refused to file Motion for Reduction of Sentence in his pro se, appeal from denial of his Post Conviction Petition. (See attached documents)
    In Defendant’s appeal to the Fifth Appellate Court from ‘denial’ of his pro se, Post Conviction Petition; (See exhibit B pages 107-111,117-125) the State raised the issue of Defendant’s pro se, Motion for Reduction of Sentence in their Brief and Argument for Plaintiff-Appellee. (See exhibit C pages 5-7) Defendant again raised the issues that the trial court still had jurisdiction to hear Defendant’s, pro se Motion for Reduction of Sentence in Defendant’s Reply Brief for Defendant-Appellant. (See exhibit D pages 10-14 of Reply Brief) Defendant again raised the issue of that the trial court maintained jurisdiction in his Petition for Rehearing in the Fifth Appellate Court. (See exhibit E pages 1-4 Petition for Rehearing)
    The Justices of the Fifth Appellate court ignored the well briefed issue of Defendant’s pro se, pending Motion for Reduction of Sentence along with other Constitutional issues and instead ruled defendant’s Post Conviction Petition was time barred. (See exhibit F)
    Defendant still proceeding pro se, raised this issue in his Petition for Leave to Appeal in the Illinois Supreme Court to utilize their supervisory powers to remand the case to the trial court for a hearing on Defendant’s pro se, Motion for Reduction of Sentence. (See exhibit G pages 1, 18-20) The Illinois Supreme Court subsequently denied defendant’s pro se, Petition for Leave to Appeal. The Trial Court; Fifth Appellate Court and the Illinois Supreme Court has a duty to recognize their jurisdiction. “A reviewing court has a duty to consider its jurisdiction and to dismiss an appeal if jurisdiction is lacking.” People v. Theis, 220 Ill. App.3d 24, 25, 580 N.E.2d 547, 548 (1991) People v. Hook, 248 Ill. App.3d 16, 615 N.E.2d 6 (Ill. App. 2 dist. 1993) N.1 Reviewing court is stripped of jurisdiction when defendant files timely motion to reduce sentence after filing notice of appeal. Sup.Ct. Rules 309, 606(b); Ill. Rev. State. 1991, Ch. 38 § 1005-8-1 ( c ). People v. Reed, 282 Ill. App.3d 278, 668 N.E.2d 51 (Ill. App. 1 Dist. 1996) “Effective August 11, 1993, however, section 5-8-1(c) was amended to read as follows: ” ( c ) A motion to reduce a sentence may be made, or the court may reduce a sentence without motion, within 30 days after the sentence is imposed. A defendant’s challenge to the correctness of a sentence or to any aspect of the sentencing hearing ‘shall’ be made by a written motion filed within 30 days following the imposition of sentence,. . . we agree with the other panels of this court that have held that the amended statute creates a precondition for a defendant’s appeal of sentencing issues.” Ante. At 52-53. The issue of appellate jurisdiction has been well settled in case law. Cohen v. Virginia, 19 (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821) which stated, “A judge who acts where he does not have jurisdiction is engaged in treason upon the Constitution.” Ibid.
    Therefore, the judges of the Fourth Judicial Circuit and Fifth Appellate Court have committed acts of treason upon the Constitution by denying Defendant the right to due process and equal protection of the law; the fundamental right to a direct appeal of his illegal conviction based in part on “actual innocence” of which means, I did not have anything to do with the alleged crime.
    Defendant asserts that, the Honorable Judge Steven P. Seymour ruled June 28, 2004, that the trial court retained jurisdiction to hear defendant’s Motion for Reduction of Sentence; that everything filed after the filing of said motion was void; and that all relevant case law pursuant to Defendant’s Motion for Reduction since the filing of said motion, was relevant to this date. (See Transcripts of June 28, hearing, December 28, 2004 pages 24-34)

    Comment by Rick Beckham — December 10, 2011 @ 3:03 am

  2. Illinois Courts approve Robo-signed summons, against Illinois Law.

    I’ve put together a website showing what happened:
    https://sites.google.com/site/robosummons/

    Please get the word out to stop judges from following the banks agenda.

    Comment by Joe Varan — January 15, 2012 @ 1:49 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: