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 Jan 13, 2016, 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

May 20, 2014

Cook County court clerk misconduct and incompetence – letter to Cook County Board President


Board President Preckwinkle kindly replied and said she is continuing to try to achieve changes, but does not have the authority to change several things or obtain documents owed to me.

April 22, 2014
Madam Tony Preckwinkle
President Cook County Board of Commissioners
118 N. Clark St Rm 537
Chicago, IL 60602

Re: Court & Clerk Systemic and Criminal Violation of Law

Dear Pres. Preckwinkle:

This letter is to inform you of criminal systemic “errors” by the Court Clerk and Judges that need to be corrected as well as systemic fraud upon criminal defendants amounting to stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars – millions over decades, without due process of law.

In criminal cases, when a defendant does not show up in court a BFW (Preliminary Bond Forfeiture, Warrant) is issued. Then the defendant has 30 days to show up and have the preliminary bond forfeiture quashed or it becomes final.

Many defendants have good excuse not to have shown up in court – for example: 1) they are hospitalized; 2) they are in custody and the Sheriff refused to bring them to court – because the sheriff is not aware of other court cases or dates unless the court provides them a mittimus paper; 3) there was a death or birth in the family – its hard to be in court if your wife is in the delivery room; or 4) they are on active duty in the military and are out of the country. Then they bring proof of the above to the court and the judge quashes the BFW.

However, the Clerks systemically make the following errors:

1) Instead of writing “preliminary bond forfeiture” = pBFW, they write that this is a final bond forfeiture = BFW, which is transmitted to the Illinois State Police and FBI criminal databases such as LEADS and are used by prosecutors to argue for high bail due to “flight risk”.

2) The judges although they order the warrant to be quashed, they fail to order the bond forfeiture to be quashed.

3) The Clerk therefore fails to write that the bond forfeiture was quashed.

4) If the defendant doesn’t show up for court the Clerk and judge fail to write that this is a final bond forfeiture.

Therefore, on the State Police rap sheets, all preliminary bond forfeitures, even if quashed and warrant quashed for a good reason, state that the preliminary bond forfeiture is a final bond forfeiture. This forever defames the defendant.

This means that when a judge looks at a rap sheet in order to decide bail on a future case, they set fraudulently high bails as they use these “bond forfeitures” that have been quashed as reason to set an exorbitantly high bail rationalizing that the defendant is a “flight risk”.

For example: because I had four (4) “preliminary bond forfeitures” which had been quashed because I was hospitalized each time listed on rap sheet as final bond forfeiture, Judge Daly at Bridgeview set my bail on a MISDEMEANOR case at $50,000 instead of at $1,000 in 2009. Therefore, I was unconstitutionally jailed because I could not pay the bail.

This means my family had to pay $5,000 to get me out of jail (I later won the case) and the court Clerk kept $500. This was theft of my funds as the bond order was void because it was based on false information. I expect this high bail to be vacated nunc pro tunc and the $500 returned. I would prefer the County to take initiative and correct these things, but I doubt they will.

The rap sheets are providing judges false information and this is costing defendants dearly in excessively high bails and wrongful incarceration. I intend to have all these fraudulent bail orders vacated and the Clerk of your court will then owe me a lot of money.

Please make sure that Clerk Dorothy Brown immediately does something to correct these errors. I had a meeting with Dorothy Brown in Dec. 2009 with an attorney as a witness. I told her about the above and she has failed to correct the errors. This means Clerk Dorothy Brown is knowingly and willingly keeping false and incorrect records, each act of which is a class A misdemeanor crime , as you know. I will be filing court pleadings to have all my dockets corrected to reflect this. The number of incorrect court records is staggering as this has been going on for decades. Nine of my cases have such errors. All of my 35+ criminal cases are false arrests in retaliation for my complaints and whistle blowing activities, as well as for my blogs and assistance to other litigants against the state and their officers and judges.

Also note that technically the Illinois bail bond law is unconstitutional as it ties the fee for a fixed service (processing of bond) to the bail amount. Thus someone who is found not guilty after five years of murder and who paid $100,000 bond to get out owes the County $10,000 for processing one bond, while a guilty drug addict who paid $200 to get out on bond only owes the County $20 for the exact same service (processing of bond). This is fraud and denial of equal protection concerning right to property (money), which cannot be taken without due process of law. This is no different than Medicare fraud when a billing agent for a doctor charge by percentage of the doctor’s income instead of per bill processed. You cannot tie the fee for a fixed service to the value of services, labor, or property provided or owned by others. Many billing agents have been sent to federal prison for Medicare fraud. Isn’t the County unknowingly doing the same thing and harming its citizens?

Please be informed of a very serious criminal act going on by the Clerks at Bridgeview courthouse. The cost of a certified computer docket is $9. Any clerk you go to at any other courthouse will print out the docket and charge $9 as the Court Clerk’s web site states.

I wrote Clerk Brown in 2012 and the following is part of the letter:

“I went to Bridgeview Courthouse on 2/10/12 to the civil clerk and asked for two certified docket printouts on case numbers 10 P 006117 and 11-M5-000940. The Clerk said the charge for this 78 page docket and about 15 page docket was $9.00 PER PAGE or about $702 and $135. As you know, your charge is $9.00 per docket regardless of the length of the docket. $837 is a lot different than $18.

This is an $819 overcharge.

It is likely that some people have been inhibited in filing expungements or appeals due to this continuing practice of gross overcharges. This is doing great harm to litigants.

This is massive extortion. All your other clerks at other courthouses charge $9.00 per docket, not per page. Someone has dropped the ball and is not supervising Bridgeview properly or someone at Bridgeview is stealing this money and pocketing it. You must immediately investigate and take action to correct this.

I confirmed with all the clerks present that they actually have been charging the public $9.00 per page for a certified print-out of a single current case docket, instead of $9.00 per docket regardless of number of pages. I suspect someone is embezzling the money as your auditors or supervisors would have caught such a gross error.

I even asked Mr. Blumberg to call your Chief Counsel and he came back and said he spoke to Ms. Demos and she confirmed that the charge was $9.00 per page!

I paid for just the last page certified of each of the above two dockets. I demand that you immediately send by overnight mail the rest of the docket that I paid for.

Your clerks at the Daley Center and other courthouses are charging the appropriate $9.00 per certified case docket.

Attached is Mr. Blumberg’s signature on your fee schedule where he has yellowed what he said is the fee under:

“For record searching, for each year searched.

For each page of computer printout _______________________$9.00”

Ms. Malis agreed with him despite my protests. She has been there long enough to know the correct fee! These are fees for searching the archive records not for printing out a docket!

As you know this is not the fee for a certified computer docket. The correct fee is listed here and applies to the entire docket regardless of the number of pages. I have circled in in red on the attached fee schedule.

“For each certification or authentication with the seal of office ______$9.00”

This is outrageous and means your staff has been stealing tens of thousands of dollars or more from the public.”

I have informed the Inspector General for the Clerk’s office and as far as I know, nothing has been done. I have seen no arrests discussed in the media. Who is covering this up? What are you going to do about it? Where is the money going?

Please also be informed that Judge Biebel and Judge Wright have de facto suspended habeas corpus for people with misdemeanors and detainees at Cook County Jail who file a petition for writ of habeas corpus from Cook County Jail. By law, the Clerk must file any habeas petition a person brings to her and give it a separate civil case number, then schedule it for hearing before the presiding judge of the division promptly. If incarcerated, the presiding judge should issue orders bringing the defendant into the court.

I have tried to file more than six habeas petitions in misdemeanors in 2012 and they are still pending, by mailing them to an attorney friend who tried to file them. The clerk of 1st municipal division refused to give them a civil case number or a hearing date. She just filed them in the criminal case files. We repeatedly both contacted Judge Wright’s, Judge Evans’ and Clerk Brown’s offices and simply got the run around. I contacted them in writing. I mailed a petition for writ of habeas corpus to the clerk at 2650 S California in August 2013 and the supervising clerk now told me that it was placed in the criminal file, not given a civil case number and sent to Judge Biebel to decide whether it should be filed and heard. It was never given a civil case number or heard and is still pending. This issue is now before the Illinois Supreme Court.

The clerk supervisor shockingly said there are “two kinds of habeas petitions” – as instructed by Biebel’s office – one from those in jail and one when an attorney comes and files them. Apparently this County does not understand the rights of citizens under the U.S. Constitution including due process and equal protection. She gives the attorneys’ petition in these felony cases a civil case habeas number and schedules them for hearing. She sends the detainees petition to Biebel and he deep sixes them! That is criminal to de facto suspend the highest civil right a person has – to petition for writ of habeas corpus under the suspension clause of the United States Constitution. This needs a federal criminal investigation, as when a judge knowingly usurps power he does not have (here is doing the clerk’s duty and impeding purposely these petitions from being heard), then according to Chief Justice Marshall in Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821) that it is “treason on the constitution” when a judge “usurps [the jurisdiction] that which is not given”. The case against me is totally bogus and has the appearance of retaliation for my complaints.

This is just the tip of the iceberg I have concerning misconduct of the Court Clerk, the judges, the sheriffs, and the State’s Attorney, as well as Public Defender in Cook County. I really would like to sit down with you and a representative from the Illinois Supreme Court and U.S. Attorney’s office with several colleagues and give you all evidence of so much other misconduct, criminal acts, and failure to follow their statutory duty, as well as felony federal funding fraud among players in the courts that you will be gob smacked. You have only witnessed the surface of the iceberg in your dealings with Evans and Alvarez. There is not one aspect of the functioning of the courts that is not in need of major reform. Evans must go! He and D. Brown should be impeached, along with several other senior judges. There is plenty of evidence for Greylord 2.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I hope you will give me a response as to what you plan to do about this. Judge Evans and Clerk Brown, apparently do not think the above need attention as they have done nothing despite being informed.

Sincerely,

Linda L. Shelton, PhD, MD

November 9, 2008

Federal Habeas Corpus Petition and Exhaustion of State Remedies


Excerpt from Memorandum of Law submitted to Federal District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division by Dr. Linda Shelton on November 10, 2008 in case no. 08 C 4627, a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in a criminal contempt conviction arising from a fraudlent still pending vendor fraud case, asking the federal court to declare the criminal contempt conviction void. The vendor fraud case is where Dr. Shelton is fraudulently charged with Medicaid Vendor Fraud, under Illinois statutes, and trial is presently pending in the Circuit Court of C[r]ook county before Judge Jorge Alonso (who replaced the Dishonorable Judge Kathleen Pantle).

 

 

Dr. Shelton has committed NO fraud and is being illegally attacked by the Illinois Attorney General as a sham prosecutor without authority in the Circuit Court of C[r]ook County (only the State’s Attorney has legal authority to commence and prosecute a criminal case in Illinios with the exception of certain environment, gambling, and drug crimes as specified by statute), which therefore also has no jurisdiction, rendering the case null and void.

 

The indictment was illegally handed down by a “special” grand jury after the Asst. Attorney General John Fearon illegally appeared before the grand jury without jurisdiction, fraudulently stated the law to the grand jury, and suborned perjury by the State’s witness, Illinois State Police Investigator Reibel who committed perjury before the grand jury and withheld exculpatory evidence, rendering the indictment void. Inv. Reibel had previously fabricated evidence against Dr. Maisha Hamilton in a similar case. (He cut out her handwriting exemplars in order to use them on invoices he fabricated to charge her with forgery. The forgery charges were later withdrawn). Inv. Reibel also interviewed non-English speaking Arabic patients of Dr. Shelton WITHOUT a translator, shortly after 911 (they were scared of the plainclothes officers, some thought they were FBI agents accusing them of terrorism and answered NO to every question asked even though they didn’t understand the questions) and testified to the grand jury that these patients all said they never saw or heard of Dr. Shelton.

 

 

The charge was having a “single intention and design” to “defraud the State” by sending in “fraudulent invoices” to Illinois Medicaid between June 2000 and April 2002. See letter to FBI asking them to investigate the scheme by the Illinios Attorney General and Illinois Medicaid to violate federal law and withhold mental health care from people on Medicaid, while attacking whistle blowers against government corruption, including Dr. Shelton, with fraudulent  charges of vendor fraud. [letter located at new blog called “Illinois Corruption”  – http://illinoiscorruption.blogspot.com/%5D

 

This is kind of analogous to charging someone with murder, but not informing the defendant about the name of the victim, the date of the alleged murder, the type of weapon alleged to be used, the method by which the victim died, or the place or even continent at which the murder is alleged to have taken place. Without the who, what, where, and when, the indictment is fatally defective and the case is void!

 

 

The indictment is fatally insufficient, the Defendants have not been given any details or evidence as to which invoices are alleged to be fraudulent or what is fraudulent about them, and no evidence that explains what Dr. Shelton’s role is alleged to be in preparing or submitting the invoices.

 

 

Dr. Shelton did not start working for the group until 2001 and did not sign any paperwork allowing the group to bill under her Medicaid number until late 2001. She did not own the group or have any role whatsoever in running the group practice until after April 2002. The charges against her are therefore, entirely bogus.

 

 

Dr. Shelton underwent extensive and serious neurosurgery on her neck (breaking all bones and reconstrucing them to relieve congenital spinal stenosis that crushed the spinal cord and was causing extensive paralysis – she is disabled) in July 2000. The recovery period when she was unable to work was prolonged. She therefore was incapable of even performing any of the alleged fraudulent acts charged [although not clearly described] at the time period of the indictment. State actors are attacking her in retaliation for her whistle blower activities against corrupt Illinois and C[r]ook County officials including Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan.

 

 

This habeas petition is in regards to the criminal contempt finding by Dishonorable Judge Kathleen Pantle in May 2005 which Dr. Shelton alleges is void because the base pending case in which it was brought is void, thus rendering the hearing a nullity. Case law holds that a contempt charge cannot stand if it results from a void order. The indictment is void, thus the pending vendor fraud case is void. Therefore, all orders in the case including orders to appear on certain dates, bail orders holding Dr. Shelton for trial, etc. are thus void. The criminal contempt case has gone through all direct appeals (affirmed conviction by IL Appellate Court – which blatantly violated the law, IL Supreme Court denied leave to file appeal – thus exhausting state remedies). Dishonorable Judges Pantle and Alonso have either refused to hear fully briefed motions to dismiss by Dr. Shelton or denied motions to dismiss with unlawful statements such as “federal law does not apply” or the “Illinois Attorney General has jurisdiction because she is the chief law enforcement officer in Illinois.” Both of these judges are intellectually dihonest, arrrogant, rude, violating their oaths of offices to enforce the laws and constitution, and simply wrong in their rulings. One has to speculate that they may be under the influence of corrupt officials because of the extreme nature of their ignorant and wrongful statements over a four year period of time.

 

 

Dr. Shelton has exhausted state remedies on the criminal contempt charge and therefore has a legitimate Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pending before the Federal District Court:

 

EXHAUSTION OF STATE REMEDIES IN FEDERAL PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

            Petitioner has been unable to find case law pertaining to exhaustion of State remedies in one case (as in this pending vendor fraud case jurisdictional issue) through another case (as in this criminal contempt case). The definition of “exhaustion of state remedies” is thereby unclear. Guidance may be had in reviewing the following case law:

            The prisoner satisfies the exhaustion requirement if she properly pursues a claim throughout the entire appellate process of the state, but it is not clear if presentation to the entire appellate process through another case meets this definition. See:

Justices of Boston Mun. Court v. Lydon, 466 U.S. 294, 302-303 (1984) The Court stated that exhaustion requirement was satisfied by presentation of claim on appeal to state supreme court from denial of motion to dismiss. This may be on point in case at bar as all motions to dismiss were presented to the trial court in the pending vendor fraud case and then included in the argument on the criminal contempt case as proof the criminal contempt case is void because the pending vendor fraud case is void.

Burkett v. Love, 89 F.3d 135, 138 (3rd Cir. 1996) The Court held that the exhaustion

requirement was satisfied only by presentation of claim to highest state court. In case at bar, the claim of voidness of pending vendor fraud case has been presented to highest state court through motions for leave to appeal in direct appeal and motion for leave to file petition for habeas to Illinois State Supreme Court – both denied.

Wayne v. Missouri Bd. Of Probation & Parole, 83 F.3d 994, 996 (8th Cir. 1996) The Court ruled that the exhaustion requirement was satisfied when petitioner presented federal claims in full round of litigation before state trial and appellate courts even though relitigation in state forum through another procedural device possible.  In case at bar this is very much on point as pending vendor fraud case issue of lack of jurisdiction and voidness was presented through full round of litigation via criminal contempt direct appeal and collateral habeas appeal, although should Petitioner be convicted in allegedly void pending vendor fraud case, she could again directly appeal issue of lack of jurisdiction through state appellate courts and collateral habeas proceeding.

Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 447 (1953) The Court ruled that if the state courts

considered a petitioner’s claim on direct appeal, initiation of a collateral attack in state court is not required even if a state postconviction remedy would permit reconsideration of the claim. In case at bar, this concept of possible reconsideration in another avenue therefore, does not negate the fact of exhaustion of remedies.

Casille v. Peoples, 489 U.S. 346, 350 (1989) (dictum)  The Court ruled that to force petitioner to exhaust other state remedies after fairly presenting claim to the highest state court would be “to mandate recourse to state collateral review whose results have effectively been predetermined, or permanently to bar from federal habeas prisoners in States whose Postconviction procedures are technically inexhaustible”.

Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 6 (1982)  The Court ruled that “the habeas petitioner must have ‘fairly presented’ to the state courts the ‘substance’ of his federal habeas corpus claim.”.  In case at bar this is on point in this pending vendor fraud case as all claims of lack of jurisdiction and voidness have been fairly presented to the state appellate courts who chose to ignore the issue or not consider the issue.

 Humphrey v. Cady, 405 U.S. 504, 516 n.18 (1972) The Court ruled that “[the] question . . . is whether any of petitioner’s claims is so clearly distinct from the claims he has already presented to the state courts that it may fairly be said that the state courts have had no opportunity to pass on the claim”. In case at bar, claims in pending vendor fraud care and criminal contempt case regarding lack of jurisdiction of court in pending vendor fraud case are identical.

This case law suggests that any type of presentation to the appellate courts of the state satisfies the requirement for exhaustion of state remedies. In the pending vendor fraud case there has essentially been a full and fair litigation of the issue of jurisdiction and thus voidness through the appellate court system in Illinois both on direct appeal and on collateral habeas proceedings regarding the pending vendor fraud case through the criminal contempt case. The Illinois Supreme Court has denied leave to appeal and leave to file petition for writ of habeas corpus. In Lewis v. Borg, 879 F.2d 697 (9th Cir. 1989) the Court ruled that exhaustion requirement  was satisfied when state supreme court denied state habeas petition without comment. Therefore, denial of leave to appeal would exhaust state remedies. 

ADDENDUM as of 11-10-08

Two additional cases which suggest that if the issues were presented to the highest court in the state by whatever avenue that this qualifies as exhaustion of remedies:

Soffar v. Dretke, 368 F.3d 441, 467 (5th Cir. 2004) and Carter v. Estelle 677 F.2d 427, 449 (5th Cir. 1982) crt. denied 460 U.S. 1056 (1983) 

Federal Habeas NOT Moot if Released from Custody


Release from Custody (incarceration or parole) does NOT Cause a Petition to Federal Court for Habeas (regarding conviction and not solely sentence) to become Moot as there may be Collateral Consequences that keep the Controversy “live” Maintining the Federal Court Jurisdiction

over the Matter.

            The Federal District Court has jurisdiction of petitions for writs of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 which requires the petitioner to be “in custody.” Jurisdiction is established for this purpose as long as the petitioner is in the custody of the state when the petition for writ of habeas corpus is filed. Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 238, 88 S.Ct. 1556, 1559, 20 L.Ed.2d 554 (1968) (overruling Parker v. Ellis, 362 U.S. 574, 80 S.Ct. 909, 4 l.Ed.2d 963 (1960)).

            Article III of the Constitution allows Federal Courts to adjudicate only actually, ongoing cases or controversies. See Americans United for Separation of Church and State v. Prison Fellowship Ministries, 509 F.3d 406, 420-421 (8th Cir. 2007); Potter v. Norwest Mortgage, Inc., 329 F.3d 608, 611 (8th Cir. 2003). “This case-or-controversy requirement subsists through all stages of federal judicial proceedings, trial and appellate” and, “[w]hen an action no longer satisfies the case or controversy requirement, the action is moot and a federal court must dismiss the action.” Potter v. Norwest Mortgage, Inc.,  supra at 611 [citations and internal quotations omitted] Therefore, there must be consideration given to whether or not a controversy still exists when a prisoner after filing or when filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus is no longer in custody. The United States Supreme Court has wrestled with this issue for decades. The inquiry was narrowed to consider the possibility of providing the petitioner further redress for the claims that have been raised. If this is impossible, the case is moot. The Court in Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998) found that once a habeas petitioner is released from custody, his case becomes moot, unless he can show that a writ of habeas corpus would still provide him some genuine benefit. This line of reasoning began decades before in the United States Supreme Court.  

            In St. Pierre v. United States, 319 U.S. 41, 63 S.Ct. 910, 87 L.Ed. 1199 (1943) the Court held that there were two exceptions to the mootness doctrine when the sentence of a petitioner for a write of habeas corpus expired. First is when the petitioner “could not have brought his case to this Court for review before the expiration of his sentence.” This applies when the sentence is so short that there is no realistic possibility of bringing the case to court prior to expiration of the sentence. In Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 at 52, 88 S.Ct. 1889, 20 L.Ed.2d 917 (1968), the Court noted that this was true in a six-month sentence for contempt despite the fact that the petitioner “took all steps to perfect his appeal in a prompt, diligent, and timely manner.” The Court in Sibron supra, at 53 further noted that: “As St. Pierre supra, clearly recognized, a State may not effectively deny a convict access to its appellate courts until he has been released and then argue that his case has been mooted by his failure to do what it alone prevented him from doing.”

            The second exception recognized in St. Pierre supraat 43, permits adjudication of the merits of a criminal case where “under either state or federal law further penalties or disabilities can be imposed . . . as a result of the judgment which has . . . been satisfied”.  St. Pierre supra at 43, implied that it was the burden of the petitioner to show the existence of collateral legal consequences.

            In Fiswick v. United States, 329 U.S. 211, 67 S.Ct. 224, 91 L.Ed. 196 (1946) the Court held that a criminal case had not become moot upon release of the prisoner because the petitioner, an alien, might be subject to deportation for having committed a crime of “moral turpitude”. The Court also pointed out that if the petitioner should in the future decide he wanted to become an American Citizen, he might have difficulty proving that he was of “good moral character.”

            The Court Ginsburg v. State of New York, 390 U.S. 629, 633, 99 S.Ct. 1274, 1277, 20 L.Ed.2d 195, n. 2 (1968)  held that the mere possibility that the Commissioner of Buildings of the Town of Hempstead, New York, might “in his discretion” attempt in the future to revoke a license to run a luncheonette because of a single conviction for selling relatively inoffensive “girlie” magazines to a 16-year-old boy was sufficient to preserve a criminal case from mootness.

In United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 74 S.Ct 247, 98 L.Ed. 248 (1954) the Court

ruled that collateral consequences should be considered in determining mootness.

 

Although the term has been served, the results of the conviction may persits. Subsequent convictions may carry heavier penalties, civil rights may be affected. As the power to remedy an invalid sentence exists, we think, respondent is entitled to an opportunity to attempt to show that this conviction was invalid. Morgan at 512-513 supra.

 

The Court in Sibron at 55 supra, re-iterated that this inquiry was made a presumption in a

previous decision: “[I]n Pollard v. United States, 352 U.S. 354, 77 S.Ct 481, 1 L.Ed.2d 393 (1957), the Court  abandoned all inquiry into the actual existence of specific collateral consequences and in effect presumed that they existed.” [emphasis added]

 

                        The Sibron Court clarified the constitutional importance of giving the petitioner his day in court on a habeas corpus petition after release from custody, in the face of any direct or collateral consequences.

 

The Court thus acknowledged the obvious fact of life that most criminal convictions do in fact entail adverse collateral legal consequences (FN See generally Note, 53 Va.L.Rev. 403 (1967).) The mere ‘possibility’ that this will be the case is enough to preserve a criminal case from ending ‘ignominiously in the limbo of mootness’ Parker v. Ellis, 362 U.S. 574, 577, 80 S.Ct 909, 911, 4 L.Ed.2d 963 (1960) (dissenting opinion). Sibron supra,at 55. [emphasis added]

 

[I]t is far better to eliminate the source of a potential legal disability than to require the citizen tol suffer the possibly unjustified consequences of the disability itself for an indefinite period of time before he can secure adjudication of the State’s right to impose it on the basis of some past action. Df. Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54, 64, 88 S.Ct. 1549, 20 L.Ed.2d 426 (1968) (FN This factor has clearly been considered relevant by the Court in the past in determining the issue of mootness. See Fiswick v. United States, 329 U.S. 211, 221-222, 67 S.Ct. 224, 229-230, 91 L.Ed. 196 (1946). Siborn supra,at 56. [emphasis added]

 

None of the concededly imperative policies behind the constitutional rule against entertaining moot controversies would be served by a dismissal in this case. There is nothing abstract, feigned, or hypothetical about Sibron’s appeal. Nor is there any suggestion that either Sibron or the State has been wanting in diligence or fervor in the litigation. Sibron supra,at 57.

 

St. Pierre v. United States, supra, must be read in light of later cases to mean that a criminal case is moot only if it is shown that there is no possibility that any collateral legal consequences will be imposed on the basis of the challenged conviction. Sibron supra,at 57. [emphasis added]

 

The Court therefore concluded that analogously Sibron’s petition for writ of habeas corpus was not moot because he “has a substantial stake in the judgment of conviction which survives the satisfaction of the sentence imposed on him. Sibron supra,at 57-58. Citing Fiswick supra, at 222.

            Subsequent release of the petitioner does not oust the court of statutory jurisdiction because with a conviction there are presumed collateral consequences that persists after termination of sentence. Carafas. at 237-238 supra. [including inability to engage in certain businesses, inability to vote, inability to serve as official of labor union, inability to serve as juror, impeachment of character, enhancement of future sentence, etc. depending on laws of state]  Even in the case of a non-felony criminal contempt conviction the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals held that even the direct consequence of a fine constitutes consequences that persists after termination of sentence. Port v. Heard, 764 F.2d 423 (1985).

            In Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624, 102 S.Ct. 1322, 71 L.Ed.2d 508 (1982), the U.S. Supreme Court narrowed the presumed collateral consequences doctrine so that termination of sentence did not oust statutory jurisdiction when the issue presented in the petition for habeas corpus involved the conviction and not specifically only the sentence. As the issue of the sentence no longer existed if the petitioner was released from custody (incarceration or parole), then the petition for habeas corpus became moot under the specific circumstance that the petitioner did not question the validity of his conviction, but only applied for the writ based on his sentence.

            In Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998), the Court further narrowed the presumed collateral consequences doctrine stating that the presumption of collateral consequences to conviction do not flow to parole violations in order to satisfy Article III injury-in-fact requirement for the Court to retain jurisdiction.

           The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that:

The petitioner in this case was sentenced in 1960. He has been attempting to litigate his constitutional claim ever since. His path has been long-partly because of inevitable delays in our court processes and partly because of the requirement that he exhaust state remedies. He should not be thwarted now and required to bear the consequences of assertedly unlawful conviction simply because the path has been so long [seven years] that he has served his sentence. The federal habeas corpus statute does not require this result, and Parker v. Ellis must be overruled. Carafas supra, at 240. [emphasis added]

 

            Therefore, the line of reasoning in the United States of Supreme Court in deciding whether or not a “live” controversy still exists after a petitioner for a writ of habeas corpus has been released from custody, firmly established the principle that criminal convictions entail collateral consequences that keep the controversy “live” after release when the issues in the habeas petition concern the  conviction, although not when the issues pertain solely to the sentence, nor when the conviction is in regards to a parole violation. 

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: