Pro Se Chicago's Weblog

September 18, 2017

Complaint for mandamus & civil rights relief from incompetent judges


When judges or officials are incompetent, malicious, or plain mean and violate your civil rights there are two other means that the public usually doesn’t realize by which they can obtain relief even during the case. The judge or official must have a mandatory (non-discretionary) duty under the law or constitution to do a particular act, must have failed to do it, and must be able to do it if ordered to do so in order to use a mandamus complaint. Civil rights law is very complicated.  Both types of complaints should be handled by an attorney, but as a starting place if you are interested in such complaints then this is an example that was filed by me, a non-attorney pro se. Look up the  case law and look up cases regarding mandamus or civil rights in the circuit courts and under your states’ laws.

  1. Mandamus – this is where you ask a court to order an official (including a judge) to perform a task that is mandatory and not discretionary like set a bail when no bail was set in violation of the law – in Illinois no bail is allowed only on murder cases, cases where the sentence may be life, or cases where a due process hearing was held and the defendant is proven to be a danger to the public or himself.
  2. Civil rights complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief. Suppose a court refuses to allow you to put any witnesses on the stand, refuses to allow you to subpoena documents or refuses to accommodate your disabilities, even when you discussed them with the disability coordinator and followed the court procedures. Under the federal civil rights act section 1983 you can ask a different court (either state or federal) under federal law to declare the judge’s acts or orders in violation of law or the constitution (declaratory relief) and order the judge to follow the law and allow you compulsory process or force the judge to accommodate your disabilities (injunctive relief).
Advertisements

January 17, 2017

Help when children falsely removed by DCFS in Cook County, IL


Who to Contact if children falsely removed by DCFS

The Family Defense Center

70 E. Lake St, Suite 1100
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: 312-251-9800
Fax: 312-251-9801
fdc@familydefensecenter.org

The Family Defense Center is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to advocate justice for families in the child welfare system. We advocate for families who need our help the most: families threatened with losing their children to foster care. Nothing is more painful for a child than to be taken from the only parents he or she knows. Yet, child protection systems throughout America frequently remove children from parents as a first resort, not a last resort. Many parents lose custody of their children to state foster care systems primarily because they are poor or because they are victims of abuse themselves. Far too many children in foster care bounce from home to home and are separated from siblings. Any family can be the victim of a false, harassing, or misguided Hotline call.

We handle the following types of cases: We do not generally handle the following types of cases:
  • Ongoing DCFS investigations for abuse or neglect
  • Safety Plan negotiations
  • Appeals of Indicated findings and Administrative Review Actions
  • A limited number of Juvenile Court cases in which DCFS is attempting to take protective custody if we have been counseling the client during an open investigation
  • Civil rights cases alleging violations of the 4th and 14th amendments.
  • Precedential appellate cases
  • Divorce
  • Parentage/paternity
  • Child Support
  • Criminal cases
  • Open Juvenile Court cases (this means that if your Juvenile Court case has already started when you first contact us, we will most likely not be able to offer you legal representation)
  • Adoption
  • Private custody cases
  • Guardianship
  • Cases in Domestic Relations Court such as Orders of Protection
  • DCFS foster care placement appeals

 

November 6, 2016

From Ken Ditkowsky on the need for more courtwatchers — MaryGSykes.com

Filed under: Uncategorized — Linda Shelton @ 11:07 pm

A few years ago here in Illinois the League of Woman Voters sent their members out to be ‘court watchers.’ The Court watchers reported some of the outrageous actions that were evident is some of the Courts. The constant pressure brought a measure of reform that has since dissipated. The Court […]

via From Ken Ditkowsky on the need for more courtwatchers — MaryGSykes.com

July 13, 2015

Replacing a bad public defender – possible but difficult


When public defenders refuse to listen to the defendant’s story, refuse to investigate the case, refuse to follow the law, refuse to tell the court when the court is violating law, are abrupt, rude, and harmful to defendants like ignoring their disability needs or indigency status when bail is set, and especially when they fail to subject the case to adversarial testing, then they should be replaced.  Legally when a defendant tells the judge that the PD is doing these things, the judge is obligated to question the defendant to see if there is a basis for ruling ineffective assistance of counsel and replacing the PD. The State’s Attorney may NOT participate in this stage 1 questioning. Yet they almost always do. The judges rarely listen to defendants who complain about PDs, but their failure to do so is a reversible error if it affects the outcome of the case. Attorneys will rarely help you with this issue unless the symptoms of misconduct of the PD are obvious like appearing in court drunk or not appearing in court at all. So, generally, defendants who are being abused by the system and rely on the PD due to indigency are scr**ed. This is where the ACLU and other public interest legal foundations should play a more active role, but so far they don’t.

The following is a summary of the present state of law in Illinois regarding these manners.

REPLACING A BAD PUBLIC DEFENDER – DIFFICULT BUT POSSIBLE:

NOTE: This refers to Illinois and federal case law – you must research the laws in your state.

CASE LAW CONCERNING INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.

  • GENERAL ISSUE – STRICKLAND TWO-PRONG TEST ON APPEAL
  1. The Sixth Amendment requires only competent representation and does not guarantee a meaningful relationship between a defendant and counsel. (quoting Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 13-14 (1983)) Schell v. Witek, 218 F.3d 1017, ¶ 35 (9th Cir. 1991)
  2. The Illinois Supreme Court has held that, to determine whether a defendant was denied his or her right to effective assistance of counsel, on appeal, an appellate court must apply the two-prong test set forth in Strickland Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). People v. Colon, 225 Ill. 2d 125, 135 (2007) (citing People v. Albanese, 104 Ill. 2d 504(1984) (adopting Strickland)). Under Strickland, a defendant must prove both (1) his attorney’s actions constituted errors so serious as to fall below an objective standard of reasonableness; and (2) absent these errors, there was a reasonable probability that his trial would have resulted in a different outcome. People v. Ward, 371 Ill. App. 3d 382, 434 (2007) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-94).
  3. Under the first prong of the Strickland test, the defendant must prove that his counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness “under prevailing professional norms.” Colon, 225 Ill. 2d at 135; People v. Evans, 209 Ill. 2d 194, 220 (2004). Under the second prong, the defendant must show that, “but for” counsel’s deficient performance, there is a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different. Colon, 225 Ill. 2d at 135; Evans, 209 Ill. 2d at 220. “[A] reasonable probability that the result would have been different is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome–or put another way, that counsel’s deficient performance rendered the result of the trial unreliable or fundamentally unfair.” Evans, 209 Ill. 2d at 220; Colon, 225 Ill. 2d at 135. In other words, the defendant was prejudiced by his attorney’s performance.
  4. To prevail, the defendant must satisfy both prongs of the Strickland Colon, 225 Ill.2d at 135; Evans, 209 Ill. 2d at 220. “That is, if an ineffective-assistance claim can be disposed of because the defendant suffered no prejudice, we need not determine whether counsel’s performance was deficient.” People v. Graham, 206 Ill. 2d 465, 476 (2003). We do not need to consider the first prong of the Strickland test when the second prong cannot be satisfied.
  • STRICKLAND – PREJUDICE PRESUMED CRITERIA (HATTERY & CRONIC)
  1. In People v. Stanford, 2011 Ill. App. (2nd) 2090420, our supreme court has noted that the Court in Strickland recognized that “there are some circumstances so likely to prejudice the accused that such prejudice need not be shown, but instead will be presumed.” People v. Hattery, 109 Ill.2d 449, 461 (1985). Situations warranting the presumption of prejudice include cases in which (1) there is a complete denial of counsel at a critical stage of the trial, or (2)counsel entirely fails to subject the prosecution’s case to meaningful adversarial testing.” United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 659 (1984); see Angarola, 387 Ill.App.3d at 735. Additionally, a more limited presumption of prejudice exists where counsel has a genuine conflict of interest. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 692. “Even so, the rule is not quite the per se rule of prejudice that exists for the Sixth Amendment claims mentioned above. Prejudice is presumed only if the defendant demonstrates that counsel ‘actively represented conflicting interests’ and that ‘an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer’s performance.’ “ Strickland, 466 U.S. at 692 (quoting Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 350, 348 (1980)). Our supreme court has emphasized that a “defendant faces a high burden before he can forsake the two-part Strickland test” by meeting the Cronic standard. People v. Johnson, 128 Ill.2d 253, 270 (1989).
  2. In People v. Stanford, 2011 Ill. App. (2nd) 2090420, the defendant argued that the Cronic standard applied. Cronic, 466 U.S. at 658 (“[T]he right to the effective assistance of counsel is recognized not for its own sake, but because of the effect it has on the ability of the accused to receive a fair trial. Absent some effect of challenged conduct on the reliability of the trial process, the Sixth Amendment guarantee is generally not implicated.”). Although in the Stanford case the court said this argument was inopposite, our supreme court did note that in some cases it may be on point when the trial court summarily dismissed the defendants’ motions for new counsel without any inquiry: United States v. Nguyen, 262 F.3d 998, 1003–04 (9th Cir.2001) (where the defendant’s counsel of choice appeared and requested leave to be substituted in for the PD and requested a continuance and the trial court made no inquiry into the defendant’s dissatisfaction with appointed counsel, the trial court abused its discretion in denying the substitution motion); . . . Brown v. Craven, 424 F.2d 1166, 1170 (9th Cir.1970) (holding that the defendant’s being embroiled in an irreconcilable conflict with his attorney warranted reversal where the defendant was dissatisfied and would not cooperate with the attorney and the trial court summarily dismissed the defendant’s four motions for new counsel WITHOUT ANY INQUIRY).
  • STRICKLAND ERROR REQUIRES ESTABLISH INEFFECTIVENESS COUNSEL
  1. In People v. Stanford, 2011 Ill. App. (2nd) 2090420, our supreme court stated that even if the counsel’s comments were enough to require the trial court to conduct an inquire into the effectiveness of counsel, “the error is not reversible unless defendant establishes that counsel was ineffective. See People v. Ogurek, 356 Ill.App.3d 429, 434 (2005)”
  2. It is instructive that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held: “When forced to choose between incompetent counsel and pro se representation . . . . we concluded that no showing of prejudice was required because Crandall was improperly left with no counsel at all” (quoting Crandell v. Bunnell, 144 F.3d 1213, 1214 (9th Cir. 1998)) and quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 692 (1984) (“Actual or constructive denial of the assistance of counsel altogether is legally presumed to result in prejudice.”)). Schell v. Witek, 218 F.3d 1017, ¶ 34 (9th Cir. 1991)
  3. Thus, the ultimate constitutional question the federal courts must answer is not whether the state trial court “abused its discretion” in not deciding defendant’s motion, but whether this error actually violated defendant’s constitutional rights in that the conflict between defendant and his attorney had become so great that it resulted in a total lack of communication or other significant impediment that resulted in turn in an attorney-client relationship that fell short of that required by the Sixth Amendment. Schell v. Witek, 218 F.3d 1017, ¶ 36 (9th Cir. 1991)
  • EFFECTIVENESS OF PD MUST BE ESTABLISHED BEFORE COLLATERAL ISSUES CONSIDERED (FIRST IMPRESSION ISSUE IN ILLINOIS)
  1. It is instructive, as this is an issue of first impression in Illinois that in People v. Stankewitz, 51 Cal.3d 72, 270 Cal. Rptr. 817, 793 P.2d 23 (1990), the California Supreme Court held that a motion to replace incompetent counsel must be heard before a collateral hearing on issue of competency [or fitness] because “the Sixth Amendment right to effective representation virtually compels a hearing and an order granting a motion for substitution of counsel when ‘there is a sufficient showing that the [51 Cal. 3d 88] defendant’s right to the assistance of counsel would be substantially impaired if [the defendant’s] request was denied.’ (People v. Carr (1972) 8 Cal. 3d 287, 299 [104 Cal. Rptr. 705, 502 P.2d 513]; accord People v. Burton (1989) 48 Cal. 3d 843, 855 [258 Cal. Rptr. 184, 771 P.2d 1270];People v. Moore (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 63, 76 [ 252 Cal. Rptr. 494, 762 P.2d 1218]; People v. Smith (1985) 38 Cal. 3d 945, 956 [216 Cal. Rptr. 98, 702 P.2d 180]; People v. Walker (1976) 18 Cal. 3d 232, 238 [133 Cal. Rptr. 520, 555 P.2d 306].)”
  2. The California Supreme Court clarified this concept further in its Marsden decision [now a rule in Cal.] which held that a trial judge abuses his discretion when he boldly states that the court has observed that the PD was performing admirably, but fails to give the defendant an opportunity to explain his/her concerns about ineffective assistance of counsel. This is on point with Illinois Supreme Court rule 63 which requires the court to hear the defendant:

Thus, a judge who denies a motion for substitution of attorneys solely on the basis of his courtroom observations, despite a defendant’s offer to relate specific instances of misconduct, abuses the exercise of his discretion to determine the competency of the attorney. A judicial decision made without giving a party an opportunity to present argument or evidence in support of his contention “is lacking in all the attributes of a judicial determination.” …. It is in the highest tradition of [2 Cal.3d 126] American jurisprudence for the trial judge to assist a person who represents himself as to the presentation of evidence, the rules of substantive law, and legal procedure, and judges who undertake to assist, in order to assure that there is no miscarriage of justice due to litigants’ shortcomings in representing themselves, are to be highly commended.”  (Spector v. Superior Court (1961) 55 Cal.2d 839, 843 [13 Cal.Rptr. 189, 361 P.2d 909].) People v. Marsden , 2 Cal.3d 118 (1970)

  • PD INEFFECTIVE WHEN FAIL TO ALERT COURT OF COURT’S ERRORS
  1. There are a number of cases where it is instructive that the federal courts have found error when the PD failed to bring to the attention of the court statutory, legal, or constitutional errors made by the court:
    1. Finch v. Vaughn, 67 F.3d 909 (11th Cir. 1995) (Counsel failed to correct state trial judge’s statutory mis-statements that state sentence could run concurrent with potential federal sentence);
    2. United States v. Stearns, 68 F.3d 328 (9th Cir. 1995) (A counsel failed to file notice of appeal); Fern v. Gramley, 99 F.3d 255 (7th Cir. 1996) (Prejudice could be presumed from an attorney’s failure to file an appeal upon the defendant’s request); Montemoino v. United States, 68 F.3d 416 (11th Cir. 1995) (Failure to file notice of appeal after request by defendant; Williamson v. Ward, 110 F.3d 1508 (10th Cir. 1997) (Failure to investigate the defendant’s mental illness was ineffective assistance of counsel); United States v. Kauffman, 109 F.3d 186 (3rd Cir. 1997) (Failure to investigate insanity defense was ineffective assistance of counsel;
    3. Coss v. Lackawanna County District Attorney, 204 F.3d 453 (3rd Cir. 2000) (Defendant was prejudiced by attorney’s failure to subpoena witnesses;
    4. Carter v. Bell, 218 F.3d 581 (6th Cir. 2000) (Failure to investigate mitigating evidence was ineffective assistance); Hinton v. Alabama, 2014 U.S. 136440, 571 U. S. ____ (2014) (Defendant prejudiced by ineffective assistance of PD, when the PD refused to hire an expert witness due to his ignorance of the law fundamental to the case);
  • MUST HOLD EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON DEFENDANT’S POST-TRIAL MOTION AS TO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE COUNSEL BEFORE HEARING POST-TRIAL MOTIONS [HERE MOTION FOR RESTORATION OF FITNESS AFTER TRIAL FINDING UNFIT]
  1. The Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Krankel, 102 ILL.2d 181, 183 (1984) held that the “[T]rial Court erred in failing to appoint counsel other than defendant’s originally appointed counsel  to argue his pro se motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.” See also People v. Moore, 2003 Ill. 87958, 207 Ill.2d 68, 77-78 (2003) (First stage is to examine defendant as to basis of claim of ineffective counsel and if lacks merit then not required to appoint counsel to argue it; defendant is not required to renew claim of ineffective counsel for purposes of appeal).
  2. In People v. Jolly, 2015 Ill. 117142 at ¶ 38, the Illinois Supreme Court held that the First Stage examination of defendant concerning ineffective counsel is held WITHOUT the adversarial participation of the State’s Attorney because there is no substitute counsel arguing the defendant’s position. The Court also held that when an adversarial proceeding is held that the remedy is to hold a new Krankel hearing before a different judge. At ¶ 46
  3. The Illinois Supreme Court, in People v. Jocko, 2010 Ill. 108465, at p.4-6, 239 Ill. 2d (2010) &, held that although a two-prong Strickland hearing cannot be held pretrial as it cannot be determined if the errors affected the outcome of the trial (i.e. determine prejudice), it is required to hold a pre-trial evidentiary hearing concerning ineffective assistance of counsel only when prejudice is not relevant as when bail issues are concerned (Jocko at p 5), when there are conflicts of interest (Jocko at p. 4, 239 Ill.2d at 92 quoting Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 (1978)), or when there is complete deprivation of counsel (Jocko at p. 4, 239 Ill.2d at 92 quoting Cronic 466 U.S. at 659 )

March 15, 2015

Show support for Dr Linda Shelton against false arrest, attempt to shut her up by injustice system

Filed under: Uncategorized — Linda Shelton @ 3:16 pm

Shelton is in need of extreme grass roots help in fighting the system who is trying to shut her up.  If you enjoy this blog and want to read more, read this here.

November 9, 2012

Send letter to Congress to change law and stop court abuse of families in child abuse cases


I have sent this letter to leadership in Congress and hope you will too.  You can do this by email for free  or for $9 have this letter hand delivered under your name to Congressional leadership at this web site.

Nationwide, there are State run agencies who are supposed to be protecting abused children in dangerous situations. Each State has many different titles for them. All of them are main stapled as CPS (Child Protective Services). For example, in Texas they’re known as DFPS. (Department of Family and Protective Services)

While there is an important need to find abused children and to protect them, the current system is only finding a small percentage of those truly abused children. The rest of their statistics that guarantee a high departmental income are from families who never abused their children. Where they get this income and the sources of information will be posted after the next paragraph.

I am not calling for an abolishment of CPS. What I am petitioning for is an overhaul and restructure to bring them in line with lawful investigation practices, to maintain Constitutional Rights and proper training for Agents who never had children, and psychological evaluations to find and replace the Agents who were themselves abused as Children and see abuse in every home regardless of the situation. This is not, I repeat, not a rare occurrence. I will supply statistics to support this and how this has escalated. I will also supply the sources.

Departmental income has become more important to CPS and their offices than actually finding abused children and protecting them. Each and every time they remove a child from the home, they get paid from the Federal Government. Here they are:

1. Public Law 93-247 known as the Mondale Act of 1974.

2. Public Law 96-272 known as the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980

3. Social Security Title IV-E funds.

4. VAWA (violence against woman act) funds are also misused to enrich court appoitned attorneys and evaluators in child abuse and divorce child custody cases.

The ASFA- Public Law 105-89 known as American Safe Families Act of 1997 is one of the most horrific laws on the books today. While it sounds nice in the title, when you get through the legal jargon, what this means is so wrong. If you ever had a child removed from your house by CPS, even UNFOUNDED and you are innocent, they will take that child in minutes after the child is born! Babies are highly adoptable and the Federal Government pays out $6,000 to the CPS office who conducts the legal kidnapping and gets them adopted quickly without regards to the biological Mother and her family. Since she was investigated once, they do this in the “best interests of the child” as she is a “potential” abuser.

The largest targeted type of families are folks with low incomes, children on SSI and are minorities. If you even have one of those three issues, you are a target for CPS to illegally investigate you. While these things are a surefire magnet, they have been known to do illegal investigations against families if they were reported falsely with malicious intent. Example is an ex-wife wants to get even with her ex-husband and his new family, she could report them and put them through Hell.

Why are the reasons CPS Agents actually find so little true abuse?

1. Agents who never had children and don’t understand that a few toys in the corner of the room is not a hazardous mess.

2. Agents are not trained in real evidence recognition. In fact, no Agent in CPS has any training in evidence, the Constitution or criminal justice. They are given anywhere from 3 to 6 months of training, being taught that it is ok to break into a Home without probable cause or exigent circumstances.

3. Agents are trained to use subjective speculation and not objective factual reporting.

4. The Agents do not get psychological evaluations. A number of Agents who were abused as a child themselves see abuse in every home they go into, even if it’s not there.

5. Most States do not require Agents to have a degree in Social Sciences. Any degree will do, doesn’t even have to be related to the field.

6. The Agency has no checks and balances. A field Agent can lie to a judge or police officer with absolutely no proof and have it entered as factual evidence in a court of law!

7. Agents are trained to believe they are immune from the authority of the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment. They violate this in every investigation done nationwide.

Here are the statistics and sources to support these facts:

Number of Cases per 100,000 children in the United States. These numbers come from The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect (NCCAN) in Washington.

CPS- Physical Abuse (160) Sexual Abuse (112) Neglect (410) Medical Neglect (14) Fatalities (6.4)

Parents- Physical Abuse (59) Sexual Abuse (13) Neglect (241) Medical Neglect (12) Fatalities (1.5)

As you can see, children are abused far more in care than at home. The calculated average is for every 1 abused child removed from an abusive home, there are 17 unabused children removed from loving non-offending homes nationwide.

Constitutional Violations and Court Rulings that CPS Ignores to this very day!

1. It’s unconstitutional for CPS to conduct an investigation and interview a child on private property without exigent circumstances or probable cause. – Doe et al, v. Heck et al (No. 01-3648, 2003 US App. Lexis 7144)

2. All CPS workers in the United States are subject to the 4th and 14th Amendment – Walsh v. Erie County Dept. of Job and Family Services, 3:01-cv-7588

3. Police officers and social workers are not immune for coercing or forcing entry into a person’s home without a search warrant. Calabretta v. Floyd (9th Cir. 1999)

4. The mere possibility of danger does not constitute an emergency or exigent circumstance that would justify a forced warrantless entry and a warrantless seizure of a child. Hurlman v. Rice (2nd Cir. 1991)

5. Police officer and social worker may not conduct a warrantless search or seizure in a suspected child abuse case absent exigent circumstances. Defendants must have reason to believe that life or limb is in immediate jeopardy and that the intrusion is reasonable necessary to alleviate the threat. Searches and seizures in investigation of a child neglect or child abuse case at a home are governed by the same principles as other searches and seizures at a home. Goodv. Dauphin County Social Services (3rd Cir. 1989)

6. The Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures extends beyond criminal investigations and includes conduct by social workers in the context of a child neglect/abuse investigation. Lenz v. Winburn (11th Cir. 1995)

7. Making false statements made to obtain a warrant, when the false statements were necessary to the finding of probable cause on which the warrant was based, violates the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. Aponte Matos v. Toledo Davilla (1st Cir. 1998)

What can be done to change this for a better, more healthy Child Protection System?

I. Child Abuse is a Crime, not a touchy feely civil complaint and should be investigated as a crime.

II. Have the abuse allegations investigated by a Detective or Police Officer, who are trained for this as a career, whereas CPS workers are not. All investigations are joint ones with said Officers of the Law and with warrants properly issues under probable cause.

III. Re-train Agents to respect and obey the laws of the Constitution of the United States. If a family is guilty of abuse, a legal investigation will find it.

IV. Repeal the Mondale Act, Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act, Title IV-E rewards to CPS from Social Security and the American Safe Families Act. Remember, they are not what the title sounds like and has been the root core of many loving homes losing their children to a system that will abuse them.

V. Make CPS legally investigate those who sign up to be foster parents. They do not do this today, and many foster parent who want the money for fostering them are actually child abusers who never get caught!

VI. All interviews to be audio and video recorded just like it happens with the police!

VII. Hold CPS Agents and foster parents and the records keeper responsible for every child who vanishes or dies in their care for their location.

VIII. Also investigate the person or persons reporting the abuse, and if done maliciously with intent to disrupt a family, prosecute the reporter to the fullest extent of the Law regarding making false claims to Government Agencies to affect an unnecessary and costly investigation.

IX. Abuse is a Crime, guarantee the accused retain their right to face their accusers in a court of law. As the system currently is, this is not done.

X. The Children are to be tracked on a weekly basis, so no more children vanish in the system.

XI. If a disabled, mentally retarded or sick Child is put into Foster Care, the Child’s current Physician will need to provide a copy of the diagnosis and treatment, and medications, if any, will be provided as prescribed by the Physician. All appointments must be kept while in Foster Care. Any violations without a very good reason will result in the Foster Parents losing their certification for Foster Care.

XII. If a Foster Child dies while in Foster Care, there will be an Investigation by the FBI and all parties responsible for the Death of a Child will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

XIII. There will be a National Database where all known abusers are recorded and can be accessed by Law Enforcement. Everyone who is found not guilty won’t have their Convictions and Abuse Reports listed. It will be illegal to keep records of any sort on innocent individuals or families. If they are convicted in a court of law by a jury of their peers, then the report of abuse they are guilty of will be the only report listed.

Currently, none of this is done, and innocent families who are not guilty of anything are losing their Children based on the word of others where there is no burden of proof for Prosecution, for the sake of getting Federal Funds for tens of thousands of dollars. The few truly abused children are ending up in a system where they are worse off than where they came from, even to the extent of being killed. Also, the innocent children who are never abused are also killed.

Injustice against one American is injustice against all Americans. Help us put the Justice back into Child Protective Services and get them focused on finding and saving abused children. It’s time we removed them from the profitable business of tearing loving non-offending families apart.

October 19, 2012

Illinois law should be changed so that juries can acquit guilty person if they feel it is just

Filed under: Uncategorized — Linda Shelton @ 4:42 pm

Illinois law should be changed so that juries can acquit guilty person if they feel it is just.

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.

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.

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.
Older Posts »

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: