Pro Se Chicago's Weblog

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

Advertisements

October 14, 2008

Indigent Petition Illegal Denial in Cook County


In Cook County Illinois, the presiding judge of the law division of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Judge William D. Maddux, routinely violates statutes and denies indigent petitions. He particularly denies them if you are a whistle blower against County Government, if you have filed more than one suit as an indigent person, or if you are “too” well dressed.

He violates law by not granting indigent status when one is on Medicaid, food stamps or SSI, as well as if one is living at an income less than the poverty level.

He fails to specifically state the reason he denies the petition and fails to order a payment schedule or a date certain by which to pay the fee.

He tells his staff to not tell the indigent person their names or their positions to make it harder for the person to appeal his decision. He has his staff routinely write on these petitions: “cannot maintain action in good faith.” This is not a legally valid reason to deny a petition.

Judge Maddux is committing conspiracy to violate rights under color of law, and violation of rights under color of law knowingly and willingly which are both federal felony crimes under the Federal Code. He is violating his oath of office to uphold the law and denying the indigent person their civil rights to redress of grievances, equal protection under the law, and due process. He should be removed from the bench.  I have filed the following Complaint for Mandamus against him in this regard in the Illinois Supreme Court today. I encourage all who are similarly situated to do the same. Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Timothy Evans, is failing to supervise him or his staff and is therefore aiding and abetting  this crime.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

 

 

Linda L. Shelton                                             )

                        Plaintiff                                     )

                                                                        )      Case No. ______________

v.                                                                                                                              )

)

The Honorable William H. Maddux,            )

in his official capacity as executive director     )

of the Law Division of the Cook County      )

Circuit Court and its Presiding Judge           )

                                                                        )

and                                                                  )

                                                                        )

Dorothy Brown in her official capacity             )

as the Cook County Circuit Court Clerk       )

                                                                        )

                        Defendants                               )

 

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

 

            Plaintiff Linda L. Shelton, complains of Defendant as follows:

 

INTRODUCTION

 

1.      This complaint asks this Court to issue a writ of mandamus requiring the Presiding Judge of the Law Division, County Department, of the Circuit Court of Cook County (“CCCC”) and the Clerk of the CCCC to comply with the nondiscretionary mandates of the portion of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure governing how courts process and evaluate request by litigant to proceed in forma pauperis.

THE PARTIES

2.      Plaintiff Linda L. Shelton is a resident of Cook County and the State of Illinois.

3.      Defendant the Honorable William H. Maddux (“Judge”) is the duly appointed presiding judge of the Law Division of the County Department of the CCCC. He was appointed the presiding judge of the Law Division by order of the Chief Judge of the CCCC, the Honorable Timothy Evans, and as such is authorized to make administrative decisions for the functioning of the Law Division of the CCCC, per rules of the CCCC, consistent with the laws of the State of Illinois and the Illinois Supreme Court Rules.

4.      Defendant Dorothy Brown is the duly elected Clerk of the CCCC (“Clerk”) under the laws of the State of Illinois.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND ARGUMENT

5.      The Judge has by fiat decided that all petitions for in forma pauperis status in the Law Division of the CCCC will be heard by him ONLY at 11:30 a.m. each morning the court is open. If the plaintiff appears in his courtroom after noon he absolutely refuses to hear the plaintiff’s petition that day. He does not hear the petitions in open court, but requires that the petition be given to his law clerk and the decision on the petition is done without the presence or further input of the Plaintiff. At his discretion, the Judge may come into the courtroom and question the Plaintiff, which on information and belief in practice is almost never done. This procedure is NOT published or posted anywhere and Plaintiffs must discover it by accident or by asking the Clerk or the Judge’s courtroom clerk or law clerks.

6.      On information and belief Plaintiff has discovered that the Judge routinely denies petition to sue as an indigent person in violation of Illinois Statutes and has violated the Plaintiff’s constitutional statutory rights as follows:

735 ILCS 5/5‑105

             Leave to sue or defend as an indigent person.
                         (a) As used in this Section:
                                     (1) “Fees, costs, and charges” means payments

imposed on a party in connection with the prosecution or defense of a civil action, . . . .

(2) “Indigent person” means any person who meets one or more of the following criteria:

(i) He or she is receiving assistance under one or more of the following public benefits programs: Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Aid to the Aged, Blind and Disabled (AABD), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Food Stamps, General Assistance, State Transitional Assistance, or State Children and Family Assistance.

(ii) His or her available income is 125% or less of the current poverty level as established by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, unless the applicant’s assets that are not exempt under Part 9 or 10 of Article XII of this Code are of a nature and value that the court determines that the applicant is able to pay the fees, costs, and charges.

(iii) He or she is, in the discretion of the court, unable to proceed in an action without payment of fees, costs, and charges and whose payment of those fees, costs, and charges would result in substantial hardship to the person or his or her family.

(iv) He or she is an indigent person pursuant to Section 5‑105.5 of this Code.

(b) On the application of any person, before, or after the commencement

of an action, a court, on finding that the applicant is an indigent person, shall grant the applicant leave to sue or defend the action without payment of the fees, costs, and charges of the action.

(c) An application for leave to sue or defend an action as an indigent

person shall be in writing and supported by the affidavit of the applicant or, if the applicant is a minor or an incompetent adult, by the affidavit of another person having knowledge of the facts. The contents of the affidavit shall be established by Supreme Court Rule. . . . The clerk of the court shall post in a conspicuous place in the courthouse a notice no smaller than 8.5 x 11 inches, using no smaller than 30‑point typeface printed in English and in Spanish, advising the public that they may ask the court for permission to sue or defend a civil action without payment of fees, costs, and charges. The notice shall be substantially as follows:
        “If you are unable to pay the fees, costs, and charges of an action you may ask the court to allow you to proceed without paying them. Ask the clerk of the court for forms.”

(d) The court shall rule on applications under this Section in a timely manner based on information contained in the application unless the court, in its discretion, requires the applicant to personally appear to explain or clarify information contained in the application. If the court finds that the applicant is an indigent person, the court shall enter an order permitting the applicant to sue or defend without payment of fees, costs, or charges. If the application is denied, the court shall enter an order to that effect stating the specific reasons for the denial. The clerk of the court shall promptly mail or deliver a copy of the order to the applicant.
            (e) The clerk of the court shall not refuse to accept and file any complaint, appearance, or other paper presented by the applicant if accompanied by an application to sue or defend in forma pauperis, and those papers shall be considered filed on the date the application is presented. If the application is denied, the order shall state a date certain by which the necessary fees, costs, and charges must be paid. The court, for good cause shown, may allow an applicant whose application is denied to defer payment of fees, costs, and charges, make installment payments, or make payment upon reasonable terms and conditions stated in the order. The court may dismiss the claims or defenses of any party failing to pay the fees, costs, or charges within the time and in the manner ordered by the court. A determination concerning an application to sue or defend in forma pauperis shall not be construed as a ruling on the merits.
             (f) The court may order an indigent person to pay all or a portion of the fees, costs, or charges waived pursuant to this Section out of moneys recovered by the indigent person pursuant to a judgment or settlement resulting from the civil action. However, nothing is this Section shall be construed to limit the authority of a court to order another party to the action to pay the fees, costs, or charges of the action.

 

The Judge wrote on the order that the Plaintiff is denied in forma pauperis status despite the fact that the Plaintiff is “indigent” as provided by the above statute. He wrote as the reason on the order in the handwriting of his law clerk: “cannot maintain action in good faith.” (Exhibit A) There is NO provision in this statute for the Judge determining whether or not the Plaintiff can maintain the action in good faith. It is mandatory that the Judge grant the petition if the Plaintiff meets the qualifications for indigent status as defined in Statute, 735 ILCS 5/5-105(a)(2) & (b). The Judge failed to issue an order as to when the filing fee must be paid to prevent dismissal and fails to consider payment plans, which is an issue he is required to decide and write in his order per statute, 737 ILCS 5/5-105(e). These omissions of the Judge are violations of the First and Fifth Amendments rights to redress of grievances (access to the courts) and due process.

7.      The Clerk oversees the office of the Clerk of the CCCC. She and her staff are responsible for filing and maintaining a record of all civil cases filed and heard in the CCCC. The Clerk is responsible, in her official capacity, for the actions of her staff as alleged herein. The only information a plaintiff obtains from the Clerk on her website in regards to in forma pauperis petitions is that they must be heard by a judge.  The Clerk’s authority to file complaints is determined by the rules of the CCCC and Illinois Statutes:

CCCC Rule 0.3.1 Clerk of Court

(a) The Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County shall perform the duties usually performed by the Clerk as provided in “An Act to revise the law in relation to clerks of courts,” Chapter 25, Illinois Revised Statutes.

 

705 ILCS 105/10
The principal clerk shall, in all cases, be responsible for the acts of his or her deputies.


705 ILCS 105/13
The clerks shall attend the sessions of their respective courts, preserve all the files and papers thereof, make, keep and preserve complete records of all the proceedings and determinations thereof, except in cases otherwise provided by law, and do and perform all other duties pertaining to their offices, as may be required by law or the rules and orders of their courts respectively.

 

8.      The Clerk of the CCCC, on information and belief, refuses to accept a complaint for filing unless the Plaintiff pays the filing fee or presents to the Clerk a copy of an order from the Judge granting in forma pauperis status.

9.      The statutes of the State of Illinois, 735 ILCS 5/5-105, state:

The clerk of the court shall not refuse to accept any complaint, appearance, or other paper presented by the applicant if accompanied by an application to sue or defend in forma pauperis, and those papers shall be considered filed on the date the application is presented.

 

This is a non-discretionary act of the Clerk of the CCCC.

10.  Plaintiff of October 2, 2008 arrived in the courtroom of the Judge at 10:30 a.m. and waited until the call was ending to hand the courtroom clerk a Petition to Sue as an Indigent Person (Exhibit B) and a tort Complaint (Exhibit C).

11.  At approximately noon the court proceedings had ended, the Judge had retired to his chambers, and the courtroom clerk took the Plaintiff’s documents and documents from other similarly situated persons to the Judge’s chambers.

12.  Approximately an hour later, the Judge’s staff came out and gave all the papers and orders to an employee of the Clerk’s office, who told Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons to follow him to the Clerk’s office on the 8th floor of the Daley Center, Room 801.

13.  In room 801 in the line for filing complaints each in succession after a period of waiting the Clerk’s staff called Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals up to the counter.

14.  Plaintiff was informed that the Judge denied the Petition. Plaintiff asked why? The Clerk’s staff stated “You can’t sue in good faith.” The Clerk’s staff demanded payment of the filing fee of $381 in order to file the complaint.

15.  Plaintiff stated she could not pay the fee. The Clerk’s staff refused to file the complaint without the fee, so Plaintiff demanded her papers back. The Clerk’s staff withheld the order from Plaintiff and gave back the complaint and blank copies of the proposed order.

16.  Plaintiff immediately went back to the Judge’s courtroom and requested to have her case (Petition) recalled to the courtroom Sheriff’s deputy, who was the only person in the courtroom at that time. She sat quietly with her walker on a bench in the gallery.

17.  The Sheriff’s deputy went to the Judge’s chamber and came back and told Plaintiff her situation was being reviewed.

18.  A secretary or law clerk who refused to reveal her name or position came out and told Plaintiff she would not be heard. Plaintiff told her that she did not receive a copy of the order and this woman went in the back and eventually came back with a copy of the order that said the Petition was denied because “cannot maintain action in good faith.” Plaintiff stated to this lady that this order was legally insufficient and void and she wanted to make an instanter motion to reconsider. The lady stated she would not give legal advice, when none was asked for.

19.  The lady stated that the Judge was gone. Plaintiff stated she would wait until he returned. The lady stated that Plaintiff would have to come back another day at 9:30 for motions. Plaintiff stated that she needed a case number and that the Clerk had failed to write one on the order. The lady stated she would give no legal advice. Plaintiff stated that she wanted to know the administrative procedure for appealing the decision. The lady stated she would give no legal advice.

20.  Plaintiff stated she needed the lady’s name so that she could appeal the ruling and that she would come back the next day with a motion to reconsider. The lady refused to give her name and left.

21.  The courtroom deputy refused to give the lady’s name or the nature of her position in the court.

22.  Plaintiff stated she would go in the back to the chambers and ask the law clerk to identify the lady, as she had the same standing as a pro se counsel as an attorney to request information from the secretary and law clerk in the chambers. The courtroom deputy stated he would not allow Plaintiff to go to the chambers.

23.  Plaintiff then got out her cell phone and called the CCCC Chief Judge Evan’s office. Rosemary answered the phone and Plaintiff politely requested the name of the secretary and law clerks for the Judge. Rosemary stated she didn’t give out that information, not even first names. She demanded the name of the caller and Plaintiff stated Linda. She demanded Plaintiff’s last name and Plaintiff stated, “when you give me your last name, I’ll give you mine.”  Plaintiff asked Rosemary how to make a complaint to the Chief Judge and Rosemary said to write a letter and gave the address.

24.  During this time, two Sheriff’s Sergeants and several Officers arrived in the courtroom. As Plaintiff was talking on the phone, the deputies ordered her to leave the courtroom and the oriental Sgt. known to others as “Q” threatened Plaintiff with an unlawful arrest for “trespass to state supported land.” Plaintiff demanded their names and the name of the lady. They refused to give their names and said “read it off my badge”, but were too far for Plaintiff to read the names, except for two deputies, Woods badge 11223 and Erman. Plaintiff stated she wasn’t leaving until she had the name of the lady so she could write a proper appeal identifying all the actors in the situation. The deputies then ordered Plaintiff to stand and submit to arrest. They grabbed her papers and her walker away from her and Plaintiff stood up. The deputies ordered Plaintiff to walk to the door and Plaintiff replied: “that’s impossible because you took my walker.”

25.  The deputies surrounded Plaintiff and returned the walker and Plaintiff walked out of the courtroom door surrounded by the deputies and led by Sgt. Q. They did not arrest Plaintiff, but a deputy pulled the walker too fast causing Plaintiff to lose her grip. Then Deputy Woods pushed Plaintiff, Plaintiff lost her balance and had to grab Woods’ shoulder to keep from falling. Plaintiff loudly complained: “stop assaulting me.” The deputies then gave back the walker and backed off a bit.

26.  Plaintiff then proceeded to the Clerk’s satellite office next to the Judge’s courtroom and went up to the counter and asked the name of the lady and the Judge’s law clerks, two of whom came into the room while Plaintiff was talking.  The two clerk’s assistants and the two law clerks refused to identify the lady or themselves. Plaintiff called a friend on her cell phone and was told one of the law clerk’s names was “Donald”. Plaintiff then left the building.

27.  The next day Plaintiff was granted food stamps by the Illinois Department of Human Services (“IL Medicaid”).

28.  Plaintiff has a clear right to have either her Indigency Petition approved or to receive a written order stating the specific reasons for the denial. The Judge had a clear duty to approve the Indigency Application or to issue a written order stating the specific reasons for denial. Now that Plaintiff has been granted food stamps, the Judge has an absolute duty to approve the Indigency Petition. The Clerk had a clear duty to file the Complaint.

29.  By refusing to perform their statutory duties, the Clerk and the Judge violated Plaintiff’s right to due process, her right to equal protection of the laws and her right to petition the government for a redress of grievances as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Illinois.

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff, Linda L. Shelton respectfully

requests that this Honorable Court:

a.         issue a writ of mandamus requiring

1.                  that Dorothy Brown, the Clerk, accept the filing of Plaintiff’s complaint nunc pro tunc to October 2, 2008; and

2.                  that the Honorable Judge Maddux, grant Plaintiff’s Indigency Petition;

3.                  that Judge Maddux’s staff must identify themselves and state their positions when asked by a citizen;

4.                  that Judge Maddux’s staff will cease and desist using Sheriff’s deputies to harass citizens seeking grants of Indigency Petitions, will stop in so doing obstructing justice, and will stop violating constitutional and statutory rights of such citizens;

b.         issue an order requiring Defendants to reimburse Plaintiff for the costs associated with bringing this action including but not limited to parking fees and Xeroxing costs;

c.         grant such other relief as this Court deems appropriate including but not limited to reprimanding the Judge for violation of his oath of office.

 

Under penalties as provided by law pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/109-1 I certify that the statements set forth herein are true and correct.

 

____________________________                           

October 9, 2008                                              Linda L. Shelton

 

 

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

Plaintiff Pro Se

 

 

 

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: