The judicial system at the Daley Center in Chicago is corrupt through the use of nepotism and the old buddy program. The judges protect their own. An independent investigation of these judges needs to take place. The Chief Judges rarely act in these situations.
January 12, 2001
Honorable Judge Henry Budzinski
Supervising Judge – Probate Court
1803 Richard J. Daley Center
Chicago, Illinois 60602
Re: Character of the Courtroom 1806
Dear Sir:
I have written letters to you regarding the treatment and the violations of the rule of law that have taken place in this courtroom, and you have yet to address it or respond in writing to my letters.
I first wrote about Judge Braden and his misconduct in the courtroom. I write about Judge James G. Riley today. Judge Riley has taken Judge Braden place, due to Judge Braden retiring.
My case number is 00 P 1267, Docket #282, Page #259. I filed a motion for rule to show cause against the respondent, Julia Johnson, which was heard today in courtroom 1806. Judge Riley did not address my issues, i.e., I complained that the respondent, Julia Johnson, of minor child Romeo Nance-Ashford (my grandson) was sending the minor on visitation to me with soiled clothing and roaches in the clothes. I also complained about my visitation days being taken from me by the respondent. I asked Judge Riley to give me back my visitation days and to find the respondent in contempt of court for violating the court order of September 28, 2000.
I began to open a bag I had brought to court with the soiled clothes in it, and Judge Riley asked me, in a demeaning way, “did you bring dead roaches to court.” I told him no. I brought the soiled clothes. Judge Riley stated, “your motion talks about dead roaches. If you don’t have dead roaches I don’t want to see any clothes.” Judge Riley refused to look at my evidence. This violates the rule of law.
Judge Riley was very belligerent toward me. He screamed at me, in open court, requesting that I give him information about what he should do if he found the respondent in contempt of court. I lead him to my relief stated in the motion. Judge Riley stated that he did not have a copy of the motion. I told him that I gave a courtesy copy of the motion to his staff when I filed the motion. I gave him my copy of the motion. He did not return it to me.
Judge Riley badgered me about what were my issues on appeal in this matter. I gave him a courtesy copy of my appellate brief. He looked at it and returned it to me. He was not interested in what I was saying or to what I had in my motion. All he did was try his best to ridicule me in front of everyone in the courtroom.
In my opening statement to the court, I explained to Judge Riley that the respondent did not respond to my appellate brief, and that the guardian ad litem, Theresa Ceko, did file a response, and that there was no amicus curie brief filed. Therefore, the only thing before him was the motion I filed, and that the respondent and GAL should be allowed to refer to the issues addressed in the appellate brief. Judge Riley told me that he would decide what can be addressed in his courtroom. This violates the rule of law.
Judge Riley asked me “what are your issues on appeal”. I began to look in my appellate brief to locate the information, and evidently I was taking too long when Judge Riley stated in a loud obnoxious voice, “what are your issues.” GAL Ceko started telling Judge Riley that the only thing I was addressing on appeal was the court order of June 27, 2000. I objected. I told Judge Riley that I was addressing the whole court proceeding, and that the GAL should not be discussing this issue in this courtroom because it was improper. I informed Judge Riley that the GAL did not file a response to my brief in the appellate court, nor did she file an amicus curie brief in the appellate court, and, therefore, she could not address the issues of my brief in this venue. Judge Riley became heated and told me that he will determine who can say what in his courtroom. This violates the rule of law.
I requested that the respondent and the GAL respond to my motion in writing since there was no court reporter in the courtroom. The GAL requested to respond in writing. Judge Riley denied my request. Instead, he allowed the GAL to address the issues of the motion. I informed Judge Riley that she did not know what transpired between the respondent and myself, and that the respondent should be responding to my motion. I stated that the GAL is the guardian for the child. She is not the attorney for the respondent.
Judge Riley raised his voice again and hollered at me to tell him what I wanted him to do if he found the respondent in contempt of court. I told Judge Riley that I don’t respond to people who talk to me like that. I requested a date to file a bystander’s report of proceedings. Judge Riley ignored me and started looking in the direction of the GAL telling her how to write up his order for this proceeding. I again requested a date for the bystander’s report. Judge Riley ignored me and called the next case.
I went to his clerk to get a date and she began to treat me as if I did not exist. The clerk began to ask the GAL what date would she like. These continued nefarious acts, which violate my first amendment right to access the courts, is a continued attack to discourage me from litigating my case. This violates the rule of law.
Instead of finding the respondent in contempt of court for violating the court order, Judge Riley “technically entered” my motion and decided that he would “admonish” the respondent. There was nothing said about replacing my visitation days. Judge Riley would not let me litigate my case. I wanted to tell the Judge about the respondent sending the minor child on visitation with summer clothing in the winter. I also wanted to tell Judge Riley that I have bought new underclothes for my grandson that is never sent back, instead, I receive soiled clothes. Judge Riley continued to deny me access to the courts by not letting me litigate my case.
After the order was stamped, the GAL took the respondent a copy, who had retired to the hallway. The respondent told me in front of the GAL and the sheriff’s deputy that from now on she was not going to send any clothing with the minor child when he goes for visitation with me. I told the respondent that I had no problem coming back to court. This attitude is a direct result of the court not doing it’s job. A court order does not mean anything to the respondent, nor does it mean anything to the court.
Sir, an employee’s character, once demonstrated or exampled to his/her supervisor, mirrors the supervision of the supervisor, and this behavior by the employee once noticed by the supervisor, mirrors the character of the supervisor. If no action is taken, the supervisor condones the character of acts and responsibilities of the employee. Why should anyone adhere to the rule of law? If I had talked to Judge Riley the way he talked to me, I would be held in contempt of the court. Who holds Judge Riley in contempt of the court? Is there a different set of rules for the officers of the court that is not outlined Supreme Court Rules and Illinois Compiled Statutes?
The clerk finally gave me a court date for the bystander’s report of proceedings, after she affirmed that the GAL could be in court on the date she decided I could have. I was not asked if I could make it to court on that day. I have a life too. My court date for the bystander’s report of proceedings is February 9, 2001. There needs to me some monitoring in the courtrooms of the Daley Center. There may be others who have written; whom the character of those with supposed authority have discouraged with their nefarious acts that I have demonstrated in this letter. I would appreciate an answer from you on this issue. It’s only being respectful. Why does Judge Riley have a supervisor if the supervisor does not act? What are the responsibilities of a supervising Judge?
Judge Riley’s court order reads as follows: “That Fred Nance’s motion for rule to show cause is technically entered and the respondent Julia Johnson is admonished to provide clean clothes for the minor’s visitation with Fred Nance and to use her best efforts to comply with the previous visitation orders or to give Fred Nance ample notice of any changes.”
This order is ridiculous and ludicrous. It tells the respondent that she can change the visitation order at her whims without my agreement. It does not address my lost visitation privileges that were violated. What does Judge Riley mean when he says “technically entered”?
Therefore, I am attaching my motion to this correspondence. I am sending copies of this correspondence to following people listed below. Judge Riley would not have addressed any attorneys as he addressed me. There was no reason for him to deny looking at my evidence. There was no reason for him to ridicule me in open court. There was no reason for him to disrespect me.
cc: Donald P. O’Connell, Cook County Circuit Court Chief Judge
George H. Ryan, Governor
James E. Ryan, Illinois Attorney General
Lisa Madigan, Senator
John Cullerton, Senator
Larry McKeon, State Representative
Judy Erwin, State Representative
Helen Shiller, Alderman 46th Ward
Jesse Jackson, Operation Push
