This entity rarely acts on any issue presented to them. Their automy should be questioned. The Illinois Supreme Court governs and elects its members. Every reply letter I have received from them informs me they will not investigate or charge the judges listed in my complaint. Ms. Kathy Twine signs each letter I have received in the last 5 years refusing to investigate the allegations made in my letters.
June 13, 2005
Judicial Inquiry Board
Kathy D. Twine, Esq., Executive Director & General Counsel
100 W. Randolph St., Suite 14-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Re: Judge Kathleen M. McGury #1670
Ms. Twine:
I, Fred Nance Jr., am a pro se litigant in case number 00 P 1267, room 1806, Daley Center respectfully requesting an investigation into the character, behavior and ethical concerns and issues of courtroom #1806, which Judge McGury is presently the sitting judge. I believe the following Codes of Judicial Misconduct are being violated:
1. RULE 61 - CANON 1: A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary
2. RULE 62 - CANON 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All of the Judge's Activities
3. RULE 63 - CANON 3: A Judge Should Perform the Duties of Judicial Office Impartially and Diligently. The judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all the judge's other activities. The judge's judicial duties include all the duties of the judge's office prescribed by law. In the performance of these duties, the following standards apply:
A. Adjudicative Responsibilities.
(1) A judge should be unswayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism.
(2) A judge should maintain order and decorum in proceedings before the judge.
(3) A judge should be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity, and should require similar conduct of lawyers, and of staff, court officials, and others subject to the judge's direction and control.
(4) A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person's lawyer, the right to be heard according to law. A judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications, or consider other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties concerning a pending or impending proceeding except that:
(a) Where circumstances require, ex parte communications for scheduling, administrative purposes or emergencies that do not deal with substantive matters or issues on the merits are authorized; provided: (i) the judge reasonably believes that no party will gain a procedural or tactical advantage as a result of the ex parte communication, and
(ii) the judge makes provision promptly to notify all other parties of the substance of the ex parte communication and allows an opportunity to respond.
(b) A judge may consult with court personnel whose function is to aid the judge in carrying out the judge's adjudicative responsibilities or with other judges.
(c) A judge may, with the consent of the parties, confer separately with the parties and their lawyers in an effort to mediate or settle matters pending before the judge.
(d) A judge may initiate or consider any ex parte communications when expressly authorized by law to do so.
(8) A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice. A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, including but not limited to bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status, and shall not permit staff, court officials and others subject to the judge's direction and control to do so.
(9) Proceedings before a judge shall be conducted without any manifestation, by words or conduct, of prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status, by parties, jurors, witnesses, counsel, or others. This section does not preclude legitimate advocacy when these or similar factors are issues in the proceedings.
B. Administrative Responsibilities
(2) A judge should require staff, court officials and others subject to the judge's direction and control to observe the standards of fidelity and diligence that apply to the judge.
(3) A judge having knowledge of a violation of these canons on the part of a judge or a violation of Rule 8.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct on the part of a lawyer shall take or initiate appropriate disciplinary measures.
C. Disqualification
(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where:
(a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party's lawyer, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.
FACTS:
A court order was issued on June 27, 2000 reporting that maternal grandfather, Fred Nance Jr., is granted visitation of minor child Romeo Ashford every other weekend from 6:00 pm Friday to 6:00 pm Sunday. Nance has reported the violation of this court order numerous times by temporary guardian Julia Johnson. For violating the court ordered visitation for Romeo Ashford, this court has never reprimanded Ms. Johnson. Presently, the sitting judge, McGury, has not granted Nance his visitation per court order of June 27, 2000, nor has she held Ms. Johnson in contempt of court for violating the court order of June 27, 2000 outlined in Nance’s motions.
On or about August 2, 2002 Nance filed an appeal with the 1st Judicial District Appellate Court of Illinois. On page 4 of the courts opinion it states “…The trial court entered an order directing that the issue of visitation by Fred Nance be mediated by the Cook County Department of Supportive Services. Subsequently, on June 27, 2000, the court entered an order allowing Fred Nance to visit Romeo on alternate weekends from Friday to Sunday and mandating that he pick up and return the child to Johnson for each visitation.”
Attorney Ceko never facilitated or obeyed the court order for mediation by the Cook County Department of Supportive Services. To cause undue harm and embarrassment Attorney Ceko, with the support of Attorney Bergmann and Judge McGury, has requested in her Guardian ad litem report of May 20, 2005 that Nance participate in a home study with the Cook County Department of Supportive Services to support his continued visitation, altering the court order of June 27, 2000.
Judge McGury has allowed the courtroom staff, that is, Cook County Deputy Sheriffs’ and clerks, to degrade and humiliate Nance in open court (attached Sheriff’s complaint). Judge McGury has allowed attorneys Bergmann (attorney for Julia Johnson temporary guardian) & Ceko (GAL) to circumvent the processes of the court ordered violations, which Nance has raised in open court with written motions (attached). Nance has requested of Judge McGury that the attorneys respond in writing to Nance’s motions to avoid costly and arduous litigation with a bystanders report if needed for the appellate process, and to assist the pro se litigant in his attempts to argue his case. Judge McGury has decided that the attorneys do not have to file written responses to Nance’s motions. There is no court reporter in this courtroom. Leaving any objections to the oral reply of the attorneys up to a bystanders report.
On June 3, 2005, Nance filed a motion requesting that Judge McGury find guardian Julia Johnson in contempt of court for violating the court order of June 27, 2000, in that, on May 20, 2005 Julia Johnson requested in open court that she had made arrangements for the minor child to visit relatives out-of-town on the Memorial holiday weekend. Nance relinquished his visitation for Memorial Day, May 27, 2005, so that Johnson could take the minor child out of town to visit other relatives.
Johnson agreed that Nance would have two weekends in a row, that is, June 3rd & June 10th, 2005 for visitation. Nance claimed in his written motion that on June 1, 2005 Johnson left a phone message at Nance’s home stating that the minor child came back home but that Julia Johnson sent the child back out of town and that that the child will be out of town in Minnesota and will return sometime at the end of June 2005. Judge McGury decided that attorney Bergmann did not have to answer this written motion in writing to respond to it. Subsequently, Nance is not getting his court ordered visitation.
Nothing was done on June 10, 2005 to facilitate my immediate visitation.
On May 20, 2005, Judge McGury allowed attorney Bergmann to present an oral motion for supervised visitation. During the proceedings on May 20, 2005, Nance raised the issue of receiving visitation on May 13, 2005, and the minor child having socks on his feet that were extremely dirty, which Nance brought to court with him for public viewing. Attorney Bergmann objected and informed Judge McGury that the issue of the socks was not before the court, directing the court and pointing to Nance’s written motion.
Judge McGury sustained the objection and did not entertain the issue of the socks because it was not in Nance’s written motion. Yet, Judge McGury entertained attorney Bergmann’s “oral” motion for supervised visitation. This is a disparity of treatment toward a pro se litigant. This violates the codes mentioned above in this letter and pro se litigants’ pleadings as described in Supreme Court opinions.
Therefore, Nance respectfully request an investigation into the matters brought forth in this complaint, and the accompanying complaint filed with the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC). Regarding the ARDC complaint, Nance is not suggesting this entity circumvent the proceedings of the ARDC, but rely upon the Rules and Facts as if fully disclosed herein.
It is my belief that Judge Kathleen M. McGury and Attorneys Bergmann & Ceko are acting in a conspiracy and scheme to deny Nance’s visitation of the minor child, and to purposely discredit Nance’s efforts for relief through the judicial system. I will post this complaint on my website.
cc: Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission
