January 18, 2006
Governor Rod Blagojevich
Honorable Chief Judge Timothy Evans
Honorable Presiding Judge Henry Budzinski
Do Illinois Courts in Cook County uphold established law? Are they supervised and monitored?
In the Estate of Romeo Ashford (Case No. 00 P 1267), I filed a motion today January 18, 2006 objecting to opposing counsel, Margaret Benson, filing a proposed Bystander’s Report of Proceedings in this matter and objecting to my proposed Bystander’s Report of Proceedings. Everything contained in this writing is public knowledge. This case is in front of Judge Kathleen McGury in room 1806 at the Richard J. Daley Center in Chicago Illinois. On January 10, 2006 Margaret Benson filed a proposed Bystander’s Report of Proceedings. In addition, Margaret Benson filed an objection to my Bystander’s Report of Proceedings.
I, Fred Nance Jr., am the petitioner in this matter. On November 2, 2005 Judge James Riley made a final decision in this matter. I filed a notice of appeal on November 28, 2005 in this matter. On December 6, 2005 I filed a Bystander’s Report of Proceedings. On December 7, 2005, I certified I served this Bystander’s Report of Proceedings to Michael Bergmann and Theresa Ceko. Attorney Michael Bergmann works for Chicago Volunteer Legal Services Foundation, which Margaret Benson is the Executive Director. Attorney Theresa Ceko works for Loyola University Community Law Center. These attorneys are litigating this matter against me. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 323(c), states, in part, “…Within 14 days after service of the proposed report of proceedings, any other party may serve proposed amendments or an alternative proposed report of proceedings.” Ms. Benson’s proposed Bystander’s Report of Proceedings and objection has no validity.
Judge Kathleen McGury decided on January 10, 2006 to cancel my court date of January 20, 2006 for the hearing to January 25, 2006 at the request of a motion submitted by Margaret Benson, who sent me a copy of the motion without a signature or time/date stamp from the court. This may be a violation of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137, which states in part, “Every pleading, motion and other paper of a party represented by an attorney shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in his individual name, whose address shall be stated….If a pleading, motion, or other paper is not signed, it shall be stricken unless it is signed promptly after the omission is called to the attention of the pleader or movant.”
I guess we will see what decision Judge McGury makes on January 25, 2006 at 11:00 am in room 1806. This writing is protected by the 1st Amendment of our United States Constitution, if we follow its laws. Everything contained in this writing is in my motion filed on January 18, 2006 at the Daley Center, where I personally delivered a courtesy copy to Judge McGury’s courtroom, and mailed individual copies to Attorneys Theresa Ceko and Michael Bergmann (to the attention of Margaret Benson).
The Record on Appeal is due on January 30, 2006. I filed for an extension of time on January 18, 2006 due to this quandary of indifferent treatment toward me.
I am very adamant about fighting injustices within the Illinois Judicial System. The judicial system in Illinois runs rampant with injustices and inequalities because the Justices legislate from the bench. The issue presented below demonstrates this allegation.
I am so reminded of the mistreatment and inequalities in Judge Paul Foxgrover’s courtroom. Judge Foxgrover convicted me and stole my money. Foxgrover was caught up in Operation Greylord in the mid-80’s (for more information on Foxgrover, go to http://www.ipsn.org/foxg.html). Foxgrover was sentenced to 6 years on July 14, 1992.
I began my sentence in the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) at Vandalia, Illinois in August of 1992. When I heard about Foxgrover in Vandalia, I attempted to fight this conviction from the Vandalia Correctional Center. My attempt was foiled by a civilian prison property clerk. The clerk whose family is connected in the prison system misdirected my paperwork when I was going to court. Subsequently, all my evidence was lost. I filed a Federal lawsuit for being denied access to court. See Fred Nance Jr. v. J.D. Vieregge, et al. (7th Cir. 1998). This case was decided on June 17, 1998. I was released from IDOC on December 20, 1994. The Honorable Judge Bertina Lampkin finally listened to my legal argument in December of 1994 stating she was releasing me to spend Christmas with my daughter, Randi Nance. My wife of 16 years, Judy Nance, was murdered on July 5, 1993, while I was incarcerated (see Chicago Tribune newspaper for July 5, 1993). Randi found the body. Randi was 9 years old. I was a single parent when I returned home. Randi is now a 3rd year student at Southern Illinois University. She is a Criminal Justice major. Her mother’s murderer was never found. Randi still has issues of loss.
The mistreatment and inequality of the judicial system began my fight against injustices against the socially disenfranchised and disadvantaged. I began learning my litigating techniques from this experience. The rest is history.
I will not let up, shut up, until I have stayed up and stored up for the cause of equal justice for all. This is why I ask the “hard” questions of the Honorable Chief Judge Timothy Evans and the Honorable Governor Rod Blagojevich. Who else is going to fight for the disadvantaged and disenfranchised? It is hard, but it is worth it to win just one battle.
cc: Honorable Governor Rod Blagojevich
Honorable Chief Judge Timothy Evans
Honorable Presiding Judge Henry Budzinski
Posted and Published at http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/
A fax copy of this writing will be sent to the above.
February 17, 2006
February 12, 2006
Novermber 25, 2005 - Mills Properties, Inc.: Inappropriate Charges to Southern Illinois University College Students
As of February 14, 2006, Mills Properties, Inc. has not contacted my daughter about her refund. They are still visiting this website.
Mills Properties, Inc., please be advised reporting false information to the credit bureau is illegal. Please assure you have calculated appropriately and are in compliance with the Illinois Compiled Statutes, that is, 735 ILCS 710/ and 30-rule.
November 25, 2005
Mr. Brad Weintrop, Collection Manager
Mills Properties, Inc.
120 S. Central Ave.
Clayton, Mo. 63105
Re: Randi Nance Account #T0002225-QUADRANGLE
Mr. Weintrop:
I, Fred L Nance Jr., am writing in behalf of my daughter, Randi Nance. It appears the balance of $325.00/$475.00 is inappropriate and may be illegal. My daughter shared an apartment with Victoria Young. Therefore, the expenses you calculated are inaccurate.
Your company has charged “each/both” tenants with full bathroom clean-up of $50.00; full kitchen clean-up of $125.00; carpet clean $95.00; painting $50.00; and floor clean-up of $15.00. This is a total of $315.00. This means your company charged Randi Nance and Victoria Young $630.00 for the procedure outlined above, taking their security deposits; threatening legal action. Your company did not contact the residents in this cause within the 30-day limit for the charges you imply taking their security deposit, with additional cost to the residents. This is illegal and absurd. The first contact/letter sent to the residents is post marked 11/14/2005.
The following are Landlord Tenant Laws for Illinois, which are actionable in this matter:
Lease provisions that permit penalties may be unenforceable. Examples may be late charges unrelated to the landlord’s actual cost of seeking the rent due. Builder’s Concrete Co. v. Fred Fauber and Sons, 58 Ill. App.3d 100, 373 N.E.2d 863, 15 Ill.Dec. 517 (3d Dist. 1978).
Security Deposit Return Act, 765 ILCS 710 / 0.01
If residential real property contains five or more units, a lessor who has received a security deposit from a tenant must provide the tenant with a written statement of any damage to the property before deducting repair costs from the security deposit. The lessor may not withhold any part of the deposit as compensation for property damage unless the lessor has, within 30 days of the date the tenant vacates, sent the tenant a written itemized statement of the damages allegedly caused by the tenant to the premises and the actual or estimated cost of repair of the damages, with any paid receipts, or copies, attached. The lessor may include a reasonable cost for his own labor, if completing the repairs himself. If only an estimate is given, the lessor must give the tenant paid receipts showing the actual cost within 30 days from the date of the itemized statement. If the lessor does not furnish the tenant with the statement and receipts, the lessor must, within 45 days, return the security deposit to the tenant.
The Security Deposit Return Act does not require a lessor to send any statement to the tenant if the lessor withheld the security deposit because of unpaid rent and not because of property damage.
Tenant Remedy: The tenant may file an action in circuit court if the lessor violates the Security Deposit Return Act. If the court finds that the lessor has refused to provide the statement as required or has provided a statement in bad faith and has failed to return the deposit timely, the lessor is liable for twice the security deposit, court costs, and reasonable attorney's fees.
Mills Properties, Inc. did not submit an itemized statement in accordance to this Act to the tenants, that is, Randi Nance and Victoria Young, in this matter.
The Security Deposit Interest Act, 765 ILCS 715
The Act applies to buildings or complexes with 25 or more residential units. The lessor must have held the security deposit for more than six months.
The lessor must pay interest on security deposits computed from the date of the lessee’s deposit with the lessor.
Interest must be paid at a rate equal to the minimum passbook savings account interest rate paid by the largest Illinois commercial bank as of December 31 of the year prior to the beginning of the lease.
Tenant Remedies: Lessor must make the interest payment by cash or by credit against rent due within 30 days of the end of each 12 month rental period, unless the tenant is in default under the lease.
A tenant may bring an action against a lessor who violates the Act. A lessor who willfully fails or refuses to pay the interest due is liable for the entire security deposit, together with court costs and reasonable attorney's fees.
Wherefore, Randi Nance and Victoria Young request full payment of their security deposit, interest, and other costs, Instanter. This writing will be published and posted at: http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/.
Respectfully submitted,
Fred L Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS Randi Nance
Advocate
cc: Victoria Young
http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/
Mills Properties, Inc., please be advised reporting false information to the credit bureau is illegal. Please assure you have calculated appropriately and are in compliance with the Illinois Compiled Statutes, that is, 735 ILCS 710/ and 30-rule.
November 25, 2005
Mr. Brad Weintrop, Collection Manager
Mills Properties, Inc.
120 S. Central Ave.
Clayton, Mo. 63105
Re: Randi Nance Account #T0002225-QUADRANGLE
Mr. Weintrop:
I, Fred L Nance Jr., am writing in behalf of my daughter, Randi Nance. It appears the balance of $325.00/$475.00 is inappropriate and may be illegal. My daughter shared an apartment with Victoria Young. Therefore, the expenses you calculated are inaccurate.
Your company has charged “each/both” tenants with full bathroom clean-up of $50.00; full kitchen clean-up of $125.00; carpet clean $95.00; painting $50.00; and floor clean-up of $15.00. This is a total of $315.00. This means your company charged Randi Nance and Victoria Young $630.00 for the procedure outlined above, taking their security deposits; threatening legal action. Your company did not contact the residents in this cause within the 30-day limit for the charges you imply taking their security deposit, with additional cost to the residents. This is illegal and absurd. The first contact/letter sent to the residents is post marked 11/14/2005.
The following are Landlord Tenant Laws for Illinois, which are actionable in this matter:
Lease provisions that permit penalties may be unenforceable. Examples may be late charges unrelated to the landlord’s actual cost of seeking the rent due. Builder’s Concrete Co. v. Fred Fauber and Sons, 58 Ill. App.3d 100, 373 N.E.2d 863, 15 Ill.Dec. 517 (3d Dist. 1978).
Security Deposit Return Act, 765 ILCS 710 / 0.01
If residential real property contains five or more units, a lessor who has received a security deposit from a tenant must provide the tenant with a written statement of any damage to the property before deducting repair costs from the security deposit. The lessor may not withhold any part of the deposit as compensation for property damage unless the lessor has, within 30 days of the date the tenant vacates, sent the tenant a written itemized statement of the damages allegedly caused by the tenant to the premises and the actual or estimated cost of repair of the damages, with any paid receipts, or copies, attached. The lessor may include a reasonable cost for his own labor, if completing the repairs himself. If only an estimate is given, the lessor must give the tenant paid receipts showing the actual cost within 30 days from the date of the itemized statement. If the lessor does not furnish the tenant with the statement and receipts, the lessor must, within 45 days, return the security deposit to the tenant.
The Security Deposit Return Act does not require a lessor to send any statement to the tenant if the lessor withheld the security deposit because of unpaid rent and not because of property damage.
Tenant Remedy: The tenant may file an action in circuit court if the lessor violates the Security Deposit Return Act. If the court finds that the lessor has refused to provide the statement as required or has provided a statement in bad faith and has failed to return the deposit timely, the lessor is liable for twice the security deposit, court costs, and reasonable attorney's fees.
Mills Properties, Inc. did not submit an itemized statement in accordance to this Act to the tenants, that is, Randi Nance and Victoria Young, in this matter.
The Security Deposit Interest Act, 765 ILCS 715
The Act applies to buildings or complexes with 25 or more residential units. The lessor must have held the security deposit for more than six months.
The lessor must pay interest on security deposits computed from the date of the lessee’s deposit with the lessor.
Interest must be paid at a rate equal to the minimum passbook savings account interest rate paid by the largest Illinois commercial bank as of December 31 of the year prior to the beginning of the lease.
Tenant Remedies: Lessor must make the interest payment by cash or by credit against rent due within 30 days of the end of each 12 month rental period, unless the tenant is in default under the lease.
A tenant may bring an action against a lessor who violates the Act. A lessor who willfully fails or refuses to pay the interest due is liable for the entire security deposit, together with court costs and reasonable attorney's fees.
Wherefore, Randi Nance and Victoria Young request full payment of their security deposit, interest, and other costs, Instanter. This writing will be published and posted at: http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/.
Respectfully submitted,
Fred L Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS Randi Nance
Advocate
cc: Victoria Young
http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/
February 10, 2006
February 10, 2006 - The United States Supreme Court in Transition: Samuel Alito Confirmed
It seems George W. Bush has won another victory for the American People. With the appointments and confirmations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, the Supreme Court of the United States may be able to put this country back on the road toward justice and equality. Eminent domain and partial birth abortion will soon be subjects coming before the Court.
It appears the swing vote of Sandra Day O'Connor will be in the hands of Alito who believes in the moral and ethical justice of the Rule of Law and our Constitution. Roberts and Alito may be what this country needs to stop the penetrating undermining of our present judicial system's legislating from the bench.
The founding Father's of the United States, in their infinite wisdom, created three (3) branches of government. These branches of government, Executive-Legislative-Judicial, each weigh equally to form this democratic society we call the United States. The processes of providing a stable living environment rests on the operation of these three components acting first independently, then collectively. Neither of these entities should be extracting the powers of the other. The ultimate power of the people rests in the independent operation of each.
Legislating from the bench must stop. Judicial corruption is easy to get involved with when special interest groups rule the processes of justice. Equality for all goes out the window for favor of the few. The "little" people who elect our governing bodies to act postitively in their behalf find hopes dashed, ethical reasoning pushed beyond its borders and ultimate disaster knocking at their door because of the special interest groups who control our judicial system.
We, as a united people, must remember those we have entrusted with power, who act maliciously and nefariously when operating on our behalf. Our voting system is power. We must exercise its controls. Gathering and sharing information creates better decision making.
I appeal to this great nation and republic to vote in November of 2006 for those you know who have the best interest of the American public, as a whole. Remember, the whole is made up of its parts, therefore, your interest are perserved as well. Look at all the information, and make an informed decision. Please do not make a decision from the heart. The heart is deceitful and wicked. Vote those individuals out of office who are involved in corruption, legislating from the bench and those who create instability by hiring family, friends and cohorts creating a depostic regime. Watch out for wolves in sheep's clothing.
I welcome Supreme Court Jutice Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. What a breath of fresh air. This is a Supreme Court in transition. This transition will effect the United States for possibly 40 or 50 years. The Court will be different. Some of the people in our lower court system will understand, through our appellate processes, that the Rule of Law is here to diminish and destroy the Rule of a few.
It appears the swing vote of Sandra Day O'Connor will be in the hands of Alito who believes in the moral and ethical justice of the Rule of Law and our Constitution. Roberts and Alito may be what this country needs to stop the penetrating undermining of our present judicial system's legislating from the bench.
The founding Father's of the United States, in their infinite wisdom, created three (3) branches of government. These branches of government, Executive-Legislative-Judicial, each weigh equally to form this democratic society we call the United States. The processes of providing a stable living environment rests on the operation of these three components acting first independently, then collectively. Neither of these entities should be extracting the powers of the other. The ultimate power of the people rests in the independent operation of each.
Legislating from the bench must stop. Judicial corruption is easy to get involved with when special interest groups rule the processes of justice. Equality for all goes out the window for favor of the few. The "little" people who elect our governing bodies to act postitively in their behalf find hopes dashed, ethical reasoning pushed beyond its borders and ultimate disaster knocking at their door because of the special interest groups who control our judicial system.
We, as a united people, must remember those we have entrusted with power, who act maliciously and nefariously when operating on our behalf. Our voting system is power. We must exercise its controls. Gathering and sharing information creates better decision making.
I appeal to this great nation and republic to vote in November of 2006 for those you know who have the best interest of the American public, as a whole. Remember, the whole is made up of its parts, therefore, your interest are perserved as well. Look at all the information, and make an informed decision. Please do not make a decision from the heart. The heart is deceitful and wicked. Vote those individuals out of office who are involved in corruption, legislating from the bench and those who create instability by hiring family, friends and cohorts creating a depostic regime. Watch out for wolves in sheep's clothing.
I welcome Supreme Court Jutice Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. What a breath of fresh air. This is a Supreme Court in transition. This transition will effect the United States for possibly 40 or 50 years. The Court will be different. Some of the people in our lower court system will understand, through our appellate processes, that the Rule of Law is here to diminish and destroy the Rule of a few.
February 08, 2006
January 26, 2006 - Cook County Illinois Courts: Chief Judge Timothy Evans and Cook County Sheriff Michael Sheehan
I have been litigating this case for visitation for 6 years in courtroom 1806 of the Daley Center, Chicago, Illinois. I have filed numerous complaints throughout the years against the Judges and the Cook County Sheriff's Department in this matter. Cook County Sheriff Michael Sheehan has not responded to any of my complaints. Chief Judge Timothy Evans is more responsible. He has responded. I am aware there is a "system" in place and he can only do so much. On the other hand, on January 25, 2006 Cook County Sheriff Chief Burrough Cartrette stated to me, "because of "911" and the loss suffered by one of Cook County's Federal Judges' family members", if the Sheriff's office thought you were a threat to the Judge they would come out to your house and arrest you.
What is this person telling me about the Cook County Sheriff's Office? Does this mean a "pro se" person attempting to articulate and litigate his case can be identified as a threat and arrested because he/she addresses mainstream judicial activism/legislating from the bench?
Because of the present situation, my assumption is I will continue to be harassed, intimidated, and threatened by the Illinois Cook County Sheriff's Office and the Judges of Cook County because I address their legislating from the bench. It also appears I will be arrested on some bogus, trumped up charged, and they will use "911" to justify the means toward that end. I will not stop addressing the oppression of the socially disadvantaged and disenfranchised.
January 26, 2006
State of Illinois
Circuit Court of Cook County, Daley Center
Honorable Timothy C. Evans, Chief Judge
2600 Richard J. Daley Center
Chicago, Illinois 60602
Re: In re: Romeo Ashford #00 P 1267
Chief Judge Evans:
On January 25, 2006 I, Fred L Nance Jr., submitted myself to a bystander’s report of proceedings hearing before the Honorable Judge Kathleen McGury. It was reported to Cook County Sheriff Chief Burrough Cartrette and me Judge McGury has ordered extra security present when I litigate in her courtroom. Chief Cartrette asked his floor Sgt. if she knew anything about this order from Judge McGury. She answered no.
The Sheriffs office posted extra officers in and around the courtroom when I attended. This intimidates and discourages me from litigating my issues before the court. It creates duress due to the stress and discrimination of indifferent treatment. The State of Illinois and/or City of Chicago and/or Cook County, “the taxpayers”, are paying for these “extra officers” to intimidate and harass me in my litigating processes.
There were 4 officers present during my litigation processes. When the court was alerted to Judge McGury possibly coming out to the bench, Cook County Sheriff’s Deputy Olejarz stated, “let’s get this party on the way.” Sheriff’s Deputy Olejarz admitted to Cook County Sheriff Chief Cartrette he made the statement. Chief Cartrette disregarded the statement as nothing out of the ordinary.
In addition, the black female clerk stated to Attorney Margaret Benson, opposing counsel, “Judge McGury wants to know if you want to speak to her before this case (Ashford) is called?” This is totally inappropriate. We can assume Judge McGury has been discussing this case with opposing counsel without my knowledge or invite to the discussion. Judge McGury is subject to the Codes of Judicial Misconduct.
Sir, I went to your office to speak to you before court began for me because of the duress I was under. Cook County Sheriff’s Deputy Franklin, Badge #4383, informed me you were at a meeting. I have written you many times about my judicial processes in this case. Please address this issue. Judge McGury has no reason to treat me in this manner. I must be respected as others. The Court intimidates and threatens me, preventing litigation.
Fred L Nance Jr.
cc: http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/ published and posted
Michael Sheehan, Cook County Illinois Sheriff (fax copies sent only)
What is this person telling me about the Cook County Sheriff's Office? Does this mean a "pro se" person attempting to articulate and litigate his case can be identified as a threat and arrested because he/she addresses mainstream judicial activism/legislating from the bench?
Because of the present situation, my assumption is I will continue to be harassed, intimidated, and threatened by the Illinois Cook County Sheriff's Office and the Judges of Cook County because I address their legislating from the bench. It also appears I will be arrested on some bogus, trumped up charged, and they will use "911" to justify the means toward that end. I will not stop addressing the oppression of the socially disadvantaged and disenfranchised.
January 26, 2006
State of Illinois
Circuit Court of Cook County, Daley Center
Honorable Timothy C. Evans, Chief Judge
2600 Richard J. Daley Center
Chicago, Illinois 60602
Re: In re: Romeo Ashford #00 P 1267
Chief Judge Evans:
On January 25, 2006 I, Fred L Nance Jr., submitted myself to a bystander’s report of proceedings hearing before the Honorable Judge Kathleen McGury. It was reported to Cook County Sheriff Chief Burrough Cartrette and me Judge McGury has ordered extra security present when I litigate in her courtroom. Chief Cartrette asked his floor Sgt. if she knew anything about this order from Judge McGury. She answered no.
The Sheriffs office posted extra officers in and around the courtroom when I attended. This intimidates and discourages me from litigating my issues before the court. It creates duress due to the stress and discrimination of indifferent treatment. The State of Illinois and/or City of Chicago and/or Cook County, “the taxpayers”, are paying for these “extra officers” to intimidate and harass me in my litigating processes.
There were 4 officers present during my litigation processes. When the court was alerted to Judge McGury possibly coming out to the bench, Cook County Sheriff’s Deputy Olejarz stated, “let’s get this party on the way.” Sheriff’s Deputy Olejarz admitted to Cook County Sheriff Chief Cartrette he made the statement. Chief Cartrette disregarded the statement as nothing out of the ordinary.
In addition, the black female clerk stated to Attorney Margaret Benson, opposing counsel, “Judge McGury wants to know if you want to speak to her before this case (Ashford) is called?” This is totally inappropriate. We can assume Judge McGury has been discussing this case with opposing counsel without my knowledge or invite to the discussion. Judge McGury is subject to the Codes of Judicial Misconduct.
Sir, I went to your office to speak to you before court began for me because of the duress I was under. Cook County Sheriff’s Deputy Franklin, Badge #4383, informed me you were at a meeting. I have written you many times about my judicial processes in this case. Please address this issue. Judge McGury has no reason to treat me in this manner. I must be respected as others. The Court intimidates and threatens me, preventing litigation.
Fred L Nance Jr.
cc: http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/ published and posted
Michael Sheehan, Cook County Illinois Sheriff (fax copies sent only)
February 07, 2006
January 24, 2006 - Our Judicial Processes at Work, or Are They?
I received a reponse from Chief Judge Timothy Evans and Presiding Judge Ronald Riley, which I posted in the comment section of this writing. Judge Riley is presiding judge at the Markham courthouse. Judge Flaherty is Associate Judge at the Markham courthouse.
I think the response I received from Judge Riley is appalling. He suggest in his writing "Our system of justice demands that our judges be independent fact finders unencumbered by public opinion."
The complaint below describes the facts, which were presented in open court. Judge Flaherty did not consider the facts. His judgment in this matter came from somewhere else.
You the public, consider if you want judges ruling in this manner. It is surely the choice of the voters.
Our police lose. We, the victims, lose. The criminal wins. This was how "Operation Greylord" existed at the Markham courthouse.
The People of the State of Illinois vs. LaShawn Hobbs, No YG191601
On January 24, 2006 I, Fred Nance Jr., answered a subpoena to appear before the Honorable Judge Brian K. Flaherty of the 6th Municipal District, Markham Courthouse to address a hit-and-run accident where I was the victim. A trial was held. I gave testimony of how two (2) males were in the car that hit me in the rear, at a stop light, and the car which hit me sped away. I immediately called 911 when the car hit me in the rear. I gave testimony stating I followed the car about 5 miles while talking to a 911 dispatch operator while she was directing the police to the scene. During my chase of the vehicle that hit me in the rear, the males in the car switched seats before the police caught up them.
The Cook County Assistant States Attorney, Dennis Dwyer, called me reporting Judge Flaherty had heard all the testimony and was going to examine the transcripts before making his ruling. This is okay if you are going to examine “all” the testimony. I stated in open court I had talked to a 911 representative during this whole ordeal. Why didn’t Judge Flaherty or the States Attorney’s office examine the 911 tape of the day in question? Judge Flaherty would not allow me to elaborate on any issue. Judge Flaherty “gagged’ me. The 911 tapes would have revealed who was driving the car when the accident occurred. I gave the 911 representative a full description of the person driving the car. I was not able to orally present this in court. Judge Flaherty did not want the truth. Judge Flaherty wanted to let the criminals go. People, this is our justice in Illinois.
On January 24, 2006 Judge Flaherty found the defendants not guilty because he found reasonable doubt. Whose reasoning? Something is wrong with this picture. Why do Judges victimize the victim? Who is responsible for hitting my car? What happened to the other defendant? None of these questions have answers.
What about the police officers who put their lives on the line everyday? Judge Flaherty just made their jobs harder. The Riverdale police department/officers put a lot of man hours into this case, which cost the taxpayers of Riverdale, Illinois and the State of Illinois. The Cook County States Attorney’s Office, Dennis Dwyer and Matt Daley performed their jobs well today. They also put a lot of man hours into this case, which cost the taxpayers of Cook County Illinois. The Cook County States Attorney Office mailed me subpoenas and even served one personally. How can these individuals feel they are making a difference? A police officer cannot come to his or her job everyday thinking I just want to put my eight (8) hours in, because of the stress and danger.
Its no wonder some police officers manufacture evidence. It appears this is the only way to get a conviction from Judges such as described. I am familiar with this tactic. I suffered under Judge Paul Foxgrover in 1988. Foxgrover was from the Markham Courthouse also. I am so reminded of the mistreatment and inequalities in Judge Paul Foxgrover’s courtroom in Markham, Illinois. Judge Foxgrover convicted me and stole my money. Foxgrover was caught up in Operation Greylord in the mid-80’s (for more information on Foxgrover, go to http://www.ipsn.org/foxg.html). Foxgrover was sentenced to 6 years on July 14, 1992.
I began my sentence in the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) at Vandalia, Illinois in August of 1992. When I heard about Foxgrover in Vandalia, I attempted to fight this conviction from the Vandalia Correctional Center. My attempt was foiled by a civilian prison property clerk. The clerk whose family is connected in the prison system misdirected my paperwork when I was going to court. Subsequently, all my evidence was lost. I filed a Federal lawsuit for being denied access to court. See Fred Nance Jr. v. J.D. Vieregge, et al. (7th Cir. 1998). This case was decided on June 17, 1998. I was released from IDOC on December 20, 1994. The Honorable Judge Bertina Lampkin finally listened to my legal argument in December of 1994 stating she was releasing me to spend Christmas with my daughter, Randi Nance. My wife of 16 years, Judy Nance, was murdered on July 5, 1993, while I was incarcerated (see Chicago Tribune newspaper for July 5, 1993). Randi found the body. Randi was 9 years old. I was a single parent when I returned home. Randi is now a 3rd year student at Southern Illinois University. She is a Criminal Justice major. Her mother’s murderer was never found. Randi still has issues of loss.
The character and behavior described flourishes both in IDOC and at the Markham Courthouse. It’s the good “ole” buddy system working at its best.
Judge Flaherty did not once consider the danger the Riverdale police officers were in when they stopped and approached two (2) males, at 8:00 am, in a vehicle with no insurance, both people intoxicated, who had run several red lights putting others at risk, and possibly could, have had weapons. I am sure the police officers integrity was attacked by opposing counsel. I am sure the police officers gave testimony in this case equaling the professional standards they uphold. Police officers cannot do their jobs effectively and efficiently because of decisions and ruling such as experienced today at the hands of Judge Flaherty. Judge Flaherty’s ruling today was outrageous and down right disgraceful.
While I was being questioned by opposing counsel, I attempted to elaborate on the questions asked of me. Judge Flaherty did not allow me to elaborate on the question asked. Judge Flaherty stated to me to answer yes or no. What does this really mean?
I remember the last time I was in Judge Flaherty’s courtroom when my hospital pager went off. He reprimanded me stating if it went off again he was going to take it. Two (2) cell phones went off before my pager went off. Judge Flaherty did not say anything about it. The two (2) cell phones belonged to a police officer and an attorney. There is great disparity in our judicial system when it comes to justice. Justice may be something unattainable in our Illinois judicial system.
I have addressed our judicial system in many of my writings posted on my website. I am not sure if the “Rule of Law” is an existing entity in our jurisprudence. Many Judges, maybe Judge Flaherty, legislate from the bench. Most rulings in our judicial system consist of prejudices and biases. In this particular case, I believe Judge Flaherty was bias and prejudice toward me because of how I upstaged the opposing counsel. Opposing counsel may be a “friend” of the court. I am surely not trying to take anyone to breakfast or lunch. I attempted to gain justice. Again, there may be no justice.
We need to make sure our vote counts. When we elect individuals, such as Judge Flaherty, we need to know how he thinks on the issues. We need to know who his friends are and where he comes from. To get a full picture of this “hit-and-run” fiasco, check my website at http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/, and click on date November 21, 2005. We have to make sure Judges make decisions from established law and precedent, and not from their personal biases and prejudices. Judge Flaherty and the Judge before him allowed opposing counsel to mislead the court and the processes toward truth. We cannot let Judge Flaherty reach appointment to the Appellate Court. Judge Flaherty should be voted out of office.
In summary, the defendants drove the car that hit my car in the rear. I chased the defendants, never losing my visual contact, talking to a 911 representative describing the defendants and talking every step of the way through the chase scene until the Riverdale Police Officers took the defendants from their car and handcuffed them. With this testimony from the officers and me in open court, Judge Flaherty reports not guilty because of reasonable doubt. This Judge is crazy. Maybe crazy like a fox, like Foxgrover.
If I were litigating this case, I would appeal this Judge’s decision to the Appellate Court. Since the Illinois Cook County States Attorney’s office prosecuted the case I cannot appeal the matter. The Illinois Cook County States Attorney’s office has appealed decisions of a Judge before. I request this decision appealed.
Maybe the States Attorney’s office will not appeal because it’s just a “traffic” case. This would be ludicrous reasoning. The States Attorney’s office should appeal because the evidence was not analyzed appropriately by Judge Flaherty. More importantly, they should appeal because it was not an ethically sound decision. The message of this decision is criminals can be found not guilty if the Judge does not like the people litigating. Judge Flaherty victimizes the victims in his court room. If LaShawn Hobbs is not guilty, then who is guilty? Maybe the accident never happened. Maybe the chase never happened. Maybe I never called 911. Why didn’t the Illinois Cook County States Attorney subpoena the 911 tape of my call? Then maybe opposing counsel would not have to ask me if I can identify the person who was driving the car. This is probably what Judge Flaherty based his decision on. Judge Flaherty did not take into account there was a hit-and-run auto accident. No one that I know of was asked if the accident happened. If the accident happened, then someone is guilty. Maybe I am guilty. Maybe I hit my own car in the rear.
Fred Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS
cc: Timothy Evans, Chief Judge of the Illinois Cook County Circuit Court
Dick Devine, Illinois Cook County States Attorney
Brian Flaherty, Honorable Judge of the 6th Municipal District, Markham Court
Mr. Graziano, Detective Riverdale Police Department
http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/
I think the response I received from Judge Riley is appalling. He suggest in his writing "Our system of justice demands that our judges be independent fact finders unencumbered by public opinion."
The complaint below describes the facts, which were presented in open court. Judge Flaherty did not consider the facts. His judgment in this matter came from somewhere else.
You the public, consider if you want judges ruling in this manner. It is surely the choice of the voters.
Our police lose. We, the victims, lose. The criminal wins. This was how "Operation Greylord" existed at the Markham courthouse.
The People of the State of Illinois vs. LaShawn Hobbs, No YG191601
On January 24, 2006 I, Fred Nance Jr., answered a subpoena to appear before the Honorable Judge Brian K. Flaherty of the 6th Municipal District, Markham Courthouse to address a hit-and-run accident where I was the victim. A trial was held. I gave testimony of how two (2) males were in the car that hit me in the rear, at a stop light, and the car which hit me sped away. I immediately called 911 when the car hit me in the rear. I gave testimony stating I followed the car about 5 miles while talking to a 911 dispatch operator while she was directing the police to the scene. During my chase of the vehicle that hit me in the rear, the males in the car switched seats before the police caught up them.
The Cook County Assistant States Attorney, Dennis Dwyer, called me reporting Judge Flaherty had heard all the testimony and was going to examine the transcripts before making his ruling. This is okay if you are going to examine “all” the testimony. I stated in open court I had talked to a 911 representative during this whole ordeal. Why didn’t Judge Flaherty or the States Attorney’s office examine the 911 tape of the day in question? Judge Flaherty would not allow me to elaborate on any issue. Judge Flaherty “gagged’ me. The 911 tapes would have revealed who was driving the car when the accident occurred. I gave the 911 representative a full description of the person driving the car. I was not able to orally present this in court. Judge Flaherty did not want the truth. Judge Flaherty wanted to let the criminals go. People, this is our justice in Illinois.
On January 24, 2006 Judge Flaherty found the defendants not guilty because he found reasonable doubt. Whose reasoning? Something is wrong with this picture. Why do Judges victimize the victim? Who is responsible for hitting my car? What happened to the other defendant? None of these questions have answers.
What about the police officers who put their lives on the line everyday? Judge Flaherty just made their jobs harder. The Riverdale police department/officers put a lot of man hours into this case, which cost the taxpayers of Riverdale, Illinois and the State of Illinois. The Cook County States Attorney’s Office, Dennis Dwyer and Matt Daley performed their jobs well today. They also put a lot of man hours into this case, which cost the taxpayers of Cook County Illinois. The Cook County States Attorney Office mailed me subpoenas and even served one personally. How can these individuals feel they are making a difference? A police officer cannot come to his or her job everyday thinking I just want to put my eight (8) hours in, because of the stress and danger.
Its no wonder some police officers manufacture evidence. It appears this is the only way to get a conviction from Judges such as described. I am familiar with this tactic. I suffered under Judge Paul Foxgrover in 1988. Foxgrover was from the Markham Courthouse also. I am so reminded of the mistreatment and inequalities in Judge Paul Foxgrover’s courtroom in Markham, Illinois. Judge Foxgrover convicted me and stole my money. Foxgrover was caught up in Operation Greylord in the mid-80’s (for more information on Foxgrover, go to http://www.ipsn.org/foxg.html). Foxgrover was sentenced to 6 years on July 14, 1992.
I began my sentence in the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) at Vandalia, Illinois in August of 1992. When I heard about Foxgrover in Vandalia, I attempted to fight this conviction from the Vandalia Correctional Center. My attempt was foiled by a civilian prison property clerk. The clerk whose family is connected in the prison system misdirected my paperwork when I was going to court. Subsequently, all my evidence was lost. I filed a Federal lawsuit for being denied access to court. See Fred Nance Jr. v. J.D. Vieregge, et al. (7th Cir. 1998). This case was decided on June 17, 1998. I was released from IDOC on December 20, 1994. The Honorable Judge Bertina Lampkin finally listened to my legal argument in December of 1994 stating she was releasing me to spend Christmas with my daughter, Randi Nance. My wife of 16 years, Judy Nance, was murdered on July 5, 1993, while I was incarcerated (see Chicago Tribune newspaper for July 5, 1993). Randi found the body. Randi was 9 years old. I was a single parent when I returned home. Randi is now a 3rd year student at Southern Illinois University. She is a Criminal Justice major. Her mother’s murderer was never found. Randi still has issues of loss.
The character and behavior described flourishes both in IDOC and at the Markham Courthouse. It’s the good “ole” buddy system working at its best.
Judge Flaherty did not once consider the danger the Riverdale police officers were in when they stopped and approached two (2) males, at 8:00 am, in a vehicle with no insurance, both people intoxicated, who had run several red lights putting others at risk, and possibly could, have had weapons. I am sure the police officers integrity was attacked by opposing counsel. I am sure the police officers gave testimony in this case equaling the professional standards they uphold. Police officers cannot do their jobs effectively and efficiently because of decisions and ruling such as experienced today at the hands of Judge Flaherty. Judge Flaherty’s ruling today was outrageous and down right disgraceful.
While I was being questioned by opposing counsel, I attempted to elaborate on the questions asked of me. Judge Flaherty did not allow me to elaborate on the question asked. Judge Flaherty stated to me to answer yes or no. What does this really mean?
I remember the last time I was in Judge Flaherty’s courtroom when my hospital pager went off. He reprimanded me stating if it went off again he was going to take it. Two (2) cell phones went off before my pager went off. Judge Flaherty did not say anything about it. The two (2) cell phones belonged to a police officer and an attorney. There is great disparity in our judicial system when it comes to justice. Justice may be something unattainable in our Illinois judicial system.
I have addressed our judicial system in many of my writings posted on my website. I am not sure if the “Rule of Law” is an existing entity in our jurisprudence. Many Judges, maybe Judge Flaherty, legislate from the bench. Most rulings in our judicial system consist of prejudices and biases. In this particular case, I believe Judge Flaherty was bias and prejudice toward me because of how I upstaged the opposing counsel. Opposing counsel may be a “friend” of the court. I am surely not trying to take anyone to breakfast or lunch. I attempted to gain justice. Again, there may be no justice.
We need to make sure our vote counts. When we elect individuals, such as Judge Flaherty, we need to know how he thinks on the issues. We need to know who his friends are and where he comes from. To get a full picture of this “hit-and-run” fiasco, check my website at http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/, and click on date November 21, 2005. We have to make sure Judges make decisions from established law and precedent, and not from their personal biases and prejudices. Judge Flaherty and the Judge before him allowed opposing counsel to mislead the court and the processes toward truth. We cannot let Judge Flaherty reach appointment to the Appellate Court. Judge Flaherty should be voted out of office.
In summary, the defendants drove the car that hit my car in the rear. I chased the defendants, never losing my visual contact, talking to a 911 representative describing the defendants and talking every step of the way through the chase scene until the Riverdale Police Officers took the defendants from their car and handcuffed them. With this testimony from the officers and me in open court, Judge Flaherty reports not guilty because of reasonable doubt. This Judge is crazy. Maybe crazy like a fox, like Foxgrover.
If I were litigating this case, I would appeal this Judge’s decision to the Appellate Court. Since the Illinois Cook County States Attorney’s office prosecuted the case I cannot appeal the matter. The Illinois Cook County States Attorney’s office has appealed decisions of a Judge before. I request this decision appealed.
Maybe the States Attorney’s office will not appeal because it’s just a “traffic” case. This would be ludicrous reasoning. The States Attorney’s office should appeal because the evidence was not analyzed appropriately by Judge Flaherty. More importantly, they should appeal because it was not an ethically sound decision. The message of this decision is criminals can be found not guilty if the Judge does not like the people litigating. Judge Flaherty victimizes the victims in his court room. If LaShawn Hobbs is not guilty, then who is guilty? Maybe the accident never happened. Maybe the chase never happened. Maybe I never called 911. Why didn’t the Illinois Cook County States Attorney subpoena the 911 tape of my call? Then maybe opposing counsel would not have to ask me if I can identify the person who was driving the car. This is probably what Judge Flaherty based his decision on. Judge Flaherty did not take into account there was a hit-and-run auto accident. No one that I know of was asked if the accident happened. If the accident happened, then someone is guilty. Maybe I am guilty. Maybe I hit my own car in the rear.
Fred Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS
cc: Timothy Evans, Chief Judge of the Illinois Cook County Circuit Court
Dick Devine, Illinois Cook County States Attorney
Brian Flaherty, Honorable Judge of the 6th Municipal District, Markham Court
Mr. Graziano, Detective Riverdale Police Department
http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/
February 06, 2006
February 6, 2006 - Illinois Cook County Chief Judge Timothy Evans
This is posted about Chief Judge Timothy Evans on the website of Citizens for Legal Responsibility. Their website address is: http://www.clr.org.
Citizens has been informed by attorneys that Judge Timothy C. Evans was an alderman in the City of Chicago and a member of Harold Washington's party. After the death of Harold Washington, Timothy Evans was appointed a judge to remove him from Chicago politics. These attorneys have informed Citizens that there has always been a question relative to Judge Evans' knowledge of the law, even before he became a judge.
Based on the information provided us by our members, we can confirm what attorneys have informed us of Judge Timothy C. Evans. We can confirm that Judge Evans does not respect the law nor does he comply with the law. As a judge, Judge Evans evidences a deliberate and willful disdain for the law and contempt for the decisions of the Justices of the Illinois Supreme Court. If a judge has no respect for the law, why should the general public? He has set an example, but a bad example.
A report critical of Judge Timothy Evans will be published, containing charges that he has willfully been involved in a scheme of extortion and fraud, has deliberately connived with, aided and abetted, an unlawful scheme of judge-shopping, has connived with, aided and abetted a person prohibited from practicing law in the State of Illinois in the practice of law, has acted without lawful authority, has engaged in actions in defrauding the State of Illinois, and has acted in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Citizens has been informed by attorneys that Judge Timothy C. Evans was an alderman in the City of Chicago and a member of Harold Washington's party. After the death of Harold Washington, Timothy Evans was appointed a judge to remove him from Chicago politics. These attorneys have informed Citizens that there has always been a question relative to Judge Evans' knowledge of the law, even before he became a judge.
Based on the information provided us by our members, we can confirm what attorneys have informed us of Judge Timothy C. Evans. We can confirm that Judge Evans does not respect the law nor does he comply with the law. As a judge, Judge Evans evidences a deliberate and willful disdain for the law and contempt for the decisions of the Justices of the Illinois Supreme Court. If a judge has no respect for the law, why should the general public? He has set an example, but a bad example.
A report critical of Judge Timothy Evans will be published, containing charges that he has willfully been involved in a scheme of extortion and fraud, has deliberately connived with, aided and abetted, an unlawful scheme of judge-shopping, has connived with, aided and abetted a person prohibited from practicing law in the State of Illinois in the practice of law, has acted without lawful authority, has engaged in actions in defrauding the State of Illinois, and has acted in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.