Update April 15, 2006:
Chicago is one the most racist city's in America. The racism permeates its judicial system. Chicago's Daley Center.
Illinois Voters: Remember the name Judge Maureen E. Connors, a white person. If you vote to retain her as a judge, you will get a white person who rules in favor of white people.
On April 12, 2006, Judge Maureen E. Connors ruled in favor of the white people in her court. She is outrageous with her decisions. Judge Connors did not order opposing counsel, who is white, to answer my mother's motion. Instead she allowed Attorney Mayme Spencer, who is white, to withdraw as attorney for my mother and 30 days to file a petition for Attorney fees. Judge Connors did not address in her order the sanction request of Attorney Spencer.
If this fraud is a product of the nursing home where my grandmother stayed, it is not an isolated incident. This nursing home may be filling out, completing others paperwork in order to get their beds filled or it may be a "good" samaritan assisting those who need housing and are in despair. Nevertheless, fraud is fraud. The signature on petitioner's supporting document for his motion is not my mother's signature.
Those who may be interested in the outcome of this matter or the proceedings, the court date is April 12, 2006 in room 1814 at Chicago's Daley Center, Downtown Chicago, Illinois.
The petitioner in this matter is presenting a document, which was forged, as support for his claim. We, the public, will see if the Honorable Judge Maureen Connors will have this document investigated as the respondent requested in her motion. Forgery and the intent to defraud the court is a criminal offense. My mother, Charlie Mae Nance, is 75-years-old. William Robinson is her brother. What a mess.
This is how William takes care of family business. This has been going on for more than 10 years. We should have only what we earn. William has been attempting to get what does not belong to him. He did not work for the property my grandmother left. The property should go to her grandchildren.
William and my mother had two (2) other brothers, who are now deceased. What happened to their children's share of the property or estate? The court nor the attorney for the Estate, Ms. Spencer, are concerned about the children. Who will take care of the children, Judge Connors? Will you take responsibility for the children in this matter?
I, Fred Nance Jr., am a grandchild. I do not want anything I do not earn, but I do think the children of the deceased brothers should have their fair share of any property. If William gets everything my grandmother left, he will only give it to his children. Is this fair your honor?
IN CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT – PROBATE DIVISION
ESTATE OF BESSIE ROBINSON
A Disabled Person
WILLIAM ROBINSON,
Petitioner,
v.
CHARLIE MAE NANCE,
Respondent
Honorable Judge Maureen Connors
No. 92 P 757
Docket: 238
Page: 91
Room 1814
NOTICE OF MOTION
TO:
Paul M. Sengpiehl
Attorney for Respondent/Administrator
727 No. Ridgeland Ave.
Oak Park, Illinois 60302
Attorney Mayme Spencer
1510 Ashbury
Evanston, Illinois 60201
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 4, 2006 pro se respondent filed her
Motion Responding to Declaration, Judgment and Objections to Final Account at the Richard J. Daley Center, Chicago, Illinois, Probate Division, a copy of which is served upon the parties above.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Charlie Mae Nance, pro se respondent certify that I caused the above Notice and attached motion to be served upon the parties above by depositing same in the U.S. Mail on April 4, 2006.
Respectfully submitted,
Charlie Mae Nance, Pro Se Respondent
1700 Memorial Drive, Apt. 355
Calumet City, Illinois 60409
708-862-5262
IN CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT – PROBATE DIVISION
ESTATE OF BESSIE ROBINSON
A Disabled Person
WILLIAM ROBINSON,
Petitioner,
v.
CHARLIE MAE NANCE,
Respondent
Honorable Judge Maureen Connors
No. 92 P 757
Docket: 238
Page: 91
Room 1814
Motion Responding to Declaration, Judgment and Objections to Final Account
Now Comes Charlie Mae Nance, Pro Se Respondent, respectfully requesting this Honorable Court rescind the judgment in this matter and follow the relief requested below. Respondent submits the following in support:
Castro v. United States, 290 F.3d 1270 (2003) reports courts sometimes will ignore the legal label that a pro se litigant attaches to a motion and recharacterize the motion in order to place it within a different legal category. See, e.g., Raineri v. United States, 233 F.3d 96, 100 (CA1 2000); United States v. Detrich, 940 F.2d 37, 38 (CA2 1991); United States v. Miller, 197 F.3d 644, 648 (CA3 1999); Raines v. United States, 423 F.2d 526, 528, n. 1 (CA4 1970); United States v. Santora, 711 F.2d 41, 42 (CA5 1983); United States v. McDowell, 305 F.2d 12, 14 (CA6 1962); Henderson v. United States, 264 F.3d 709, 711 (CA7 2001); McIntyre v. United States, 508 F.2d 403, n. 1 (CA8 1975) (per curiam); United States v. Eatinger, 902 F.2d 1383, 1385 (CA9 1990) (per curiam); United States v. Kelly, 235 F.3d 1238, 1242 (CA10 2000); United States v. Jordan, 915 F.2d 622, 625 (CA11 1990); United States v. Tindle, 522 F.2d 689, 693 (CADC 1975) (per curiam).This Court may do so in order to avoid an unnecessary dismissal, e.g., id., at 692—693, to avoid inappropriately stringent application of formal labeling requirements, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam), or to create a better correspondence between the substance of a pro se motion’s claim and its underlying legal basis. See Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 10 (1980) (per curiam); Andrews v. United States, 373 U.S. 334 (1963).
STATEMENT OF FACTS/DEFENSES
Petitioner’s motion to declare guardian negligent and enter judgment, filed with this court on or about June 23, 2005, has fatal flaws.
Petitioner supports this motion with a claim from the Illinois Department of Public Aid. (Petitioner’s Group Exhibit B)
Petitioner attaches a supposed Department of Human Services (DHS) Request for Medical Assistance – Hospital/Long Term Care/Supportive Living Facility Application, which has a forged signature attached to it. (Petitioner’s Group Exhibit B)
The signature on this DHS document is not the respondent’s signature.
The respondent reports the Halsted Terrace Nursing Center or the petitioner signed her name to this document.
The petitioner was ordered by a court in this matter to pay $200.00 a month to the respondent because he signed his deceased father’s signature on a legal document, where he did not have authority to do so, taking money out of the Estate’s bank account, escorting his mother to the bank having her sign this document extracting an amount in excess of $60,000.00.
In the People of the State of Illinois v. Muzzarelli (2002) the appellate court affirmed the conviction of defendant Lisa Muzzarelli who was charged with two counts of forgery under the Illinois Criminal Code of 1961. 720 ILCS 5/17-3(a)(1), (a)(2) (West 2000).
To prove forgery a document must have an apparent legal effect or be capable of affecting the rights or obligations of another. See People v. Kent, 40 Ill. App. 3d 256, 350 N.E.2d 890 (1976).
Intent to defraud" in the forgery statute is defined as "an intention to cause another to assume, create, transfer, alter or terminate any right, obligation or power with reference to any person or property." 720 ILCS 5/17-3(b) (West 2000). A "document apparently capable of defrauding another" is one that "includes, but is not limited to, one by which any right, obligation or power with reference to any person or property may be created, transferred, altered or terminated." 720 ILCS 5/17-3(c) (West 2000).
A legislative body has the power to articulate reasonable definitions of terms within a statute and may broaden or narrow the meaning that terms otherwise would have. People v. Johnson, 231 Ill. App. 3d 412, 419-22, 595 N.E.2d 1381, 1387-88 (1992). When the General Assembly has defined the terms relating to fraud, a court cannot look beyond the statute to determine what it means to "intend to defraud" or for a document to be "capable of defrauding." See Johnson, 231 Ill. App. 3d at 419-22, 595 N.E.2d at 1387-88.
Petitioner’s motion objecting to the final account, filed with this court on or about September 7, 2005, list monies apparently filed with this court for expenses incurred by the respondent during the period of care provided for the Estate of Bessie Robinson.
Petitioner provides conclusions without the support of legal theory or evidence that the expenses did not occur.
Petitioner suggests to this court respondent misused monies from the Estate. Section 27-1 of the Probate Act provides that a representative of an estate is entitled to reasonable compensation. 755 ILCS 5/27-1 (West 1998).
Respondent has provided this court with documentation, cancelled checks, which she provided for most of the expenses incurred during her tenure as administrator to the Estate of Bessie Robinson.
These cancelled checks also provide support for respondent’s aforementioned statements on the forged document petitioner has presented to this court. (¶ 4)
Respondent’s signature on the cancelled checks clearly different than the signature on the DHS document petitioner uses to support his allegations.
Respondent verbally raised a claim in this court when discussing the accounting, such as described in the Probate Act, Article XVIII 755 ILCS 5/18‑1.1 (from Ch. 110 1/2, par. 18‑1.1) Sec. 18‑1.1. Statutory custodial claim. Any spouse, parent, brother, sister, or child of a disabled person who dedicates himself or herself to the care of the disabled person by living with and personally caring for the disabled person for at least 3 years shall be entitled to a claim against the estate upon the death of the disabled person. The claim shall take into consideration the claimant's lost employment opportunities, lost lifestyle opportunities, and emotional distress experienced as a result of personally caring for the disabled person. The claim shall be in addition to any other claim, including without limitation a reasonable claim for nursing and other care. The claim shall be based upon the nature and extent of the person's disability and, at a minimum but subject to the extent of the assets available, shall be in the amounts set forth below:
1. 100% disability, $100,000 2. 75% disability, $75,000 3. 50% disability, $50,000 4. 25% disability, $25,000
Respondent dedicated herself to the care of the disabled person by living with and personally caring for the disabled person from 1990 to 2002, and she is entitled to a claim.
Respondent retired from promising future in employment to care for the disabled person, her mother.
Respondent was offered two employment positions, on two separate occasions, with South Suburban Hospital.
Respondent was unable to accept them because of the guardianship responsibilities.
Respondent sustained poor health as a direct result of said guardianship.
Respondent has, at various times, had to spend her own money to care for her mother.
Respondent has been harassed by the courts and suffered mental abuse due to these proceedings.
Respondent reports she should be entitled to monetary support from the Estate for expenses incurred to have some debt relief for the monetary, physical and mental stress.
This care described is not in dispute between the parties.
Respondent clearly deserves the portion of the accounting as she has discussed numerous times in this court.
Petitioner, therefore, has no valid claim toward further accounting.
Respondent fully advised Attorney Mayme Spencer of the aforementioned. The attorney for the estate must act with due care and protect the beneficiaries' interests. In re Estate of Halas, 159 Ill. App. 3d 818, 831, 512 N.E.2d 1276, 1284 (1987).
WHEREFORE, respondent respectfully request this Honorable Court (1) rescind the judgment entered against the respondent in this matter Instanter, (2) reject the claim and supporting document attached to it, as it is a forgery (3) order petitioner to provide a handwriting expert to support their DHS document, (4) enter a Court Ordered proceeding with a criminal investigation into the forged document, (5) dismiss petitioner’s motion on the final accounting, (6) award and grant respondent a sum of $100,000.00 against the Estate as stated in the Illinois Statute cited above, (7) sanctions against Attorney Spencer pursuant to Article VIII – Illinois Rules Professional Conduct, and (7) whatever else this Honorable Court deems necessary and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
Charlie Mae Nance, Pro Se Respondent
cc: http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/
This letter was mailed to Ms. Spencer before my mother put her motion together.
March 25, 2006
Ms. Mayme F. Spencer
Attorney at law
1510 Asbury Avenue
Evanston, Illinois 60201
Re: Estate of Robinson, Case # 92P757 238/91
Dear Ms. Spencer:
I, Fred Nance Jr., am writing this letter to you on behalf of my mother, Charlie Mae Nance. My mother has discussed this case with me, giving me her perception of this case. I met you and have attended a court date with my mother. As I remember meeting you, you asked the court to allow you to recuse yourself from this matter. The court ordered you stay until it is final.
The present Judge in this matter, in my opinion, was very condescending and disrespectful to my mother. Nevertheless, this is not about my perceptions of the character and behavior of this sitting judge.
My mother allowed me to read your letter to her dated March 6, 2006 where you informed her of a court date on April 12, 2006 for prove up. You also state in your letter “When you failed to meet with me to prepare a defense for you and you failed to appear on March 3, 2006 and I had no excuse to make to the court as to you absence, as I warned you the court entered an Order of Default against you.” I want to say the use of the word “warned” is inappropriate. You may have informed my mother, but you cannot “warn” her. We are not back in the slavery days. I resent it. The language is inappropriate for a professional.
In your letter you also state, “This gives you one last chance to respond to the allegations of negligence and to the objections raised to your accounting.” My mother has responded. She has always responded to you. She responded in the hallway the day I met you and attended her session in court. You respond as her attorney. You are her legal representative. I know I need not inform you of your duties under Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct.
My mother has informed you, on many occasions, she could not meet with you in Evanston when she lives in Calumet City. My mother has suggested to you a meeting at the Daley Center. You refused to meet. My mother informed me you compared her going to see my brother in Kentucky, who is now deceased, with meeting you in Evanston. This was a very callous, malicious and nefarious statement.
You also talk of a defense. When I met you and we were talking in the hallway, my mother gave you many defenses, which you decided not to pursue. One of the defenses, being she did not sign the paperwork submitted to the Department of Public Aid authorizing payment for my grandmother’s care. Evidently, this paperwork was forged by the public aid official. Did you pursue this issue? It is not only a valid issue now, but also on appeal.
My mother is not feeling well, having clinical depression and problems walking and standing. If the judge needs paperwork to establish the validity of these illnesses, it can be provided to you, by mail, and you can present it to the court.
Wherefore the foregoing reasons, my mother will not be attending the court date of April 12, 2006. If the judge in this matter decides to enter an order disposing of the matter, then it would be appropriate to pursue the issues on appeal. Please send the final order to my mother as not to delay the appellate processes. Of course, we are not looking for you to represent my mother on appeal. My mother is capable of articulating her issues to a typist for her appeal pro se.
Respectfully submitted,
Fred L Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS
cc: Honorable Judge Maureen Connors
http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/
Copies of this letter were faxed only to the Honorable Judge Conners and Ms. Spencer. A copy of this letter was posted and published on Fred’s website above.
I will post and publish Ms. Spencer's reply at a later date.
