Update: August 15, 2006
The Honorable Dorothy Brown responds:
August 7, 2006
Fred L. Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS
Social Policy Analyst
Dear Mr. Nance:
I am writing at the request of the Honorable Dorothy Brown, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, in response to your fax dated July 24, 2006.
The Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, the “Clerk’s Office,” makes every effort to serve our customers with an efficient, effective, and ethical manner. To that end, the Clerk’s Office implemented a new integrated cashiering system, which has been in use for approximately one year. As part of the implementation, extensive training was conducted in all operational areas to ensure effective use of the new system.
In your fax, you stated that you were overcharged for copies. You stated that your transaction was processed through the cash register one time for four copies, then you asked for an additional four copies, and the cashier started a new transaction to charge you for the second set of copies. By doing this, you were charged the statutory rate of $2.00 for the first page and $.50 for the next three pages, and then were again charged $2.00 for the first page and $.50 for the next three pages for a total of $7.00.
As I explained to you on the phone, I apologize that the cashier and manager did not follow the proper procedure in processing your transaction. When you requested the four additional copies, the cashier should have voided the first transaction and started a new transaction to charge you for all eight copies at once. In that way you would only have been charged $2.00 for the first page and $.50 for the next 7 pages for a total of $5.50.
Because you were over billed by $1.50, I am enclosing a check to you in that amount.
Again, I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you and we look forward to serving you in the future.
Sincerely,
Elena Shea Demos First Chief Deputy General Counsel
cc: Hon. Dorothy Brown, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County
Warren Howlett, Acting Associate Clerk, Criminal Bureau
Wasiu Fashina, Comptroller
Leopoldo Lastre, Chief Deputy Clerk, Criminal Division
Gloria Legette, Assistant Chief Deputy Clerk, Criminal Division
Update: July 29, 2006
No one has responded from Ms. Dorothy Brown's office. Maybe they believe my issue is too petty for them to address. If what happened to me, is happening to others, the monies received for photocopying may be enormous. Ms. Brown's office should justify charging the consumers these extra cost.
Update: July 26, 2006
July 24, 2006
Ms. Dorothy Brown
Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County
Richard J. Daley Center, Room 1001
50 West Washington Street
Chicago, Illinois 60602
Re: Reproduction Cost at 26th and California, 5th Floor
Ms. Brown:
On July 24, 2006 I went to the 5th floor clerks’ office at 2650 South California at approximately 2:15 pm to review a file. As I reviewed the file, I requested copies of documents in the file. I was informed I had to pay $2.00 for the first copy and $.50 for the next 19 pages. At 2:40 pm I requested 4 copies at $3.50. As I was receiving the copies I thought of something else I wanted from the file.
I looked over the file again. I requested 4 more copies from the same file. Your clerk informed me I had to pay another $2.00 for the first copy and $.50 for additional copies. I informed him he just took $2.00 for the first copy. Your clerk told me it was the policy to collect another $2.00 for the first copy since I wanted more copies. I asked to speak to a supervisor.
Ms. Yolanda informed me the clerk was correct. I asked her was she a supervisor. She reported she was a clerk. I asked her to let me speak to the manager of the department. Ms. Peggy Anderson reported she was the manager. She informed me I had to pay $2.00 for the first copy and $.50 for any additional copies because their machine calculates the copies in a manner where they cannot go make additional copies without charging a new fee. I informed her I had paid this fee already and that I wanted to make additional copies as described earlier. Ms. Anderson informed me she could not do anything. I informed her I would write you about this issue. I paid an additional $2.00 for the first copy again and $.50 for the additional copies I wanted, giving another $3.50. I have two different receipts.
Ms. Anderson gave me a copy of your reproduction charge list. She highlighted the area where the photocopies are reported. Your chart reports “For reproduction of any document contained in the Clerk’s files: First page $2.00, next 19 pages, per page $.50….” It does not say anything about being charge an additional $2.00 for the first page if I want additional copies of the same file. Your chart does not inform the consumer to make all request needed the first time you order copies.
Ms. Brown, I did not leave the clerk’s office. I requested additional copies after getting copies from the same file, and after paying the initial $2.00 the first time. I should not have been charged an additional $2.00 because your machine calculates it that way. I request a refund. Attached to this letter are the receipts I received.
Why would your office have a policy where a customer would have to spend additional monies for reproduction of documents from the same file?
Thank you.
Fred L Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS
Social Policy Analyst
cc: http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/
Update: January 25, 2006
On January 25, 2006 I received the comment below from the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, the Honorable Dorothy Brown, on this matter. Her representative dated the letter January 20, 2005. The year of the letter is a common error made by most of us when a new year begins. This is not important.
What is important is the investigation conducted by Chief Judge Timothy Evans' staff on this matter. Again, nepotism and political patronage reigns in Chicago. Our Mayor Daley is attempting to clean his house because of scandals. Nevertheless, Judge Kathleen McGury and her staff allowed her "white" friends to get a court date I could not have.
In addition, On January 25, 2006 Judge McGury allowed Attorney Margaret Benson's objection to my Bystanders report and proposed Bystanders Report to be entered into the record, even though it was filed late on January 10, 2006. This is clear error on the part of Judge McGury.
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.
I filed my Notice of Appeal in Case No. 00 P 1267 (Estate of Romeo Ashford) on November 28, 2005. Ms. Benson had 28 days to file her proposed Bystanders Report. Ms. Benson filed her proposed bystanders report on January 10, 2006. I filed my proposed Bystanders Report on December 6, 2005. Ms. Benson had 14 days to file her objections to my proposed Bystanders Report. Ms. Benson filed her proposed Bystanders Report on January 10, 2006. I filed my objections to her proposed Bystanders Report on January 18, 2006. On January 25, 2006, Ms. Benson admitted in open court her filings were late. Judge McGury allowed her motions to stand and become part of the record anyway.
Illinois Supreme Court Rule 323(c) states, in part, "The proposed report shall be served on all parties within 28 days after the notice of appeal is filed. 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."
Supreme Court Rule 323(c) directs the trial court, upon presentation by the parties of proposed bystander reports, to "promptly settle, certify and order filed an accurate report of proceedings." 166 Ill.2d R. 323(c). The Supreme Court Rules are not merely suggestions to be complied with if convenient but rather obligations which the parties and the courts are required to follow. Clymore v. Hayden, 278 Ill.App.3d 862, 869, 215 Ill.Dec. 512, 663 N.E. 2d 755 (1996). Ms. Benson presented and misrepresented Medow v. Flavin, 336 Ill.App.3d 20, 782 N.E. 2d 733, 270 Ill.Dec. 174 (2003), where I took the above quotes from to further support my position of how litigants are supposed to respond to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 323(c).
The Medow case, in part, is about a judge committing clear error granting a bystanders report, which the judge in the Medow case openly acknowledged that the bystanders report contained deficiencies.
"This is not the case here." Judge McGury has not made a remark about my bystanders report, yet she allowed Ms. Benson's objections and motion to stand with the Medow case as Benson's support for her filing a late bystanders report. Judge McGury has committed clear error. Yet, I continue to suffer. The fiasco continues.
Judge Kathleen McGury has set February 15, 2006 as the day for further amendments to "both" bystanders report. Judge McGury has set February 23, 2006 as the date for a hearing in room 1806 of the Daley Center Courthouse in Chicago Illinois. I will "not" honor the February 15, 2006 as it applies to amending my bystanders report because Judge McGury's decision is clearly erroneous in the matter of my bystanders report of proceedings.
The Notice of Appeal I filed has positioned this matter in the Illinois Appellate Court, First District. I will file an emergency motion on or about January 30, 2006 requesting this court overturn or reverse Judge McGury orders on the bystanders report proceedings sending instructions to Judge McGury to "promptly settle, certify, and order filed a bystanders report without Ms. Benson's objections or her proposed bystanders report of proceedings.
On January 26, 2006 I received an order from this Appellate Court granting an extension to March 1, 2006 for me to file the record on appeal in this case. I requested an extension on January 18, 2006 because of this matter, along with other issues surrounding my earlier writing posted regarding the Illinois Cook County Court Reporters Office.
Lets see how the Appellate Court of Illinois responds to my emergency motion. I will put the Medow quotes along with the "clear" language of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 323(c) , mentioned above, as precedent to support my position of Ms. Benson and Judge McGury's error in opposing my bystanders report of proceedings.
This is judicial justice in Chicago Illinois presently under the reign of Chief Judge Timothy Evans. Look for my book on the judicial and government processes in Chicago and its suburbs coming soon, especially the retaliatory acts from these entities when one speaks out as I have.
Lets not forget about the Honorable Judge Paul Foxgrover and others caught up in Operation Greylord of the 80s in Chicago.
January 1, 2006
Ms. Dorothy Brown
Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County
Richard J. Daley Center, Room 1001
50 West Washington Street
Chicago, Illinois, 60602
Re: Record on Appeal – Case No. 00 P 1267
Ms. Brown:
I, Fred L Nance Jr., visited your office on or about December 6, 2005 filing a formal complaint with Ms. Philippa Akem, Deputy General Counsel Compliance Officer, about the character and behavior of the court room clerk (Caucasian, elderly lady) in room 1806, presently Judge Kathleen McGury’s court room. I received a letter last week from a representative of your office reporting the court clerk in room 1806 did not act inappropriately when scheduling my date of January 20, 2006 for my motion requesting a hearing for a Bystanders’ Report of Proceedings. I believe this is an incorrect analysis by your office.
On December 6, 2005 I complained the “white” clerk in court room 1806 purposely scheduled my date for a hearing to January 20, 2006 to harass, intimidate and discriminate against me. I have complained of this clerk before. The previous complaint against this clerk was submitted when Judge James Riley sat in court room 1806 in 2001.
On December 31, 2005 I received a motion to reschedule my hearing of January 20, 2006. “Your” court room clerk apparently allowed this motion for a hearing on January 10, 2006 at 10:00 am. The motion was sent from attorney Margaret Benson of the Chicago Volunteer Legal Services Foundation. My basic complaint in the courts of indifferent treatment stems from the “special” treatment “your” court room clerks give to opposing counsel, that is, Ms. Benson and attorney Theresa Ceko, who are “white”.
My basic complaint about “your” court room clerk in room 1806 is that she treated me indifferently than others participating in this litigation. “Your” clerk is white. Ms. Benson and Ms. Ceko are white. I am black. Do you catch my allegation of purposeful indifferent treatment because I am black?
“Your” clerk told me on December 6, 2005 that she had no open court date before January 20, 2006. Now it appears she has an open date for her “white” friends. The motion I received has no “clerk of the court stamp” on it displaying the date it was filed in the court/at the Daley Center. The motion I received has no signature on it. It appears to come from Ms. Benson’s office but Ms. Benson’s signature is not attached to it. In every “pro se” court filing I have done and participated in, whether it was local, state, or federal, I have always followed the rules of law especially when it comes to sending “a filed stamped copy” with all appropriate signatures attached to all parties involved. I would not send a copy of a motion or complaint to any opposing counsel, whether pro se or attorney, without attaching a signature or filing stamp from the appropriate clerk of the court. The Illinois Compiled Statutes clearly outline the appropriate procedures. This is appalling. What is going on at the Illinois Daley Center Courthouse is a mess. It is the good “ole boy” buddy system working at its best.
I filed my motion for a hearing on December 6, 2005 and mailed it on December 7, 2005. I am sure opposing “white” counsel had plenty of time to know what their proposed schedules were before December 31, 2005.
Therefore, I will not honor this motion from Ms. Benson. I will not honor a motion coming from “your” court room clerk who allows her “white” friends to have dates I could not have; who refused to give me an earlier date than January 20, 2006, which I complained about to Ms. Philippa Akem of your office. “Your” clerk has a lot of nerve. In order to get a date in court room 1806, you have to get it from the clerk of that court room. The open racism is apparent to me because I have lived with it from this “clerk” since I filed my first complaint in this court room in 2000. Your court room clerk knew I needed to have an earlier date to meet my deadlines in the Illinois Court of Appeals.
With this “bogus” motion suggesting a continuance of my date for hearing on January 20, 2006, the actions taken by “your” court room clerk and by Ms. Benson is a direct attempt to prolong and delay my Appellate action with this “bogus” motion suggesting a continuance of my date for a hearing on January 20, 2006. “Your” clerk has already delayed my action giving me a court date on January 20, 2006 when I filed my motion in court room 1806 and with the official clerk of the court on December 6, 2005.
If this motion is honored and the January 20, 2006 date is cancelled, I will have to motion the Appellate Court requesting an extension for filing my brief in this matter. This would cause undue harm and would be a direct insult to the judicial system and its proposed ethics of character and behavior. The tactics used by “your” court room clerk and Ms. Benson is not rocket science. I am familiar with racial discrimination and its operation on all levels. The record on appeal is due January 30, 2006. My brief is due 35 days after.
I am surprised and appalled that two (2) African-Americans of power and position, such as the Honorable Chief Judge Timothy Evans and yourself, allow such deliberate and purposeful discrimination to take place against another African-American. This is disgraceful and dishonors the Illinois Judicial Court system.
Respectfully submitted,
Fred L Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS
cc: Timothy Evans, Chief Judge (hard copies sent; faxed also)
C.L.I.C.K. for Justice and Equality is an agent of change alerting our social community of injustices and inequalities among the underserved, disadvantaged, and disenfranchised individual or group. A disadvantaged or disenfranchised person or group is anyone who is socially, culturally, and politically deprived of or oppressed from life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Change takes place through our legislative body of Senators and State Representatives, not from the Judicial bench.