Posts Tagged ‘Retaliation’

Impeach Judge Kathleen Pantle

January 3, 2009

Judges should be impeached when their conduct so intentionally impeads justice and so intentionally violates the Bill of Rights that they bring great disgrace upon the courts and cause great injustice. These impeachable acts are not just a mistake of law, or a judicial error, but rise to the level of intentional, disgraceful, illegal, unconstitutional, acts of harassment, retaliation, bullying, obstruction of justice, and aiding and abetting felony misconduct of prosecutors. These acts have caused great harm to their victims.  

I propose that articles of impeachment  should be brought against the following judge for the following reasons:

Dishonorable Judge Kathleen Pantle:

Dishon. Judge Pantle purposely violates the Constitution and the laws of both the United States and the country:

1. She issues excessive and unconstitutional bail orders out of spite, animosity, arrogance, narcissism, and deceit, even without a formal charge or due process.

On June 15, 2005 she raised my bail on a fraudulent Medicaid vendor fraud charge, upon a motion from the State for violation of bail, from a $10,000 personal recognizance bail to a $100,000 D-Bond (requires 10% payment) despite the fact she had declared me indigent, I am disabled, I had no criminal record, and I care for an elderly disabled father.  I had been jailed wrongfully by Pantle for contempt because I told her she was violating the law and had no jurisdiction in this void case, then politely attempted to walk out of the courtroom to preserve this issue for appeal, particularly because she had sue sponte removed me as pro se counsel and then denied me appointment of a public defender. During incarceration I was attacked by Sgt. Anthony Salemi, who falsified his record and said I attacked him from my wheelchair.

On December 14, 2005 in the same case Dishon. Judge Pantle arrested me executing her arrest warrant illegally issued on December 8, 2005, despite me informing her in writing on December 7, 2005 that I could not come to a court hearing on December 8, 2005 because Federal Judge Filip had scheduled my Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on this criminal contempt case to be heard on that morning, and even told me prior to the hearing informally through his courtroom deputy that another judge would not arrest someone for not appearing as long as they were given notice there was another court hearing. Judge Filip denied my petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies. This Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus has now been refiled and is pending before Federal Judge Coar.   I had been illegally removed as pro se counsel (self-representation), although declared indigent denied a public defender for 7 months, denied a due  process hearing on her statement that she was jailing me because I failed to show up for hearing on December 8, 2005 and because I refused to answer questions at a fitness exam she had ordered although I showed up. It is actually a statutory right for me to refuse to answer questions. I did so in exercising this right because I am adamant that her orders are illegal and without jurisdiction – void ab initio. I refuse to bow to despots. The statute, 725 ILCS 5/104-13, even states that bail may NOT BE REVOKED to accomplish a fitness exam. Her order for a fitness exam was without legal basis – she only said my behavior in court (vigorously defending myself pro se by questioning her lack of  jurisdiction) and my copious pleadings (soon to be posted on the web motions to dismiss the case for lack of personal or subject matter jurisdiction) suggested a mental unfitness. This statement is NOT a legally sufficient allegation in open court that would justify a fitness exam.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/9694342/Shelton-Federal-Habeas-PetitionCriminal-Contempt-Conviction2008

http://www.scribd.com/doc/9708949/Shelton-Federal-Petition-for-Writ-Habeas-Corpus-Vendor-Fraud-2008

On January 6, 2006 after the Illinois Appellate Court freed me on December 30, 2005 and reduced bail from “no bail” to $10,000 personal recognizance bail, Dishon. Judge Pantle falsely stated on the record, without me in the courtroom and without benefit of counsel that I had lied to the IL Appellate Court to obtain release and then she raised the bail from $10,000 personal recognizance bail to $500,000 D-Bond (10$ cash required to get out). The IL Appellate Court again freed me 2 weeks later, overturning her order.

2. She committed felony conspiracy to violate rights under color of law in conspiring with Bill Bradley, IL State Police Investigator William Reibel, Patrick Keenan, Nicholas Cozzolino, John Fearon, Patrick Murphy, and Judges Kathleen Pantle, Jorge Alonso, and Lon Schultz, as well as other unnamed or unknown individuals to intentionally retaliating against those who are whistle blowers against government corruption in Illinois and Cook County in that she conspired to illegally prosecute providers of mental health services to those on Medicaid so as to deny care for mental health services to those on Medicaid – this is a gross violation of her oath of office in that prosecutions without personal or subject-matter jurisdiction are forbidden;

3. She committed felony violation of civil rights under color of law as above;

4.  She committed the act of aiding and abetting felony subornation of perjury by the employees of the IL Attorney General’s Office by failing to hold hearings on my motion to dismiss for fraud upon the grand jury, including the acts by State Police Inv. Reibel in making false statements to the grand juries that indicted Dr. Shelton and Mr. Glass, including false statements about the law and about evidence;

5. She violating her oath of office in allowing the void prosecution of Dr. Shelton and Mr. Glass for Medicaid Vendor Fraud without jurisdiction and in violation of the United States Federal Medicaid Code and the Constitution’s Supremecy Clause, as well as prosecuting these persons when she had evidence they were not guilty of the alleged acts;

6. She committed malicious prosecution against Dr. Shelton and Mr. Glass in that all these persons were whistle blowers against corruption in Illinois government and these fraudulent and malicious prosecutions amounted to retaliation for exposing the criminal conduct of members of the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, as well as officials in the City of Chicago, County of Cook, and State of Illinois;

7. She was aiding and abetting the felony violaton of civil rights under color of law by AAGs Fearon, Murray who were and are still grossly violating due process in not only prosecuting these persons without subject matter or personal jurisdiction, but also in doing so in a process indicative of gross prosecutorial misconduct in violating many rights required by due process under the Constitution;

8. She committed the felony federal crime of slavery concerning Dr. Shelton in jailing her without legal process in violation of the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution;

9. She violated her oath of office and snubbed her nose at the Constitution in stating in open court in answer to my concerns about her lack of jurisdiction, “I don’t care,” in open defiance of the rules of law;

10. She gave false information to Judge Alonso , who had taken over the case against me when Judge Pantle was transferred out of the criminal court to the Chancery Division, while in the judge’s chambers behind the bench on April 13, 2007, so that Judge Alonso would again illegally hold me in contempt and summarily jail me – Judge Pantle was “visiting” the courtroom to finish up a few cases and hid herself in Judge Alonso’s chambers during one of my void pre-trial hearings – Judge Alonso, falsely thinking that Judge Pantle understood pro se and contempt issues BLINDLY followed her suggestions and procedures thereby also illegally finding me in contempt in an act of not just judicial stupidity, but also in an unconstitutional act;

11. She committed court ordered elder neglect, in a heartless and unethical act, by not considering my father’s situation and not allowing me to arrange for the care of my disabled father whenever she took me into custody- during May to June 2005 he lost 20 lbs and I found him at home dehydrated and depressed;

12. She ignored the well being and health of a defendant, as well as denied due process, by continuing hearings when I was substantially impaired by an asthma attack and/or dehydration and medical neglect – Cook County Jail staff had withheld my heart and lung medication;

***further details to be added to this post – work in preparation***

I call upon the Illinois House to investigate this matter and consider articles of impeachment. I call upon Chief Judge Evans to remove this incompetent, arrogant, dangerous, witch from the bench before others are harmed.

Please write the Majority Leader of the Illinois House at:

Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie
300 Capitol Building
Springfield, IL   62706

and the Circuit Court of Cook County Chief Judge:

Chief Judge Timothy Evans
Richard J. Daley Center
50 W. Washington, Rm 2600
Chicago, IL 60602

It is criminal in my opinion that she is now a bond judge in the main criminal court building concerning the most serious felonies in Cook County. Presiding Criminal Court Judge Biebel should be ashamed that he has appointed her to such an important task.

Political Trials – Still Alive and Well in 21st Century American [In] Justice

November 18, 2008

Protecting Defendants Charged for Political Reasons

SUPREME COURT JUSTICE DOUGLAS IN 1970 – “Does the answer to the problem of political trials involve defining the procedure for conducting political trials or does it involve the designing of constitutional methods for putting an end to them? . . . . It will be time enough to resolve those weighty problems when a political trial reaches this Court for review.”

THE TIME MAY BE NOW!

The State of Illinois through first Attorney General Jim Ryan and now Attorney General Lisa Madigan along with incompetent, ignorant, and/or corrupt officials in Illinois Medicaid including Bill Bradley, Investigator Reibel in the State Police, and Patrick Keenan in the State Police Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, with tacit approval by many other corrupt officials in the State of Illinois, have perpetrated a scheme for ten years to deny mental health services for persons on Medicaid in violation of the Federal Medicaid Code. See my other posts on Medicaid on http://illinoiscorruption.blogspot.com/.

In order to falsely advertise that she is “tough on fraud” so that she can advance her personal political ambitions, Lisa Madigan continues to fraudulently and without legal authorization indict outstanding providers of mental health services to Medicaid patients. Judges Schultz, Fox, Pantle, Alonso, and Egan have participated in these void and illegal prosecutions and done great harm to the citizens of Illinois in their illegal acts of violation the United States Constitution, in aiding and abetting this violation of federal law and civil rights.

I have been one of the persons illegally indicted and defamed, presently awaiting trial over a period of four long years. The harm to me, my patients, and my family is immeasurable and painful. I have persistly legally and appropriately through the legal process of at first representing myself and filing scholarly motions proving that higher court precedence (stare decisis) does NOT PERMIT this kind of persecution for political gain, and that my case is null and void ab initio (from the start).

I have been punished for vigorously advocating for my constitutional rights to redress of grievances and due process (including the right not to be tried for something that is not a crime) for four years with four incarcerations for contempt (two thrown out by the Illinois Appellate Court – pepetrated by Dishonorable Judge Pantle), one presently before Hon. Judge Coar in federal district court on a habeas corpus petition (asking the court to vacate and expunge the conviction on the basis of violation of constitutional rights and voidness – pepetrated by Dishonorable Judge Pantle), and one in limbo – dismissed for want of prosecution, but potentially can reinvigorate the appeal later (perpetrated by Dishonorable Judge Alonso).

I have been beaten, tortured, and medically neglected during these incarcerations and when I protested, a correctional officer, Sgt. Anthony Salemi, came into my cell and committed assault and battery against me. He falsified his records and I was charged and convicted of aggravated battery to an officer for allegedly “ramming him with my wheelchair” causing a skinned shin, and “kicking him in the chest with my RIGHT leg” causing soreness. This was impossible for me to do do to a partial RIGHT hemiparesis and extreme weakness secondary to dehydration caused by mendical neglect. I was sentenced to two years despite no criminal record and was released from Dwight penitentiary after being tortured on March 31, 2008. I was punished and placed in solitary confinement for 6 months because I refused to walk (I was unable to due to my disability) and forced to swim in my diarrhea on a 2 inch mattress with no sheets or clothes for days, except for a roughly quilted velcro smock and blanket, without toilet paper, without water (I was too week to get myself up to the water fountain at the sink or the toilet). The United States Attorney has been informed and so far has done NOTHING! My weight dropped from 171 lbs to 127 lbs and by the time I was released I couldn’t even sit up because of severe dehydration, and electrolyte imbalance. I was immediately taken to an emergency room and treated. The incompetent and barbaric sadists and psychopaths in Dwight’s medical department had insisted I was faking my medical problems.

Due to my protests, all reasonable and responsible and polite, I have been illegally and immoraly denied self-representation by Judges Pantle and now Alonso without legal authority in violation of my constitutional rights. I am being prosecuted for political reasons as a whistle blower. I testified against now convict and ex-Governor George Ryan in a class action suit for illegally denying 73 million dollars in funds for the care of handicapped children. I have won suits against Sheriff Sheahan in C[r]ook County for violating the American with Disabilities Act. I have won suits against the State of Illinois for failing to investigate barbaric and illegal abuse of mental health patients/inmates at Cook County Jail, and I have numerous pro se civil rights, mandamus, and injuctive suits pending in federal and state court against these corrupt officials. I am a target of the corrupt cabal in Illinois and C[r]ook County.

Justice Douglas in Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S.337 wrote the following in a concurring opinion, which is very much on point. My case is ripe for Hon. Juge Coar to address in this manner in the federal district court. It is a political case! This quote, by Justice Douglas in his opinion, about Penn is fascinating and you everyone should enjoy it!.

HOWEVER IT IS SAD THAT IN THE 21ST CENTURY IN ILLINOIS, CITIZENS WHO ARE DOING NOTHING BUT PROVIDING MUCH NEEDED MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES TO THE NEEDY, WHO HAVE DEVOTED THEIR LIVES TO SERVICE, AND WHO VALUE OUR CONSTITUTION, ARE STILL THE TARGET OF POLITICAL ATTACKS IN A MOST VICIOUS AND BRUTAL MANNER!

THIS IS WHY I ASK FOR THE HELP OF THE PUBLIC TO FUND MY DEFENSE AND TO HELP ME CONTINUE TO HELP OTHERS DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION. See link at the right on this blog if you wish to help.
________________________________________________________________________
QUOTED FROM CONCURRING OPINION BY JUSTICE DOUGLAS IN ILLINOIS V. ALLEN, 397 U.S. 337 (1970):

Our real problems of this type lie not with this case, but with other kinds of trials. First are the political trials. They frequently recur in our history, [Footnote 2/2] and, insofar
as they take place in federal courts, we have broad supervisory powers over them. That is one setting where the question arises whether the accused has rights of confrontation that the law invades at its peril.

In Anglo-American law, great injustices have at times been done to unpopular minorities by judges, as well as by prosecutors. I refer to London in 1670, when William Penn, the gentle Quaker, was tried for causing a riot when all that he did was to preach a sermon on Grace Church Street, his church having been closed under the Conventicle Act:

“Penn. I affirm I have broken no law, nor am I Guilty of the indictment that is laid to my charge, and to the end the bench, the jury, and myself, with these that hear us, may have a more direct understanding of this procedure, I desire you would let me know by what law it is you prosecute me, and upon what law you ground my indictment.”

“Rec. Upon the common law.”

“Penn. Where is that common law?”

“Rec. You must not think that I am able to run up so many years, and over so many adjudged cases, which we call common law, to answer your curiosity.”

“Penn. This answer I am sure is very short of my question, for if it be common, it should not be so hard to produce.”

“Rec. Sir, will you plead to your indictment?”

“Penn. Shall I plead to an Indictment that hath no foundation in law? If it contain that law you say I have broken, why should you decline to produce that law, since it will be impossible for the jury to determine, or agree to bring in their verdict, who have not the law produced by which they should measure the truth of this indictment, and the guilt, or contrary of my fact? ”

“Rec. You are a saucy fellow; speak to the Indictment.”

“Penn. I say, it is my place to speak to matter of law; I am arraigned a prisoner; my liberty, which is next to life itself, is now concerned: you are many mouths and ears against me, and if I must not be allowed to make the best of my case, it is hard, I say again, unless you shew me, and the people, the law you ground your indictment upon, I shall take it for granted your proceedings are merely arbitrary.”

“Rec. The question is whether you are Guilty of this Indictment?”

“Penn. The question is not whether I am Guilty of this Indictment, but whether this Indictment be legal. It is too general and imperfect an answer, to say it is the common law unless we knew both where and what it is. For where there is no law, there is no transgression, and that law which is not in being is so far from being common that it is no law at all.”

“Rec. You are an impertinent fellow, will you teach the court what law is? It is ‘Lex non scripta,’ that which many have studied 30 or 40 years to know, and would you have me to tell you in a moment?”

“Penn. Certainly, if the common law be so hard to be understood, it is far from being very common; but if the lord Coke in his Institutes be of any consideration, he tells us, That Common Law is common right, and that Common Right is the Great Charter-Privileges”

“Rec. Sir, you are a troublesome fellow, and it is not for the honour of the court to suffer you to go on. ”

“Penn. I have asked but one question, and you have not answered me; though the rights and privileges of every Englishman be concerned in it.”

“Rec. If I should suffer you to ask questions till tomorrow morning, you would be never the wiser.”

“Penn. That is according as the answers are.”

“Rec. Sir, we must not stand to hear you talk all night.”

“Penn. I design no affront to the court, but to be heard in my just plea: and I must plainly tell you that, if you will deny me Oyer of that law, which you suggest I have broken, you do at once deny me an acknowledged right, and evidence to the whole world your resolution to sacrifice the privileges of Englishmen to your sinister and arbitrary designs.”

“Rec. Take him away. My lord, if you take not some course with this pestilent fellow to stop his mouth, we shall not be able to do anything tonight.”

“Mayor. Take him away, take him away, turn him into the bale-dock. [Footnote 2/3]”

The Trial of William Penn, 3 How.St.Tr. 951, 958-959.

The panel of judges who tried William Penn were sincere, law-and-order men of their day. Though Penn was acquitted by the jury, he was jailed by the court for his contemptuous conduct. Would we tolerate removal of a defendant from the courtroom during a trial because he was insisting on his constitutional rights, albeit vociferously, no matter how obnoxious his philosophy might have been to the bench that tried him? Would we uphold contempt in that situation?

Problems of political indictments and of political judges raise profound questions going to the heart of the social compact. For that compact is two-sided: majorities undertake to press their grievances within limits of the Constitution and in accord with its procedures; minorities agree to abide by constitutional procedures in resisting those claims.

Does the answer to that problem involve defining the procedure for conducting political trials or does it involve the designing of constitutional methods for putting an end to them? This record is singularly inadequate to answer those questions. It will be time enough to resolve those weighty problems when a political trial reaches this Court for review.
_______________________________________________
[Footnote 2/2]
From Spies v. People, 122 Ill. 1, 12 N.E. 865, involving the Haymarket riot; In re Debs, 158 U. S. 564, involving the Pullman strike; Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103, involving the copper strikes of 1917; Commonwealth v. Sacco, 255 Mass. 369, 151 N.E. 839, 259 Mass. 128, 156 N.E. 57, 261 Mass. 12, 158 N.E. 167, involving the Red scare of the 20’s; to Dennis v. United States, 341 U. S. 494, involving an agreement to teach Marxism.

As to the Haymarket riot resulting in the Spies case, see 2 J. Commons and Associates, History of Labour in the United States 386 et seq. (1918); W. Swindler, Court and Constitution in the Twentieth Century, cc. 3 and 4 (1969).

As to the Pullman strike and the Debs case, see L. Pfeffer, This Honorable Court 215-216 (1965); A. Lindsey, The Pullman Strike, cc. XII and XIII (1942); Commons, supra, at 502-508.
As to the Mooney case, see the January 18, 1922, issue of The New Republic; R. Frost, The Mooney Case (1968).

As to the Sacco-Vanzetti case, see Fraenkel, The Sacco-Vanzetti Case; F. Frankfurter, The Case of Sacco and Vanzetti (1927).

As to the repression of teaching involved in the Dennis case, see O. Kirchheimer, Political Justice 132-158 (1961).

[Footnote 2/3]
At Old Bailey, where the William Penn trial was held, the baledock (or baildock) was
“a small room taken from one of the corners of the court, and left open at the top, in which, during the trials, are put some of the malefactors.”

Oxford Eng. Dict.


%d bloggers like this: