Sunday, February 02, 2020
Below is the basic story of the wrongful conviction of Ellis Strickland. He has submitted many addition documents and links to this intro and these additional docs are immediately following.
Further Documents for the Strickland Case
Intros and explanations coming
https://casesprison.files.wordpress.com/2020/02/law-story.doc ( this is pasted entoto on this blog post)
Adverse Domination Doctrine
(Statute of Limitations)…………………………..14
Clerk’s Refusal to Accept documents
Illegal Network…………………………………………..1, 2
Mail Fraud Defined……………………………………….4
Postal Complaint (2003)………………………………….5, 6
Postal Crimes to delay a Published
Ruling by the U.S. Courts………………………3
RICO UNION……………………………………………1, 2
Specific Tactics to delay appeal of
U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs…………………………..2, 12
(Schemes to defraud V.A.)…………………………….13
A Story about Criminal Justice Deceit
The Story begins in a small Wisconsin town not far from the Wisconsin/Illinois border. No one had any idea of the collusive plan to take over all border towns that had a significant black population by people who came from other smaller towns that beared their family names. The plot coincided with the expulsion of Neo-Nazis from different European countries, as well as from the African countries colonized by the European imperialists during the dawning of the industrial age. An example of the prevalence of the Neo-Nazi culture in the criminal justice system was the lawsuit against Wardens Endicott and Borgen at the Columbia Correctional Institution in Portage, Wisconsin. The lawsuit detailed Equal Protection violations by the prison guards at the prison, which was the result of surreptitious racial threats to black guards. The threats included but were not limited to anonymous “hate” messages left in the home mailboxes of racially mixed couples who worked at the prison in Columbia County. The guards who were fired as a result of the investigation of the allegations into their racially motivated behavior publicly stated that “they knew we were this way when they hired us.” (Note: This statement was made in response to an inquiry of why the training academy did not detect the obvious feelings of racial bias by those guards). With no where to go, to use or hone their technological abilities these immigrants came to America, where members of their families were apart of an undercover group of tradesmen/technologists working in and around Government controlled property in rural and semi-rural areas. This influx of immigrants offset the population shift caused by the high rate of unemployment in these areas due to the massive lay-offs of area businesses due to corporate mergers and multinational corporations leaving America chasing, what they tell us Americans, the new markets that will enhance their profit margins. The most prominent excuse used by many of the spokesmen for the corporations’ leaving the United States is the greed of the employees unions for higher wages and company benefits, as well as the high-level of competition in a small market. Anyway, the community leaders in most of the farm areas close to where the companies left or were forced to lay-off employees, or fire or retire them early, fed into a Wisconsin Criminal Justice employee plot to overcrowd the prison system with anyone visiting their area, by “Railroading” them into the prisons by ignoring laws governing court procedures and in the extreme cases, straight-out violating the laws that insure truth that leads to a “Just” conclusion.
The procedures used by courtroom officials to “Railroad” a defendant into a conviction and sentence to prison are a type of scam; and as we all know a scam cannot be accomplished unless the victim of the scam does not know the rules of the “game”. The rules of the “pigeon-drop” is don’t trust a stranger with your money. Also, you cannot be tricked out of your money if you don’t want something for nothing. In the professional rhelm such as banking, a customer cannot be tricked into depositing his money into a savings account where the interest payments vacillate according to rules set by an entity that regulates interest bearing accounts, if the customer does comparative shopping, and that person has an investment plan. In the courtroom however, Railroading is a collection of scams, such as the ol’ Victim/witness unavailability game. There are laws, of course, to remedy this type of scam, if the defendant is knows the procedure; if not, then the defendant is railroaded to prison. Then there is the ol’ “biased” ruling scam. Only an appellate court can remedy the adverse affects of this type of railroading scheme, because the trial judge controls the activities in the courtroom under his judicial authority. An example of a biased ruling which can affect a defendant’s freedom is when a judge and prosecutor collude to prevent exculpatory evidence from being introduced to prove that an arresting officer is not truthful about whether an arrest was lawful, among other evidentiary matters, and there are Supreme Court rulings that support a reversal of a judgment of conviction based upon these factors, such as Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and Strickler v. Greene, 119 S.Ct. 1936, 1948, 527 U.S. 263, 144 L.Ed. 2d 286 (1999).
This tactic is especially applied against people that don’t have a strong family background in the state of Wisconsin. The passage of tough crime laws by legislators affiliated with the Racketeer-Influenced Corrupt Union family members, mail fraud schemes by corrupt attorneys and state and federal court clerks in concert with prison mailroom supervisors, who have U.S. Postal Service employee Union connections, that delayed or totally discouraged any prisoner or their family from filing appeals to have their Illegal criminal convictions thrown-out, added to the Overcrowding in the Wisconsin Prison System, also known as the Wisconsin Department of Corrections. These corrupt prison officials have also formed an “Illegal Network” that includes a telephone service whose members have illegal connections with certain telephone companies, to facilitate the violations of prisoners’ right of access to the courts, government agencies as well as the Free Communication with their family members and other significant members of the free society.
The methods employed by the “Illegal Network” to hold people illegally in U.S. prisons are not unique when you view the process from a historical perspective. Prisons are isolated communities, in mostly rural areas, as mentioned above, to house people who the Criminal Justice System arrests, tries by a jury of their so-called peers, convicts and sentences there for violations of Criminal and /or Civil law. Civil law violations usually end with a process known as forfeiture. When a person violates the law with reference to forfeited property rights, by fraud or other methods, that person may be placed in prison for the criminal law violation of the forfeiture laws of a particular jurisdiction. Meaning the destruction of the confiscated property due to frustration, or the total refusal to relinquish the property. At any rate, the types of people that are imprisoned are vulnerable to the whim of the prison officials that are legally charged with their well being. And many times the attitudes of the officials are motivated by their experiences in the free community. For example, the personal problems that they have to deal with outside of the institution, tends to spill-over into their job performance as it relates to how handle the interpersonal transactions with the inmates. This situation lays the foundation for many abuses of their authority when it’s compounded by their personal views of how to deal with other human-beings in general, and how prisoners should be treated, in particular. Just knowing this mandates some type of oversight of the behavior of the people that staff prisons. This means more than just having legislative committees set-up to make scheduled tours of the institutions. Obviously if someone is committing a criminal act in an isolated setting, they will not tell the truth to a person appointed to make a legal inquiry into how they are performing their legislatively mandated duties. This is especially true when considering the activities of the “ILLEGAL NETWORK”, where a collection of families have united to control the hiring and training mechanisms of state government by using the electoral process to place people with whom they share common backgrounds in areas beneficial to their overall cause of maneuvering the criminal justice system in a direction that satisfies their special interests.
The bottom line to this Corrupt scheme of holding prisoners longer than legal limits allow, is to create jobs for people disenfranchised by downsizing corporate entities, farmers needing a certain market for their products, and the on going Research needs of the Intelligence agencies in conjunction with the Medical community subsidized by the State of Wisconsin, United States Defense Department, as well as the U.S. Department of Veterans’ Affairs. As much as the reason may have a sound basis, the activities by the “Network” that comprises the RICO Union are clearly unlawful, because their members have infiltrated the Court systems under the auspices of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago, Illinois. The Court Clerks simply refuse to file the legal documents submitted by Pro se litigants for, in this case, two (2) specific reasons; those being, (1) Legal documents not being prepared properly; and (2) Documents not being filed according to the statute of limitations. In the instance case, both reasons have no merit for the following reasons:
1. Confusion created by the Mail fraud and Wire fraud schemes, along with constant interference by prison officials using regular Security procedures illegally, have caused inordinate delays in submitting legal documents to the courts. (See, for instance, the forty-five(45) paged civil rights complaint filed under title 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983, entitled Strickland v. Mc Caughtry, et al., Case No. 99 – C – 452 –C, as well as, a fifteen paged Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, entitled Strickland v. The Governor of the State of Wisconsin, Case No. ________.)
2. The current rulings by Federal Courts under the jurisdiction of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals prove that legal documents don’t have to be perfect when they are submitted to the U.S. Courts by pro se litigants, because, “to insure that pro se complaints are given fair and meaningful consideration, they are liberally construed however inartfully pleaded.” Castillo v. Cook County Mail Room Dept., 990 F.2d at 306; Ricketts v. Midwest Nat'l Bank, 874 F.2d 1177, 1183 (7th Cir.1989).” Talley v. Lane, 13 F.3d 1031 (7Th Cir.1994); (accord Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F. 3d 1422,1427 (7th Cir. 1996).
3. Again the current rulings by the Federal Courts have sent a clear message to litigants about when the statute of limitations bars the Courts from considering an action. In Gentry v. Duckworth, 65 F. 3d 555 (7th Cir. 1995), the court held that the Indiana court of appeals could NOT procedurally bar state prisoner’s appeal where prison officials were found to have interfered with prisoner’s filing state appellate documents properly within the statutory time limits by refusing to supply indigent Indiana state prisoner with the supplies to meet the statutory requirements for filing appellate documents (i.e., paper with exact size and contents formatted to meet statutory specifications). Also, the United States Supreme Court held that, “under the Equitable Tolling Rule as explained by the U.S. Supreme Court in Irwin v. U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 111 S.Ct. 453, 112 L.Ed. 2d 435 (1990), “ We have allowed equitable tolling in situations where the claimant has actively pursued his judicial remedies by filing a defective pleading during the statutory period, (FN3) or where the complainant has been induced or tricked by his adversary's misconduct into allowing the filing deadline to pass. (FN4) We have generally been much less forgiving in receiving late filings where the claimant failed to exercise due diligence in preserving his legal rights. Baldwin County Welcome Center v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 151, 104 S.Ct. 1723, 1725, 80 L.Ed.2d 196 (1984),” Irwin Supra., at 111 S.Ct. 458(1990). (See also, TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 122 S.Ct. 441, 446-47, 534 U.S. 19, 151 L.Ed. 2d 339. (Nov. 13, 2001).
When Strickland’s daughter hand-presented the documents to the Clerk of the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, in Chicago, Illinois, on a personal visit in August of 1996, the clerk refused to file the legal documents related to the above mentioned claim (See Strickland v. McCaughtry et al., Supra.) and give them to the Judges for a ruling on the merits of the claim, thereby violating the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 25, which states in pertinent part: “(4) Clerk's Refusal of Documents. The clerk must not refuse to accept for filing any paper presented for that purpose solely because it is not presented in proper form as required by these rules or by any local rule or practice.” Also, the issue of whether the courts or federal agencies have the jurisdiction to issue and execute a writ to move a witness to another jurisdiction has created a legally embarrassing situation for employees in the U.S. Postal Service, United States Attorney’s Offices, and in particular, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, in at least two (2) states (i.e., Wisconsin and Illinois) under the Jurisdiction of the U.S.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago, Illinois.
The Professional Ethics that are taught in modern Universities around the world, and especially in American institutions of higher learning, serve as a guide for people to follow in their prospective business categories. The mission of ethics is encoded in the formal rules and instructions promulgated by a rule-making body appointed by the people needing the services of the people carrying-out the specific routines of a particular entity. The purpose of which is to create an environment for civilized people to carryout their daily activities/routines in an orderly manner, and that results in high-levels of efficiency. For example, the ethics of fair-trading in the stock market entails giving correct information to all investors involved in the buying and selling of shares of a product or company. The legislatively approved methods of buying and selling stock prohibits insider trading practices by people working in positions of authority in any business. Of course, all statutory provisions are subject to interpretation by the courts.
To be exact and to the point, the ethical practices of the federal and state governments’ employees are at issue in the case of Strickland v. The State of Wisconsin, et al., supra. And of the specific details alleged in the two (2) documents mentioned above, that was submitted by Ellis W. Strickland II, and his family members in the free community, the refusal by the prison security department in each prison under the authority of the Wisconsin Dept. of Corrections to follow their own regulations; and who openly engages in postal crimes, and wire fraud schemes to delay a published ruling on the merits of the contents of the documents (i.e., Habeas Petition and Retaliation lawsuit), is the most poignant example of a total disregard of the concept of professional ethics. The people controlling the Wisconsin Dept. of Corrections have the ethical values of former President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon and his “gang”. The slush fund notwithstanding. Because, it is obvious that people are being bribed to commit the crimes of which I speak. For the publication of the misconduct in public office, which is a state crime (i.e., Wis. Stats. Ch. 946.12), will alert the public of the blatant disregard of the legislative enactments (i.e., Wis. Stats. Ch. 227.11), which give legal authority to the Wisconsin Administrative Code DOC (Department of Corrections regulations); as well as the violation of the Statutes that give Ethical guidance to state employees (Wis. Stats. Ch. 19.01 – 19.59).
The specific tactics used by the prison officials to distract Strickland for the purpose of delaying his appeal of a wrongful conviction in a Racine, Wisconsin court, are explained in detail in the above mentioned documents; and they include but are not limited to, the destruction of Strickland’s personal property, falsifying legal documents (i.e., state conduct report forms) by setting-up schemes to place him in punitive segregation for being involved in riots that videotape machines proved that he was never involved in. Also, they falsified State Urinalysis Report Forms to read that he had a positive urinalysis for a drug in which he has never used, etc.; all for the purpose of making him waste his time utilizing the Inmate Complaint system, established according to the Wisconsin Administrative Code DOC 310, to resolve Institutional Complaints. And it was obvious to Strickland, as well as, to any casual observer that if it was necessary to submit a petition for a writ of certiorari to the state courts, in order to ask them to reverse the rulings of the prison disciplinary committees who punished Strickland on the illegal conduct reports; because of the ineffectiveness of submitting special appeals to the Department of Corrections Secretary in the State Capital in Madison, Wisconsin, to reverse the Prison Wardens’ approval of the nepotistic recommendation by the Institutional Inmate Complaint Investigator, shows that the criminal justice employees have no fear of punishment because of their connections in the various areas of the system. In most of Strickland’s complaint situations, there was a member of the personal family of the prison official being complained about. That in itself shows a sense of impunity system-wide. A fact of the matter is that people in this type of union tends to have no regard at all for the ethics laws mentioned above, because by and large, they utilize the electorate to organize their families to seek and gain employment in some area of the criminal justice system, so that they can protect each other from liability for their misconduct.
It is further obvious that the people employed by the Wisconsin Department of Corrections do not recognize the legislative intent of the Ethics laws. In fact, most take their examples on how to function in their professional capacity from the many Elected officials who are charged with ethical violations while performing their duties. The latest case of abuse of the taxpaying voter’s trust is Milwaukee Alderman Paul Henningson, who was recently convicted in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The reporter in the page one article of the Saturday, September 27, 2003, edition of the Eau Claire Leader-Telegram newspaper said that former alderman Henningson had embezzled funds from the campaign contributions sent to him by his supporters through the U.S. Postal Service, thereby making him guilty of four (4) counts of violating the Mail Fraud Statute.
Mail Fraud Defined
In Title 18 U.S.C. sec. 1341, Chapter 63, the United States Congress defined Mail Fraud as follows:
Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, or to sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give away, distribute, supply, or furnish or procure for unlawful use any counterfeit or spurious coin, obligation, security, or other article, or anything represented to be or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service, or deposits or causes to be deposited any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by any private or commercial interstate carrier, or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail or such carrier according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any such matter or thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.
And in Title 18 U.S.C. sec. 1346, Chapter 63, the United States Congress defined a scheme or artifice to defraud in pertinent part, as follows:
“For purposes of this chapter, the term “scheme or artifice to defraud” includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.”
All of the established principles of government relating to the legal status of any human being in the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States of America are indeed encoded in volumes of law books printed to be used as a reference for all categories of professional transactions. This particular account relates an in-depth description of a total breakdown of those principles. In other words, people in this jurisdictional area flatly refuse to perform their statutorily mandated duties. For example, the schemes to defraud the U.S. Postal Service have a two-fold purpose. One being, to create a competitive environment for other delivery services (i.e., the United Parcel Service (UPS), Federal Express (FED EX)) which provide kickbacks to gangs of thieves in positions of authority in the government. The other being, to make money from - in the area of the delivery of legal documents – defrauding legal claims of, in this particular situation, prisoners and/or their families; and in a broader sense defrauding real estate deals, such as causing people to default on loans, mortgage payments, etc. The bottom-line is the kickbacks from the persons gaining from the defaulted Lawsuits, etc.
In this case, the jurisdictional argument is all that stands in the way of the total collapse of the Illegal Network initiated by corrupt judges and prosecutors who committed illegal acts during criminal and civil proceedings initiated by Ellis Willis Strickland II. The illegal network is obviously comprised mostly
Of public officials with connections to corrupt judges and police whose reputations were at stake because of too many allegations of, for instance, illegal arrests based upon politically motivated activities, or judicial and prosecutorial misconduct. For example, Judge Emmanuel Vuvunas made biased rulings in favor of Assistant District Attorney Eric Guttenberg, who knowingly engaged in prosecutorial Misconduct during Strickland’s criminal trial. All of this was to cover-up the illegal arrests and lies by Racine police to cover-up the illegal arrest of Strickland. (See Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus entitled Strickland v. State of Wisconsin mentioned above).
At this juncture, two (2) particular entities are refusing to exercise their jurisdictional authority. Those being, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and the U.S. Court System in Illinois, although the U.S. Court system in Wisconsin has clearly refused to rule on the issues. It is my belief, however, that someone or persons in the “network” have stolen the documents before they had reached the judges hands. For it is obvious that in any event the State of Wisconsin has defaulted on any claim of defense on their behalf through these illegal activities including mail fraud and wire fraud schemes, among other crimes.
The U.S. Postal Inspection Service has repeatedly refused to exercise their authority to make arrests pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. sec 1341, file a complaint with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, which pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. sec. 547, a U.S. Attorney will prosecute, file a complaint with the Court and request a subpoena to compel the presence of a witness to appear to testify in a postal matter. Ellis W. Strickland II, has repeatedly submitted complaints to the U.S. Postal Inspection Service in Chicago, Illinois, by his sister, Mrs. Brenda C. Greene about the sending of fraudulent mailings to further a scheme to defraud other U.S. Government agencies and non-profit organizations. Examples of the agencies defrauded in this matter are Christopher Amuty of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the University of Wisconsin (UW) Law school, in Madison, Wisconsin, as well as, the Wrongful Conviction Program at the Northwestern University School of Law in Evanston, Illinois. The text of the latest Postal Complaint submitted by Strickland is as follows:
The Illegal Network engages
In other Postal Schemes
More information about the activities of the Illegal Network is contained in a recently prepared Postal Fraud Complaint submitted to the U.S. Postal Inspection Service. The allegations in the complaint are worded as follows:
I, Ellis W. Strickland II, a prisoner at the Stanley Correctional Institution, 100 Corrections Drive, Stanley, Wisconsin, 54768-6500, do now submit a Formal Postal Fraud Complaint. This Complaint alleges a mail fraud scheme by Wisconsin prison Mail and Property Room officials in concert with certain private persons to violate Titile 18 U.S.C. sec. 1341, in which prison employees handling the U.S. Mails sent fraudulent letters in behalf of the attorneys at the Wrongful Conviction Program of the Northwestern University School of Law, in Evanston, Illinois. The fraudulent letters were in response to my Request for assistance of counsel in presenting my Petition for a Writ of abeas Habeas HabeasH…….. Habeas Corpus, contesting the Wrongful Conviction in a Wisconsin State Court.
Further, the basic outline of the scheme is sufficiently clear. In November, 2001 my Son, Ellis W. Strickland III, sent an e mail by way of the Internet from his home in Franklin, Wisconsin, to the Web site of the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois. The content of the message in the email was a seven (7) paged letter that I had written request-ing that the Medill School of Journalism Notify the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago, Illinois, about how to resolve my unique Illegal Custody Claim, knowing full-well that they (Medill) would have at least published the letter in their Legal Directory, so the attorneys at the Northwestern University School of Law would consider assisting me with presenting my Petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus against the State of Wisconsin to the Federal Courts in Chicago, Illinois (Note: My Sister, Mrs. Brenda C. Greene, who is a U.S. Postal Service employee, has proof positive that someone related to the defendants defrauded the Clerk’s office in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit at 219 So. Dearborn St., Chicago, Illinois. The purpose of the mail fraud scheme again is to deny my fourteenth Amendment right of access to the courts).
On May 23, 2002, I received an envelope from the Medill Innocence Project, Northwestern University, with a “Meter Stamp” for insufficient postage to pay for a first class letter. Inside the envelope was a two (2) paged letter from a Ms. Rayne Galbraith, Program assistant, Medill Innocence Project, assuring me that my case would be considered by their Program.
In the summer of 2002, after seeing Rob Warden, Professor David Protess, and Lawrence C. Marshall, on the “60 Minutes” Television news magazine, Willetta Brandon, my legal Advocate, had written me a letter telling me that she had made an appointment - by telephone - to discuss my Wrongful Conviction Case with Professor David Protess at the Wrongful Conviction Program at the Northwestern University School of Law, in Evanston, Illinois. To that inquiry, I received a letter from the “Bluhm” Legal Clinic, misrepresenting the Wrongful Conviction Program at the Northwestern University School of Law in Evanston, Illinois, by saying that it was the Center on Wrongful Convictions at 357 East Chicago Ave. in Chicago, Illinois.
In February, on two (2) occasions I had written to Lawrence C. Marshall, Legal Director, Center on Wrongful Convictions, Northwestern School of Law, 357 East Chicago Ave., Chicago, IL., letting him (Marshall) know that “my friend and advocate Willetta Brandon said that” his “Center would assist my Family and I with Reversing this Wrongful Conviction.” The letters were dated 2/23/2003 and 2/26/2003 respectively.
In June, 2003, I received a letter dated 6/27/2003, from an assistant at the Center on Wrongful Convictions at the Bluhm Legal Clinic at the above 357 East Chicago Ave. Address. (Note: My Sister, Mrs. Brenda C. Greene, has in her possession, all of the documentary evidence mentioned in this Complaint).
It is my Contention that when the documents mailed by Willetta Brandon about the “Center on/of Wrongful Convictions,” in Chicago, Illinois, are examined; and the three (3) Fraudulent mailings, one (1) from the Medill Innocence Project, and Two (2) from the Bluhm Legal Clinic Misrepresenting the Attorneys to whom the Communications were directed, are verified by the Attorneys administering the Wrongful Conviction Program at the Northwestern University School of Law in Evanston, IL., action by the U.S. Attorney’s office should be requested by the U.S. Postal Inspection Service as a violation of the mail fraud statute (Title 18 U.S.C. sec. 1341) for the following reasons:
1. Insufficient Postage on envelopes shows that the prison mail room officials have defrauded the U.S. Postal Service, in every prison that has been under the authority of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, in which I have been a prisoner, by delivering fraudulent mail with fraudulent “Meter” Stamps.
1. The address of the Northwestern University School of Law is in Evanston, Illinois, not Chicago, IL. This false address defrauds the citizens wanting to obtain the services of the Wrongful Conviction Program for their imprisoned relatives as well as the University itself.
2. There is only a Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University. The name Medill Innocence Project is false.
3. Theft of Mail addressed to the attorneys in the Program defrauds the entire Wrongful Conviction Program.
Therefore, I respectfully request that I be transferred to the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Chicago, Illinois as a Witness in this matter.
Dated this10th day of October, 2003.
Ellis W. Strickland II
And the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has recently said that, “a mailing in furtherance of a scheme to defraud is simply the element that confers federal jurisdiction under the mail fraud statute; but a fraud scheme can produce proceeds long before the act that ultimately triggers jurisdiction. United States v. Mankarious, 151 F.3d 694, 705 (7th Cir.1998).” U.S. v. Lanas, 324 F.3d 894, 901,(7th Cir. April, 2003).
Obviously meaning that by the attempt to defraud the U.S. Court of Appeals and its clerk’s office with a false document misrepresenting its intent and indeed its procedure, the Office of the U.S. Postal Inspection service has perfect jurisdiction in the instance case, but refused to assume jurisdiction. In fact, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service in Wisconsin was misrepresented by the fraudulent mailing of a response to a 1991 Postal Fraud Complaint hand-carried to the main Post Office in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, by the wife of Darren Beverly, a fellow prisoner, with whom Strickland had discussed his claim of Illegal Custody by the State of Wisconsin. The document was signed by an R.W. Copeland, Postal Inspector, and no action was taken to remedy the problem of not receiving a Published Opinion by a United States Judge or Judges of competent jurisdiction on the merits of the Illegal Custody claim and its concomitant Retaliation complaint, submitted by Strickland.
Indefinite delay is the purpose of the schemes to defraud every business entity that is legally responsible for carrying-out the legislatively mandated duties of the people of the United States. Remember, the legislature, which is the U.S. Congress, and Congress is Elected by You, John and Jane Q. Public. The law is passed by the Congress and the police enforce the law. The U.S. Courts interpret the Law. The attorneys (lawyers) facilitate the legal process in Court. The Clerks in the court buildings have a duty to place legal documents in the records of the Court, and pass them on to the Judges for a legal interpretation of the substance of any legal claim submitted to them. The legal secretaries in the, for example, U.S. Attorneys’ Office have the same duty to give documents to the U.S. Attorneys so that they can analyze and draft an indictment based upon a certain set of facts which constitute complaints submitted by You, John and Jane Q. Public. With that in mind, Strickland realized that since many instances of violations of the mail fraud statute had occurred, it was necessary for him to submit the same complaint to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, that the Main U.S. Post Office in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, refused to investigate by sending him a fraudulent letter to discourage him from filing further litigation against the prison officials who had interfered with his mail with its concomitant purpose of facilitating his right of access to the courts on prior occasions, among other abuses of the State and Federal Laws. These abuses delayed by distraction, Strickland’s submission of his Illegal Custody Claim to the U.S. Court System, to obtain his freedom for a crime that he did not commit. In fact, on many occasions Strickland has submitted claims to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Chicago, IL., as well as, in Washington, D.C. All claims were submitted via Certified Mail through the U.S. Postal Service. (Note: All receipts and packages, i.e., legal letters enclosed in envelopes of varied sizes, were processed by the prison mail room personnel).
The utter frustration of seeing the Governmental process breakdown to a level of organized criminal behaviour has motivated many of Strickland’s family members to seek assistance from their elected officials to remedy, for instance, when a relative - of a fellow prisoner - who is employed by the federal government, hand-carried a hand-written complaint to the U.S. Justice Department, in care of the U.S. Attorney’s Office at 219 So. Dearborn St., Chicago, Illinois, requesting an investigation of the mail fraud scheme, Strickland family sent a letter requesting assistance from U.S. Congressman Bobby Rush in determining why he (Strickland) received a fraudulent response from the office of Fred Foreman, then U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois. The letter was delivered to the receptionist by an employee of another Department of the federal government. It is quite interesting to read an article in the Chicago Tribune where the reporter quoted U.S. Attorney Fred Foreman as saying that his office “would not tolerate the intimidation of government witnesses,” then for him (Foreman), to completely ignore a complaint from a prisoner informing him that public officials are engaged in such behaviour as to invoke his authority. This shows hypocrisy, if he (Fred Foreman) did indeed authorize Kevin J. Gaffney, Paralegal Specialist, to respond to Strickland’s complaint of corruption in government with a message discouraging further action by the plaintiff/petitioner/witness(Strickland). And if not, then there is a powerful plan of controlled mendacity by the people under his authority. In any event, the “Illegal Network” to which I refer does have operatives in the U.S. Department of Justice in Chicago, Illinois also. In fact, another instance of corruption occurred when Strickland’s daughter, an employee of the Wisconsin Public School System, now an elementary school teacher in Racine, Wisconsin, went to the U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Wisconsin at 517 E. Wisconsin, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, to file a Retaliation Lawsuit under title 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983, along with speaking to then Chief Judge Robert W. Warren, and /or Clerk of Courts Sofron B. Nedilsky for the purpose of verifying what Strickland believed then and now, is quite apparent to have been fraudulent documents sent through the U.S. Postal Service for the purpose of defrauding Strickland’s Claim of interference by the prison officials with his Claim of Military Service Connected Disability filed with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, among other abuses. (See Strickland v. McCaughtry, et al., mentioned above).
Not much information exists about the background of Chief Judge Warren, except for the fact that he was once Wisconsin State Attorney General, and is rumored by most prisoners that he doesn’t respect any prisoner’s rights. Suffice it should be for me to say, this also means that he does not respect the law. This personal view of the law renders people of his particular character to a level of being an iconoclast, in an arena which extols itself as being the ultimate interpreter of legislative enactments, and its concomitant affect of guiding the behavior of the masses of people in the United States of America; and through our Military/Industrial Complex, peoples from undeveloped and underdeveloped countries around the world. In essence, the mail fraud schemes to defraud the U.S. Courts should have motivated Judge Warren to initiate an investigation into the allegations of defrauding a government agency. To not do so constitutes an abuse of his Judicial discretion to make a legal conclusion on any set of facts put before him for his consideration. When a District Court Judge denies a person to proceed on a legal claim, or outright dismisses the claim, the claimant should request a review of the district court decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for his particular Circuit (in this case, the Seventh Circuit). For the U.S. Court of Appeals always reviews District Court decisions for an abuse of discretion. And quite appropriately, I might add. For it is quite obvious from the facts of this case that, as mentioned above, the illegal network has defrauded both the U.S. District Courts in Wisconsin, as well as, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, at 219 So. Dearborn St., Chicago, Illinois, by a method which constitutes an unauthorized practice of law. And speaking for the court, Judge Bauer, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, verified Strickland’s contention in an enbanc decision, when he so eloquently ruled, “in reaching it’s determination that Appellants were engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, since the court's inherent authority includes the "power to conduct independent investigations in order to determine whether the court has been the victim of fraud or deceit." Winkler v. Eli Lilly & Co., 101 F.3d 1196, 1200 n. 2 (7th Cir.1996). Any unauthorized practice of law impacting federal court proceedings necessarily raises the specter of interference with that court's function in a manner effectively indistinguishable from fraud or deceit. The inherent power of the federal courts is thus a proper basis for the imposition of sanctions for the unauthorized practice of law.” U.S. v. Johnson, 327 F.3d 554, 561. For when clerks misrepresent the law in an effort to delay a particular proceeding, they are engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. And otherwise, by the decision of the Seventh Circuit in Lowe v. Letsinger, 772 F.2d 308, the clerk’s office is liable for damages, as well as vulnerable for a criminal prosecution for misrepresenting the law. (See Title 18 U.S.C. sec. 1001). Also, the court clerk does not enjoy absolute immunity for the refusal to file papers, and/or to pass them on to a circuit judge for a ruling on any procedural question which may hinder the judicial process from continuing to the point of a ruling on the merits of the substance of the claim. (See McCray v. Maryland, 456 F.2d 1, 5 (4th Cir. 1972)). To quote pertinent parts of the Lowe case to show similarities where the clerk’s office is concerned, the following will show the intent of the Seventh Circuit in this matter:
“Lowe also charges the clerk of the court, Lukawski, with acting separately and in concert with the judge and the attorney general to conceal the entry of a decision. (FN6) Courts have held that a court clerk enjoys absolute immunity in rare instances where he is performing nonroutine, discretionary acts akin to those performed by judges, see Williams v. Wood, 612 F.2d 982, 985 (5th Cir.1980); Kane v. Yung Won Han, 550 F.Supp. 120, 122-23 (E.D.N.Y.1982), such as setting bail, Denman v. Leedy, 479 F.2d 1097, 1098 (6th Cir.1973). This quasi-judicial immunity does not apply to clerk Lukawski's alleged involvement in the concealment of the entry of the order because the clerk's duty to type and send notice after entry of judgment is a non-discretionary, ministerial task. Cf. Williams, 612 F.2d at 985 (no absolute immunity for entering an order and notifying the parties); McCray v. Maryland, 456 F.2d 1, 5 (4th Cir.1972) (no absolute immunity for filing papers); Bedron v. Baran, 90 Ind.App. 655, 662, 169 N.E. 695 (1930) (making entries in a docket book is a ministerial task).”Lowe v. Letsinger,772 F.2d 308, 313.
Although, Strickland’s claim is substantially the same as Thad Lowe’s, he cannot in good conscience make an allegation that any federal judges have colluded with the clerk’s office to indefinitely
delay an order, which at this point in time seems to be a forgone conclusion, meaning that a Writ must be issued to set him( Strickland) Free, he does unequivocally assert that as in Lowe, mentioned above, the clerk’s office has engaged in criminal behavior to say the worst, and/or has engaged in what the U.S. Supreme Court has termed in Tower v. Glover, 104 S.Ct. 2820, 467 U.S. 914, 81 L.Ed.2d 758, as Intentional Misconduct. And intentional misconduct is defined by the high court as being a“conspiratorial action with state officials that deprives their clients of federal rights”, Tower supra., at 104 S.Ct. 2826. Though Strickland is also making allegations much the same as Billy Irl Tower, and I might add with considerably more evidence of malfeasance by the Wisconsin State Public Defender’s Office, the issue of intentional misconduct by the Public Defenders is offered just for the purpose of explaining that the behavior of the Clerk’s Offices in the federal courts under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court Of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit amounts to, as I ‘ve said above, intentional misconduct. And as stated both by the U.S. Supreme Court in Tower v. Glover, supra. and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Lowe v. Letsinger, supra., the clerks who refused to accept for filing the appellate papers have no immunity from § 1983 liability for intentional misconduct of the type alleged here (Tower), because, when he engaged in the alleged violative conduct, the law was … so clearly established that he should have known that it was unconstitutional conduct( Lowe).
As mentioned above the same routines have blocked access to the courts to prisoners who have legitimate legal claims against members of the illegal network. In essence, people like Strickland, who have legitimate claims of illegal custody and abuse by the prison officials that are charged with the statutorily mandated protection of his person (See Wisconsin Statutes Chapter 940.29 Abuse of Residents of a prison facility), are in a sort of limbo. This results, in effect, in the perpetual denial of the same rights that our elected officials proclaim are the standard for a democratic society; and is the essence of what constitutes American citizenship. Does this mean we all lose the substance of our citizenship when our concepts are hollow phrases exhorted every time any interest group attempts to initiate another “pork-barrel project”? For example, certain institutions under the authority of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections “Restrict” prisoners’ telephone calls, without legal authority, then lies to specific prisoners through a telephone scheme using boiler-room type scams for the purpose of hindering communication between targeted prisoners and their families. The purpose is clearly to harass the prisoner in retaliation for the prisoner and his family “blowing the whistle” on other “pork-barrel” (non essential) projects! The Wisconsin Administrative Code “Strictly” prohibits this type of behavior by the Department of Corrections. (See Wisconsin Administrative Code, DOC 309. 39, which states, in pertinent part, the following:
“DOC 309.39 Inmate telephone calls.
1. The department shall encourage communication between an inmate and an inmate's family, friends, government officials, courts, and people concerned with the welfare of the inmate. Communication fosters reintegration into the community and the maintenance of family ties. It helps to motivate the inmate and thus contributes to morale and to the security of the inmate and staff. A telephone shall be used in a lawful manner.”
To show how utterly corrupt the prison officials are in Wisconsin, further illuminates how frantic the judge (Vuvunas), prosecutor, and police in Racine, Wisconsin, were to cover-up their illegal conviction, they engaged in many quite complex schemes to delay and/or discourage Strickland and his family from proceeding further with the Claims mentioned above. From the beginning, the prison guards began switching court transcripts, sent through the mail, then switch them back to test Strickland’s memory of the pretrial and trial proceedings. And because of his indigency, when Strickland filed pro se claims to the court, the illegal network used schemes to defraud his family, until they began to seek independent legal advice which uncovered an exconvict contingent of the illegal government network. This ex convict contingent would set-up schemes to defraud law offices interested in meritorious prison legal claims. These schemes resulted in a backlog of fraudulent cases. Those cases, in turn, lead to schemes by prison officials to isolate certain targeted prisoners, in the prisons with the heaviest concentration of corrupt family members; most of the names of which are listed as litigants in the above mentioned Strickland v. McCaughtry, et al. One of the isolation techniques utilized is implementing the types of illegal telephone scams mentioned above on page seven (11) of this story.
When the union members in all of the institutions under the authority of the State of Wisconsin could not isolate prisoners who had family members within a one-hundred and fifty (150) mile radius of the older prisons such as Waupun, Dodge, and Greenbay Correctional Institutions the Program Review Committee (PRC), sent many of the prisoners who they wanted to isolate, to the out-of-state facilities such as the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) facilities in, for example, Whiteville, Tennessee, and Sayre, Oklahoma, which is more than one-thousand miles from their relatives. When union members found-out that the newly elected Governor of Wisconsin, Jim Doyle was not going to continue to allow Wisconsin prisoners, along with the concomitant budget monies to pay for the maintenance of the prisoners, to be sent to out-of-state prisons to relieve overcrowding, many were sent back to Wisconsin, in anticipation of his inevitable order to return all prisoners back to the state of Wisconsin.
On the day that Strickland was transferred from the North Fork Correctional Facility in Sayre, Oklahoma to the Dodge Correctional Institution in Waupun, Wisconsin, he was within two (2) hours sent to the Columbia Correctional Institution, in Portage, Wisconsin. He (Strickland) was not allowed to use the telephone because of a security restriction that would not allow calls to be transmitted until the numbers were preapproved. Then he was harassed about how he addressed his envelopes (i.e., artwork surrounding the address). The most obvious of the plots to discourage him (Strickland) from staying there (Columbia), so they could send him to a prison (Stanley) – which is nearly 300 miles from his closest relative, unless of course he would consider his relatives in Minnesota. Also, the Department of Corrections was under pressure to populate the prison in Stanley with prisoners from out-of-state prisons, so the Wisconsin taxpayers would not continue to be burdened with higher taxes to pay for Wisconsin community services and programs, because of the claimed over-crowding due to increased criminal activity in this state. And although, there is no apparent argument to the sensationalism in which the media portrays crime in our society, what is clear to those who want a better accounting of how the resources of the state are used is the Department of Corrections in plainly and simply corrupt. That being said, Strickland has claimed as too many of the recently released people from prison, that he is innocent of the crime for which he has served the last eighteen years and eight months in the most criminal, criminal justice system in the world. For while the media engages in subliminal justification of the actions of local police departments, there have been far too many people proven by one method or the other, to not be guilty of the crimes for which they are imprisoned. Also, the astronomical amount of prison litigation show that prison officials in general have absolutely no respect for the laws of their own legislative bodies. And the Wisconsin employees unions circumvent the law by defrauding lawsuits, along with bribery to cover-up the litigation indefinitely. But, to what end, when the inevitability of exposure is obvious? It seems to be an unrealistic view of human nature, since from my experience, no one in any political arena has ever been guilty of corruption until the jury has spoken, and most still appeal against the weight of the evidence. Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Louis Dembitz Brandeis, said so accurately, “Our government is the potent, the omnipresence teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.” Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485(1928).
So now Strickland is imprisoned in Stanley Correctional Institution, at 100 Corrections Drive, in Stanley, Wisconsin, waiting on the scams to stop so the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago, Illinois can review his petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the merits of his illegal custody claim, then release him from this nightmare in Wisconsin. Because, with the prison communication department refusing to allow Strickland to freely communicate with the most energetic members of his family, the process if further slowed down. And once again publication seems to be most effective way to expedite the foregone conclusion of the issuance of the writ to free him.
A significant number of veterans of the U.S. Military are discharged with some type of service-connected disability. This means that they are experiencing a physiological and /or psychological impediments to their reintegration into civilian due to their military service. This is particularly true of men and women who experience foreign service. And exponentially so when they serve in particularly “hostile” environments, in a foreign country. Strickland is a Viet Nam Veteran that had a particularly traumatizing
experience while serving in that country.
The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs was established as an agency called the U.S. Veterans Administration as a means to address the needs of Veterans returning from the military, directly subsequent to World War II. The statutory provision explaining the general functions of the Department are as follows:
38 U.S.C.A. § 301
UNITED STATES CODE ANNOTATED
TITLE 38. VETERANS' BENEFITS
PART I--GENERAL PROVISIONS
CHAPTER 3--DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Current through P.L. 108-71, approved 08-14-03
§ 301. Department
(a) The Department of Veterans Affairs is an executive department of the United States.
(b) The purpose of the Department is to administer the laws providing benefits and other services to veterans and the dependents and the beneficiaries of veterans.
(c) The Department is composed of the following:
(1) The Office of the Secretary.
(2) The Veterans Health Administration.
(3) The Veterans Benefits Administration.
(4) The National Cemetery Administration.
(5) The Board of Veterans' Appeals.
(6) The Veterans' Canteen Service.
(7) The Board of Contract Appeals.
(8) Such other offices and agencies as are established or designated by law or by the President or the Secretary.
(9) Any office, agency, or activity under the control or supervision of any element named in paragraphs (1) through (8).
On October 4, 2003, Strickland had written a newsletter article entitled the Ethical Journal for the purpose of notifying the public of how the Postal Fraud Schemes have affected his attempts to secure his right of access to the courts, and government agencies of the United States, for the purpose of obtaining his righteous freedom!!! The text of that article is as follows:
· Incarcerated Veterans are compelled to rely on U.S. Postal laws to resolve their Claims of Military Service Connected Disability related to Combat Service in areas Hostile to the United States backed programs, because Veterans’ Service Officers are engaging in Covert Conspiracies to funnel Veterans’ disability payments into an illegal government slush fund to pay other illegal government employees and private citizens to commit Crimes including Postal Fraud Schemes to delay legitimate Claims against Governmental entities.
· I, Ellis W. Strickland II, an Illegally incarcerated veteran of Viet nam am filing a Formal Postal Fraud Complaint alleging a mail fraud scheme by Wisconsin prison officials in concert with certain private persons in violation of Ti tle 18 U.S.C. sec. 1341, in which someone sent to me fraudulent letters in behalf of J.W. Rublein, Veterans’ Service Manager at the Regional office of the U.S. Dept. of Veterans’ Affairs 5000 West National Avenue, Building 6, Milwaukee, WI. 53295, and Michael R. Jackson, Veterans’ Service Office for Dane County, 1919 Alliant Energy Way, Madison, Wisconsin 53713-1400. The purpose of the fraudulent letters was to deceive me, into believing that the United States Department of Veterans’ Affairs had denied my claim of a Military Service connected Disability.
· `This particular case shows a pattern of abuses of the law by Wisconsin residents employed in Government offices. For example, when prisoners contest illegal convictions in Wisconsin courts (on this occasion it just happens to be a Veteran of a Foreign War, incarcerated for a crime he did not commit), by filing appeals to the Courts of appeals, an illegal prison employees network is bribed to sabotage the prisoners’ appellate attempts by stealing the outgoing mail and sending fraudulent responses to deceive the prisoner into believing that the Wisconsin Court of appeals has denied his appeal.
· The outlined scheme which is the subject of this article involves Ellis W. Strickland II, filing a Claim of Military Service Connected Disability through Veterans’ Service Officer Michael R. Jackson in January, 2003. In April, 2003, Strickland received a letter from a J.W. Rublein, Veterans’ Service Center Manager telling him (Strickland) that he (Rublein) was required by law to determine the conditions under which he received his Honorable discharge from the Military. However, the relevant law states, in pertinent part the following:
Title 38 C.F.R. § 3.12. Character of discharge
(a) If the former service member did not die in service, pension, compensation, or dependency and indemnity compensation is not payable unless the period of service on which the claim is based was terminated by discharge or release under conditions other than dishonorable (38 U.S.C. 101(2)) [38 U.S.C.A.§ 101(2) ]. A discharge under honorable conditions is binding on the Department of Veterans Affairs as to character of discharge.
Further, the only legal requirement of the U.S. Department of Veterans’ Affairs is to determine if the Veteran (in this case Strickland) has a discharge under honorable conditions, and “to assist a claimant in developing the facts pertinent to the claim and to render a decision which grants every benefit that can be supported by law while protecting the interest of the Government.” Title 38 C.F.R. sec. 3.103. The Governments’ interest in this matter is made very clear by Title 38 C.F.R. sec. 3.12(a) (as stated above).
Although it is the view of the writer of this article that this behavior by the members of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs is a part of a Criminal Conspiracy pun-ishable under the mail fraud statute (Title 18 U.S.C. sec. 1341), it is equally apparent that the purpose of the conspiracy is to keep Strickland from getting financial assistance from the Federal Government to contest the Wrongful conviction by a state court in Racine County, Wisconsin. In fact, the larger picture includes illegal behavior by prison mailroom employees in concert with other prison employees to abuse prisoners making legal claims against friends, relatives and/or political allies of the Racine county officials who illegally convicted Strickland; the details of which are explained in two (2) legal documents, with briefs, supporting papers, such as newspaper clippings, and Systematic written discourses on the specific Legal points. The two(2) legal documents are a civil rights Complaint submitted under title 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983 entitled Strickland v. McCaughtry, et al., Case No. 99-C-452-C, and a petition for a writ of habeas corpus submitted under title 28 U.S.C. sec. 2254(a),(b),(d), entitled Strickland v. The State of Wisconsin. The documents are now being considered by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and the U.S.Court of Appeals for the seventh Circuit, in Chicago, Illinois.
For more information about this exciting legal case contact the following people:
Brenda C. Greene Willetta Brandon
P.O. Box 369172 6458 So. Maryland
Chicago, IL. 60636 Chicago, Illinois 60637
Phone: (773) 436-2470
In 1997, Strickland’s daughter placed a legal notice in both the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Defender. The notice was for the purpose of notifying Judge William J. Bauer that his clerk was indeed refusing to follow the law and file the documents which Strickland’s daughter hand-presented to him in August of 1996, as mentioned above.
Where does this lead us but to Mad-Max, beyond the thunderdome? If the law is the essence of our civilization, then how can we further lie to ourselves about being civilized when we engage in behaviors this disrespectful to the laws of our society.? The adverse domination doctrine defeats any argument that the illegal networks’ proponents working in the court buildings, may offer to discourage inquiries about the delays in making a ruling on the merits of Strickland’s claims. The doctrine says in pertinent part, the following:
“ Under the adverse domination doctrine, the statute of Limitations period is tolled if an entity is controlled by or dominated by wrongdoers. Resolution Trust Corp. v. Gallagher, 800 F.Supp. 595, 600 (N.D.Ill.1992),aff'd, 10 F.3d 416 (7th Cir.1993). The doctrine is recognized under federal law and has been applied to RICO cases. ( See, e.g., Washburn v. Brown, No. 81 C 1475, 1987 WL 15174, at *5 (N.D.Ill. July 27, 1987). (FN3) If the doctrine is applicable, the statute of limitations only begins to run again when the defendants lose control of the entity. Gallagher, 800 F.Supp. at 600. The adverse domination doctrine is premised on the principle that officers and directors who have harmed the entity cannot be expected to take legal action against themselves. Id.” Shapo v. O’Shaughnessy, 246 F. Supp. 2d 935, 953(N.D. Ill. Nov. 2002).
The Clerk’s Excuses tend to hide their abuses, they are determined not to let the judges rule; because the judges decisions are made with precision, making the clerks a procedural tool!
Officials in the government, is a direct testament, of the peoples choice of rulers; But they don’t know, when they let them show, that they act just like preschoolers, that their choice, becomes a moot voice, which means they have not spoken at all. So, we must choose with care, from the selection we see there, gathering in the hall.
In the Criminal Justice system, law and order is a euphemism, with no basis in reality, when the structure is infected with the disease of corruption. The utter frustration of a person making an inquiry to a person who is lawfully obligated to perform certain tasks of the government, but refuses to do so, may manifest itself in to two(2) different ways. One has adverse legal consequences such as incarceration for the frustrated citizen, for disobeying a clerk or legal secretary for example. And two, the frustration of knowing that they are legally right and their right of law is being usurped by a corrupt official. People sometimes make the judgment that the Judges know therefore they are also corrupt. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the seventh circuit has said that “Our credibility as a judiciary depends in great measure upon the consistency and fairness with which we honor our own rules.” U.S. v. Hoover, Tirenzy Wilson, Gregory Shell, Jerry Strawhorn, Adrian Bradd, Darrell Branch, Andrew Howard, William Edwards, 246 F.3d 1054,1064( C A 7(Ill.) 2001); and in U.S. v. Boyd, 833 F. Supp. 1277, 1280-81 (1993), Judge, Marvin E. Aspen, of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, said, “It is tragic that the hard-earned and well-deserved reputations for professionalism of the United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois and other federal law enforcement and penal agencies in this district have been so unfairly tainted by the actions of so few.” They were, of course speaking of the Tragedy of Corruption of which Judge Aspen had so eloquently spoken, will compromise our system of government, so that our detractors may compare our system to that of third world despots, who openly scoff at our Democratic system of Government.
The “Network” abused, its right to use, the law when it committed a crime. They don’t believe in the principles they conceived, so now they must do prison time.