How Duane Thompson worked his magic

The following demonstrates how Duane Thompson used misguided Judges to help him get away with recreating the exact same errors of law that reversed and remanded the legal precedent that he claimed supported a directed verdict in the case Wittekind vs. Rusk 253 Ill.App.3d 577, 192 Ill.Dec. 467, 625 N.E.2d 427.

All the statements that follow are found in part1of2byMaryThaxton at:

After years and years of Beverly Rusk calling me the exact same two words she suddenly forgot them in a malicious prosecution lawsuit so I tried to use the transcript of the jury trial to have her repeat the words that she had been calling me for years.

Page 19 line 5 Duane Thompson objects with:
"I'm going to object to the question, Your Honor.  The transcript speaks for itself."

Page 28 line 21 after Beverly's huband takes the stand Duane objects with:
"I'm going to object to the line of questioning based on relevancy."

Page 28 line 23 Judge Telleen states:
He's - this man is not on trial and it's Mrs.Rusk.  It has to be Mrs. Rusk - not Mr. Rusk.

At that moment in time I knew I had evidence of malice because the words that Beverly Rusk used during the jury trial were identical to the words Mr. Rusk used in the malicious prosecution lawsuit.  The words meaning two words can be found at:

Page 29 line 13 I make the statement:
"The words she uses to describe it can be used to prove malice"

I was referring to the words that were kept out of the trial when Duane Thompson stated on page 19 line 5.
"The transcript speaks for itself."

Obviously when Duane Thompson misrepresented the law and he misrepresented the facts at the Appellate Court level those Judges never let the transcript speak for itself and helped Duane conceal evidence of malice and conceal evidence of a complete failure on the part of the State to verify any of the statements made by Beverly Rusk before two different jury trials.

In other words the Appellate Court simply added to the errors of law that existed at the trial court level.  A detailed breakdown of what happened at the Appellate Court after Duane Thompson continued to misrepresented both the law and the facts can be found at:

I thought the transcript would speak for itself at the Appellate Court but those judges were not looking for errors or they would have found plenty of them.  Instead those judges retried a case that ended in an acquittal without any of the exhibits that were used to completely impeach all of the witnesses used by the State and that is a violation of the Rule against Double Jeopardy.

Note:  Before I even went into a malicious prosecution lawsuit I learned that the probable cause itself has to be entered as evidence and the Appellate Court has no legal authority to make assumptions about evidence that can be used to prove a complete failure on the part of the State to verify any of the Statements made.

But the laws concerning malicious prosecution would never be applied to my case to this very day and case law in Wittekind vs. Rusk would end up being based on the fact that Judges failed to verify any of the Statements made by Duane Thompson who failed to verify any of the statements made by Beverly Rusk himself.

For more info on the timeline behind all this see: