Wittekind vs. Rusk 253 Ill.App.3d 577, 192
Ill.Dec. 467, 625 N.E.2d 427 is based
entirely on a misguided Judges and misguided Attorneys all acting inappropriately
Wittekind vs. Rusk is actually based on two jury trials where the following quote from the Judge that brought charges against me in 1990 can be used to prove I could have won the first jury trial that was held in 1983 as easily as I won my second jury trial in 1990 with a verdict of 12 to 0.
|To put it mildly, you were handed a win due to
an error committed before
you were charged, and an error that is well documented on your own site,
and nothing more. The error was unknown prior to you being charged, and
that's all I intend to offer in a public forum about the events of that day.
The above quote from Judge
Brinn was shortly after he saw my site at:
After talking to a police officer in 1983 about my first jury trial I learned I had an easy way to win that jury trial because I was invited over to the house for dinner. But that police officer didn't tell me about the three tricks that Assistant States Attorneys play on pro se litigants so I ended up losing that jury trial.
I had hired an attorney named Beatrice Trujillo to protect me from an unethical attorney but she refused to talk to me before the jury trial so I fired her. I found out after losing that jury trial that Beatrice knew Beverly Rusk and she received all the information she wanted from her and not me so that was clearly a conflict of interest.
Going back to the second jury trial. Yes, I
was most certainly "handed a win due to an error committed before I was charged"
but the "error" that Judge Brinn was posting about above goes back to 1974 when
Beverly Rusk fell victim to the malicious slander of the boy that her daughter
and I tried to
use as a middle man named Donny Geiger. More at:
In a malicious prosecution lawsuit that was months
after the jury trial I won I would be prevented from using all my major exhibits a second
time because the Judge in case 1990-CM-9 handed the exhibits back after the trial.
I would only be allowed to reuse one exhibit from the jury trial that I won in a malicious
prosecution lawsuit and you can see that for yourself by using the following URL, look at
Part1of2byMaryThaxton.pdf, start on page 20 line 13 and continue to page 21 line 11.
The Judges listed below were in reality helping a woman help the boy that her daughter and I tried to use as a middle man torment her own daughter by forcing her to believe false and malicious statements made about me. In other words judges acting inappropriately gladly joined in on a character assassination by a jealous middle man in a love triangle.
Judge Brinn sat in on a jury trial in 1983 where the Statue was rendered invalid with misleading jury instructions from the now disbarred Richard Coppula. After that trial Judge Brinn helped Richard Coppula conceal evidence in a "Report of Proceedings" that would have proven that the only way Richard Coppula won that jury trial was to render the Statue Invalid.
Judge Brinn had both the motive and the opportunity to make changes to a transcript of a 1990 trial. His motive was to conceal facts that proved he sat in on a jury trial where the Statue was held invalid and his opportunity was given to him by the court reporter Diane Reason after she finished the transcript in the weeks before she gave it to me. Diane Reason even told me someone had to look at the transcript before she could give it to me and judging from Judge Brinn's past behavior and the fact the changes to the closing remarks resemble what I said in my first jury trial everything points to Judge Brinn as the person that Diane Reason let manipulate her transcript.
The changes made to the transcript included removing parts of the opening remarks, completely removing Beverly Rusk detailed description of the alleged phone call, making minor alterations though out the transcript and then altering the closing remarks in the transcript. Those changes make it appear as if I won the jury trial in my closing remarks and without my exhibits when the truth is the State lost the jury trial after my second question of cross examination because they put a pathological liar with an agenda on the stand and they even knew they were putting a pathological liar with an agenda on the stand from evidence I transferred from the 1983 jury trial into the 1990 jury trial for "purposes of impeachment."
I talked to Richard Coppula in 1990 just weeks before his sentencing for Theft by Deception and he let me know the reason Judge Brinn helped a woman he called "Bev" was "It was all amongst friends." He also told me all they really wanted to do was give her a restraining order. What Richard Coppula told me made it very clear why Judge Brinn would manipulate the facts in two different jury trials that could have been used to prove he had acted unethically in both those jury trials.
I have a page setup to prove one part of the
transcript prepared by Diane Reason was manipulated at:
Judge Telleen refused to apply the principles of law that reversed and remanded the legal precedent Duane Thompson claimed supported a directed verdict. Judge Telleen couldn't even state why the Mack vs. First Security Bank of Chicago was reversed and remanded and he gave me no way to introduce evidence that proved the Mack vs. First Security Bank of Chicago fully supported my argument.
I had used the Statement of Facts on the mind of the prosecutor to completely impeach all three of the State's witnesses with prior inconsistent statements in the jury trial I won so I had supporting evidence that the probable cause was reckless. Judge Telleen would not let me use the probable cause to prove it was reckless because the exhibits I used to completely impeach all three of the State's witnesses in case 90-CM-9 were handed back after the trial.
When Judge Telleen refused to properly apply the definition of probable cause he prevented me from proving that both John Kinser and Judge Brinn knew Beverly Rusk was a pathological liar with an agenda before they brought changes against me. Judge Brinn learned Beverly Rusk was a pathological liar with an agenda from an earlier trial and John Kinser learned I had evidence of perjury and evidence of an obstruction of justice of Beverly Rusk after he sent me a letter and before he brought charges against me.
The following Judge didn't do anything in particular but that issue in itself. He hasn't done anything to help undo the damages caused by unethical actions of Judge Brinn.
Jeffrey W. O'Connor is the Chief Judge for Rock Island County and I wanted him to help me prove that the transcript from Diane Reason for case 1990-CM-9 was manipulated. Jeffrey's reply was given to me by Victoria Bluedorn, the Court Administrator and his reply was basically just the address of the Judical Inquiry Board in Chicago as if he was telling me he can do anything he wants.
It was quite some time after that encounter with Vicky Bluedorn that I figured out that Judge Brinn was the only person with a with a motive to alter that transcript the way it was altered. If the transcript had been left alone it would have helped prove Judge Brinn sat in on a jury trial where the Statue was held Invalid and I learned during my first appeal in 1983 that if the Appellate Court had ruled "Statue Held Invalid" that Judge Brinn would have been the person held responsible for letting it happen.
Note: While waiting for Diane Reason to prepare the transcript for case 1990-CM-9 I wrote down what I remembered most about the trial and Diane Reason's transcript is clearly flawed because who would have a telephone harassment lawsuit where the complaining witness does not give a detailed description of the alleged phone call but her husband does?
With Beverly Rusk detailed description of the alleged phone call
missing so is her biggest and boldest lie during the jury trial that is mentioned in the
letter I wrote to an attorney spending time in jail for Theft by Deception.
The following are list of three Judges because they are Third District Appellate Court Judges
Allan L. Stouder, John A. Gorman and Herman S. Haase in case 3-91-0162 all refused to apply the principles of law that reversed and remanded the Mack vs. First Security Bank of Chicago when they decided they could make assumptions about the facts known by Judge Brinn that were in realty used to completely impeach all three of the States witnesses with prior inconsistent statements.
These three Judges ruled they could make assumptions about the very facts there were in reality used to completely impeach all three of the State's witnesses with prior inconsistent statements by simply retrying a case that ended in an acquittal without any of the facts that were used to completely impeach all of the witnesses used by the State.
These Judges violated the Rule against Double Jeopardy when they made assumptions about facts on the mind of the prosecutor and they were acting without legal authority to start with because the principles of law that reversed and remanded the Mack vs. First Security Bank of Chicago does not give them the authority to make assumption about facts that can be used to prove a complete failure on the part of the State to verify any of the Statements made by the accusers.
Concealing evidence from the State can also be used to prove malice and I had evidence that Beverly Rusk concealed items from the State that could have prevented a jury trial too.
Every single statement made by the above judges is a violation of the best evidence rule because they did not have the exhibits that were used to completely impeach all the witnesses and one of the statements made in the fourth paragraph of their ORDER classifies as a falsification of evidence because it was no part of the testimony to start with.
Even the statement that these judges have me quoted
as saying changes from one area to the next and it was not the best evidence because what
I used as Defense Exhibit #4 in the jury trial I won was the best evidence. By the
way Defense Exhibit #4 in the jury trial I won contained answers to questions that Cheryl
asked Donny Geiger about me in 1973.
Michael McCuskey, Peg Breslin and Tobias Barry in case 3-93-0158 all took a bribe from Duane Thompson when he informed them that all they had to do to get their names into three law books was to maintain the verdict of the three judges in case 3-91-0162.
During an oral argument when Judge McCuskey told me you can make assumptions about a probable cause from the opening remarks he himself failed to apply the principles of law that reversed and remanded the exact same legal precedent that he claimed gave him the authority to make assumptions about the very facts that had been used to completely impeach all three of the State's witnesses with prior inconsistent statements.
The tell tell sign that the above three judges took a bribe is the fact they made no mention of the argument I used at the Appellate Court. I was arguing the exact same legal precedent that they claimed gave them the right to make assumptions against me but I was arguing it because it fully supported my argument when it was reversed and remanded.
The three judges that took a bribe from Duane Thompson would end up preventing me from proving that both Judge Brinn and John Kinser knew Beverly Rusk was a pathological liar with an agenda before they brought charges against me. In other words Judges at the Appellate Court recreated the exact same errors of law that reversed and remanded the legal precedent that they claimed gave them the right to make assumptions when their assumptions would end up concealing evidence of malice and end up concealing evidence of a complete failure on the part of the State to verify any of the statements made by my accuser in two different jury trials.
All these three judges really did when they refused to let me prove there was a complete failure on the part of the State to verify any of the Statements made by Beverly Rusk in two different jury trials was give me proof that there was a complete failure on the part of the Appellate Court to verify any of the Statements made by Duane Thompson also.
The following is the list of attorneys that acted inappropriately while they were helping a woman that worked at the courthouse torment her own daughter in 1983.
Peter Ishibashi made two phone calls in early 1983 as if he had been assigned protective custody of Cheryl Wingert but all he was really doing was helping a misguided mother that enjoyed tormenting her own daughter help Donny Geiger torment her own daughter. Those calls prompted me to have my attorney write Beverly Rusk a letter dated April 20, 1983.
My mother's remark to the call that Peter Ishibashi made to her was Cheryl lived with a guy for 7 years and even had a baby and yet her mother was worried about me?
But it isn't so much what Peter Ishibashi did in 1983 that proves his inappropriate behavior but it is what he has refused to do to this very day. I can easily prove that Wittekind vs. Rusk isn't based on the law or the facts. With a total failure on the part of Peter Ishibashi to do anything at all about the fraudulent deception of Duane Thompson he might as well be saying he loves Duane Thompson's use of Fraudulent Deception.
Frank Fuhr wrote a letter on May 25, 1983 with a complete disregard for the facts. The facts were proven in the jury trial I won and they were that Beverly Rusk was using Frank Fuhr to force her will and force her prejudices down her own daughter's throat as she had been doing since 1974.
Frank's letter would be held against me by the Appellate Court as if it were truth when it was as fraudulent as the false statements Beverly Rusk made to her neighbors and police officers.
Once again, it isn't so much what Frank Fuhr did years ago but he knows the Appellate Court Judges couldn't just un-impeach witnesses that were completely impeached by the exhibits they did not have. In other words Frank Fuhr knows there was an injustice based on the letter he wrote years and his failure to do anything today only helps conceal the fact that his letter was the stepping stone that a pathological lair with an agenda needed to abuse the courts in the first place.
Beatrice and Joe Trujillo were hired to defend me in a 1983 jury trial but they wouldn't talk to me before the trial so I was forced to fire them. They kept telling me they would just have the case thrown out but I didn't want my case thrown out. I wanted to go to court and prove that Beverly and Ed Rusk were lying through their teeth and why they were lying through their teeth exactly like I ended up doing in the 1990 jury trial that I won. Joe ended up disbarred for "Theft by Deception" and Beatrice gave up her license to practice law.
Richard Coppula was the prosecuting attorney in the jury trial that I lost in 1983. He was disbarred for "Theft by Deception" and what he did that proved inappropriate behavior was to allow Beverly Rusk to get away with perjury and obstruction of justice after the first jury trial. I had a police report and a "Report of Proceedings" that proved Beverly Rusk and her husband were allowed to commit perjury and obstruct justice just because she had friends that worked at the courthouse. Of the four statements on the police report one of them was proven false by the police report itself and the other three were proven false during the first jury trial. The obstruction of justice was proven because the statement Beverly Rusk made about her own daughter was inconsistent with her daughter's testimony.
The following attorneys acted inappropriately when they dealt with the 1990 jury trial that I won.
Mark Senko was the attorney that the State used during a Petition to Quash Subpoenas. What he was really doing was trying to conceal the fact that the State was using perjured testimony against me from a woman that should have been charged with obstruction justice because of the false statements she used about her daughter.
Mark knew from my subpoenas what exhibits I was going to use to impeach Beverly Rusk. He knew from my reply to his petition what exhibit I was going to use to impeach Beverly Rusk's daughter. Mark Senko assumed that I wouldn't use a "Report of Proceedings" signed by Judge Brinn in the jury trial I won so he had the subpoena for Judge Brinn quashed.
Only problem with Mark's assumption was he was wrong. The exhibit he tried to prevent me from using in the jury trial I won was used in the jury trial I won and it was used for purposes of impeachment. That exhibit helps prove that Mark Senko was attempting to help a woman that the now disbarred Richard Coppula helped get away with perjury and obstruction of justice himself.
Once again it isn't so much what Mark Senko did years ago but it is his total failure to do anything about the fraudulent deception of Duane Thompson today.
Charles H. Stengel was the prosecuting attorney in the jury trial that I won and his inappropriate behavior was during the jury trial I won and then right after it.
When Charles, also known as Casey learned I had a police report that proved Beverly Rusk was guilty of perjury he should have called it quits at that time but instead he gambled that I wouldn't know how to lay a foundation to impeach the witness and he lost his gamble. That means Casey knew he was using perjured testimony through out the trial and he counted on his being able to prejudice the jury in the closing remarks and his being able to mislead the jury with incorrect jury instructions to pull him through and both those tricks failed to work for him because I was ready for both of them.
But what Casey did after the trial was far worse than what he did during the trial. He failed to throw out the verdict of my first trial even after he learned from the second jury trial that both of the jury trials were malicious.
Note: If was Casey's failure to do anything about the verdict of my first jury trial that made it so easy for Duane Thompson to use perjured testimony himself to rewrite the laws against pro se litigants.
Duane Thompson took advantage of the fact that the judge in case 1990-CM-9 handed back our exhibits to prevent me from reusing the same exhibits I used to win a jury trial and then at the end of the malicious prosecution lawsuit he prevented those exhibits from ever being used by misrepresenting a legal precedent that he knew fully supported my argument from the start because of the way I worded my charges against Beverly Rusk and the exhibits I used to completely impeach her during the jury trial that I won.
Quotes from the transcript that prove exactly how Duane Thompson
prevented evidence of malice from being transferred from the jury trial I won into the
malicious prosectution lawsuit can be found at:
When Duane Thompson took advantage of the fact that the judge in case 1990-CM-9 handed back our exhibits he ended up using perjured testimony from a woman the State knew was a pathological liar with an agenda as a basis for case law in Wittekind vs. Rusk 253 Ill.App.3d 577, 192 Ill.Dec. 467, 625 N.E.2d 427.
The fact remains: Wittekind vs. Rusk proves another reason why
the Appellate Court can not make assumptions about evidence that was used to completely
impeach all three of the State's witnesses. It is because that same evidence can
also be used to prove the State knew their accuser was a pathological liar with an agenda
before the trial and they were simply gambling that I would fall victim to the exact same
three tricks that Richard Coppula played on me in 1983 and they lost their gamble.
More about the three tricks Richard Coppula played on me can be found at:
Last update: 11/10/2012 02:28 PM