Is sex apart of the job being a Judge in family court does this get them more TITLE I-V monies?

January 27, 2015 § Leave a comment

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/wayne-county/2015/01/26/supreme-court-lawsuit-wade-mccree/22346547/

(Photo: Detroit News file)
111
CONNECT
3
TWEET
LINKEDIN
24
COMMENT
EMAIL
MORE
Washington — The Supreme Court has put an end to a civil lawsuit against a former Detroit judge who had an affair with a woman while he presided over her bid for child support.

The justices offered no comment Monday in leaving in place lower court rulings in favor of former Wayne County judge Wade McCree.

The defendant in the child support case sued McCree for violating his civil rights. But the courts dismissed the suit because judges are immune from lawsuits stemming from their judicial actions.

The Michigan Supreme Court removed McCree from office after he admitted to the affair.

A small group effected in cook county average 16,000 divorces in that county alone this is not a limited #?

January 24, 2015 § Leave a comment

Supreme Court Summaries
Opinions filed January 23, 2015

In re Marriage of Eckersall 2015 IL 117922

Appellate citation: 2014 IL App (1st) 132223

JUSTICE FREEMAN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Chief Justice Garman and Justices Thomas, Kilbride, Karmeier, Burke, and Theis concurred in the judgment and opinion.

Marriage dissolution proceedings in Cook County were initiated in 2013 by the husband here, who sought joint custody of the couple’s three minor children. The dissolution was finalized in 2014, superseding an earlier order concerning the children which had been entered while the case was pending. That order had restricted the parties’ dealings and communications with the children during the proceedings. While the matter was pending, the wife had claimed that the order infringed on her right to parent and communicate with her children, and sought appellate review under the Supreme Court Rule which allows an interlocutory order to be appealed if there is an injunction. The order used the language “restrain” and “enjoin”. The appellate court, however, found that the challenged interim order was not an injunction, and, thus, was not appealable. Without considering substantive issues, it dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The wife was GRANTED leave to appeal by the Illinois Supreme Court.
The parties agree that the case is now moot, because the wife cannot be GRANTED any relief from the prior order, which is no longer in effect. However, the wife asked the supreme court to address the merits of her appeal under the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine, claiming the importance of “issues involving minors.” As amicus, the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers urged the supreme court to reach the question of whether the interim order was appealable as an injunction.
The interim order ENTERED HERE was on a “form” that is generally used only in dissolution proceedings in Cook County and only when the parties cannot agree on the terms and conditions of visitation. This type of order has a limited application to a small group of people and does not significantly affect the public as a whole. There are no conflicting precedents on this issue which would call for an authoritative determination, nor is there any indication that this problem will recur.
In this decision, the supreme court found no reason to apply the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine. It found the question presented on appeal to be moot. The court said that the petition for leave to appeal had been improvidently GRANTED. The appeal was dismissed.

The appearance this will go over is a snowballs chance in hell!

January 1, 2015 § Leave a comment

Illinois Supreme Court Approves Use of Video and Audio Recorders in Cook Country Courtrooms
By Stan Lewis December 30, 2014 9:00 am. Categories: Legal. Tags: audio, Chicago, Court, devices, Recording, Supreme Court, video. 0 legal_justice
The Illinois Supreme Court gave its OK on Tuesday for reporters to use cameras and audio recording devices in Cook County (Chicago) in certain circumstances, a major signal of progress in the state’s nearly 3-year-old experiment with media coverage at trials.

While nearly half of 102 Illinois counties are already participating in the pilot program —launched in 2012— Cook County becomes by far the largest, with more than 400 county judges overseeing more than a million cases a year in Chicago and more than 120 suburbs.

Illinois Supreme Court Chief Justice Rita Garman said in a statement Tuesday she expects logistical issues because of the large media market and volume of cases in the judicial district but that Cook County will “rise to the challenge.”

Another justice, Anne Burke, said she hopes the project leads to less reliance on Hollywood explanations of how law works.

“It’s good for the entire legal system as a means of increasing transparency, educating the public and informing citizens as to how our system actually works as opposed to sensationalized snippets […] on TV series and in the movies,” she said in the same statement.

The Cook County program will officially start Jan. 5 at the Leighton Criminal Court Building in Chicago, where many of the highest-profile criminal cases in Illinois have been tried.

Tuesday’s decision doesn’t mean cameras will become ubiquitous in Cook County courtrooms.

Media are likely to ask for the expanded access for a relatively small number of high-profile trials.

Judges will also have discretion about whether to grant access — a decision that’s not appealable. And juvenile, divorce and other types of cases stay off limits to cameras and audio.

Then-Chief Justice Thomas Kilbride launched the initiative with the aim of possibly ending camera bans for good someday. And while the program is described as a test, Garman said after taking over from Kilbride last year she didn’t see Illinois ever returning to a blanket prohibition.

The state has allowed cameras to be present during Illinois Supreme Court and appellate court hearings since 1983. But at the time, the ban at state-court trials was continued out of concern that cameras would be disruptive and undermine a defendant’s right to a fair trial.

Tags: audio, Chicago, Court, devices, Recording, Supreme Court, video
Source: http://www.therepublic.com
1
1

Evans time is running into a mess of what has unfolded … DOJ DOJ …..

March 23, 2014 § Leave a comment

Sneed: Evans seeks to calm jury pool as verdict on his stewardship nears

By MICHAEL SNEED March 20, 2014 8:06PM

0
0
Share
11
Circuit Court Cook County Chief Judge Timothy Evans is interviewed his Daley Center office Wednesday April 6 2011 Chicago. Circuit Court of Cook County Chief Judge Timothy Evans is interviewed in his Daley Center office on Wednesday, April 6, 2011 in Chicago. | Richard A. Chapman~Sun-Times

ARTICLE EXTRAS

Updated: March 21, 2014 2:22AM

Out of Order!

Cook County Circuit Court Chief JudgeTimothy Evans is trying to stave off Judgment Day.

Sneed’s blast Wednesday of Evans’ stewardship over a sloppily run court system — which is being audited by the lllinois Supreme Court — hasn’t stopped him from continuing his successful campaign of fawning over the judges who keep re-electing him.

◆ To wit: Sneed’s criticism prompted Evans to immediately dispatch a kiss to his black-robed electorate at the Circuit Court of Cook County.

In a memo addressed to all court judges and employees, Evans stated:

“It is important for you to understand that I am proud of you and our court system and how much I appreciate your hard work and dedication to it and the litigants we serve.

“Unfortunately, overly broad, speculative assertions on the integrity and authority of the justice system continue to arise. We are not perfect, as no one in any field, profession or branch of government is perfect, but half-truths and innuendo are reckless and do more harm than good . . .

“I encourage you to continue to perform the fine work on which the public, the legal community and our sister court agencies know they can rely.”

◆ Buckshot: Evans’ leadership of a bollixed court system, which condoned a run amok probation and pre-trial department, is now under the microscope of the Illinois Supreme Court — which is this/close to releasing a critical report.

◆ Backshot: The probation department is being audited for claims it lost track of hundreds of convicts, some of whom allegedly raped or killed while on probation; and had a shoddily run pre-trial system used by judges to determine who goes or stays in jail.

◆ Upshot: Evans suddenly dismissed his acting adult probation chief, Jesus Reyes — whom he appointed in 2005 — on Monday.

◆ Shock shot: Yet, Evans, who refused to replace Reyes despite serious management complaints for years, is continuing to allow Reyes to serve as the Circuit Court’s “advisor for research and policy”!

◆ Penalty shot: A top Sneed source familiar with the court’s probation and pre-trial services division, who asked to remain anonymous, claims: “Giving Reyes this job is a joke. Reyes never initiated a policy during his time in office.

“He even refused to develop a critical incident protocol,” the source said. “We carry guns. Anything could result in a critical incident. The police had an incident protocol. We didn’t. We begged Reyes to develop one. No dice. He never responded to car incidents and shootings involving office workers,” he added.

Stay tuned.

Hair’s the deal . . .

An inadvertent photo tech slip on the front page of the Chicago Sun-Times Thursday looked like Gov. Pat Quinn had a bad trip to the barber.

◆ Let’s set the record straight: Quinn’s head of hair may be white, but it’s very much there. Check out this tress trip down memory mane.

Noah’s ark . . .

There’s a Chicagoan in the cast of actor Russell Crowe’s new film, “Noah,” which is being pitched for endorsement by Pope Francis . . . a la actor Mel Gibson’s hit flick: “The Passion of the Christ.”

◆ Translation: The youngest of the four sons of the biblical Noah, a child called Japheth, is being played by Leo McHugh Carroll, who is the grandson of Special Olympics Chicago founder Jack McHugh and his late wife, Rosemary. “Leo loved having Crowe and actress Jennifer Connelly as his ‘parents’,” said a family source. “His twin, Lucas, played actor Matt Damon’s son in the film “The Informant.”

The ring thing . . .

March 21, 2014 § Leave a comment

  • Illinois Supreme Court: Eavesdropping law violates free speech

  • CHICAGO — Illinois’ Supreme Court declared one of the nation’s toughest eavesdropping laws unconstitutional.
  • In this photo taken Feb 2, 2012, cell phones are used to record Henry Bayer, executive director of AFSCME Council 31, right, while protesting and being confronted by the Illinois Secretary of State Police. (AP Photo/Seth Perlman)ASSOCIATED PRESSIn this photo taken Feb 2, 2012, cell phones are used to record Henry Bayer, executive director of AFSCME Council 31, right, while protesting and being confronted by the Illinois Secretary of State Police. (AP Photo/Seth Perlman)
  • By Michael Tarm
    The Associated Press
    Posted Mar. 20, 2014 @ 10:45 am

    CHICAGO — Illinois’ Supreme Court declared one of the nation’s toughest eavesdropping laws unconstitutional, saying Thursday that the law was so overly broad that it would technically make the recording of screaming fans at a football game a crime.

    The ruling is the final defeat for the Illinois Eavesdropping Act, which had made it a felony for someone to record a conversation unless all parties involved agreed. The 1961 law violates free speech and due process protections, the court decided in unanimous decisions in two related cases focused on audio recordings.

    State legislators will now have to draft new rules in a very different privacy environment than existed five decades ago.

    “The burden is now on the legislature to craft a statute that actually serves the goal of protecting privacy — and that does so without infringing on the rights of citizens to keep public officials honest,” said Gabe Plotkin, a lawyer for Annabel Melongo, a defendant in one of the two cases.

    Melongo spent nearly two years in jail after being charged under the statute for recording a Cook County court official over the phone who she believed wasn’t carrying out her duties properly.

    The Illinois law had suffered earlier defeats, including in 2012 when the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a provision that barred anyone from video recording police officers doing their jobs in public. Thursday’s decisions — in People v. Melongo and People v. Clark — mean lawmakers in Springfield will have to ensure the statute complies with court findings.

    “Instead of serving as a shield to protect individual privacy, the statute was written so broadly that it allowed the state to use it as a sword to prosecute citizens for monitoring and reporting on the conduct of public officials,” Plotkin said.

    State Rep. Elaine Nekritz, a vocal opponent of the law’s ban on recording police, said the eavesdropping law did help establish what she described as a sound principle that two parties in a clearly private conversation must both agree about recording the conversation.

    “Some lawmakers may try to abandon the two-party consent rule, and I don’t support abandoning it (altogether),” the Northbrook Democrat said. “We need to have an eavesdropping law. … We have to find a balance.”

    The Illinois justices took pains to say that protecting truly private discussions would be lawful, including because “the fear of having private conversations exposed to the public may have a chilling effect on private speech,” they said in their opinion in the People v. Clark.

    But as written, Illinois’ law criminalizes recordings of conversations that are clearly public, the high court concluded. Under the law, it said, recording a political debate on a college quad, a vocal argument on a street corner or fans yelling at a game could be deemed a crime.

    Judged in terms of the legislative purpose of protecting conversational privacy, the statute’s scope is simply too broad,” the justices wrote.

    Whether someone has an expectation of privacy is often the standard nationwide for deciding if a conversation is private or not, but Illinois’ statute does not include that guideline, the justices added, suggesting that was a serious flaw.

    The ubiquity of smartphones and sophisticated listening technology made it that much harder to impose the appropriate restrictions, the court conceded. But it said that didn’t justify a statute so sweeping and ill-defined as to undermine constitutional rights.

    The eavesdropping law also affected the work of the media, prohibiting them from recording an interview subject over the phone without that person’s consent. The law’s demise raises questions about whether the legal obligation remains in effect.

    Melongo made her recording because she said the official wouldn’t correct a mistake in the transcript of a separate case related to her; she also posted the recording online. The Cook County state’s attorney’s office appealed to the high court after Melongo’s trial judge dismissed charges against Melongo.

    Neither the Cook County state’s attorney’s office nor the Illinois attorney’s general’s office, which filed the appeal in the People v. Clark case, had an immediate comment.

    Read more: http://www.sj-r.com/article/20140320/News/140329946#ixzz2wdMrpT1j

Read more: http://www.sj-r.com/article/20140320/News/140329946#ixzz2wdMXbedU

 

In a unanimous vote the Illinois Supreme Court has dismissed Melongo’s Eavesdropping case.

Decision: http://www.illinoiscorruption.net/documents/supremecourt/SupremeCourtOpinion.pdf

For more on the case: http://www.illinoiscorruption.net/common/supremecourt.html

 

Illinois Supreme Court

Date Description File
The complete docket can be viewed here.
August 9th, 2012 Mr. Podlasek filed a notice of appeal 1
September 28th, 2012 The Cook County State Attorney’s office filed a motion for leave to file docketing statement instanter. 2
October 5th, 2012 The Cook County State Attorney’s office filed a motion for extension of time to file the records. 3
October 10th, 2012 Defendant-appellee, Annabel K. Melongo, filed a motion to appoint counsel. 4
October 16th, 2012 Justice Theis grants the state attorney’s motion to file docketing statement instanter 5
October 16th, 2012 Justice Theis grants the state attorney’s motion for extension of time to file the record. 6
November 11th, 2012 The Cook County State Attorney filed a second motion for extension of time to file the records. 7
November 14th, 2012 Pro Se Defendant-appellee’s motion to appoint counsel is granted. Timothy J. Storm is appointed to represent defendant-appellee. 8
December 4th, 2012 Justice Burke grants the second state attorney’s motion for an extension of time to file the records on appeal. 9
January 7th, 2013 The Cook County State Attorney filed a third motion for extention of time to file the records. 10
January 22nd, 2013 Justice Theis grants the third state attorney’s motion for an extension of time to file the record on appeal. 11
January 24th, 2013 Mr. Storm filed appearance as defendant-appellee’s appointed counsel. 12
January 24th, 2013 Mr. Storm filed a motion to withdraw alleging “unusually difficult” representation of defendant-appellee. 13
January 25th, 2013 Defendant-Appellee filed a response in support of Mr. Storm’s withdrawal alleging “betrayal of attorney-client communication”, “lukewarm representation” and “alienation”. 14
February 5th, 2013 Justice Freeman grants Mr. Storm’s request to withdraw as defendant-appellee’s lawyer. 15
February 22nd, 2013 The Cook County State Attorney filed a fourth motion for extention of time to file the record on appeal. 16
March 4th, 2013 Pro Se Defendant-appellee, filed a motion in opposition of a fourth extention of time to file the record. 17
March 5th, 2013 Justice Burke grants the state attorney’s fourth motion for extension of time to file the record on appeal. 18
April 22nd, 2013 Cook County State Attorney Mr. Alan Spellberg filed a notice for filing the record on appeal. 19
April 24th, 2013 The Illinois Supreme Court Clerk sent a letter setting May 28th, 2013, as the dateline for plaintiff-appellant’s brief. 20
May 1st, 2013 Defendant-Appellee, Annabel K. Melongo, filed a motion for Supplemental Record On Appeal. 21
May 10th, 2013 Cook County State Attorney waived any objection to defendant-Appellee’s motion for supplemental record. 22
May 14th, 2013 Justice Theis grants defendant-appellee’s motion for supplemental record. 23
May 28th, 2013 Cook County State Attorney filed a motion for extension of time to file plaintiff-appellant’s Brief and Argument. 24
June 11th, 2013 Justice Freeman grants the state attorney’s motion for extension of time to file plaintiff-appellant’s Brief and Argument. 25
July 2nd, 2013 Cook County State Attorney filed a second motion for extension of time to file plaintiff-appellant’s Brief and Argument. 26
July 16th, 2013 Justice Burke grants the state attorney’s motion for extension of time to file plaintiff-appellant’s Brief and Argument. 27
August 6th, 2013 Cook County State Attorney filed a third motion for extension of time to file plaintiff-appellant’s Brief and Argument. 28
August 21st, 2013 Justice Freeman grants the state attorney’s motion for extension of time to file plaintiff-appellant’s Brief and Argument. 29
August 30th, 2013 Cook County State Attorney filed a fourth motion for extension of time to file plaintiff-appellant’s Brief and Argument. 30
September 10th, 2013 Justice Burke grants the state attorney’s final motion for extension of time to file plaintiff-appellant’s Brief and Argument. 31
September 27th, 2013 Cook County State Attorney filed plaintiff-appellant’s Appendix. 32
September 27th, 2013 Cook County State Attorney filed plaintiff-appellant’s Brief and Argument. 33
September 30th, 2013 Cook County State Attorney filed a motion for leave to supplement the record on appeal. 34
October 21st, 2013 Mr. Daniel M. Feeney and Mr. Gabriel B. Plotkin of Miller Shakman & Beem file appearance for defendant-appellee. Feeney’s Bio
Plotkin’s Bio
October 21st, 2013 Defendant-Appellee filed motion for extension of time to file brief to and including December 6th, 2013. 35
October 21st, 2013 Mr. Feeney’s affidavit for defendant-appellee’s motion for extension of time to file brief to and including December 6th, 2013. 36
October 29th, 2013 Justice Theis grants defendant-appellee’s motion for extension of time to file brief to and including December 6th, 2013. 37
December 6th, 2013 Defendant-appellee’s Appendix is filed. 38
December 6th, 2013 Defendant-appellee’s Brief is filed. 39
December 9th, 2013 ACLU of Illinois filed a Motion For Leave to file an Amicus Curiae brief in support of defendant-appellee. 40
December 10th, 2013 Justice Burke grants ACLU of Illinois motion to file Amicus Curiae in support of defendant-appellee. 41
December 10th, 2013 ACLU of Illinois filed Amicus Curiae in support of defendant-appellee. 42
December 17th, 2013 Defendant-appellee’s oral argument set to January 14th, at 9.30am at the 18th floor of the Michael A. Bilandic Building, 160 N. LaSalle Street, Chicago. 43
December 20th, 2013 Cook County State Attorney’s motion for an extension of time for filing reply brief to and including 01/03/2014. 44
December 23rd, 2013 Justice Burke grants Cook County State Attorney’s motion for an extension of time for filing reply brief to and including 01/03/2014. 45
January 3rd, 2014 Cook County State Attorney filed a reply to Defendant-Appellee’s brief. 46
January 14th, 2014 Oral arguments are heard. Video
March 17th, 2014 Illinois Supreme Court posts an anticipated opinion’s date for March 20th, 2014. 47
March 20th, 2014 The Illinois Supreme Court dismisses Melongo’s Eavesdropping case for good. 48
March 20th, 2014 Miller Shakman & Beem issues a Press Release confirming the dismissal. 49

Why do judges in our family courts ignore the law?The appearance they will be out of a job as well as their brethren.

March 20, 2014 § Leave a comment

Why do judges in our family courts ignore the law?

Sir James Munby’s guidelines are being breached

Judges have a duty to obey the law of the land, but this is is not always happening in the family courts

Judges have a duty to obey the law of the land, but this is is not always happening in the family courts Photo: ALAMY

6:24PM GMT 02 Nov 2013

It is a basic principle of British justice that no one should be sent to prison except in open court, so that their name can be known and why they have been jailed. But this has long been one of those basic principles that are routinely ignored in our ultra-secretive family courts.

In a parliamentary answer given by Harriet Harman in 2006, she said that some 200 people had been jailed in secret by the family courts in 2005, and that her government now wanted to open up the courts to ensure that this scandal did not continue. Last May and July, following publicity given to a case in which a woman was secretly sentenced to 12 months in prison for rescuing her father from a care home, where he was being mistreated, the new head of the Family Division of the High Court, Sir James Munby, issued guidelines reminding his fellow judges that this was against the law, as clearly restated in the Rules of the Supreme Court as long ago as 1965.

In recent years, I have come across many cases of judges continuing to break the law in this way. In one instance, a father who had already lost his two teenage sons because they were held to be “at risk of emotional abuse” from their mother, from whom he had separated, was before a judge who wanted to order the removal for adoption of his third son, aged four. When the father left the courtroom in disgust, the judge ordered his arrest for contempt.

While he was in custody, his new partner, still at home and fearful that the little boy might also be removed, panicked and took him to a secret destination. The judge summoned the father back to court to ask where they had gone. Since his partner’s flight was on the spur of the moment, the father explained, truthfully, that he had no idea. Refusing to believe him, the judge angrily sentenced him in secret to 12 months. The police tracked down the woman, who was convicted of kidnapping the boy but let off with a caution. The father was released after six months in prison, but given a penal notice forbidding him to have any further contact with his boys, all now in foster care, whom he had brought up and who loved him.

In another recent case, a couple whose son had repeatedly run away from a care home were secretly jailed for not disclosing his whereabouts. In October, months after Munby issued his guidelines, three judges in the Court of Appeal upheld their sentencing. Also last month, John Hemming MP protested that the sentencing of a woman to 28 days by another High Court judge, Mrs Justice Theis, was yet another example of “secret justice” in breach of Munby’s guidelines and the law, because, although her court had been technically “open” for the brief period of the sentencing, the case was not advertised and no one was allowed to know the woman’s name or why she was imprisoned.

It seems that Lord Justice Munby has a battle on his hands to persuade judges that it is their duty to obey the law of the land.

People State of Illinois, appellant, v. Annabel Melongo, appellee. Appeal, Circuit Court (Cook).

March 18, 2014 § Leave a comment

TO ATTORNEYS OF RECORD AND PARTIES:

The Supreme Court anticipates that opinions will be filed in the cases listed below at 9:00 A.M. on Thursday, March 20, 2014. Very limited information about the opinions can be obtained by telephone after 9:00 A.M. that day. Your copy of the opinion will be mailed to you, or it will be available in the Clerk’s Office in Springfield or on the 20th Floor, 160 N. LaSalle St. in Chicago shortly after 9:00 A.M. Opinions also are posted on the Court’s website the day of filing: http://www.illinoiscourts.gov.

MARCH 17, 2014

page1image5784

No. 114852 – No. 115342 – No. 115526 –

No. 115527 – No. 115581 – No. 115595 – No. 115769 – No. 115776 – No. 116311 – No. 116319 –

Carolyn Taft Grosboll
Clerk of the Supreme Court of Illinois

People State of Illinois, appellant, v. Annabel Melongo, appellee. Appeal, Circuit Court (Cook).

Spanish Court Two Condominium Association, appellant, v.
Lisa Carlson, appellee. Appeal, Appellate Court, Second District.

Home Star Bank and Financial Services, etc., et al., appellees, v. Emergency Care and Health Organization, Ltd., et al. (Michael T. Murphy, appellant). Appeal, Appellate Court, First District.

People State of Illinois, appellee, v. Javier Fernandez, appellant. Appeal, Appellate Court, First District.

People State of Illinois, appellant, v. Christopher Easley, appellee. Appeal, Appellate Court, First District.

People State of Illinois, appellant, v. Addolfo Davis, appellee. Appeal, Appellate Court, First District.

People State of Illinois, appellant, v. Derrick A. Cummings, appellee. Appeal, Appellate Court, Third District.

People State of Illinois, appellant, v. Deforest Clark, appellee. Appeal, Circuit Court (Kane).

BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, etc., appellee, v. Kim E. Mitchell, appellant. Appeal, Appellate Court, First District.

In re Marriage of Robert N. Tiballi, appellant, and Sheila J. Ilagan Tiballi, appellee. Appeal, Appellate Court, Second District.

Where Am I?

You are currently browsing entries tagged with Supreme Court at Will County Pro-se.