• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOISEASTERN DIVISIONEXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
In the matter of)Linda Lorincz Shelton)Civil Action No.)10 C 1995Plaintiff, pro se)
Victim of assault by U.S. Marshall Service and  Defamation by Dishonorable Judge Holderman
MOTION TO DEFINE TERM “CUSTODY” IN LR 40.3
 NOW COMES Linda Shelton, victim of illegal action of Executive Committeemember Judge Holderman who respectfully requests this Executive Committee to definethe word “custody” in LR 40.3.Victim filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with the clerk of the district courton March 19, 2010. The clerk assigned it to the same judge that all previous habeas petitions were assigned to, Judge Coar.Dr. Shelton protested as she alleged that the judge should be assigned using thestandard random assignment system.The clerk alleged that it must go to the same judge because victim was “a prisoner.”Clearly as victim was standing in front of the clerk, she was not a “prisoner” whowas “in custody.”Therefore, victim verily believes that the clerk violated the rules of this court innot making a random assignment of judges.After a thorough search of court rules and regulations as available to the public,victim is unable to find a definition of the word “custody” for purposes of rule 40.3.WHEREFORE, Victim request this committee provide the definition of the word“custody” so that she can defend herself against
FALSE
and
DEFAMATORY
statements made by unknown complainant in this matter, Dishonorable JudgeHolderman, CSO Mahan and Deputy USM Wahenda.
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...