• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • 2
    CommentGo Back
 
United States District Court
For the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division
)Linda L. Shelton)Motion for RemovalMovant))State Court No. 04 CR 17571v.)Circuit Court of Cook County)State of Illinois)Honorable Jorge AlonsoRespondent)Judge Presiding
NOTICE OF REMOVAL
TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT:PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that defendant, Linda L. Shelton, Pro Se, hereby removes tothis Court the state court action described below.On July 15, 2004, an action was commenced in the Cook County Circuit Court, Illinois,entitled, State of Illinois, Plaintiff v. Vernon Glass, Linda Shelton, and Right Frame of Mind, Inc., Defendants, Case number 04 CR 17571Defendant Shelton was indicted by a “special” grand jury in Cook County on July 15,2004, mailed a notice to appear the next day, and appeared in the Circuit Court of Cook County on August 5, 2004 for arraignment.The indictment is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”.All process, orders, and pleadings have been served on the alleged Prosecutor, the IllinoisAttorney General, previously in this pending criminal case and or with this notice.Motion for Court to Order the Prosecutor to produce all process, orders, and pleadings,other than attached to this notice of removal, including the motion for removal andmotions for stay of state court proceedings, as well as motion for leave to file late noticeof removal and motion for in forma pauperis status with affidavit is attached. Defendantdoes not have the funds to accomplish this task.The removal is authorized under 28 U.S.C. §1446(a) et seq. This action is a criminalaction, the alleged acts over which, Medicaid Vendor Fraud, this Court has original jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. 371 mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1341 filing false claims, and 18U.S.C. 287 fraudulent claims, a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1347 health care fraud.It is also authorized because defendant is charged with a crime under state law for actiontaken to carry out a duty, or to exercise an authority (billing Medicaid for mental healthservices) or entitlement, deriving from federal law, and the State Court by fiat is statingthat “federal law does not apply.” Specifically defendant was involved with providing1
 
medical and psychiatric services under the joint Federal/State Medicaid program. TheState Medicaid Code is a joint Federal and State program where State laws are dependentupon and coordinated with the Federal Code and any criminal prosecution REQUIRESconsent of the Federal government through the Federal Code pertaining to State MedicaidFraud Control Units. This pleading is being filed before trial has begun on the morning of the first day of trial, in as fast and timely fashion as possible after the recentunconstitutional rulings of the State Court.Recent unconstitutional rulings of the State Court ensure that a fair trial and justice will be denied and that the Bill of Rights will be violated so that defendant is essentially barred from presenting her legitimate defenses and encumbered by lack of access toevidence that is exculpatory, all of which are federal rights including denial of:1) due process at trial (refusal to enforce discovery, defendant never provided indiscovery even one allegedly fraudulent invoice – the alleged instruments of the crime),2) right to prompt justice, (speedy trial violated and Judge Alonso refuses to acknowledgethis fact),3) right to counsel (right to self-representation denied without legal basis),4) right to notice of charges and a sufficient indictment (legally insufficient indictment),5) right to be free from charges that do not exist at law and are a nullity (no crime allegedas alleged criminal acts not a crime per statutes and supremacy clause violated – alsoJudge Alonso ordered that “Federal Law does not Apply to this Case”),6) right to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (Judge Alonso ruled on February10, 2009 that intent is NOT an element of the charges in this case, fraud, as “ignorance of the law is no excuse.”),7) right to be free of prosecution by a court without jurisdiction due to the indictment being brought by an alleged prosecutor who has no authority or jurisdiction to do so(Illinois Attorney General cannot legally usurp the powers of the Cook County State’sAttorney to indict and prosecute Medicaid vendor fraud because Illinois Constitution andStatutes give SOLE authority to county state’s attorney to indict and prosecute criminalcharges),8) right for compulsory process (key defense witnesses barred by court, as “laws are notrelevant in this case as I have ruled that substitute billing is a crime” so defense expert onMedicaid billing barred from testimony and defendant barred from discussing or introducing any statutes, laws, or rules),9) right to present a defense (court has barred state of mind defense in that defendantthought that contracted billing agent who held herself out to be an expert at complyingwith the law was billing correctly and defendant who was not responsible for any billingthought the CEO and administrators were translating her patient encounter forms and theother employed counselors’ patient encounter forms correctly into invoices, outrageousgovernment conduct defense, affirmative defense of defendant’s billing agents beinginstructed to perform alleged criminal act of substitute billing by Illinois MedicaidProvider Service Unit employees without knowledge or involvement of defendant)Wherefore, defendant, Linda L. Shelton prays that this action be removed to the UnitedStates District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, so that the2
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
Dr Linda Shelton

I have suffered a civil death due to corrupt acts of officials in IL. I need help. See my other pleadings on this site and my blogs at http://drlindashelton.wordpress.com and other blogs listed as links on that site for info about me. Either volunteer to help me pro bono or consider a donation. I plead with anyone who reads this to donate money to my legal defense fund at: Shelton legal fund, C/O Albukerk & Associates, 3025 W 26th St. 2nd floor, Chicago, IL 60625. You may call me Albukerk at 773 847-2600 for information.

reply09 / 22 / 2009
Dr Linda Shelton

The removal was denied because of previous higher court rulings that removal can only occur in a criminal case if there is racial discrimination. Therefore, the only option in the federal court is via habeas precedings.

reply03 / 03 / 2009
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...