• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • 3
    CommentGo Back
Download
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOISLinda L. Shelton
)Movant)383 Motion for Supervisory Order )
v.
))
The Honorable William H. Maddux,
)in his Official Capacity as E
xecutive )
Case No. 108696
Director
 
of the Law Division of the Cook )County Circuit Court and its Presiding )Judge,Dorothy Brown
in her Official )Capacity as the
Cook County Circuit )Court Clerk,
and
The Honorable Timothy )Evans,
Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of )Cook County, In his Official Capacity as )Filed: June 24, 2009Executive Director of the Circuit Court of )Cook Count)Respondents)
383 MOTION FOR SUPERVISORY ORDERS
Movant Linda L. Shelton, moves this Honorable Court to order Judge Maddux of the Circuit Court of Cook County (“CCCC”) to vacate his order of October 2, 2008(Exhibit A) and grant Movant’s Application to Sue as an Indigent Person with Waiver of Fees (Exhibit B), as well as order CCCC Clerk Brown to file attached tort complaint(Exhibit C) in the CCCC
nunc pro tunc
to October 2, 2008, as well as reprimand JudgeEvans for failing to perform his administrative duties as Chief Administrator of theCCCC. In support of this motion Movant states as follows:
THE PARTIES
1.Movant Linda L. Shelton is a resident of Cook County and the State of Illinois.2.Respondent the Honorable William H. Maddux (“Judge”) is the duly appointedPresiding Judge of the Law Division of the CCCC. He was appointed the Presiding Judgeof the Law Division by order of the Chief Judge of the CCCC, the Honorable Timothy1
 
Evans, and as such is authorized to make administrative decisions for the functioning of the Law Division of the CCCC, per rules of the CCCC, consistent with the laws of theState of Illinois, the County of Cook, and the Illinois Supreme Court Rules.3.Respondent Dorothy Brown is the duly elected Clerk of the CCCC (“Clerk”) under the laws of the State of Illinois and the County of Cook.4.Respondent the Honorable Timothy Evans is the duly appointed Chief Judge of theCCCC and Executive Director of the CCCC, per the laws of the County of Cook, theRules of the Illinois Supreme Court, and the Constitution of the State of Illinois.
STATEMENT OF LAWS
5.735 ILCS 5/5-105 mandates that a person who is indigent as defined in the statute“shall” be granted leave to file as an indigent person with waiver of fees, upon presentation to a judge of an application to sue as an indigent person and an affidavit of assets:735 ILCS 5/5-105a) (2) "Indigent person" means any person who meets oneor more of the following criteria:(i) He or she is receiving assistance under one or more of the following public benefits programs: Supplemental Security Income (SSI), … Food Stamps, ….(ii) His or her available income is 125% or less of the current poverty level asestablished by the United States Department of Health and Human Services,unless the applicant's assets that are not exempt under Part 9 or 10 of Article XIIof this Code are of a nature and value that the court determines that the applicantis able to pay the fees, costs, and charges….735 ILCS 5/5-105 b) On the application of any person, before, or after the commencement of an action,a court, on finding that the applicant is an indigent person, shall grant the applicantleave to sue or defend the action without payment of the fees, costs, and charges of the action.This is an administrative and not judicial decision, which generally occurs prior to thefiling of the complaint, but may be requested after the complaint is filed. There is NO2
 
administrative discretion if a person qualifies under the definition of ‘indigent”. The judge, acting as an administrator, “shall” grant the application as dictated by statute.6.The Clerk is required by statute to file a complaint without payment of fee if it isaccompanied by an application to sue as an indigent person:735 ILCS 5/5-105(d) The court shall rule on applications under this Section in a timely manner basedon information contained in the application unless the court, in its discretion, requiresthe applicant to personally appear to explain or clarify information contained in theapplication. If the court finds that the applicant is an indigent person, the court shallenter an order permitting the applicant to sue or defend without payment of fees,costs, or charges. If the application is denied, the court shall enter an order to thateffect stating the specific reasons for the denial.
The clerk of the court shallpromptly mail or deliver a copy of the order to the applicant.
 (e)
The clerk of the court shall not refuse to accept and file any complaint,appearance, or other paper presented by the applicant if accompanied by anapplication to sue or defend in forma pauperis, and those papers shall beconsidered filed on the date the application is presented
. If the application isdenied, the order shall state a date certain by which the necessary fees, costs, andcharges must be paid.Please note that the statutes state that the clerk “shall promptly mail or deliver a copy of the order to the applicant [presumably with a copy of the officially stamped application].”7.One must assume the standard English definition of “promptly”, that being“immediately”, per the Oxford English Dictionary. Immediately does NOT, in common practice, include an assistant clerk, John, running through the Judge’s courtroom at theDaley Center, Room 2005, yelling to applicants “follow me” and then going down to theCCCC Law Division Clerk’s office in room 801. Nor does it include the applicantwaiting in line for the clerk to file the complaint, for the plaintiff, if the application wasgranted, or being told that the clerk will not accept the filing without the fee being paidwhen the application is denied, as is done daily by the Clerk’s assistants. John performsthis task daily, per orders of the Judge, without telling the applicant the decision of the3
of 00

Leave a Comment

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

US Supreme Court does not have supervisory authority over state courts but has appellate authority regarding constitutional issues over state courts. Therefore, I have to write a motion for certiorari with the US S Ct and NOT a motion for supervisory order.

reply07 / 30 / 2009
Dr Linda Shelton

The above actions of the court are clear reasons that American Justice is a Myth.

reply07 / 23 / 2009
Dr Linda Shelton

IL S Ct denied this motion on July 20, 2009 proving that the IL Courts are corrupt all the way through the IL S Ct. The IL S Ct therefore has aided and abetted as well as condoned the violation of statutes by Judge Maddux and Clerk of the C[r]ook Co Crts Dorothy Brown, who is now running to be president of the Cook Co Board. I will now ask the US S Ct for a supervisory order to enforce my 1st Amendment right to redress of grievances.

reply07 / 23 / 2009
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...