scotus writ of certiorari

No.

IN THESupreme Court of the United States

Term, 2013

General Parker,Petitioner.

v.People of the State of Illinois ex rel, Kevin Lyons

Respondents,

_________________________

ON PETITION FOR AN EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT APPELLATE COURT, ON THE DECISION OF THE 10TH DISTRICT CIRCUIT JUDGE SCOTT

SHORE_________________________

PETITION FOR AN EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF CERTIORARI

GENERAL PARKER PRO SE P.O. BOX 3026 PEORIA, IL 61612-3026

(309) 648-2962

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

1

Summary

General Parker is an African American male. In

1984, Mr. Parker was convicted of an auto theft

in Peoria County. Mr. Parker has served his

sentence and all rights taken have been

restored. Mr. Parker is a leader and activist in

the African American community. Mr. Parker filed

nominating petitions to run for school board

member on December 13, 2010. The last day to

object was December 28, 2010 to the electoral

board. The Respondent filed an untimely

objection on February 18, 2011 with the circuit

court. He also had it heard by his personal

friend.

There were other candidates, who are white,

who clearly were in violation of the election law

but Mr. Lyons refused to pursue them. There is

no law preventing ex-felons in Illinois from

running for office or having ballot access. Mr.

2

Parker was not even served until 17 hours before

the hearing and the Circuit Court does not have

original subject-matter jurisdiction over this

objection to Mr. Parker being placed on the

ballot, the electoral board does. Judge Brandt

also refused to recues himself for cause even

after a motion from the Petitioner to do so.

Judge Shore refused to stay the judgment

pending appeal even though the ballots were to

be printed the next day thus denying Petitioner;

of his right to a full and fair opportunity to be

heard; his rights to due process; his to appeal

before action taken in this matter.

Mr. Lyons colluded with the judiciary to violate:

Mr. Parker’s right to due process; rights to equal

protection; the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the

Voting Rights Act of 1965. Mr. Lyons and the

judges also violated U.S. and Supreme Court

Rules of Professional Conduct and committed

3

fraud upon the court.

The 3rd District Appellate Court upheld the lower

court’s decisions without, apparently looking at

Petitioner’s Brief or the transcripts because they

made claims that were patently false and the

evidence was apparent.

1. Did state agents engage in fraud upon the

court and if so, does that void this case?

2. Is this State Court decision and Appellate

Court affirmation void due illegal actions of

state officers?

3. Were Petitioner’s Constitutional Rights

violated?

4. Does the State Court’s decision conflict

with U.S. and Illinois Case law?

5. Is Illinois Statute 10 ILCS 5/29-15

unconstitutional?

6. Does the State’s actions violate the Civil

Rights Act of 1964?

4

7. Does barring an ex-felon from running for

office after completion of sentence violate

their Constitutional rights?

List of Parties

Peoria County State’s Attorney Kevin Lyons –

Respondent

State of Illinois – Attorney General Lisa Madigan -

Respondent

General Parker – Petitioner

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OPINIONS BELOW …………………………………… 1

JURSDICTION ……………………………………........ 3

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS

…………………………………………… 3

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ………………………. 13

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT …………. 25

CONCLUSION ………………………………………… 26

INDEX TO APPENDICES

5

APPENDIX A – 3rd Dist. Appellate Court Order.

APPENDIX B – Appellate Court Order Denying

Rehearing.

APPENDIX C – Decision of State Trial Court.

APPENDIX D – Decision of State Supreme Court

Denying Review.

APPENDIX E – State Court’s Order for

Substitution

of Judge.

APPENDIX F – State Court Order for

Continuance.

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Anderson v. Schneider, 67 Ill. 2d 165, 365 N.E.

2d 900 (1977) …….

Citizen United v. Federal Election Commission,

No. 08-205 ……

Coles v. Ryan, 91 Ill. App. 3d 382, 414 N.E. 2d

932 (2d Dist. 1980) ……

Elliott v. Peirsol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328,

6

340 (1828) ……

Fashing v. Moore (D.C. Tex. 1980), 489 F. Supp.

471, 475) ……

In re Frederick Edward Strufe, Disciplinary case

no. 93 SH 100 ……

Gomillion v. Lightfoot ……

Grasham v. Folsom, 200 U.S. 248, 253 ……

Guinn v. United States, 238 U.S. 347 (1915) ……

Hoskins v. Walker, 57111.2d 503, 315 N.E.2d 25

(1974) ……

Kenner v C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689(1968); 7 Moore’s

Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, 60:23 ……

Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisitions Corp.

486 … U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct.2194(1988) ……

Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct.1147 1162 (1994) ……

Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980) ……

Nader v. Illinois Board of Elections, 354 Ill App 3d

335, 340 (2004) ……

Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536 (1927) ……

7

Old Wayne Mut. L. Assoc. v. McDonough, 204

U.S. 8, 27 S.Ct. 236 (1907) ……

O’Neil v. Vermont ……

People v. Coleman, 183 Ill. 2d 366, 384-87 (IL.

1998) ..

People v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 III.354;192 N.E.

229 (1934) …..

People v. Hofer, 363 Ill.App.3d 719, 843, N.E. 2d.

460 (5th Dist. 2006) ……

People v. Holmes, 235 Ill. 2d 59, 66 (IL. 2009)

……

People v. Howard, 228 Ill. 2d 428, 432 (IL. 2008)

……

People ex rel. Cory v. Watts, Cit. CL., Cook Cty.,

Ill., No. 99 CH 10306 (Dec. 1, 1999) (Jaffe, 1.)

……

People ex rel. Ryan v. Coles, 64 Ill. App. 3d 807,

381 N.E. 2d 990 (2d Dist. 1978) ……

Ross v. Himely, 4 Cranch 241, 269, 2 L.ed. 608,

8

617 …

Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944) ……

Taylor v. O’Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989)

….

Trafelet v. Thompson, 594 F.2d 623 (7th Cir.),

cert denied, 444 U.S. 902 (1979) ……

Trop v. Dulles 356 U.S. 86 (1958) ……

Tully v. Edgar, 171 Ill. 2d 297, 664 N.E. 2d 43,

215 Ill. Dec. 646 (1996) ……

United States Civil Service Commission v.

National Association of Letter Carriers, 413 U.S.

548 (1973) ..

United States v. Cruishank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

….

Weems v. United States ……

Witt (1191) 145 Ill.2d 380, 583 N.E. 2d 526, 531,

164 Ill. Dec. 610 ……

Williamson v. Berry, 8 How. 495, 540, 12 L.ed.

1170, 1189 ……

9

OPINIONS BELOW

The State of Illinois Supreme Court did not write

an Opinion in this case. Their Order discretion to

deny hearing Petition for appeal is reprinted in

the Appendix at A.

The Illinois Supreme Court’s Order to Granting

Appellant to Petition the Court to Appeal

Instanter was issued on August 8, 2012, and

appears in the Appendix at B.

The Third District’s Order denying Rehearing of

the issues was issued on June 19, 2012 and

appears in the appendix at C.

The Order and Memorandum of the Appellate

Court affirming Judge Shore’s holding was issued

on May 8, 2012 and is reprinted in the appendix

at D.

The Petitioner denied ballot access by Judge

Scott Shore’s decision is located in the Appendix

at E.

10

Judge Brandt’s Order issued on February 23,

2011 is located in the Appendix at F.

Judge Brandt’s Order issued on February 22,

2011 is located in the Appendix at G.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The decision of the State of Illinois Supreme

Court denying Appellant’s Petition for Appeal,

was entered on November 28, 2012. The

jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28

U.S.C. § 1257(a).

STATUTES AND RULES

1st Amendment

5th Amendment

8th Amendment

14th Amendment

15th Amendment

Civil Rights Act of 1964

Voting Rights Act of 1965

18 U.S.C. § 241

11

18 U.S.C. § 242

18 U.S.C. § 245

28 U.S.C. §455

42 U.S.C.§1983

42 U.S.C.§1985

Article 1 Illinois Constitution




ILLINOIS COMPILED STATUTES –

5 ILCS 280/1

10 ILCS 5/10-8

10 ILCS 5/10-9

10 ILCS 5/29-6

10 ILCS 5/ 29-10

10 ILCS 5/29-15

65 ILCS 5/3.1-10-5

105 ILCS 5/9-1

105 ILCS 5/33-2

12

730 ILCS 5/5-5-5

735 ILCS 5/18-101

735 ILCS 5/18-106

ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT RULE 4-3.8: SPECIAL

RESPONSIBILITIES OF A PROSECUTOR

ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT RULE 12








ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT RULE 102 (b), (d)


OTHER

General Parker, Respondent/Appellant, hereby

petitions this Court for issuance of a Writ of

Certiorari to review or Vitiate the decision of the

13

10th District Circuit Court of Illinois, Judge Scott

Shore, on February 23, 2011, Affirmed by the

Third District Appellate Court of Illinois on May 8,

2012, denied a Motion for Rehearing on June 19,

2012. Appealed to the Illinois State Supreme

Court Instanter on August 8, 2012 and denied a

discretionary hearing with no opinion on

November 28, 2012.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND STATUTES

United States Constitution, Article III, § 1

provides, in pertinent part: “The judicial Power of

the United States, shall be vested in the

Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as

the Congress may from time to time ordain and

establish.”

18 U.S.C. § 241

18 U.S.C. § 242

18 U.S.C. § 245

14

First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an

establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free

exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of

speech, or of the press; or the right of the people

peaceably assemble, and to petition the

government for a redress of grievances

Fifth Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital,

or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a

presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,

except in cases arising in the land or naval

forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in

time of war or public danger; nor shall any

person be subject for the same offense to be

twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be

compelled in any criminal case to be a witness

against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty,

or property, without due process of law; nor shall

15

private property be taken for public use without

just compensation.

Sixth Amendment

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall

enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by

an impartial jury of the State and district wherein

the crime shall have been committed, which

district shall have been previously ascertained

by law, and to be informed of the nature and

cause of the accusation; to be confronted with

the witnesses against him; to have compulsory

process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and

to have the assistance of counsel for his

defense.

Eighth Amendment

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor

excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual

punishments inflicted.

Fourteenth Amendment

16

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the

United States and subject to the jurisdiction

thereof, are citizens of the United States and of

the State wherein they reside. No State shall

make or enforce any law which shall abridge the

privileges or immunities of citizens of the United

States; nor shall any State deprive any person of

life, liberty, or property, without due process of

law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction

the equal protection of the laws.

Fifteenth Amendment

Section 1.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote

shall not be denied or abridged by the United

States or by any state on account of race, color,

or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2.

The Congress shall have power to enforce this

article by appropriate legislation.

17

Illinois Compiled Statute




ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT RULE 4-3.8: SPECIAL

RESPONSIBILITIES OF A PROSECUTOR – see

appendix

ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT RULE 81.12 – see

appendix

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

. General Parker is an African American male. In

1984, Mr. Parker was convicted of an auto theft

in Peoria County. He served a two year sentence

Mr. Parker has served his sentence and all rights

taken have been restored. Mr. Parker ran for

Mayor of Peoria two years earlier. He was given

ballot access. A white male by the name of Dan

Fishel, had a felony from the 1970’s and ran for

and held the office of mayor in Brimfield, IL.

18

Brimfield is located in Peoria County and Mr.

Fishel held office for eight years while Kevin

Lyons was the Peoria County State’s attorney.

Kevin Lyons never once filed a quo warranto

motion against Dan Fishel even though there is

an Illinois Statute that prevents a person with a

felony conviction from holding municipal office,

(65 ILCS 5/3.1-10-5 the Municipal Code). This

exemption from office is not automatic though, a

citizen would have to come in and file a

complaint to have them removed (ousted) from

office.

Mr. Parker is an outspoken leader and activist in

the African American community. Mr. Parker filed

nominating petitions to run for school board

member on December 13, 2010. The school

board is not a municipality as stated in Article 7

of the Illinois Constitution. The last day to object

was December 28, 2010 (10 ILCS 5/10-8) to the

19

electoral board. 10 ILCS 5/10-9. The Respondent

filed an untimely objection on February 18,

2011.

Mr. Parker was not served until after 5:00 p.m.

on Monday, February 21, 2011. The summons

demanded that he appear before Judge Michael

Brandt the next morning at 10:30 a.m. to answer

the quo warranto complaint initiated by the

state’s attorney. The summons on its face stated

it was not to be served later than three days

before the hearing. Weeks later and after the

hearing that was held the next two days, Mr.

Parker found out that a quo warranto summons

had to be served at least five days proior to the

hearing so even if Mr. Parker had been served

the same day the complaint was filed on

February 18, he still would have been his due

process rights but he wasn’t served then either.

He was not served until three days later. This

20

was only 17 hours to attempt to research and

prepare for a defense in this matter. That

Monday was a holiday and Mr. Parker was not

served until after 5:00 p.m. so he could not even

obtain council in this matter to answer the

complaint. Mr. Lyons emceed a Democratic

political dinner the night before and introduced

Judge Brandt as his close personal friend.

There are special responsibilities for a

prosecutor and this office decided to ignore all of

them.

There were other candidates, who are white,

who clearly were in violation of the election law

(the Municipal Code) Dan Fishel was one but

Gary Sandberg and Chuck Weaver were in direct

violation of the Municipal Code but Mr. Lyons

refused to pursue them.

There is no law preventing ex-felons in Illinois

from running for office or having ballot access.

21

Mr. Parker was not even served until 17 hours

before the hearing and the Circuit Court does not

have original subject-matter jurisdiction over this

objection to Mr. Parker being placed on the

ballot, the electoral board does. This Court

lacked personal and subject matter jurisdiction

over Mr. Parker and his ballot access.

Upon appearing in court, Mr. Parker immedialtely

told Judge Brandt that he had just received the

summons the night before. A competent or

honest judge would have first ascertained if the

court had personal jurisdiction over Mr. Parker.

He then would have determined if his court had

subject matter jurisdiction of the subject before

him but Judge Brandt nor Judge Shore were

concerned with procedure or constitutional

rights because neither asked to find out if

procedure was followed or verified if they had

jurisdiction to hear the matter. Mr. Parker then

22

immediately asked Judge Brandt to recues

himself after the comments the State’s Attorney

made the night before regarding their

relationship. Jduge Brandt said he would not

accept and oral motion from Mr. Parker, which is

a violation of 28 U.S.C. § 455. He asked Mr.

Parker how much time he would need to file a

written motion. Mr. Parker asked for at least a

couple of days since he was pro se and not an

attorney not did he have the resources the

state’s attorney’s office had. He refused and

gave Petitioner 24 hrs. to file a Motion for

Substitution of Judge. Mr. Parker did not find out

until later, after again researching, that no

written motion had to be made and that the

judge had to recues himself sua sponte if the

case had any appearance of partiality or

impropriety. Judge Brandt refused to recues

himself for cause even after a motion from the

23

Petitioner to do so. State law says once a motion

to remove a judge for cause has been made,

another judge had to hear it, not the judge the

complaint is about. Judge Brandt heard and

denied it. He then, after a request from the

state’s attorney, gave Mr. Parker a substitution

as a matter of right and directed the party’s to

move immediately to Judge Shore’s courtroom to

have the case heard immediately. This was out

of procedure also. How did Judge Brandt even

know Judge Shore’s calendar was available

because he didn’t call or leave the bench. Judge

Shore refused to allow Petitioner to call the

state’s attorney to the witness stand even

though the state’s attorney made comments to

the media stating that Mr. Parker could run for

any other office in the state except for a

municipal office.

Mr. Parker also stated several times that:

24

1. This was not the proper venue, the

electoral board was.

2. This objection was out of time, it

should have been filed by December

28, 2010.

3. There is no law barring him from the

ballot.

4. The hearing was illegal.

5. This hearing and the state’s attorney’s

actions violated my constitutional and

civil rights.

6. He held no office to be ousted from so

the Ouster motion was premature, if he

lost the election, the point was moot.

7. Mr. Parker asked for a continuance to

do the research or secure council.

Judge Shore denied his request and ruled against

Mr. Parker. He denied his motion to dismiss and

ordered him not to campaign and his name

25

removed from the ballot. Judge Shore tried to

validate the state’s attorney’s illegal actions by

fraudulently claiming that “this case wasn’t ripe

to bring in December because Petitioner hadn’t

paid his fine.” This was an attempt to deceive

the Court because Mr. Parker never was

removed from the ballot at any time prior to this

hearing so he was always a candidate. Secondly,

the state’s attorney testified in Court during the

hearing that Petitioner’s fine to the State Board

of Elections had no bearing whatsoever on their

bringing this objection.

Judge Shore was also told by the state’s attorney

that ballots would be printed the next day so

they needed his order signed immediately. Mr.

Parker asked the judge to stay the judgment

pending appeal. The judge denied the request.

This denied Mr. Petitioner; of his right to a full

and fair opportunity to be heard; his rights to

26

due process; his to appeal before action taken in

this matter.

Mr. Lyons colluded with the judiciary to violate:

Mr. Parker’s right to due process; rights to equal

protection; the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the

Voting Rights Act of 1965. Mr. Lyons and the

judges also violated U.S. and Supreme Court

Rules of Professional Conduct and committed

fraud upon the court.

Their actions prevented the school board brom

having an African American majority.

The 3rd District Appellate Court upheld the lower

court’s decisions.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

I. These Actions in This Matter by

Respondent Violate Federal

Statutes18 U.S.C. § 241, U.S.C. §

242 AND U.S.C. § 245.

27

II. The Decision of the Judge Shore

Conflicts with This Court's and

Illinois Supreme Court’s Long Held

Decision That the Right to Vote

also Means the Right to be Voted

For.

III. The State Violated Illinois and U.S.

Supreme Rules of Civil Procedure

and Rights to Due Process.

IV. This Courts Actions and The Other

Principles Involved Discriminates

Against Mr. Parker and the African

American Community in Peoria in

Their Right to Vote and be Able to

Vote For the Candidate of Their

Choice.

V. Mr. Parker’s Rights Were Restored

Almost Thirty Years Ago.

VI. By not Seeking to Remove the

28

White Candidates from Office Who

Were Clearly in Violation of

Election Law and Federal Law, the

Actors in This Matter Violated

Appellants 14th Amendment Rights

to Equal Protection.

VII. Quo Warranto Statutes Could be so

Far Reaching That Any State’s

Attorney Can Have a Person

Removed From The Ballot Who Did

Not Agree With Their Politics and

Violate a Citizens Right to Due

Process.

VIII. Defendants Would Have no Remedy

for a State’s Misconduct.

IX. A Person Has a Liberty Interest in

Being Able to Voted For and

Preserving His Freedom of Speech

Rights When His Rights have been

29

Restored.

X. Officer of the Court Cannot Illegally

Threaten or Harass Citizens for

Exercising Rights.

XI. This Violates the 15th

Amendment.

XII. Judge Brandt Should Have Recused

himself Sua Sponte.

XIII. State’s Attorneys Should not be

Allowed to Freely and Arbitrarily

Decide Who Can and Can’t Run For

Political Office.

XIV. The district Court Lacked Personal

Jurisdiction Over Appellant.

XV. The District Court Lacked Subject

Matter Jurisdiction Over Mr. Parker.

XVI. Defendants Should be Allowed

Reasonable Time to Acquire

Research, Evidence or Counsel in a

30

hearing.

XVII. Judge Brandt Should not Have

Heard a Motion to Have him

Substituted for cause.

XVIII. This Case Violates This Court’s

Statutes and Case Law Regarding

Due Process, Equal Rights,

Discrimination, Civil Procedure and

Professional Conduct.

XIX. This Case Violates Illinois’ Statutes

and Case Law Regarding Due

Process, Equal Rights,

Discrimination, Civil Procedure and

Professional Conduct.

XX. The Officers of The District Court

Have Committed Fraud Upon the

Court.

XXI. A State Court of Last Resort has

Decided an Important Federal

31

Question in a Way That Conflicts

With the Decision of Another State

Court of Last Resort or of a United

States Court of Appeals.

XXII. A State Court has Decided an

Important Question of Federal Law

That has not Been, but Should be,

Settled by this Court.

XXIII. The State Court has Decided an

Important Federal Question in a

Way that Conflicts with Relevant

Decisions of this Court.

XXIV. The State Court of Last Resort

has Decided an Important Federal

Question in a Way That Conflicts

with the Decisions of a United

States Court of Appeals.

XXV. The U.S. and Illinois Supreme

Court Have Long Held That the

32

Right to Vote is Synonymous With

the Right to be Voted For!

XXVI. It Violates the Voting Rights Act

of 1965 Sections 2 and Section 4

(c)(3).

CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be

granted.

Respectfully submitted,

______________________General Parker, Pro SeP.O. Box 3026Peoria, IL 61612(309) 648-2962

33

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCENo.

General Parker,Petitioner,

v.The People of the State of Illinois ex rel, Peoria

County State’s Attorney Kevin Lyons,

Respondent,

As required by Supreme Court rule 33.1(h), I certify that the petition for a writ of certiorari contains 4,533words excluding the parts of the petition that are exempted by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(d).

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on January , 2013

_______________________________ General Parker, Pro Se

34

No.

IN THESupreme Court of the United States

Term, 2013General Parker,

Petitioner,v.

The People of the state of Illinois ex rel, Peoria County State’s Attorney Kevin

Lyons,Respondent,

PROOF OF SERVICE

I General Parker, do swear or declare that on this date, December 24, 2012, as required by Supreme Court Rule 29 I have served three copies of the enclosed MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS and PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI on each party to the above proceeding or that party’s counsel, by depositing an envelope containing the above documents in the United States mail properly addressed with first-class postage prepaid.I declare under penalty of perjury the foregoing is true.Executed on January , 2013

_______________________________

35

General Parker, Pro Se

APPENDIX

United States Constitution, Article III, § 1

provides, in pertinent part: “The judicial Power of

the United States, shall be vested in the

Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as

the Congress may from time to time ordain and

establish.”

18 U.S.C. § 241

… (b) Whoever, whether or not acting under

color of law, by force or threat of force willfully

injures, intimidates or interferes with, or

attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with –

(1) any person because he is or has been, or in

order to intimidate such person or any other

person or any class of persons from - (A) voting

or qualifying to vote, qualifying or campaigning

36

as a candidate for elective office, or qualifying or

acting as a poll watcher, or any legally

authorized election official, in any primary,

special, or general election; (B) participating in

or enjoying any benefit, service, privilege,

program, facility, or activity provided or

administered by the United States…

(2) any person because of his race, color,

religion or national origin and because he is or

has been -

(A) enrolling in or attending any public school or

public college;

(B) participating in or enjoying any benefit,

service, privilege, program, facility or activity

provided or administered by any State or

subdivision thereof;

(C) applying for or enjoying employment, or any

perquisite thereof, by any private employer or

any agency of any State or subdivision thereof,

37

or joining or using the services or advantages of

any labor organization, hiring hall, or

employment agency; …

(4) any person because he is or has been, or in

order to

intimidate such person or any other person or

any class of

persons from –

(A) participating, without discrimination on

account of race, color, religion or national origin,

in any of the benefits or activities described in

subparagraphs (1)(A) through (1)(E) or

subparagraphs (2)(A) through (2)(F); or (B)

affording another person or class of persons

opportunity

or protection to so participate; or

(5) any citizen because he is or has been, or in

order to intimidate such citizen or any other

citizen from lawfully aiding or encouraging other

38

persons to participate, without discrimination on

account of race, color, religion or national origin,

in any of the benefits or activities described in

subparagraphs (1)(A) through (1)(E) or

subparagraphs (2)(A) through (2)(F), or

participating lawfully in speech or peaceful

assembly opposing any denial of the opportunity

to so participate shall be fined under this title, or

imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and

if bodily injury results from the acts committed

in violation of this section or if such acts include

the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a

dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be

fined under this title, or imprisoned not more

than ten years, or both;

18 U.S.C. § 242

… Whoever, under color of any law, statute,

ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully

subjects any person in any State, Territory,

39

Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the

deprivation of any rights, privileges, or

immunities secured or protected by the

Constitution or laws of the United States, or to

different punishments, pains, or penalties, son in

any State, Territory, on account of such person

being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race,

than are prescribed for the punishment of

citizens, shall be fined under this title or

imprisoned not more than one year, or both;

18 U.S.C. § 245

If two or more persons conspire to injure,

oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in

any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession,

or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of

any right or privilege secured to him by the

Constitution or laws of the United States, or

because of his having so exercised the same; or

40

If two or more persons go in disguise on the

highway, or on the premises of another, with

intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or

enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured.

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned

not more than ten years, or both;

First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an

establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free

exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of

speech, or of the press; or the right of the people

peaceably to assemble, and to petition the

government for a redress of grievances

Fifth Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital,

or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a

presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,

except in cases arising in the land or naval

forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in

41

time of war or public danger; nor shall any

person be subject for the same offense to be

twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be

compelled in any criminal case to be a witness

against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty,

or property, without due process of law; nor shall

private property be taken for public use without

just compensation.

Sixth Amendment

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall

enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by

an impartial jury of the State and district wherein

the crime shall have been committed, which

district shall have been previously ascertained

by law, and to be informed of the nature and

cause of the accusation; to be confronted with

the witnesses against him; to have compulsory

process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and

to have the assistance of counsel for his

42

defense.

Eighth Amendment

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor

excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual

punishments inflicted.

Fourteenth Amendment

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the

United States and subject to the jurisdiction

thereof, are citizens of the United States and of

the State wherein they reside. No State shall

make or enforce any law which shall abridge the

privileges or immunities of citizens of the United

States; nor shall any State deprive any person of

life, liberty, or property, without due process of

law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction

the equal protection of the laws.

Fifteenth Amendment

Section 1.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote

43

shall not be denied or abridged by the United

States or by any state on account of race, color,

or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2.

The Congress shall have power to enforce this

article by appropriate legislation.





ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT RULE 4-3.8:

SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF A

PROSECUTOR – see appendix

ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT RULE 81.12 – see

appendix

44

scotus writ of certiorari

Documents

state court decision

district appellate court

appendix f state court

appellate court affirmation

the2 circuit court

state agents

state of illinois ex

process rights