Errors of Law on the face of the Record
Last Updated: 10/06/2014
There are still Errors of Law on the face of the Record in Wittekind vs. Rusk 253 Ill.App.3d 577, 192 Ill.Dec. 467, 625 N.E.2d 427.
The first Error of Law is the definition of "Malice" was never applied to the words Beverly Rusk used to describe me because that was Evidence of Malice. (Proof)
Before I get to the second Error of Law I want to prove that Duane Thompson took unfair advantage of the fact that the judge in the Jury trial I won handed our exhibits back. Duane Thompson's remark found on the top of page 21 of "if it's in the Court file, then the Court can take judicial notice of it" allowed Judge Telleen to refuse the entry of the two exhibits I had that proved both malice and that the probable cause was reckless.
To see more on how Duane Thompson reversed the decision in Mack vs. First Security Bank of Chicago and had three judges reward him for it see "Tricks".
Defense Exhibit #1 in the jury trial I won was a "Report of Proceedings" signed by Judge Brinn so that made it part of the probable cause. On the docket for 1990CM9 you see the entry: "Petition to Quash allowed as to Brinn . . ." That meant the State didn't think I would use a "Report of Proceedings" as an exhibit and they ended up being wrong. To make a long story short that exhibit was used to completely impeach Beverly Rusk's daughter and the funniest part about that exhibit was that it was entered before she ever testified so Casey Stengel wasted his time by putting her on the stand.
Defense Exhibit #5 in the jury trial I won was a police report that both Judge Brinn and John Kinser knew about so that made it part of the probable cause too. That police report completely destroyed the State's case against me and that exhibit was so important I even held up the jury trial because of it as you can from the docket for case 1990CM9 where it states: "Def withdraws motion to dismiss and motion to continue, as state stipulates to certain evidence of def."
And Judge Brinn, the judge that brought charges against me stated this after seeing the exhibits I used to win my jury trial at http://slimefest.com/exhibits: "To put it mildly, you were handed a win due to an error committed before you were charged, and an error that is well documented on your own site, and nothing more. The error was unknown prior to you being charged, and that's all I intend to offer in a public forum about the events of that day." But all that means is Beverly Rusk did not let the State see everything I'd given her and if I thought I was losing the jury trial I would have entered the exhibit she withheld from the state into the jury trial I won. Plus there was testimony during the jury trial on page 43 that proved Beverly Rusk withheld that particular exhibit from the State so she certainly wasn't playing fair with the State.
The second Error of Law is the definition of probable cause was never properly applied and that prevented me from using the two exhibits above to prove the probable cause was reckless, that Beverly Rusk withheld exhibits unfairly and that Beverly Rusk used the words "infatuated" and "faggot" to describe me so when Duane Thompson misrepresented the decision in the Mack vs. First Security Bank of Chicago he unfairly kept evidence of malice and evidence of a total lack of good faith out of a malicious prosecution lawsuit.