WITTEKIND v. RUSK  625 N.E.2d 427 (1993), 253 Ill. App.3d 577, 192 Ill.Dec. 467

 

To get straight to the issue that proves the above legal precedent is a total mockery of the justice system I won my second jury trial 12 to 0 by using the probable cause itself as two exhibits to completely impeach all three of the State’s witnesses with prior inconsistent statements (and yes I knew I had to lay a foundation to do that) and those same two exhibits also proved malice and a total lack of good faith.  The two exhibits were a Report of Proceedings signed by Judge Brinn and a police report that Judge Brinn and the person that helped bring charges against me both knew about so they were the probable cause.  Those exhibits and others I used to win a jury trial can be found at:

http://SlimeFest.com/exhibits

 

As a side note you can see from the following site that points to the Rock Island County case 1990CM9 that the State tried to stop me from using those two exhibits in the jury trial I won 12 to 0 as a pro se litigant but they failed and if they had bothered to look at them during the motion to quash subpoenas they would have known I had evidence of both malice and a total lack of good faith at that time and there was no way I could lose a jury trial with that much evidence against the State’s witnesses.  (Date of motion was 7/13)

http://www.judici.com/courts/cases/case_history.jsp?court=IL081025J&ocl=IL081025J,1990CM9,IL081025JL1990CM9

 

My argument at the Appellate Court level in the instant cause has always been I should be allowed to use the probable cause itself meaning a “Report of Proceedings” and a police report to prove both malice and a total lack of good faith in a Malicious Prosecution lawsuit and that argument is fully supported by the exact same legal precedent that the instant cause claims supported a directed verdict so in reality Duane Thompson has made a total mockery out of the justice system with his constant use of a variety of tricks where his main trick was to use straw man arguments to have the courts overlook the fact that the Mack vs. First Security Bank of Chicago allows me to use the probable cause as evidence.

 

And because I numbered all my arguments at the Appellate Court in the above case it is very easy to see that all Duane Thompson had to do to get judges to overlook my arguments was to fail to address them in his argument meaning the argument the Appellate Court claimed I was using was not really my argument but what Duane Thompson claimed that I was arguing instead.

 

The above case proves that all an Attorney has to do to win a case against a pro se litigant at the Appellate Court level is to use Straw Man Arguments instead of addressing the real issues and the real issue is that the Mack vs. First Security Bank of Chicago fully supports the fact that I should be allowed to use the exact same two exhibits that completely impeached all three of the State’s witnesses with prior inconsistent statements and classified as the probable cause to prove both malice and a total lack of good faith in a malicious prosecution lawsuit meaning WITTEKIND v. RUSK is a complete joke.

 

When Duane Thompson claimed I didn’t prove malice all he really meant was that after the judge read the page number for where evidence of malice could be found in the transcript for the jury trial he didn’t bother to look at any of the words that Beverly Rusk used to describe me that she would not admit to saying earlier in the malicious prosecution trial.