hline.gif (2424 bytes)
No Legal Authority

hline.gif (2424 bytes)


Defense Exhibits can be found at:
http://SlimeFest.com/Exhibits
Transcript can be found at:
http://NoLegalAuthority.com/Transcripts

The ORDER below proves that Judges in the Appellate Court are as reckless with the law and as reckless with the facts as a reckless attorney is.

Duane Thompson was the reckless attorney in question and he failed to state correctly the decision of the Appellate Court in the Mack vs. First Security Bank of Chicago regarding the directed verdict  At 110 Ill.Dec. page 542 the court reverses and remands the case.

Duane Thompson knew from the way I worded my initial complaint against Beverly Rusk, the exhibits I used to completely impeach her in the jury trial I won and the argument I tried to make during the malicious prosecution lawsuit that the Mack vs. First Security Bank of Chicago fully supported my argument all along because I should be allowed to prove the probable cause was reckless and that the State knew there was evidence of malice before they brought charges against me.

Duane Thompson's total mockery of justice relied on the fact that the Judge in the jury trial I won handed back the exhibits because that meant he and the judge in the malicious prosecution lawsuit could issue new rulings on the exact same exhibits that had been used to completely impeach all three of the State's witnesses with prior inconsistent statements.  Page 20 line 13 shows I was only allowed to transfer one exhibit from the jury trial I won into a malicious prosecution lawsuit and it happened to be the only exhibit that was signed by my accuser.

Duane Thompson also furnished false information about the existence of malice even after hearing where evidence of malice could be found and that "it can be used to prove malice" from the statements below.

On page 18 line 17:  THE COURT:  He's showing the witness page 25 of the transcript.  Then before the next statement was made Judge Telleen made it clear what word he would accept as malicious.  On page 29 line 14:  MR WITTEKIND:  The words she uses to describe it can be used to prove malice.

All the Appellate Court would do in their ORDER below when they allowed themselves to be duped by Duane Thompson was overlook the evidence of malice in the transcript for the jury trial, manipulate testimony that was completely impeached by prior inconsistent statements using the very facts these judges were making assumptions about and then go so far as to falsify evidence themselves in the fourth paragraph of their ORDER.

But not only would Appellate Court Judges help Duane Thompson conceal evidence of one malicious prosecution they would help Duane Thompson conceal evidence of two malicious prosecutions where the evidence presented in the second jury trial proves the first jury trial was won by rendering the statue invalid with misleading jury instructions, using perjured testimony and using a woman that obstructs justice by furnishing false information about her daughter.


After learning about the tricks the States uses on pro se litigants it was very easy to win my second jury trial.  To clarify the three tricks the State tried to use against me again I have this fragment of a letter I wrote

To:


Richard Coppula
Joliet Correctional Center
Joliet, Illinois 60431

From: Roger

 Thank You Richard.

In case you haven't heard, it was 12-0 my favor, and I owe part of this to you! The REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS that you wrote helped me out! You know, I've been looking for someone to relate this story to and I think you'll do just fine, if you don't mind here it is.

I showed the jury that the state's first witness was lying within my first three questions of cross-examination! Ya, it was just like the trial I had with you as the opposing attorney with only THREE EXCEPTIONS!

1. THIS TIME I HAD THE CORRECT JURY INSTRUCTIONS WITH ME!

2. I KNEW HOW TO LAY A FOUNDATION TO IMPEACH THE WITNESS!

3. I KNEW ABOUT THE TRICK CLOSING REMARKS BECAUSE OF YOU!

Complete letter at: http://Overprotectivemother.com/Coppula.htm


                    STATE OF ILLINOIS


3-91-0162
Wittekind v. Rusk

               APPELLATE COURT     THIRD DISTRICT
                              OTTAWA

     At a term of the Appellate Court, begun and held at
Ottawa, on the 1st Day of January in the year of our Lord
one thousand nine hundred and ninety one, within and for the
Third District of Illinois:

Present -
     HONORABLE ALLAN L. STOUDER, Presiding Justice     X
     HONORABLE JOHN A. GORMAN, Justice                 X     
     HONORABLE TOBIAS BARRY, Justice
     HONORABLE MICHAEL P. MC CUSKEY, Justice
     HONORABLE KENT SLATER, Justice
     HONORABLE HERMAN S. HAASE, Justice                X
          ROGER H. JOHNSON, Clerk

             BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards on
 October 16, 1991   the Order of the Court was filed
in the Clerk's Office of said Court, in the words and figures
following viz:

----------------------------------------------------------------------

                            No. 3-91-0162
______________________________________________________________________

                               IN THE
                     APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
                           THIRD DISTRICT
                             A.D., 1991

ROGER T. E. WITTEKIND,           )  Appeal from the Circuit Court
                                 )  of the 14th Judicial Circuit,
     Plaintiff-Appellant,        )  Rock Island County, Illinois
                                 )
     v.                          )  No. 90-SC-3806
                                 )
BEVERLY RUSK,                    )  Honorable
                                 )  John M. Telleen
     Defendant-Appellee          )  Judge, Presiding
______________________________________________________________________

                               ORDER
______________________________________________________________________
     
     The plaintiff, Roger T. E. Wittekind, sued the defendant,
Beverly Rusk, for malicious prosecution.  Following the presen-
tation of the plaintiff's case, the trial court directed a
verdict in favor of the defendant.  The plaintiff appeals.

If you consider the principles of law that reversed and remanded the legal precedent that Duane Thompson claimed supported a directed verdict then I proved one jury trial that Beverly Rusk was involved with was malicious.  To be more specific, in the jury trial I won I proved a total failure of the State to verify any of the statements made on the "probable cause" that happen to be a police report that was used as Defense Exhibit #5 in the jury trial I won and then I proved malice when I had Ed Rusk admit to calling me a name that both him and his wife would call me.

When Duane Thompson used constant objections and deceptions to prevent me from using the exact same argument that reversed and remanded the legal precedent that he misrepresented he didn't just conceal evidence one malicious prosecution but he concealed evidence that would have proven two malicious prosecutions and that Beverly Rusk was misguided by the malicious slander of a boy that her daughter was trying to use as a middle man and she ended up using the courts to help Donny Geiger torment her own daughter.

The facts remain.

1.  I was only allowed to transfer one piece of evidence from the jury trial I won into a malicious prosecution lawsuit because it was signed by my accuser.

2.  Duane Thompson's objections prevented me from using a single word from the transcript of the jury trial  I won to prove malice even though a remark by Judge Telleen would prove that there was evidence of malice on that transcript.

3.  Duane Thompson's deceptions prevented me from even starting to prove that Beverly Rusk was using the courts to torment her own daughter and that the State should have doubted some of the statements made by Beverly Rusk with her history of using false statements about me and her history of using false statements about her daughter.  Beverly was in reality only helping the boy that her daughter used as a middle man torment her own daughter.

Beverly Rusk daughter was 27 years old when Beverly Rusk first started to furnish false information to her friends that worked at the courthouse with her and when her daughter was asked about a letter her mother had one of her friends write to me she stated: "I had nothing to do with that."

The side benefit to being able to prove a total lack of good faith of Judge Brinn would be I also had proof that Judge Brinn has manipulated evidence to conceal facts that prove he sat in on a jury trial where he let the now disbarred attorney Richard Coppula render the statute on criminal trespassing invalid with misleading jury instructions.  When the statute was rendered invalid it allowed the State to use obviously perjured testimony in a guilty verdict.

When I tried to do something about the perjured testimony that Richard Coppula used in court with a follow through investigation granted me by James Teros then Richard Coppula fouled that up and the investigator never noticed the four statements on a police report that he used as the probable cause against me were all proven false in court meaning Richard Coppula knew I had evidence of perjury and I had evidenced of an obstruction of justice and didn't do anything about it because he had no absolutely no idea that Beverly Rusk had lied to everyone she worked with at the courthouse too and not just the police officers and that her lies weren't just about me her lies were about her own daughter too.


     According to the record, the plaintiff was initially tried
on charges that he had committed the offense of telephone har-
assment against the defendant (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 134,
par. 16.4-1).  At trial, the defendant testified that her daugh-
ter, Cheryl Wingert, had gone to high school with the plaintiff.
The two never dated, nor had Wingert indicated any interest in
dating him.

"any interest in dating him."  The jury didn't see it that way because they were allowed to see all the exhibits entered into the jury trial I won.  Judge Telleen and Duane Thompson took advantage of the fact that the judge in case 90-CM-9 handed the exhibits back to limit the amount of evidence they would allow me to transfer from the lawsuit I won into the malicious prosecution lawsuit to a single exhibit signed by Beverly Rusk who happened to be on the witness stand at the time of it's introduction..

This court fails to realize that a misrepresented lawsuit which they had, does not give them the legal authority to make assumptions about the probable cause that was used as defense exhibits #1 and #5 to completely impeach all three of the State's witnesses with prior inconsistent statements.  All they would end up doing by trying to make assumptions about the very exhibits that were used to completely impeach all three of the State's witnesses is proving why they have no legal authority to make assumptions about the facts that Judge Telleen would not allow transferred from the jury trial I won into a malicious prosecution lawsuit in the first place.

By the way, if Beverly Rusk detailed description of the alleged phone call had made it into the transcript it would have proven that Beverly Rusk was completely impeached with prior inconsistent statement in the second question of cross examination.  The first question proved Beverly provided false information about her age and when Beverly Rusk was caught using prior inconsistent statements in the second question she gave me the trial.

  In the 17 years after their graduation, Wingert
often complained that the plaintiff had followed or telephoned
her.  Consequently, the defendant asked the plaintiff to stop
calling her daughter.         

IMPEACHED BY THE PROBABLE CAUSE ITSELF WHEN IT WAS USED DEFENSE EXHIBIT #1 BECAUSE IT PROVED CHERYL DID NOT COMPLAIN.

Cheryl Wingert was subpoenaed for one purpose only and that was to prove that the "followed" bit was false, which she did but the courts failed to see that Beverly was impeached by Cheryl on that followed bit and that Beverly Rusk was completely impeached by the probable cause itself, meaning Defense Exhibit #1 and Defense Exhibit #5 together..

This court should have taken a closer look at the legal precedent that Duane Thompson gave to them because in reality it fully supported my argument in that I should be allowed to enter evidence that proves a total lack of good faith.  But now I have to prove a total lack of good faith in the Judges that refused to let me prove a total lack of good faith of Judge Brinn.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

     The defendant further testified that in December of 1989 the
plaintiff made repeated phone calls to her residence in an effort
to discuss her daughter and find out where she could be reached.

THE ABOVE CLASSIFIES AS A TOTAL FALSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE IN MORE THAN ONE WAY.

The use of the word "repeated" is a falsification and the use of the phrase "find out where she could be reached" is a falsification of evidence.

All the Appellate Court is really doing with there falsifications is proving that there was a "Total lack of Probable Cause" in the malicious prosecution lawsuit or they wouldn't be trying to compensate for the "total lack of probable cause" in the malicious prosecution lawsuit by falsifying evidence now.

The Appellate Court as proven by the principles of law that "Reversed and Remanded" the Mack vs. First Security Bank of Chicago did not have the legal authority to make assumptions about the "Probable Cause" as if it had not been used to completely impeach all three of the State's witnesses with prior inconsistent statements when it was used as Defense Exhibit #1 and Defense Exhibit #5.

  Both of those falsifications by the Appellate Court are done with no legal authority whatsoever because they were dealing with a malicious prosecution lawsuit and didn't have the luxury of simply un-impeaching witnesses that were completely impeached by the statement of facts on the mind of Judge Brinn.

And not only does the "find out where she could be reached" classify as a falsification of evidence but if it had been part of Beverly's testimony it was impeached by Cheryl's testimony because Cheryl proved I knew "where she could be reached."

The false statements used in this ORDER proves beyond any doubt that I should have been given the chance to prove that it was the probable cause itself that was used to completely impeach all three of the State's witnesses to prevent judges from obliterating the facts that were used to completely impeach all three of the State's witnesses with prior inconsistent statements.

The defendant did not wish to discuss the matter and asked him to
stop calling.  After he continued calling, she contacted the 
State's Attorney's office.  An office employee sent the plaintiff
a letter regarding the calls.

From the principles of law that reversed and remanded the Mack vs. First Security Bank of Chicago.  The testimony of "office employee" could have been used to prove a complete failure to verify any of the facts that John Kinser was informed of before he brought charges against me.  Also from the "Mack vs. First Security Bank of Chicago: malice can be inferred from a complete failure to verify any of the facts where the circumstances of the prosecution were inconsistent with good faith.  The circumstances of the prosecution proved that Beverly Rusk had a history of furnishing false information and concealing information so there was evidence a complete failure on the part of the state to verify any of the statements made by Beverly Rusk.

The facts that John Kinser failed to verify include:

1.  Beverly Rusk was allowed to get away with perjury and obstruction of justice in an earlier jury trial because she had the help of two disbarred attorneys.

2.  Cheryl Wingert was not living with her mother.

3.  Beverly Rusk had no valid reason to prevent me from answering her daughter's questions in the first place.

Note Defense Exhibit #1 that was signed by Judge Brinn proves Cheryl had questions for me and Beverly Rusk was acting alone when she decided to use the courts to prevent me from answering her daughter's questions and putting an end to the lies of the person that Cheryl tried to use as a middle man.

                               However, on January 2, 1990,  
around 4 a.m., the plaintiff again telephoned the defendant.  The
defendant noted that she and her husband, Edward Rusk, work 
during the day, and she found the late-night call upsetting.     

This court is unfairly treating this case as if it were an appeal from a criminal prosecution where all they have to do is un-impeach the completely impeached witnesses as they have done to me in 1983.

This is an appeal from a malicious prosecution lawsuit and they should let me enter evidence that proves a complete failure of Judge Brinn to verify any of the statements made by Beverly Rusk instead of forcing me to prove a total failure on the part of the Appellate Court to verify any of the statements made by Duane Thompson.

     Edward Rusk testified that the plaintiff had repeatedly     
called them in December of 1989.  Some of the phone calls were at
night.  On January 2, 1990, around 4 a.m., he and his wife were
awakened by a phone call.  His wife told the caller that she did
not want to talk to him and hung up.    

THE ABOVE STATEMENT CAN BE USED TO PROVE CORRUPTION OF JUDGE BRINN or someone else with a motive to conceal evidence that the State put a pathological liar on the stand.  But it isn't so much what is above but where is Beverly Rusk detailed description of the alleged phone call? They have Ed Rusk's detailed description of the alleged phone call but where is Beverly's?

This Court has already falsified evidence to try and make me look as bad as possible when they stooped to using the sentence "find out where she could be reached" so we know they are trying to make me look as bad as possible.  Certainly if the transcript had a detailed description of the alleged phone call from Beverly Rusk it would be in here but it isn't.  It was in the jury trial because I heard it.  The following came from a letter I wrote shortly after the winning the trial.

I have to mention Beverly's BIGGEST screw up! When Beverly started her testimony she mentioned a "child 9 years old."  I wrote this down in my notebook. It just so happened that this 9 year old child had been at an earlier Hearing to Quash Subpoenas, and said "There was NO phone call!" Anyway, when I tried to ask Beverly further questions about a 9 year old child, she said "She did not mention anything." I said I have it written down that you did! She denied it again! I was standing in front of the jury at this time. I then held up my notebook, and drew a box around the place where I'd made my note, then placed a ? inside the same box. At the same time I said "Hmmmm" loud enough for the jury to hear! I'm pretty sure this was the most critical error Beverly made. CHEATERS NEVER PROSPER.

Judge Brinn had both the opportunity and motive to alter evidence again where the first time he altered evidence was when he helped trash a "Report of Proceedings" entered as an exhibit during a 1983 appeal.

Judge Brinn's opportunity to alter evidence a second time was given to him by the court reporter Diane Reason after she finished the transcript she told me she had to give it to someone else before she would give it to me and that added another few weeks before I'd finally see it..

Judge Brinn's motive to alter the transcript was it helped conceal the fact that Beverly Rusk is a pathological liar because of her answer to the second question that Beverly was asked under cross examination.  Beverly Rusk ability to tell outright lies also proves the only way Beverly Rusk could have won an earlier jury trial is because Judge Brinn allowed the Statute to be held invalid with misleading jury instructions from the now disbarred Richard Coppula.

The changes that Judge Brinn could have made to the transcript were in two major places.  After testimony was removed that proved Beverly Rusk was a pathological liar the closing remarks were altered to make it look like I won the case in my closing remarks instead of the State losing the case because they put a pathological liar on the stand.

     Cheryl Wingert testified that since high school, the plain-
tiff had often followed her and sent her letters.  Although she
frequently asked him to stop, he continued trying to contact her.

THE ABOVE STATEMENT IS A MANIPULATION OF TESTIMONY THAT WAS COMPLETELY IMPEACHED WITH PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS BY THE PROBABLE CAUSE ITSELF WHEN IT WAS USED INTRODUCED AS DEFENSE EXHIBIT #1 FOR "PURPOSES OF IMPEACHMENT."

These judges have no excuse whatsoever for the above manipulation of completely impeached testimony.   The judges failed to see Cheryl Wingert's testimony was fully impeached by the Statement of Facts on the mind of Judge Brinn in Defense Exhibit #1 because if it hadn't been impeached there was absolutely no way I could have won that jury trial 12 to 0.  We are all grown-ups here and we know that the jury was going to side with Cheryl Wingert regardless of how bad her mother was impeached.

In other words they manipulated testimony that was fully impeached by the probable cause when it was used as Defense Exhibit #1 in their attempt to make assumptions about statement of facts on the mind of Judge Brinn without the statement of facts on the mind of Judge Brinn when they didn't have the legal authority to do that in the first place as proven by the argument that reversed and remanded the Mack vs. First Security Bank of Chicago.

All these Judges have really done by using Cheryl Winger's completely impeached testimony to make assumptions about the facts that were used to completely impeach her is obliterate evidence in the probable cause itself when they had no legal authority to make assumptions about the probable cause in the first place.   In the process of obliterating evidence all they proved they should have used the term Res Judicata and "Reversed and Remanded" just like it was used in the legal precedent that Duane Thompson misrepresented.

     Two of the plaintiff's friends testified that the plaintiff
had been interested in Wingert since high school.

The above was dealt with by Defense Exhibit #4 in a trial that ended in an acquittal but the above remark points out what started this mess with Beverly Rusk in the first place.  Cheryl Wingert thought she could find out what she wanted to know by asking Donny Geiger but in reality she would have had to ask one of my older sister's friends since they were the only ones trusted with the information that Cheryl was looking for during high school that would end up on Defense Exhibit #4.

     The plaintiff denied calling the Rusks at 4 a.m.  He admit-
ted that in late December he called them during the day, but     
claimed he did not intend to harass them.  He also admitted  
calling Wingert on January 2, 1990.

You know what is funny?  All this court had to do was apply the principles of law in the Mack vs. First Security Bank of Chicago to this case and Reverse and Remand.  But instead they decided they would make assumptions about the probable cause that had been used to completely impeach all three of the State's witnesses with prior inconsistent statements as if it had not been used to completely impeach all three of the State's witnesses with prior inconsistent statements.

In the process of making assumptions about the facts they did not have all they have done is conceal evidence of a total lack of good faith and this is why the Mack case was reversed and remanded in the first place.

     The jury acquitted the plaintiff of the charge.  The plain-
tiff then sued the defendant for malicious prosecution.     

Boy is that ever misleading  and the dates below can be easily verified by looking at the "Public Record" you can access from the internet.

January 2, 1990 Beverly files charges against me.
http://www.judici.com/courts/cases/case_history.jsp?court=IL081025J&ocl=IL081025J,1990CM9,IL081025JL1990CM9D1

August 22, 1990 I win a jury trial 12 to 0 and requested a copy of the transcript from Diane Reason before she even left the courtroom.

October 11, 1990 Diane Reason finally lets me have the transcript after giving it to someone else first to make changes to it.

December 24, 1990 I brought charges against Beverly Rusk.
http://www.judici.com/courts/cases/case_history.jsp?court=IL081025J&ocl=IL081025J,1990SC3806,IL081025JL1990SC3806P1

Looks to me like Duane Thompson fed the courts more than just false statements about Mack vs. First Security Bank of Chicago.

                                 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------

     At trial, the court took judicial notice of the record of
the telephone harassment case.

"Took judicial notice of the record of the telephone harassment case" but in reality if it had not been for the letter signed by Beverly Rusk I wouldn't have been allowed to use any part of that jury trial at all.   Judge Telleen clearly recreated the errors of law that reversed and remanded the Mack vs. First Security Bank of Chicago because one of the things he failed to allow into evidence was the probable cause itself and he knew I planned to use it to prove it was reckless.

                                The defendant then testified that
she had told the police that the plaintiff had called her house
on January 2, 1990.

All the above is a moot point because I already proved a total lack of good faith in Judge Brinn during the jury trial I won when I used the statement of facts on the mind of judge Brinn to completely impeach all three of the State's witnesses with prior inconsistent statements and according the the argument that reversed and remanded the Mack vs. First Security Bank of Chicago that was all I needed to support a malicious prosecution lawsuit.

     Edward Rusk testified that on December 13th he had spoken
with the plaintiff on the telephone.  He told the plaintiff to
stop bothering them and warned him that he would go to jail.  He
further testified that the plaintiff had harassed his family for
13 years and he wanted him to leave them alone in the future.

THE ABOVE IS MANIPULATED TESTIMONY THAT WAS FULLY IMPEACHED BY PROBABLE CAUSE ITSELF WHEN IT WAS INTRODUCED AS DEFENSE EXHIBIT #5.

To be more specific Ed Rusk made four statements to police officers and four of those statements were proven false.  One of the statements was contradicted by the police report itself and the other three statements were contradicted by Beverly's testimony or Cheryl's testimony on Defense Exhibit #1.

This court is clearly manipulating testimony that was completely impeached by the probable cause in their attempt to make assumptions about the probable cause with absolutely no legal authority to make assumptions about the probable cause in the first place as proven by the principles of law that reversed and remanded the Mack vs. First Security Bank of Chicago.

     The plaintiff testified that he never intended to harass
Wingert.

The above is a violation of the best evidence rule because the best evidence would be what I entered as Defense Exhibit #4 which was the answers to questions Cheryl Wingert has asked Donny Geiger about me.  By the way, when I tried to transfer Defense Exhibit #4 from case file on 90-CM-9 Judge Telleen refused to let me do that too.

          He then offered a letter from Don Thuline into evi-
dence, but the court denied it on the grounds of hearsay.

If Judge Telleen had really taken judicial notice of the record of the telephone harassment as the Appellate Court wanted to believe from an earlier comment then he would have let this exhibit in without any objections whatsoever because of the following:

From the transcript of the jury trial on page 39 line 19  "MR. STENGEL:  For expedience sake I will let it go in, Your Honor.  I don't care."

Then the letter itself stated:   ". . . if you still believe he has been harassing or bothering Cheryl, he is prepared to prove that he has not."  and that is exactly what I did!

     Following the close of the plaintiff's case, the defendant
moved for a directed verdict in her favor.  The trial court found
that the plaintiff had failed to prove two necessary elements of
malicious prosecution, i.e., a lack of probable cause for the
institution of the prior suit and malice on the part of the
defendant.  The court therefore granted the motion for a directed
verdict.

The above quote from Duane Thompson points out what the trial court did but when the Appellate Court realized there was no probable cause entered as evidence then they reversed and remanded the case because the probable cause can be used to prove a complete failure on the part of the state to verify any of the statements made by the accuser and in this particular instance it would be any of the statements Beverly Rusk made about her own daughter because they were all false.

Since there was no probable cause entered as evidence in this case and I can use the exhibits that were used for "purposes of impeachment" in the jury trial I won to prove a total lack of good faith then this court should have claimed Res Judicata and used the phrase Reverse and Remand too.

     On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the trial court erred
in denying admission of the letter from Don Thuline.  We note
that a letter is hearsay as to the truth of its contents, and is
therefore inadmissible unless it falls within one of the excep-
tions to the hearsay rule.  (In re Marriaqe of Morrisroe (1987),
155 Ill. App. 3d 765, 508 N.E.2d 464.)  Here, there is no indi-
cation that the letter was admissible under any hearsay

By not letting me move that exhibit from the jury trial I won into the malicious prosecution lawsuit all these Judges have done is fail to take judicial notice of the record on appeal since letter was part of the trial for case 90-CM-9.

                                 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------

exception.  We therefore conclude that the trial court properly
excluded it.

Again, this court has failed to take judicial notice of the record on appeal because that exhibit was part of the jury trial I won and I should have been allowed to transfer it from the trial I won into the malicious prosecution lawsuit with no objections whatsoever and they surely saw that from the transcript itself but they ruled against what the judge in case 90-CM-9 ruled instead.

These Judges are also are refusing to take judicial notice of the principles of law that reversed and remanded the Mack vs. First Security Bank of Chicago or they would have used the term "Reverse and Remand" already.

     The plaintiff further argues that the trial court erred in
directing a verdict in the defendant's favor.  He contends that
he presented sufficient evidence on each of the elements of
malicious prosecution for the case to proceed to the defendant's
case-in-chief.

Better take a closer look at what I argued.  I argued the Mack vs. First Security Bank of Chicago too because the instant case is a carbon copy of that case in that both these cases are void of a Probable Cause or they wouldn't be building a history by manipulating testimony that was completely impeached by the probable cause to make assumptions about the statement of facts on that mind of Judge Brinn that I used to completely impeach all three of the State's witnesses with prior inconsistent statements.

     To establish the offense of malicious prosecution, the
plaintiff must prove the following:  (1) the commencement of an
original civil or criminal proceeding by the defendant; (2) the
termination of the proceedings in favor of the plaintiff; (3) the
absence of probable cause for such proceedings; (4) malice on the
part of the defendant in instituting the original action; and (5)
damages to the plaintiff.  (Mack v. First Security Bank (1987),
158 Ill. App. 3d 497, 511 N.E.2d 714.)  For the purposes of
malicious prosecution, malice is defined as the prompting of a
prosecution for any reason other than to bring the party to
justice.  (Mack, 158 Ill. App. 3d at 501, 511 N.E.2d at 717..) A
motion for a directed verdict should be affirmed if all the
evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the oppo-
nent, so overwhelmingly favors the movant that no contrary
verdict could ever stand.  Thorne v. Elmore (1979), 79 Ill. App.
3d 333, 398 N.E.2d 837.

I don't know why these Judges did not take their quotes out of the Mack vs. First Security Bank of Chicago since this instant cause is a carbon copy of that one with both of them being without a probable cause entered as evidence.  But there is one difference, I used the probable cause to completely impeach all three of the State's witnesses with prior inconsistent statements in the jury trial I won and they didn't do that in the Mack case yet the Mack case was still Reversed and Remanded.

     We note that the offense of telephone harassment occurs when
a person makes a telephone call with the intent to abuse,
threaten, or harass any person at the called number.  (Ill. Rev.
Stat. 1989, ch. 134, par. 16.4-1.)  Given the history of the

What are these Judges doing?  This case is a carbon copy of the Mack vs First Security Bank of Chicago and because I used the probable cause for impeachment purposes in the jury trial I won then I already have supporting evidence that the probable cause can be used to prove a total lack of good faith.

Why should there be a second history  put together by manipulating testimony of witnesses completely impeached by the first history when the first history or probable cause was instrumental in winning a jury trial 12 to 0 as a pro se litigant?

                                 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------

parties and the time of the phone call, we agree with the trial
court's finding that the prosecution of the plaintiff was sup-
ported by probable cause.  We also agree with the finding that
the plaintiff presented insufficient evidence of malice.  The
record shows that the defendant dealt patiently with the plain-
tiff's frequent calls, and that she acted only out of a desire to
bring the plaintiff to justice.  Accordingly, we find that the
trial court properly directed a verdict in favor of the defen-
dant.

When these Judges failed to take judicial notice of the principles of law that reversed and remanded Mack vs. First Security Bank of Chicago they overturned that decision.

There really was evidence of Malice all along despite what Duane Thompson stated as proven by the following quotes from the transcripts.

And there really was evidence of a total lack of good faith all along because of where the exhibits came from that were used to completely impeached all three of the State's witnesses with prior inconsistent statements.   Cheryl was completely impeached by her earlier testimony and Beverly and Ed Rusk were completely impeached by the four false statements they made to the police officers were one was impeached by the police report itself and the other three were impeached by Beverly Rusk testimony and Cheryl Wingerts testimony in Defense Exhibit #1.

From part 1 of 2 page 28 line 16.

  MR. WITTEKIND:  Faggot sound familiar?
  Ed Rusk:        Right off the top of my head. yeah.
  MR. THOMPSON:   I'm going to object to the line of questioning based on relevancy.
  THE COURT:      It has to be Mrs. Rusk - not Mr. Rusk.

Now for the evidence of malice from the jury trial I won found at page 30 line 13 that Duane Thompson kept out of the Malicious Prosecution lawsuit court with an unfair objection on page 19 line 5 of the malicious prosecution lawsuit.

  MR. WITTEKIND:  So you remain with these two accusations?
  Beverly Rusk:   I never said the word faggot today.
  MR. WITTEKIND:  But you have used that word?
  Beverly Rusk:   Yes.

For a further explanation of how Duane Thompson keep that evidence of malice out of court see:
http://BrokenSixthAmendment.com/Mack/MackErrorsRecreated.htm.

For Duane Thompson to think he helped Beverly Rusk is incorrect.  All he really did was help a boy that started a rift as a cruel joke in 1973.

     The plaintiff's other assertions are unsupported by legal
authority and irrelevant to the case on appeal.  We therefore
shall not address them.  See Wasleff v. Dever (1990), 194 Ill.
App. 3d 147, 550 N.E.2d 1132 (holding that arguments unsupported
by legal authority are deemed waived on review).

Duane Thompson and I both argued the Mack vs. First Security Bank of Chicago as our only authority.  Because he had misrepresented it, he was the one without legal authority and the Appellate Court clearly abused their discretion when they failed to see that.  I didn't know that the judges wouldn't even look at my Reply Brief.

     The judgment of the circuit court of Rock Island County is
affirmed.

But the judgement in the "Mack" case would be overturned by this ruling too.  Judges will obviously not look a gift horse in the mouth.  These judges were so willing to take Duane Thompson's word for the decision in the Mack vs. First Security Bank of Chicago that they effectively overturned an established verdict just because Duane Thompson misrepresented it.

Duane Thompson knew from the start that the Mack case fully support my argument from the way I worded my charges against Beverly and the way I won the charges 12 to 0 that Beverly Rusk placed on me.

     Affirmed.
GORMAN, J., with STOUDER, P.J., and HAASE, J., concurring.

Lets see.

1.  We have malice on page 30 the transcript for case 90-CM-9 as proven by a remark made by Judge Telleen.

2.  Because Defense Exhibits #1 and Defense Exhibits #5 were the statement of facts on the mind of Judge Brinn and the assumptions used by the Appellate Court above don't even come close to what was used to completely impeach all three of the State's witnesses then we can say there is still a total lack of probable cause meaning defense exhibits #1 and defense exhibit #5 in the malicious prosecution lawsuit so this honorable court should reverse and remand.

Again, I needed three things to prove my case but I never got any of them to this very day and the statements used against me have just gotten further and further from the truth.

1.  First I needed Judge Telleen to look at page 30 of the transcript of the jury trial to prove malice since he had informed me of what word he wanted to see.

2.  I needed Judge Telleen to apply the principles of law that reversed and remanded the Mack vs. First Security Bank of Chicago so I would be allowed to enter evidence that proved a total lack of good faith in Judge Brinn.

3.  I needed the 2 exhibits that I'd used for purposes of impeachment in the jury trial I won moved into the malicious prosecution lawsuit so I could prove a total lack of good faith in Judge Brinn.  Judge Brinn knew Beverly Rusk was only using the courts to prevent me from answering her daughter's questions and he knew I could completely impeach all three of the State's witnesses but he was simply gambling I wouldn't have the correct jury instructions a second time and he lost his bet.

You can read the next chapter of this saga, where 3 judges took a bribe to let Duane Thompson sidestep and maintain his Fraudulent Deception because they wanted their names on 3 law books on: http://DesecratedSixthAmendment.com.

                                                                                   5


Last updated: 05/05/2010