Source: https://cookcountyjudges.wordpress.com/tag/lisa-madigan/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 08:11:12+00:00

Document:
I started a petition to be sent to President Obama and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.
3) the perjury before the grand jury by Schiller Park Detective William Martin who claimed he had evidence that Melongo, after she was fired, remotely tampered with the SALF computers, despite having evidence that the computers were disconnected from the Internet and Melongo’s computer address (IP address) was not the computer that had accessed the SALF computers on the date in question .
The cases against Melongo appear to be an effort by persons who want to cover-up the connection between Spizzirri obtaining funds fraudulently and the many prominent politicians who helped her obtain these funds.
To read about the cases click here, here, here, and here.
To read it and then if you want to sign the petition click here.
Habeas corpus is the last defense a citizen has against unlawful arrest without probable cause and wrongful conviction. This “grand writ” (or the most important kind of court order) has long historical roots from pre-colonial days in England. It means that the tables are turned and the State must justify keeping a person in custody.
Originally a feature of English law, the writ of habeas corpus has historically been an important legal instrument safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary state action. When the police falsely arrest you, seize you without probable cause, jail you on charges that are not part of the penal code simply to harass and inconvenience or for political reasons, hold you in jail without charging you, refuse to release you once your sentence has been served, convict you when you are actually innocent, then this is when a person needs the “grand writ”.
The United States Constitution, guarantees a right to habeas corpus – to be brought before the court promptly and the State forced to justify why they are holding you as legal. This was re-inforced recently in the U.S. Supreme Court decision on Guantanemo Bay detainees, Boumediene v. Bush, who had been denied the right to petition for habeas corpus. The U.S. S. Ct ruled that the grand writ cannot be suspended in their case.
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.
The right to petition a court for a writ (order) of habeas corpus has long been celebrated as the most efficient safeguard of the liberty of the subject. It has been used to force a prison to release a person when their sentence is over, to force a person’s release after arrest when the State has failed to charge them in a timely fashion, and to protect a person from arbitrary and unjustified arrest and incarceration.
Illinois law mandates that a judge hear a petition for habeas corpus promptly. It can be filed by an attorney, by the prisoner, or by a “person appearing on behalf of another” AKA “next friend” under federal habeas law. There is no requirement that the prisoner be incapacitated for a next friend to file a petition for habeas corpus under Illinois law. Habeas corpus is latin and literally means “We command that you have the body [bring the person to the court]”.
This order awarding relief simply means that the Sheriff holding the person in custody must bring them to the court and the state must provide documents, evidence, and witnesses that justify holding the person in custody. The court must “examine” the reasons for holding the person in custody to determine if the custody is lawful.
If a judge refuses to hear a petition for habeas corpus or refuses to grant the relief (order the person to be brought before the court) there is a penalty that may be obtained from the judge.
The Illinois Attorney General or the State’s Attorney is required by law to prosecute the judge to collect this penalty.
The Cook County Circuit Court local rule 15.2 states that “a person appearing on behalf of another” who files a petition for habeas corpus must appear “before the presiding judge.” That is how the habeas petition is initiated.
(c) Petitioner without funds and without attorney.
(i) If the petition states the petitioner is without funds and the petitioner is not represented by an attorney, he shall submit a verified petition to the clerk. The clerk shall docket the petition and place it on the call of the presiding judge.
(ii) If the presiding judge finds that petitioner is without an attorney and without funds, the presiding judge shall appoint an attorney to represent the petitioner.
(d) Petition on behalf of another.A person signing a petition for writ of habeas corpus on behalf of another shall appear before the presiding judge in open court and may be examined as to his interest in or relation to the person on whose behalf the petition is presented.
On April 20, 2010 Dr. Linda Shelton filed two habeas petitions on behalf of Annabel Melongo, who is being held in county jail on excessive bail without probable cause. Judge Brosnahan has refused to hear motions to quash the charges based on lack of probable cause.
The first habeas petition concerns a charge of computer tampering, where Melongo is accused of accessing the computers of Save-A-Life-Foundation (now closed) and erasing all of their financial records. Computer IP numbers are like telephone numbers and identify the computers dialed from and called. Internet provider records are like telephone company records that prove what IP (v. telephone) numbers were dialed from and called. This is an accurate record.
The forensic computer examiner, Shahna G. Monge, who supposedly worked for the Illinois Attorney General’s office has disappeared. Her report claims that Melongo had an IP address (computer address unique to Internet Service provider) from Comcast. They said that address was used to remotely access the SALF computers. Yet Melongo did not use Comcast. She had an Internet provider contract with SBC. The Illinois Attorney General’s office and the detectives on the case claim that Monge will not testify. How do they have a case against Melongo when their “expert” who claims she had evidence against Melongo won’t testify? Where is the evidence? Melongo has her SBC account bills to prove what she says and Comcast claims they have no records tied to Melongo.
A subpoena to Comcast, which the forensic computer examiner said was the Internet provider which had records of the SALF computer being tampered with produced a report from Comcast that Melongo did not have an IP computer number (address) with them and there was no record she remotely accessed the SALF IP number (address). Therefore, since the police report states that SALF IP number was accessed via Comcast from an IP number registered with Comcast, there is NO possibility that Melongo was the offender.
Melongo had a contract for Internet services through SBC. IP addresses unlike telephone numbers are UNIQUE to the Internet provider. Therefore, there is no probable cause and charging Melongo and keeping her in custody on an outrageous bail is illegal and unconstitutional and violates her civil rights. The 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that a person cannot be seized (arrested) without probable cause, nor can they be tried without probable cause.
Melongo has been going to court monthly while out on a $10,000 personal recognizance bail for three years fighting this accusation. The State has still failed to give her discovery (evidence) of the accusation that ties her with tampering with any computer. Statutory criminal procedure has not even been followed. She was at a job interview when she was supposedly arraigned. She confronted the court reporter with this fact and asked them why they falsified the court transcript saying she was there, when the attorney would testify she was not there. The attorney was so inadequate in representation that she fired him and represented herself for the last couple years.
Judge Brosnahan is so biased against Melongo (she is a dual citizen of Cameroon and Hait and has a heavy accent and writes legal papers very professionally and accurately), that she ordered a fitness exam to simply harass her (she has been declared fit after the exam) and has refused to date to have a hearing on Melongo’s motions to dismiss for lack of probable cause and fraud upon the court by the State (in claiming they have evidence when they don’t).
Melongo made a web site that details the charges, the players, and has scanned in all the evidence they gave her and the evidence she has that proves her innocence. She designed this web site as a professional information technology consultant. She has nothing to hide. The State has lots to hide!
On the web site she has posted the recordings and transcripts of phone conversations she had with the court reporter. She wanted to document what she suspected was their criminal conduct in falsely writing in the transcripts that she was in court when “arraigned” when she actually wasn’t there.
Illlinois has a felony eavesdropping law that makes it a crime to record someone without their permission. There is an exception in that if one thinks they are recording evidence of a crime, they cannot be prosecuted. Melongo wrote on her web site that she thought the court reporters had falsified records and recorded the conversations under this exception to the law. She even states so on her web site.
Now the State has arrested and incarcerate Melongo for an additional charge of eavesdropping, although it is clear the exception applies in this case so there is no probable cause.
On April 20, 2010 after her bail was revoked due to violation of bail (being arrested again) Melongo was brought before Judge Brosnahan. Judge Brosnahan was told that Melongo has no criminal background except for the pending computer tampering charge. She was told Melongo is a dual citizen of Cameroon and Haiti and has a legal visa. She was told that Melongo had diligently appeared in court at all hearings that she was informed about for three years.
The prosecutor claimed she was a huge “flight risk” because she might be illegal and therefore they contacted immigration which put a “hold” on her so they could investigate. The prosecutor said she is “dangerous” because she tampered with a computer. The defense attorney J. Nicolas Albukerk said this is all ridiculous as she has proven over three years NOT to be a flight risk and having dual citizenship does not make her a danger to anyone. Albukerk noted that having dual citizenship is not a crime and does not make anyone an illegal immigrant. He noted that none of these alleged acts were crimes of violence and the eavesdropping charge had NOTHING to do with any threats or violence.
Judge Brosnahan in an outrageous act of judicial misconduct set bail at $500,000. This violates the constitution’s requirement that bail be reasonable. Melongo is not rich. She has almost no resourcs left as no one will hire her over the last three years with a computer tampering charge pending.
A call has gone out to Camerooneans in America for assistance to fight this injustice. Judge Brosnahan has no jurisdiction in these cases as there is no probable cause. Without probable cause the charges are not valid and the indictments are void. To be held in jail on a $500,000 bail without probable cause is outrageous, illegal, unconstitutional and reveals that Judge Brosnahan is not fit to be a judge. She is continually violating the constitution and Melongo’s civil rights. She should be removed from the bench.
Judge Biebel was not available to hear the habeas petitions, so the criminal clerk called the Judge filling in for him – Judge Joseph Kazmierski. In an act of judicial misconduct Judge Kazmierski refused to hear the habeas petition and said it was “not before him” because the case was assigned to Judge Brosnahan.
Shelton went to Judge Brosnahan’s courtroom, following the clerk who brought the files to the judge. Judge Brosnahan, in an act of judicial misconduct REFUSED to hear the habeas petitions stating “you have no standing . . . only a lawyer or the defendant has standing . . . kick her out of the courtroom.” Shelton protested, trying to get this rogue and ignorant judge to read the law and follow the law, without success and was kicked out of the courtroom.
Shelton went to Judge Kazmierski and asked him to order Judge Brosnahan to hear the petitions. He refused saying he had no standing to do so. He was derelict in his duties as a judge in refusing to hear the petitions for habeas corpus. The habeas corpus petitions were new civil cases according to the Illinois Code of Civil Procedures and according to Circuit Court Rules he should have heard them and issued a habeas order to bring the defendant to court to determine if she was being legally held.
Both Judge Kazmierski and Judge Brosnahan therefore committed an act of knowingly violating statutory law which the U.S. Supreme Court has declared to be an act of treason.
The Illinois Supreme Court held that if a court “could not hear the matter upon the jurisdictional paper presented, its finding that it had the power can add nothing to its authority, – it had no authority to make that finding.” The People v. Brewer, 128 Ill. 472, 483 (1928). The judges listed below had no legal authority (jurisdiction) to hear or rule on certain matters before them. They acted without any jurisdiction.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974) stated that “when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution”, he “comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States.” [Emphasis supplied in original].
By law, a judge is a state officer.The judge then acts not as a judge, but as a private individual (in his person).
Further, if the judge had enlisted in the U.S. military, then he has taken a third oath. Under Title 10 U.S.C. Section 502 the judge had subscribed to a lifetime oath, in pertinent part, as follows: “I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; …”.
The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that “No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.”. Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958).
Violating the constitution includes violating the laws of the state of Illinois as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that when a criminal procedure is statutory, then it invokes the due process clause of the 5th amendment. Violation of the statute by the judge is a violation of federal due process. If this is intentional, then it is “waring” on the constitution.
When a judge violates the law, their orders are void, a nullity.
Defective petition [indictment in case at bar is legally insufficient, as no probable cause], Brown v. VanKeuren, 340 Ill. 118, 122 (1930).
Fraud committed in the procurement of jurisdiction [detective told grand jury that Melongo had an IP address with Comcast], Fredman Brothers Furniture v. Dept. of Revenue, 109 Ill.2d 202, 486 N.E.2d 893 (1985).
Fraud upon the court [perjury before the grand jury and law fraudulently presented to grand jury in case at bar], In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.3d 393 (1962).
The court exceeded its statutory authority [State Statutes and constitution do not allow a judge to have jurisdiction when there is no probable cause, also violation of 4th Amendment. ], Resenstiel v. Rosenstiel, 278 Supp. 794 (S.D.N.Y. 1967).
Where a complaint states no cognizable cause of action against the party [no crime as specified by statute is alleged in the fatally flawed indictment obtained through fraud as there is no probable cause], Charles v. Gore, 248 Ill.App.3d 441, 618 N.E.2d 554 (1st Dist. 1993).
Where the public policy of the State of Illinois is violated [constitution is violated when a person is held for trial without probable cause], Martin-Tregona v. Roderick, 29 Ill.App.3d 553, 331 N.E.2d 100 (1st Dist. 1975).
Therefore, Judge Brosnahan has no jurisdiction to preside over a trial of Melongo for computer tampering or for eavesdropping because there is no probable cause and therefore no jurisdiction for a criminal case.
The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution.
Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts. No judge has immunity to engage in such acts.
The prosecutor is Cook County States Attorney Anita Alvarez with the assistance of the computer crimes division of the Illinois Attorney General, Lisa Madigan.
Of note: Lisa Madigan was “friends” with the director of SALF, Carol Spizzirri, and assisted her in obtaining grant money from the State of Illinois through Madigan’s father, Speaker of the Illinois House Michael Madigan. They now cannot account for most of the grant money SALF received from donors including the federal grants. Spizzirri is a know liar and commits fraud. She wrote on her applications for federal grants that she is a nurse, yet she is not a nurse. She has been labeled a pathological liar by Wisconsin courts. Her ex-husband has evidence that their now deceased daughter had an order of protection against Spizzirri.
It is thought by Melongo that they are framing her to cover up the fact that the funds from government for SALF were obtained fraudulently and they do not have financial records to account for them. How convenient to blame Melongo for remotely accessing their computers and “erasing” the data. Where’s the money Spizzirra and Madigan? The FBI has yet to arrest those involved in this fraud.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.