Transcript
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
Article 3 Illinois Constitution
Article 7 Illinois Constitution
Article 13 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 18
ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT RULE 19
ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT RULE 61
ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT RULE 62
ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT RULE 63
ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT RULE 67
ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT RULE 71
ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT RULE 102 (b), (d)
ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT RULE 103
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 Compiled Statute
Illinois Compiled Statute
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 Compiled Statute
Illinois Compiled Statute
Illinois Compiled Statute
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
44
top related