hline.gif (2424 bytes)
Trashed Sixth Amendment
hline.gif (2424 bytes)


Before I prove Judges at the Appellate Court  violated the Fifth Amendment and violated the Sixth Amendment unfairly in their "ORDER" below I wish to point out one thing.

I won a jury trial 12 to 0 and the method I used to completely impeach all the State's witnesses with "Prior Inconsistent Statements" was to subpoena my accusers to the jury trial so I could use the "Probable Cause" as "Exculpatory Evidence."

Those subpoenas gave me access to a "Report of Proceedings" and a Police Report.

The "Report of Proceedings" was entered as evidence in a jury trial here:
http://slimefest.com/exhibits/#Exhibit1intro

The Police Report was entered as evidence in a jury trial here:
http://slimefest.com/exhibits/#Exhibit5intro

Cheryl Wingert's testimony  was completely impeached by using prior inconsistent statements on Exhibit #1.

Beverly Rusk and Ed Rusk were completely impeached by using those two exhibits together.

The "Probable Cause" entered as evidence in the jury trial proves nothing was done to verify the truthfulness of Beverly or Ed Rusk statements in an earlier jury trial and that was all I needed to prove "Malice" as evidenced by the Mack vs. First Security Bank of Chicago at
http://desecratedsixthamendment.com/Mack/index.htm

How can there be any "Good Faith" in a "Probable Cause" that was used to prove the State itself had evidence that their witnesses were pathological liars.

I told John Kinser that I had evidence that Beverly Rusk committed perjury and he still helped her bring charges against me only to have me introduce evidence of perjury to the jury.

Judge Brinn was simply betting for a woman he knows as "Bev" that I, as a pro se litigant wouldn't know the proper procedure to enter the facts.  Casey Stengel was the exact same way and you can see how he lost his same bet at:
http://slimefest.com/exhibits/#Exhibit5intro


The "Confrontation Clause" of the Sixth Amendment would have allowed me to move the two exhibits mentioned above into a trial for "Malicious Prosecution" since I needed those two exhibits to prove "Malice" but after Duane Thompson misrepresented the Mack vs. First Security Bank of Chicago the "Confrontation Clause" was thrown out.

The Rule Against Double Jeopardy in the Fifth Amendment should have prevented judges from retrying a case that ended in an acquittal but after Duane Thompson misrepresented the Mack vs First Security Bank of Chicago the Rule Against Double Jeopardy was thrown out.

The reality is, the "Malicious Prosecution" lawsuit should have dealt with one thing.  It should have dealt with the fact that Beverly Rusk concealed evidence and she furnished false information four times.  The four times would have been in regards to two lawsuits and two letters.

And if anybody had bothered to see why Beverly Rusk was so adamant in preventing me from answering her daughter's questions it can be tracked down to "tainted evidence" where it was her source of information that was malicious and that means everything Beverly Rusk used the courts for was a "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree."


This excerpt found in my "Reply Brief" was obviously overlooked by the ORDER of the Appellate Court and my "Reply Brief" when they incorrectly assumed the Mack case only supported Duane Thompson's argument.

THIS HONORABLE COURT SHOULD REVERSE AND REMAND,
BASED UPON THE PRINCIPALS OF LAW STATED IN
MACK V. FIRST SECURITY BANK OF CHICAGO
158 Ill.App.3d 497, 110 Ill.Dec. 537, 511 N.E. 2d 714 (1st Dist. 1987).

APPELLEE IN HER BRIEF AND ARGUMENT HAS CITED THIS CASE
AS HER ONLY AUTHORITY, WHICH FULLY SUPPORTS
THE APPELLANT'S ARGUMENT.

Appellee's Brief and Argument has failed to state correctly the decision of the Appellate Court in the above Mack case regarding the directed verdict. At 110 Ill.Dec. page 542 the court "REVERSES AND REMANDS" the case.

I


                    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
______________________________________________________________________
     

Transcripts of the "Malicious Prosecution" this Appeal is based on can be found at:
http://brokensixthamendment.com/transcripts

     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.

The facts these Judges were dealing with are:

1.  Duane Thompson misrepresented the "Mack vs. First Security Bank of Chicago" when he unfairly made it appear as if it supported a "Directed Verdict."

2.  Duane Thompson misrepresented the facts in the "Malicious Prosecution" lawsuit when he claimed there was no "Evidence of Malice" because Judge Telleen made it very clear that he would have accepted the word "faggot" as "Evidence of Malice" and on page 30 of the transcript for the Jury Trial Beverly Rusk admitted to using the word "faggot."

3.  The "Probable Cause" was entered as as two "Exculpatory" exhibits in a jury trial I won and by viewing the "Probable Cause" and comparing it to statements in a second jury trial that proves  it completely impeached all the State's Witnesses.

4.  The "Probable Cause" that was used to completely impeach all the State's Witnesses also proved a "Total Lack of Good Faith."

5.  A "Probable Cause" that demonstrates a "Total Lack of Good Faith" can be used to prove "Malice" especially after considering other evidence that proves "Malice."

6. A "Probable Cause" missing from a "Malicious Prosecution" lawsuit can not be considered valid because of the argument in the lawsuit that Duane Thompson misrepresented and considering the fact that the "Probable Cause" had previously impeached all the State's witnesses.

7.  With Duane Thompson's constant misrepresentation of the Mack vs. First Security Bank of Chicago I have never been allowed to prove that the "Probable Cause" that was used to completely impeach all the State's Witnesses in a jury trial also proves a "Total Lack of Good Faith."


     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.  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.         

Before these judges ever started to retry a case that ended in an acquittal, violating the "Rule against Double Jeopardy"  they should have looked at the Mack vs. First Security Bank of Chicago and seen that Duane Thompson had misrepresented it.

In the jury trial both Beverly Rusk and Cheryl Wingert were completely impeached by their "History"/"Probable Cause" when it was used as Defense Exhibits #1 and #5.

If you look at how Cheryl Wingert testifed in the "Report of Proceedings", the letters the State entered as evidence, and what Cheryl testified to under cross-examination and compare it to what the State has Cheryl Wingert saying it proves the judges at the Appellate Court were not looking for facts but they were looking for ways to assisinate my character.

Since the "Probable Cause" was "Exculpatory Exhibits" in the jury trial I won, and it would have been allowed in the Malicious Prosecution via the "Confrontation Clause" any assumptions about about the "Probable Cause" that deviate from the fact it completely impeached all the State's witnesses is a violation of the Sixth Amendment.

When the three judges at the Appellate Court arrived at the statement: "Given the history of the parties and the time of the phone call, we agree with the trial court's finding that the prosecution of the plaintiff was supported by probable cause."  all they did was manipulate testimony that was completely impeached by the "Probable Cause" itself to help Duane Thompson conceal the fact that the "Probable Cause" proves a "Total Lack of Good Faith."

In other words, in my attempt to prove that Judge Brinn demonstrated a "Total Lack of Good Faith" I end up proving 3 other Judges demonstrated a "Total Lack of Good Faith" when they fell for Duane Thompson's misrepresentation of the Mack vs. First Security Bank of Chicago.

The fact remains, this case should have been "Reversed and Remanded" via Res Judicata of the Mack vs. First Security Bank of Chicago.

As a side note.  The Judges responsible for this ORDER also violated the Best Evidence Rule when they stated: "Two of the plaintiff's friends testified that the plaintiff had been interested in Wingert since high school" because that issue was dealt with in Defense Exhibit #4 found at:
http://slimefest.com/exhibits/#Exhibit4intro

Is having an interest in someone having an interest in them a crime?  The jury obviously didn't think so and if I'd been allowed to enter the exact same evidence in my first jury trial I would have won that jury trial too as evidence by this statement from the judge that brought charges against me.

To put it mildly, you were handed a win due to an error committed before you were charged, and an error that is well documented on your own site, and nothing more. The error was unknown prior to you being charged, and that's all I intend to offer in a public forum about the events of that day.
Above quote from Judge Brinn can be found at:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.transport.trucking/msg/801e390e6d700691

Last updated: 04/13/2009