Opinion
CASE#11-CV-O9208
01-24-2012
BURNEY ROBINSON v. COOK COUNTY STATE'S ATTORNEY AND ILLINOIS DEPT. CORRECTIONS
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT
I'M BRING THIS SUIT BASED ON FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION AND INTENTIONAL DELAY BECAUSE OF THE STATUE OF LIMITATION THAT THE STATE VIOLATED INTENTIONALLY. I MR. ROBINSON WAS DELIBERATELY DETAIN IN A MANNER THAT VIOLATED MY RIGHT TO DO PROCESS THE PRETENSE OF THE STATE DISCOVERY IS A LEGAL CONFLICT IT RE-INVENT A CLAIM AND THE MECHANIC OF THE PROCEDURES
TO UPHOLD A POSITION WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE. WHICH CONFLICT THIS CASE BECAUSE OF STATE CONTROL OF MY PERSON THE RIGHT TO BE BEFORE THE COURT TO DEFEND ARGUEMENT AGAINST ME AND MY LIBERTY IS MY RIGHT. WE ALSO BELIEVE THAT THE MAGISRATE ACT WAS VIOLATED BY THE STATE
BY NOT PROPER CLARIFYING THE DETENTION IF THE STATE'S ATTORNEY HAD ADDRESSED MR. ROBINSON AND THE COURT MR. ROBINSON WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO PRESENT A DEFENSE. THE ACTIONS OF THE STATE WEIGHED ON THE MENTAL STATE OF MR. ROBINSON AS THE COURT REVIEW THE CONFINEMENT. HUDSON VS. McMILLIAN, 503 U.S 1, 1992, AND FARMER VS. BRENNAN 511 U.S 825, 835-836, 1994. THE MENTAL STATE WAS A CAUSE OF THE FAIL ADMINISTRATIVE MECHANISMS OF THE STATE AND STATED GRIEVANCE THAT WERE INTEROGATION BEFORE A HEARING TO CONFINEMENT. THE REMEDIES SHOULD HAVE BEEN PLAIN, SPPEDY AND ACCURATE BECAUSE OF EVIDENTARY DISTINCTION THAT ARE DRAWN FOR CONCLUSIONS BY THE COURT. THE PROLONGED STATE CUSTODY WAS PUNISHMENT. WE BELIEVE THAT LEGAL DEFECTS IN THE CASE WAS NEVER CONDUCTED AND GUIDELINES FOR PROCEEDING WERE NOT FOLLOWED SUCH AS THE RULES FOR HABEAS BEFORE THE COURT. BECAUSE OF STATE CONTROL MR. ROBINSON COULD NOT PRESENT HIMSELF TO THE COURT. WE ARGUE THE CONDITION THAT ASSISTED IN DENYING A CIVIL HEARING FOR POSSIBLE DAMAGES AND DISMISSAL OF CHARGES THIS HAPPEN IN THE STATE COURT AS WELL AS THE FEDERAL COURT THE RELEVANT OF CONTINUED STATE CONTROL. THE MAGISRATE COULD NOT HAVE KNOWN FULL THAT CLAIM. TITLE 28 U.S.C 636 B, 1... THE PARTICPATION IN THE PRE-TRIAL HEARING AS IN THE NUSSLE CASE. I MR. ROBINSON COULD NOT IDENTIFY PROPERLY THE CONDITIONS UNDER SUCH CONDITIONS THIS ENHANCE THE MENTAL ANXEITY OF THE SITUATIONS WITH MISCONDUCT DO TO PROCEDURE VIOLATIONS. AND JURIDICTIONAL CONTROLS THE STATE LIABLITIY IS A CIRCUMSTANCE OF MOMENTARY VIOLATIONS OF MY LIBERTIES THE DAMAGES WERE THE OCCURRENCES PLACE BY DOCUMENTARY MATERIAL MALICE IN THE WORDING OF THE DOCUMENTS FALSE IMPRISONED ME. THIS EFFECTED THE STATUE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE STATE WE EXCEED THERE
IS A SOLUTION FOR A SUM CERTAIN AND A STATE'S JUSTIFICATION TO RESOLVE THE CHARGE FORTHWITH ON EVIDENCE FROM THE CLAIM AND POST-CONVICTION REVIEW
OF PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
BURNEY ROBINSON
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
v.
_______________ Defendant
DEMAND FOR SPEEDY TRIAL AND/OR QUASH WARRANT
The defendant, _______________, petitions this court and demands a speedy trial pursuant to 730 ILCS 5/3-8-10 (2001) (Intrastate Detainer) and 725 LLCS 5/103-5 (2001)(Speedy Trial) and Article 1, Section 8 of the Illinois Constitution.
In support of this demand the defendant states the following:
1. He is presently incarcerated at the _______________ Correctional Center, _______________. Illinois ____.
2. He was convicted of _______________ in the County of Cook, on 1/24 20____, and sentenced to _______________ years.
3. A term of ____ years remains to be served for this conviction.
4. The following charges are pending against the Defendant in your county:
______________________________
WHEREFORE, the Defendant respectfully demands that the State's Attorney of _______________ County proceed to bring him to trial on the above stated charge(s) within the 160 days as allowed by law.
_______________ Defendant NO _______________
_______________ Correctional Center
P.O. Box _______________
_______________, Illinois
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ____ day of ________, 20_______
_______________
Notary Public
Revised Jan 2002
STATE OF ILLINOIS Plaintiff
v.
Defendant
Case No.
PROOF/CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
TO: Ms. Dorothy Brown, Clerk
Circuit Court Cook County
2650 So. California Ave., Rm. 526
Chicago, IL 60608
TO: Mr. Richard Devine
State's Attorney Ck Cty
2650 So. California Ave., Rm. 11-D
Chicago, IL 60608
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on _______________, 2005 I have filed with the U.S. Mail through the _______________ Correctional Center the following documents, properly addressed to the parties above: _______________
I further declare, under penalty of perjury, that I am the Plaintiff in the above action, that I have read the above documents, and that the information contained therein is true and correct. 28 USC 1746 and 18 USC 1621.
NAME: _______________
IDOC#: _______________
Henry Hill Correctional Center
P.O. BOX 1700
Galesburg, IL 61401
Obstruction to administration of justice
Obstructing Process;
Mr. robinson believe that the peoples case is defective from custodial and beyond the custody of mr. robinson in the cook county jail was procedural defective by evidence and time held in custody of the Chicago police department, we ascert that on the date of July 12,01. to the date Dec 22.01. The state's attorney was aware that mr. robinson rights were violated and illegal search and seziure and a arrest that violates mr. robinson miranda rights, mr. robinson was under medication from the hospital and was'nt control of his persons, this information was witheld because it proves that the state's attorney violated mr. robinson fifth amendment rights a pre- determination of gulit was made before a hearing, the adminisrator of documents and fact material showed bias in bring this charge the conflict of law was a profile. By which the state's attorney persecuted mr. robinson the circuit court of cook county was not abreast of the scope of the indifference, because the remedies and legality was not fully reviewed because of the confinement multiple times in the wake of a favorable outcome for mr.robinson. Civil procedures jurisdictional denied and ommitted based on liablity. we ask this court based on the jurisdictional clause to determine if the detainment by the illinois department of corrections on 4/19/04. under the county of cook case# .We believe that the detainment was not of mr. robinson fault but of the case as a whole and the defectiveness there of the state's knowingly refuse to make corrections in pre-trial hearing. circumvent the powers and determination of this court for conflict. mr. robinson is entitled to relif because of a systemitic dismissal of charges, we ask this because of state's admission and the state's attorney admission, facts were sealed by the state. Witness and third party witnesses testimony is answer of conflict to the evidence and it's presentation.
As you consider we request the court consider illinois complied statue civil procedure;
735 ILCS 5/3-104, 735ILCS 5/3111, 735 ILCS 5/4 211, 735 ILSC 5/3 110, AND 745 ILCS 10/4 104.
AND federal case 04-C-5146 u.s district court of northern district of illinois.
we believe that mr. robinson is entitle to damages for imprisonment before trial or hearings while in a state insitution based on state control of mr. robinson.
respectfully submitted
BURNEY ROBINSON