There is one case, based on another, it is a "Malicious Prosecution" lawsuit.

A lot of attorneys say they are easy to prove but I would find out the hard way, that judge John Telleen, the Judge I ended up with, was the absolute worst judge to have for a "Malicious Prosecution" lawsuit.

He allowed me to enter the transcript of the trial that the "Malicious Prosecution" lawsuit was based on, but he didn't want to hear any part of it.  He even told me so.

He would *not* allow me to re-use exhibits that I had used in that trial, he kicked them out one at a time as I tried to introduce them.

Judge Telleen threw out my two most critical exhibits saying they did not impeach the witnesses, yet they were allowed in the earlier jury trial for the sole purpose of impeaching the witnesses.

He did not allow me to use evidence that defeated the malicious words my accuser called me.  He threw that exhibit out saying "it was something I noticed," even though that exhibit was allowed in the previous jury trial because it was considered part of my testimony.

I had one exhibit where I knew Beverly, the mother bringing charges against me, didn't want to see a letter from me, where I tried to stop her lies, so I dictated it to an attorney.  I basically told Beverly that I was well aware of Chery's problems and if she tried to lie about me again, I'd be willing to go to court and prove she was lying.

Even though I had used that letter previously in an earlier trial and did exactly what I said I would do, proved I knew about Cheryl's problems and that she was lying, Judge John Telleen would throw that letter out as "Hearsay."

Once he threw that letter out as "Hearsay" he would throw out the all my testimony about my trial as as hearsay because it portrayed that letter.

I didn't mind all that, but then I realized, not only was Judge John Telleen refusing to look at any of my exhibits but he wasn't playing fair at all!

With the help of the fraudulent deception of Duane Thompson, Judge Telleen would use unknown evidence against the accused, despite what the Sixth Amendment says.  But that isn't all, 6 judges in the Appellate Court would basically say it is OK to violate the Sixth Amendent!

But all was not a total disaster, Judge John Telleen, knowing the *real* "Probable Cause" contained evidence of "Malice" would not give Duane Thompson any Sanctions when he asked for them on February 16, 2003.  More here

Why he threw out the witnesses was cruel too, because it prevented me from proving that the "Probable Cause" along with everything else since 1973 was based on a total lie by someone that enjoyed being malicious!

Now to look at Duane Thompson's part of recreating the errors of law in the Mack case.

1.  Duane used objections to conceal a simple word that was evidence of "Malice."

2.  Duane concealed a "Probable Cause" that demonstrated a "Total Lack of Good Faith."

3.  Duane failed to acknowledge that "Malice can be inferred where the circumstances of the prosecution are inconsistent was good faith on the part of the prosecutor" and he must have known that was my argument.

4.  Near the end of the trial Duane requested and was granted a "Directed Verdict."

Duane Thompson's objections concealed evidence of Malice found on the transcript and on the "Probable Cause."  The "Probable Cause" was written down by an over zealous legal assistant and he used one of the two malicious words that Beverly used over and over.  The two malicious words that she used were "fagot" and "infatuated."

If you don't want to think those two words were malicious, that is what was proven in the jury trial!  Beverly failed to see the concern or pity for what someone has gone through because her mother decided to go so far as to use outright lies to police officers to maintain the lies someone told her daughter many years earlier.

Oddly enough since evidence of "Malice" was on the "Probable Cause" itself, that means anything done that concealed that word on the "Probable Cause" like try to find a substitute for it, also concealed evidence of "Malice!"  Yet that would be what the Appellate Court ended up doing, concealing evidence of "Malice" themselves!

As for what showed a "Total Lack of Good Faith."  The Judge that signed the "Probable Cause" knew that a woman he calls "Bev" had lied on the stand before, he knew she obstructed justice before, he even knew she lied to police officers before.

Let me put it another way, not only did the judge that signed the "Probable Cause" fail to see if the complaining witness was lying, but he had seen her lie before and was simply letting her lie again!

The "Report of Proceedings" with a "Police Report" that Judge Brinn knew about, were two exhibits that I used with the sole purpose of impeaching the State's witnesses.  I considered those two exhibits to be the main reason why I, as a a pro-se litigant, won a jury trial 12 - 0, but

Imagine it this way, a judge wants to help a friend of his abuse the process, so he finds her two witnesses that he knows can tell big lies on the stand, that can conceal evidence and can even tell big lies to police officers.  He is even aware that there is evidence that shows they have done just that.  In reality Judge Brinn didn't have to look for those two witnesses they found him.  Where is the good faith in that?

I doubt very much that Judge Brinn would have signed that "Probable Cause" and let a friend of his bring charges against me if he knew I would be ready for the tricks he saw played against me on my first jury trial.

Now for something else that would have been brought to light if I'd been allowed to face the *real* "Probable Cause."  Not only did Judge Brinn know the witnesses had abused the process before, but he had to helped conceal evidence of that!  What proves that, beyond a doubt, is the inconsistencies between the two jury trials.  One shows Beverly as a reasonable person, the other shows her as well beyond a fraction of a second of reason.

So, not only did Judge Brinn know they had lied before, but he was part of it in more ways than one.  Now that Judge Brinn is retired, I hope people can take a closer look all the injustices he has done for a friend.

As for where the circumstances of the prosecution are inconsistent with good faith.  There was evidence that proved all that "Bev's" malicious actions, ever since she decided to prevent me from talking to her daughter in high school were based on incorrect speculations started by a third person.  If Beverly had any good faith at all, even for a split second, we could have avoided years and years of butting heads, even before she decided to start using the courts to help her maintain the lies that someone maliciously told her daughter in 1973.

What makes this whole thing even funnier is when my argument went back to the Appellate Court a second time, I led with the correct version of the Mack case instead of only putting it in the "Reply Brief" where it was missed.  Even after leading with the argument, Duane has never denied misrepresenting the Mack case.

Would you deny misrepresenting a legal precedent if you were extremely proud of a farce you can gotten away with?  I doubt it, especially when all he had to do was use a little more sidestepping and deception to carry the misrepresentation a lot further?  So that is exactly what Duane Thompson did.

The sad thing is three judges decided to clearly violate S. CT. Rule 341 and gave Duane an argument he waived on Appeal.  When they did that, they let him continue to misrepresent the legal precedent he cited and now that it has been published his misrepresentation of the law is being held against others and is probably laughed at by other attorneys to this day!

As a side note, I talked to one of the last judges that ruled against me.   After he finally saw the argument I had in my first Reply Brief.  He stated I should have led with that argument and I said I did the second time I went to court and you just threw the whole thing out without even looking at it.  He was silent after that.

Either way, Duane Thompson probably can't stop laughing about how he pulled one over on the Appellate Court Judges to this day and how they even rewarded his flamboyant misrepresentation of the law with sanctions and a precedent that contains his name!  The precedent that rewards his misrepresentation can be found here.

The most important thing about the farce that Duane Thompson has helped maintain was, nobody has to make any speculations about what would happen if Cheryl and I were given a chance to talk.  That is a done deed, we talked in court and what happened?  I proved I was nothing like my neighbor made me look in 1973.  That is what this whole mess has been about and now it is the Third District Appellate Court of Illinois that wants to maintain all the old lies by maintaining a outright misrepresentation!