The Sixth Amendment and definition of "Probable Cause" both give you the right to face your accusers in a "Malicious Prosecution" lawsuit.

A jury trial was won 12 to 0 after I had subpoenaed my accusers and entered the evidence that they possessed proving they knew the woman with the complaint against me, Beverly Rusk was a pathological liar and they let her tell even more lies.

But in a "Malicious Prosecution" lawsuit I wasn't allowed to reuse the evidence that proved a "Total Lack of Good Faith" because I didn't subpoena my accusers to that trial.

If you look at the argument contained in the "Mack vs First Security Bank of Chicago" it proves Duane Thompson and the judge had simply recreated the errors of law that "Reversed and Remanded" that case when they both incorrectly claimed it supported a "Directed Verdict."

All the exhibits used to win a jury trial 12 to 0 can be found at:
http://SlimeFest.com/Exhibits

Keeping evidence out of the courtroom by itself wasn't the error of law, that came about when assumptions were made contrary to the facts I would have been allowed to present under the "Confrontation Clause" of the Sixth Amendment.

The Mack vs First Security Bank of Chicago helps point out you should face your accusers again and that is contrary to how Duane Thompson made the law look.

For reading about how the the Appellate Court helped Judge Telleen violate my Sixth Amendment rights by violating my Fifth Amendment rights see:
http://TrashedSixthAmendment.com and http://DesecratedSixthAmendment.com .

My "accusers" were Judge Brinn and John Kinser and both of them knew Beverly Rusk was a malicious pathological liar and that I had evidence to prove that.

How did they know she was "malicious?"  Because of a malicious word they quoted of her's on the "WARRANT INFORMATION."

How did they know she was a "pathological liar?"   Because of a "Police Report" that proved she had furnished police officers false information.

The "pathological liar" was completely impeached with "Prior Inconsistent Statements" just like her daughter was when I won a Jury trial 12 to 0 as a pro-se litigant.

Why didn't Judge Brinn throw out an earlier trial when he found out I was invited over to her house for dinner?

Why didn't Judge Brinn throw out an earlier trial when he found out I had evidence of impeachment?

Since Beverly Rusk could tell outright lies to police officers it is safe to assume that Beverly Rusk told outright lies to her friends at the courthouse too.

Why didn't Judge Brinn say something about the exhibit used by the State that was written by Frank Fuhr with no facts and no legal authority?

Why did Judge Brinn let Richard Coppula prejudice the jury in the closing remarks when that is a "Reversible Error?"

Why did Judge Brinn sign his name to a "Report of Proceedings" that is inconsistent with fact that there has never been a slit second of reason with the Rusks?

Why did Judge Brinn help Richard Coppula alter items in the "Report of Proceedings" to conceal the fact that the "Statue was held invalid?"

If there had been any "Good Faith" with anybody at the courthouse they could have found out exactly where Beverly Rusk's fraudulent statements were started.

Facts show a manipulating mother was responsible for her daughter's breakdown.

In a strange twist of fate I'd end up facing Judge Brinn on the Internet and he proved a "Total Lack of Good Faith" there too as you can see for yourself at:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.transport.trucking/msg/8308c260bea4b191