Broken6.jpg (1089 bytes)
hline.gif (2424 bytes)
Broken Sixth Amendment
hline.gif (2424 bytes)
Last Updated: 09/17/2009

In a criminal prosecution the Sixth Amendment gives you the right to face your accusers.

In a malicious prosecution lawsuit your right to face your accusers is given to you by case law as in the Mack vs First Security Bank of Chicago but the reasons given in the case law are similar to the reasons for the Sixth Amendment so I treat them the same.

I won a jury trial 12 to 0 by using two exhibits the State knew about to completely impeach all three of the State's Witnesses with prior inconsistent statements so that in itself proves a "Total Lack of Good Faith" in the prosecution.  Note:  all 5 of my exhibits can be found at:

I also introduced an exhibit that proves that every thing Beverly Rusk had used the courts for was malicious and during the jury trial I also proved the State would have had that evidence but Beverly Rusk decided the State didn't need those particular letters so she never supplied them to the State even though I gave them to her right at the courthouse!

There were other ways I could have used to prove "Malice" like when I had Beverly Rusk admit to all the contradictory words she had called me over the years.  Point being, when Ed Rusk admitted to calling me a faggot the judge pointed out it had to be Beverly Rusk so at that time all I had to do was point to page 30 of the transcript to prove malice.

But I wasn't really after Beverly, I wanted to prove that the State brought charges against me knowing that I had evidence of perjury and that Beverly had concealed evidence again!

To make a long story short, Duane Thompson would misrepresent the facts and he would misrepresent the law in the trial court, he would misrepresent the law and he would misrepresent the facts in the Appellate Court and he would end up giving three judges a bribe during an oral argument where all they had to do to get there names into three law books was to continue to let him misrepresent the law and continue to let him misrepresent the facts.  That story can be found at:

I actually had Duane Thompson investigated by the ARDC at one time and the trick he used at the ARDC was to repeat false statements Beverly Rusk had made to him and then add to them as if they were truth and it worked.  More on the tricks Duane Thompson used to rewrite the laws on malicious prosecution can be found here.

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:

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 if the principles of law that reversed and remanded the Mack case had been applied properly.

The Mack vs First Security Bank of Chicago helps point out you should face your accusers, and in this case it means Judge Brinn John Kinser 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 rights to face my accusers by retrying a case that ended in an acquittal without the exhibits that had been used to completely impeach all the witnesses used by the state see: and .

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: