IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT
____________________________________________________________________ ROGER WITTEKIND ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of the 14th Judicial Circuit, Plaintiff - Appellant, ) Rock Island County, Illinois ) No. 90-SC-3806 vs. ) ) BEVERLY RUSK ) Honorable ) John M. Telleen Defendant - Appellee. ) Presiding Judge ____________________________________________________________________
PETITION FOR REHEARING
|ROGER T. E. WITTEKIND
P. O. Box 432
Eldridge, Iowa 52748-0432
Now comes the plaintiff, Roger Wittekind, and request the petition for rehearing be granted and in support hereof, states as follows:
1. The continued slander, lies, deception and fraud of a Mr. Thompson, should not be used to replace the arguments waived on this Appeal. Using S. Ct. Rule 341, a point not argued on appeal will be considered waived. Walker v. Marcin, 1974, 24 Ill. App.3d 791, 321 N.E.2d 406. A contention neither advanced nor argued in brief should be deemed waived on appeal. People v. Brady, 1974, 23 Ill.App.3d 330, 318 N.E.2d 642. The arguments in the Appeal were all numbered so it would be very clear which of the arguments Mr. Thompson was avoiding.
2. Arguments that follow were waived, and serve to prove that Mr. Thompson has recreated the errors of law in the Mack case, by following it as a script, and then misrepresented the Mack case in the same tribunal and misrepresented it in another with the aid of slanderous remarks and fraud.
3. Argument (1) stated "The instant cause, is a repeat of the Mack case in the use of two issues that overturned the Mack case." The argument itself goes into the specifics used to overturn the directed judgment in the Mack case, and these same principles should also be applied to overturn the directed judgment in the instant cause.
4. Argument (11) "As the Statement of Facts in this Brief points out, the counsel for the appellee recreated the same errors that overturned the Mack, objecting to evidence that would have proved prejudice, and not applying the definition of "probable cause" as found in the Mack case." Stated elsewhere "Mr. Thompson followed the Mack case as a script, recreating the exact same errors of law.
5. Mr. Thompson objected to every attempt of the plaintiff to show that the probable cause was only lies of the defendant, and Mr. Thompson objected to all the evidence that would have proven the prejudice and malice behind these lies! Mr. Thompson knew that a recreation of the errors of law in the Mack case, was the only way he could keep the defendant from being found guilty of malicious prosecution!
6. Mr. Thompson was the one that presented the Mack case to the trial judge, yet he never stated the definition of probable cause or malice, as evidenced by the transcripts on appeal. Mr. Thompson's objections to critical evidence, showed that he did recreate the errors of law that overturned the Mack case! The Mack case in reality fully supports the plaintiff! Mr. Thompson has abused the system by misrepresenting the law, specifically the Mack case, to protect someone that he knows abused the system. The fact is: It takes more lies or fraud to conceal lies and fraud.
7. I discovered Mr. Thompson's misrepresentation right before I typed up my first Reply Brief. The argument in my reply brief was short, yet nothing said in my reply brief was used in the order of the Appellate court. I talked to some attorneys about this, and one of them said to use a petition to get this case back into court, and then make the most important arguments in my Brief instead of my Reply Brief. I have done this, only to have arguments in my Brief unnoticed, by the continued slander and deception of Mr. Thompson.
8. What this boils down to is: Mr. Thompson only had to mislead one judge, because he can use quotes made by the one misled judge to mislead the next judge.
9. The appellate court did not even state the definition of probable cause in their order, this would have shown they did not apply it, and they failed make any remark on the relation of prejudice and malice being one and the same as proven by the Mack case!
10. The Appellate court themselves have recreated the errors of law in the Mack case, and have even increased the falsities with faulty assumptions that are contradicted by the record on Appeal, and added other remarks that would have been proven false, if the evidence unfairly objected to by Mr. Thompson, had been admitted. The Appellate court should see: It's impossible to argue a lawsuit, when critical evidence is unfairly denied, unfairly denied evidence helped to overturned the Mack case!
11. Mr. Thompson boast that the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission did not prosecute him. He fails to state that the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission can not go against the decision of a judge. As long as he can prevent the courts from applying the definitions of probable cause and malice, as they were applied in the Mack case, he will not be prosecuted for this fraud and deception! Look at the attached Mack case as it really is, and not the contrary way that Thompson made it look! If he gets away with this, he will only cause further injustices!
12. Mr. Thompson knows that his objections to critical evidence, should not have been sustained. This is supported by the Mack case, yet he avoids this issue by using a bunch of slanderous lies as he has did in his first Brief. The plaintiff would have proven these remarks false, if Mr. Thompson hadn't objected to all the critical evidence needed to prove malicious prosecution. Using the Mack case, Thompson's objections should not have been sustained, and yet they were, this goes to prove: The trial judge did not apply the principles of law that were addressed in the Mack case.
13. The main argument waived by Mr. Thompson, was THE PRINCIPLES OF PROBABLE CAUSE AND MALICE AS STATED IN THE MACK V. FIRST SECURITY BANK OF CHICAGO WERE NOT APPLIED this is whole basis for the injustice that the court has the right to overturn. 735 ILCS 5/2-1401 where a judgment will be vacated in the interest of justice See: Marks v. Gordon Burke Steel Co. 1973 14 Ill. App.3d 191, 301 NE.2d 835. Other evidence proves that this error, is based on a misrepresentation of the Mack case by Mr. Thompson. He only maintains and conceals lies of his client.
14. My initial statement on the charge sheet was "The probable cause showed gross negligence", and then I was going to support this by using the transcript of and exhibits presented in an earlier trial for alleged telephone harassment. As it turns out I was arguing the exact same two points of law that overturned the Mack case. i.e. 1. Malice can be inferred where the circumstances of the prosecution were inconsistent with good faith on the part of the prosecutor, and 2. Prejudice is malice by the mere definition of "malice".
15. I was arguing the same points of law that overturned the Mack case and the courts have missed the obvious: That if a person is unfairly denied the chance to prove his argument, it does not mean he could not prove it, it means concealing the evidence was a the only way to unfairly protect a guilty client.
16. The Statement of facts in my Amended Brief and Argument show a full recreation of the Mack case. The argument of probable cause was waived by Mr. Thompson. It's unfair to use a total lack of probable cause to mean anything other than a total lack of probable cause! Using the definition of "probable cause", and "accuser", the 6th amendment has been violated in this same error! The definition of probable cause does not make the defendant the accuser, and in the same category, it does not remove her from the circumstances of her lies either!
17. Argument (12) "This whole thing has been based on a lie and continued as a lie. The Appellate Court itself has joined in on the falsehoods. I'm referring to the Appellate case No. 3-91-0162." Argument (12) goes into specifics on the 9 false statements used by the Appellate court in their order, and then finishes by stating, "This order should be ignored because it serves to continue an injustice."
18. More on argument (12). It is sickening to think that I tried to put an end to the lies of the defendant by showing that she used lie after lie after lie to create a probable cause, and then the reason why she lies is because of her extreme prejudice, that was feed by a lie someone told her daughter 20 years ago, only to see the fallacies continue to breed, because of another unscrupulous and unethical attorney.
19. When Mr. Thompson's used the Mack case as a script for injustice, he knew that the only way he could keep his client from being found guilty was by the using fraud! How many times should I beg the courts to apply the definitions of probable cause and malice, before they will ever be applied? Is it that hard to fathom that an attorney misrepresented the law to win a lawsuit, and then uses slander and deception to continue with a farce that was actually started 20 years ago, kept alive by the extreme prejudice of the defendant, and that two other misleading attorneys that worked with the defendant have already lost their licenses(Mr. Coppula and Mr. Trujillo)! From what I see, Thompson is headed down the same road as the other two attorneys just mentioned.
20. My CONCLUSION stated "Using the same reasons that the Mack case was overturned, and the correct definition of probable cause, I think there are more than enough points to support the same decision on the instant cause.
Wherefore the plaintiff respectfully prays for Rehearing to prevent another miscarriage of justice.
|State Of Illinois
County of Rock Island
I, Roger Wittekind, being duly sworn on oath, depose and state that I have read the forgoing Petition for Rehearing, subscribed by me, I am familiar with the contents there of and know said content to be true and correct.
NOTICE OF FILING
1705 2nd Ave.
Rock Island, Illinois 61201
Please be advised that I shall file with the Clerk of the Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District, on January 3, 1994 one original and nine copies of the above Petition for Rehearing.
Roger T. E. Wittekind
PROOF OF SERVICE
|State Of Illinois
County of Rock Island
I, Roger T. E. Wittekind, hereby certify, that on January 3, 1994, the original and nine copies of Petition for Rehearing were filed with the Appellate Court, by mailing to the Clerk of the Appellate Court, Third District of Illinois, 1004 Columbus Street, Ottawa, Illinois 61350, by regular U.S. Mail, proper postage prepaid, and that three true copies of the same document was delivered to the above-named party, by hand delivery.
Roger T. E. Wittekind