Illinois Courts: South Holland Police Department Discriminatory Practices and Disparate Treatment

Update: September 23, 2008

On September 15, 2008 I received the following correspondence from AAA my auto insurance company. I applaud AAA’s courage in addressing this issue in behalf of its client/consumer Fred Nance Jr. The letter, in part, states:

AAA

September 12, 2008

Re:
Insured: Fred Nance Jr.
Claim #: 3007042
Claimant: Rose Bradford
Date of Accident: 8/13/2008
Your Claim #: 13A399586

Dear State Farm:

“This will acknowledge receipt of your claim for damages to your vehicle arising out of the above captioned accident. After a careful examination of the facts, it appears that there is sufficient negligence on the part of your insured and that is a bar to any recovery from our insured. Payment under our insured’s policy is dependent upon legal liability imposed by law. In view of the facts revealed by our investigation, we feel that this is a case where there is no legal liability on the part of our insured. Therefore, we regret to advise you that we will be unable to make any payment to you on this claim.”

Sincerely,

Vicky Hughes
Claims Representative

cc:
State Farm
Fred Nance Jr.

 

September 12, 2008

 

On or about September 12, 2008, I received the following correspondence from the Illinois Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County
 
Dear Fred Nance Jr.:
 
Re:
Ticket Citation Number YM-575-749
 
Your traffic case(s), listed above is/are scheduled to take place on October 10, 2008 in room CL04, at 1:30 p.m. The hearing(s) will take place at 50 West Washington Street, Chicago, Illinois 60602.
 
Sincerely,
Dorothy Brown
Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois

Update: August 29, 2008

 

On August 29, 2008, my case was adjudged by the Honorable Judge John Turner in Markham Courtroom 098. Judge John Turner addressed an individual who had some relationship with him where he stated he was going to transfer the case to the Honorable Presiding Judge Ronald C. Riley. The prosecutor for Courtroom 098 went over the South Holland Police Officer who wrote the ticket to discuss the ticket. The prosecutor came back to Judge Turner and told him that the South Holland Police Officer was not going to prosecute the case. Judge Turner dismissed the case. 

 

Judge Turner and the prosecutor did not do that for me. Judge Turner granted my request for a “substitution of Judge” as a matter of right. Judge Turner forwarded my motion below to the Presiding Judge, the Honorable Ronald C. Riley, to make a decision on my request for a “Change of Venue.”

 

Judge Riley’s personal secretary informed me that when Judge Riley returns on Tuesday, September 2, 2008, he will sign my request and send my motion with the ticket to the Clerk of the Court, the Honorable Dorothy Brown, for disposition. Judge Riley’s secretary reports it will be my responsibility to follow-up with the results of the Change of Venue. Judge Riley’s secretary suggested I call Ms. Dorothy Brown’s office to find out if they have received my paperwork. Judge Riley’s secretary reports that if Ms. Dorothy Brown’s office does not receive my paperwork I should contact the Clerk of the Court for the Markham Courthouse.

 

While awaiting my case to be heard by Judge Turner, I had the opportunity to see the South Holland Police Department at work in the courtroom, supporting my motion to transfer my case to another venue. Officer Johnson, Star #128, of the South Holland Police Department demonstrated the South Holland Police Department’s lack of integrity, honesty and professionalism. Officer Johnson is white. The people he wrote tickets against were all black.

 

I saw Officer Johnson address about 6 cases. He won 4 and lost 2, partially. Judge Turner found a hispanic woman guilty because Officer Johnson stated she did not stop at a stop sign. Officer Johnson stated in testimony that he knew the lady did not stop for the stop sign because her car did not “rock” at the stop sign. Officer Johnson did not testify the woman did not come to a complete stop, and then proceed beyond the stop sign. Officer Johnson testified the woman’s car did not “rock” and Judge Turner found the woman guilty of not stopping for a stop sign. 

About the other 3 cases won, they resulted from Officer Johnson reporting using his radar gun to determine the speed of a car, where apparently there was no obstruction of sight even though Officer Johnson testified he had to make U-turns to get behind the vehicles.

Officer Johnson lost 2 cases. Officer Johnson testified that he determined a car was going too fast because “his” odometer stated he was traveling at 48 miles per hour. For whatever reason, Officer Johnson did think he needed to use an instrument that determines the speed of a vehicle. Judge Turner dismissed this case.

Officer Johnson wrote another ticket on a young black woman for not having her rear lights working. The young black woman informed Judge Turner that when she was stopped by Officer Johnson, she got out of her, told her husband who was sitting in the passenger seat of the car, to step on the brakes so that she and Officer Johnson could see her that her rear lights work. Officer Johnson testified in open court that the rear lights worked.

 

The young black woman told Judge Turner that she then asked Officer Johnson why was he giving her a ticket for not having rear lights. The young black woman told Judge Turner that Officer Johnson told her to “deal with it in court.” In my case, Officer Burrow told me to take care of my issues in court also when I challenged receiving a ticket.

 

Judge Turner ruled against Officer Johnson for this ticket against the young black woman. The spectators in the courtroom started clapping and talking to each other about the lack of integrity, honesty and professionalism of Officer Johnson. Judge Turner cleared all spectators out of his courtroom after this outburst. No one could observe any further proceedings for the 9:00 a.m. call in the Markham Illinois Courtroom 098.

 

Officer Johnson gave the young black woman a ticket knowing she did not violate any rule of the road for Illinois. After stopping this woman Officer Johnson found her license plate sticker had expired. Judge Turner found this lady guilty of not having an updated sticker. The fine started at $135.00 and that was just for being in the courtroom.

 

Before the 10:30 a.m. call began at 12:10 p.m., the court clerk gave a summary of what to expect in the courtroom. She reported that the court makes it decision by a “preponderance” of the evidence, and not “beyond a reasonable doubt.” A traffic offense is considered to be a “criminal” offense.

 

According to Black’s Law Dictionary, a “preponderance of evidence” is evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it. A preponderance of evidence is generally used for civil cases.

 

According to Black’s Law Dictionary, “beyond a reasonable doubt” in evidence means fully satisfied, entirely convinced, satisfied to a moral certainty; and phrase is the equivalent of the words clear, precise and indubitable. In criminal cases, the accused’s guilt must be established “beyond a reasonable doubt” , which means that facts proven must, by virtue of their probative force, establish guilt.

 

If this criteria is not met, then entities like the South Holland Police Department can continue to violate the constitutional and other legal rights of people. If an entity like the South Holland Police Department is not held to a professional standard of honesty and integrity, it can only lead to anarchy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

COUNTY DEPARTMENT – SIXTH MUNICIPAL DISTRICT

TRAFFIC COURT

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF               

ILLINOIS, the Village of South                       

Holland and Rose Bradford et. al. 

 

Traffic complaint #YM 575749, Room 098

 

Plaintiff,

 

vs.

          

Fred Nance Jr.,

          

Defendant. 

 

NOTICE OF MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF JUDGE

AND CHANGE OF VENUE

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, on August 29, 2008 at approximately 10:30 am, or as soon thereafter as defendant may be heard, defendant shall appear before the Honorable Judge in Room 098 at the Markham Courthouse, Markham, Illinois, and then and there present defendant’s motion.

 

___________________________

Fred L. Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 

I, Fred L. Nance Jr., certify that I caused the above Notice, attached Motion and Affidavit to be served in “open” Traffic Court, Room 098 on August 29, 2008 to the plaintiff(s) and/or their representative(s).

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Fred L Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS

 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

COUNTY DEPARTMENT – SIXTH MUNICIPAL DISTRICT

TRAFFIC COURT

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF               

ILLINOIS, the Village of South                       

Holland and Rose Bradford et. al.

 

Traffic complaint #YM 575749, Room 098

 

Plaintiff,                                                 

                                                                                                                                              

vs. 

          

Fred Nance Jr.,          

 

Defendant. 

 

MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF JUDGE

AND CHANGE OF VENUE

 

 

Now Comes, Fred L Nance Jr., respectfully requesting a Substitution of Judge as a matter of right pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2‑1001 (a)(2)(i)(ii)(iii); and for cause 725 ILCS 5/114‑5 (a); and Change of Venue pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2‑1001.5 (a).

 

Defendant submits an Affidavit to support this motion.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Fred L Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS

 

 

STATE OF ILLINOIS

 

SS.

 

COUNTY OF COOK

 

A F F I D A V I T

 

1.                  I, the Defendant Fred Nance Jr. and Unit 1 driver (Defendant), respectfully request this Honorable Court transfer this matter to the First Municipal District Traffic Center of Cook County at the Daley Center for trial.

 

2.                  On August 13, 2008 a traffic accident occurred in the County of Cook, South Holland Illinois.

 

3.                  On August 29, 2008 Defendant is scheduled for a traffic court hearing in Room 098 in the Illinois Markham Courthouse.

 

4.                  The Defendant strongly believes the Illinois Markham court, any Illinois Markham courtroom and the South Holland police department is prejudiced toward him, demonstrated by disparate treatment and discriminatory practices toward the Defendant in the past and in this present matter.

 

5.                  The Defendant received a “Certificate of Extension” for four (4) years when renewing his driver’s license on September 1, 2007. As this court knows, this is given to drivers who have first-rate driving records.

 

6.                  The Defendant is a defensive driver.

 

7.                  In 1988 convicted felon Judge Paul Foxgrover convicted the Defendant of “upgraded” criminal charges in a Markham Courtroom because the Defendant would not cooperate with police investigations of others who had no relationship to the defendant, such as wearing a wire, along with other vicarious disparities, such as the Markham Courthouse State’s Attorney alleged that the Defendant was a convicted felon with a handgun when the Defendant was not a convicted felon (Case #88CR04675). At the time of this Defendant’s trial in case #88CR04675, the Defendant accused Judge Paul Foxgrover of taking his money, which was taken by Country Club Hills police officers and given to Judge Foxgrover for “safe-keeping” at the time of Defendant’s arrest in case #88CR04675.

 

8.                  In addition, convicted felon Judge Paul Foxgrover allowed the Illinois Markham Assistant State’s Attorney to prosecute me knowing the “ineffective assistance of counsel”, such as attorney Daniel Gallagher being an alcoholic and the attorney I replaced him with William Swano who was being investigated in the Greylord scandal, which led to Swano’s indictment and suspension at bar. The Defendant did not know about Gallagher, Swano and Foxgrover’s conviction until he received notice from a 3^rd attorney he hired who filed a “petition for post conviction relief.” See Petition for Post Conviction Relief filed February 25, 1992 in case number 88CR4675.

 

9.                  Trial Judge Paul Foxgrover’s misconduct for “theft of funds”, which led to his indictment and removal from the bench, in unrelated cases during the same time period that he heard the Defendant’s cases bore on the quality of the court’s ability to be fair and impartial and denied the Defendant due process of law and a fair trial as guaranteed by the 14^th and 6^th Amendments of the United States Constitution. See Petition for Post Conviction Relief filed February 25, 1992 in case number 88CR4675, paragraphs 9 & 10, page 3.

 

10.              When incarcerated regarding case #88CR4675 on January 16, 1992 at the age of 42-years-old the Defendant did not have a high school diploma. The Defendant received his G.E.D. in the Cook County jail while awaiting placement in the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC).

 

11.              While incarcerated the Defendant began college. Upon release from IDOC, the Defendant achieved his Bachelor degree in Social Science and a Master degree in Community Counseling from Roosevelt University.

 

12.              The Defendant will receive his PhD in Human Services with a focus on Social Policy Analysis and Planning in the Fall/Winter session of 2008 from Walden University. The Defendant has been going to school for the past 16 years.

 

13.              In the instant matter, due to the Defendant’s familiarity with the South Holland police department, the Defendant filing complaints against the South Holland police department, posting the complaints on the Defendant’s websites/blogs, and the relationships of the South Holland police department with the Markham court officials, that is, Cook County Sheriff police and officials and sitting Judge in Room 098, the Defendant strongly believes he will not get a fair hearing, nor will he be heard, and the verbal evidence below, which will be presented by the Defendant, will not be given any weight toward his innocence.

 

14.              The testimony here, given by the Defendant regarding the present traffic charge of “Fail to reduce speed to avoid accident” will demonstrate the Defendant, beyond a reasonable doubt, is not guilty.

 

15.              The testimony here will demonstrate Unit 2’s negligence and total disregard for Illinois’ Rules of the Road, and illustrate Unit 2 being responsible for the accident on August 13, 2008.

 

16.              It is the contention of the Defendant that Unit 2 caused the accident of August 13, 2008. At the time of the accident, Unit 2 informed the officer on the scene that there were no injuries to the individuals in her car. See Illinois Traffic Crash Report (A no injury/drive away).

 

17.              On August 13, 2008 I, Fred Nance Jr., was involved in an automobile accident in the Village of South Holland Illinois. I asked the driver of the other car for their information, that is, driver’s license and insurance card. The driver of Unit 2 refused to give me the information.

 

18.              625 ILCS 5/11-403 (from Ch. 95 ½, par. 11-403) Sec. 11-403. Duty to give information and render aid. The driver of any vehicle involved in a motor vehicle accident resulting in…damage to any vehicle which is driven or attended by any person shall give the driver’s name, address, registration number and owner of the vehicle the driver is operating and shall upon request and if available exhibit such driver’s license to the person struck or the driver or occupant of or person attending any vehicle collided with and shall render to any person….

 

19.              I called the South Holland Police Department. Officer K. Burrow Star #129 responded to the call I made to the South Holland Police Department.

 

20.              When Officer Burrow arrived upon the scene I gave him my driver’s license and insurance card. Officer Burrow asked me for my phone number. Officer Burrow wrote my phone number on my insurance card. This was inappropriate.

 

21.              Officer Burrow issued me a ticket, which states “Fail to reduce speed to avoid accident.” There could not be a reduction in speed because both cars could not have been going more than 5 miles an hour because of the stop-and-go of vehicles before the accident.

 

22.              I explained to Officer Burrow the following about the car accident: As I came around the bend in the road on Thornwood drive approaching the stop sign, a Dodge Caravan was stopped at the turn in the bend.

 

23.              625 ILCS 5/11‑1301 (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11‑1301) Sec. 11‑1301. Stopping, standing or parking outside of business or residence district. (a) “…no person shall stop, park or leave standing any vehicle, whether attended or unattended, upon the roadway when it is practicable to stop, park or so leave such vehicle off the roadway, but in every event an unobstructed width of the highway opposite a standing vehicle shall be left for the free passage of other vehicles and a clear view of such stopped vehicle shall be available from a distance of 200 feet in each direction upon such highway.

 

24.              Unit 2 continued to stop her vehicle when it was not practicable or appropriate to stop or park her vehicle.

 

25.              Unit 2 did not have its emergency blinkers on. Unit 1 could not go around Unit 2 at the time because another car was coming in the opposite direction.

 

26.              When the other car went by, Unit 1 was about to turn out and pass the parked/stopped Unit 2. Unit 1 blew its horn.

 

27.              Unit 2 began to move. Unit 1 turned back behind Unit 2. Unit 1 began to move. Unit 1 was traveling 5 miles an hour. There was 5-10 feet between Unit 1 and Unit 2 when Unit 2 began to move.

 

28.              Unit 2 moved a few feet and stopped again. Unit 1 stopped its car. Unit 1 blew its horn for the second time. Unit 2 started moving again. Unit 1 began to move, traveling 0-5 miles an hour, to turn out to pass Unit 2. All of sudden, Unit 2 came to a dead stop again. Unit 1 was traveling 0-5 miles an hour.

 

29.              625 ILCS 5/11-1416 (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-1416) Sec. 11-1416. No person shall willfully and unnecessarily hinder, obstruct or delay, or willfully and unnecessarily attempt to delay, hinder or obstruct any other person in lawfully driving or traveling along or upon any highway within this State…so as to interfere with the effective movement of traffic.

 

30.              Unit 2 willfully and unnecessarily hindered, obstructed and delayed my traveling along a highway in this State and interfered with the effective movement of traffic.

 

31.              625 ILCS 5/11-804 (from Ch. 95 ½, par. 11-804) Sec. 11-804. (c) No person may stop or suddenly decrease the speed of a vehicle without first giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided in this Chapter to the driver of any vehicle immediately to the rear when there is opportunity to give such a signal.

 

32.              The driver of Unit 2 could have put her blinkers on suggesting she was going to pause, delay or stop her vehicle, which she had time to do. The driver of Unit 2 never gave an appropriate signal suggesting she would pause, delay or stop her vehicle or suddenly decrease her speed.

 

33.              The driver of Unit 2 caused the accident with her negligent driving pausing, delaying, and stopping her car when the driver of Unit 1 began to safely pass Unit 2 on the left side at a speed of 0-5 miles an hour.

 

34.              625 ILCS 5/11-703 (from Ch. 95 ½, par. 11-703) Sec. 11-703. Overtaking a vehicle on the left. The following rules govern the overtaking and passing of vehicles proceeding in the same direction, subject to those limitations, exceptions, and special rules otherwise stated in this Chapter: (a) The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left thereof at a safe distance…(b) Except when overtaking and passing on the right is permitted, the driver of an overtaken vehicle shall give way to the right in favor of the overtaking vehicle on audible signal and shall not increase the speed of his vehicle until completely passed by the overtaking vehicle.

 

35.              Unit 2 was about 30 from the stop sign when she stopped her car, causing the accident. The Defendant took photos of the accident scene with my cell phone, which is available for review.

 

36.              625 ILCS 5/11‑1303 (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11‑1303) Sec. 11‑1303. Stopping, standing or parking prohibited in specified places. (a) Except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic, or in compliance with law or the directions of a police officer or official traffic‑control device, no person shall: (2) Stand or park a vehicle, whether occupied or not, except momentarily to pick up or discharge passengers; (d) within 30 feet upon the approach to any flashing signal, stop sign….

 

37.              The driver of Unit 2 reports she never stopped her car before impact.

 

38.              How could Unit 1 hit Unit 2 in the angle of impact if Unit 2 was not stopped? See Illinois Traffic Crash Report attached.

 

39.              The only way impact could have taken place, in the angle of impact, is that Unit 2 had to be stopped. Unit 2 was stopped at least 30 feet from the upcoming stop sign.

 

40.              The driver of Unit 2 got out of her car. The Unit 2 driver had her cell phone in her hand.

 

41.              The driver of Unit 2 had been on her cell phone during these events of pausing, delaying and stopping her vehicle.

 

42.              The driver of Unit 2 lives in the complex which we were driving. The Unit 2 driver called her husband to come to the scene of the accident.

 

43.              When the husband came over to talk to her about the accident she informed him she was talking on her cell phone to someone when the accident occurred.

 

44.              The Unit 2 driver did not have an earpiece for her cell phone. She was talking on the cell phone and caused the accident.

 

45.              I took pictures of the accident scene, that is, the position of the cars involved, where the cars had damage, the area between Unit 2 and the stop sign, and the area of space Unit 1 described above where the stop-and-go action occurred.

 

46.              When Unit 1 objected to this ticket and refused to accept it from Officer Burrow, Officer Burrow through it in the car window of Unit 1.

 

47.              Unit 1 informed Officer Burrow he had a AAA bond card, as Unit 1 told Officer Burrow to give him his driver’s license.

 

48.              Unit 1 informed Officer Burrow that when he decided to write him a ticket he was supposed to ask Unit 1 if he had a bond card before taking his driver’s license. Officer Burrow told Unit 1 do not tell him how to do his job.

 

49.              Unit 1 informed Officer Burrow if he was doing his job he would not have taken Unit 1 driver’s license before asking him if he had a bond card. Unit 1 informed Officer Burrow he knew his rights.

 

50.              Officer Burrow told Unit 1 he would have come to the police station if he wanted his driver’s license because Unit 1 was causing a disturbance.

 

51.              Unit 1’s wife drove up on the scene at this time. Unit 1 told Officer Burrow he was not going to the South Holland Police Department to get his driver’s license.

 

52.              Officer Burrow decided to take Unit 1’s bond card but would not give him his driver’s license stating he had to check out if he could accept Unit 1’s bond card.

 

53.              Unit 1 went to his car to get paper and pen to write information about this incident.

 

54.              After making Unit 1 wait for several minutes, Unit 1 had to go to Officer Burrow’s police car, and wait again before he gave him his driver’s license.

 

55.              The Defendant has been designated Unit 1 on Officer Burrow’s Illinois Traffic Crash Report.

 

56.              Officer Burrow reports “…The driver of Unit 2 stated that she was driving slowly (never stopping) when her vehicle was struck from behind by Unit 1….”

 

57.              Unit 1 and Unit 2’s approach/distance to the stop sign was 170 feet from the curve where Unit 1 first encountered Unit 2 stopped in traffic. Unit 2 stopped her vehicle 3 different times approaching this stop sign. Unit 2 stopped her vehicle approximately 30 feet at a time, finally stopping approximately 30 feet from the stop sign before impact of the 2 vehicles.

 

58.              The Defendant (Unit 1) could not have hit Unit 2 if Unit 2 did not stop her vehicle. Unit 1 never took his eyes off of Unit 2’s process. Unit 2 stopped her vehicle 3 different times before Unit 1 attempted to pass Unit 2. Unit 1 and Unit 2’s approach/distance to the stop sign was 170 feet.

 

59.              625 ILCS 5/11-409 (from Ch. 95 ½, par. 11-409) Sec. 11-409. False motor vehicle accident reports or notices. Any person who provides information in an oral written report required by this Code with knowledge or reason to believe that such information is false shall be guilty of a Class C misdemeanor.

 

60.              On August 26, 2008 Unit 1 received notice from the Law offices of J. Richard Hisaw and Associates, located at 222 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2100, Chicago Illinois 60601, stating their office has been retained by the driver of Unit 2, Rose Bradford, et. al.

 

61.              A Change of Venue will not cause undue burden on this case and will not pose a problem for Unit 1’s request because Unit 2 retained lawyers who have their office location nearer to the Daley Center than the Markham Courthouse.

 

62.              United States Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis once stated, “Crime is contagious. If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law.”

 

63.              A statement of Montesquier De L’Espirit Des Lois was used in U.S. v. Jannottie, 673 F2d 578, 614 (3^rd 1982) “There is no more cruel tyranny than that which is exercised under cover of law, and with the colors of justice.”

 

64.              Thomas Jefferson once stated “Experience hath shown that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operation, perverted it into tyranny.”

 

65.              Therefore, the Defendant Fred Nance Jr. who is Unit 1 driver, respectfully request this Honorable Court transfer this matter to the First Municipal District Traffic Center of Cook County at the Daley Center, Chicago Illinois because no social change or preconceived notions toward the defendant/Unit 1 have occurred in the Markham Courthouse or Courtrooms; and with the police officers in the surrounding south suburbs of Chicago.

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Fred L Nance Jr.

 

cc:        http://clickforjusticeandequality2.blogspot.com/

http://clickforjusticeandequaltiy.wordpress.com/

http://click.townhall.com/

http://www.frednance.newsvine.com/

President 2008: John McCain or Barack Obama – What will you do about reducing recidivism in the United States?

Update: August 20, 2008

 

On or about August 16, 2008 Safe Haven’s Alsip Residential Program for Women was severely impacted by Governor Blagojevich’s Budget Cuts. Safe Haven had to put 52 Women and their children out of their residential program because of Governor Blagojevich’s budget cuts. The 52 Women and their children were dispersed to various homeless shelters.

Senators Barack Obama or John McCain

Posted on the Senators’ website

The Second Chance Act of 2007 signed by President Bush on April 9, 2008 will be appropriated in 2009. The Second Chance Act of 2007 is about reducing recidivism in the United States of America. Governor Rod R. Blagojevich of Illinois believes the Sheridan Project, housed in Sheridan Correctional Center, is our National Model for reducing recidivism. The Sheridan Project at Sheridan Correctional Center in Illinois is a National Model for racial discrimination and disparities, indifferent treatment, corruption, harassment and intimidation. It will not reduce recidivism because of these practices. It will not reduce recidivism with the budget cuts by Illinois Governor Blagojevich. It will not reduce recidivism because of the criminal thinking and behaving of the correction officers. Why would it be the National Model for reducing recidivism?

How will you address Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s Sheridan Project housed in Sheridan Correctional Center at Sheridan Illinois? Are you interested in reducing recidivism? Do you know that 1 in 100 Americans is incarcerated? When they return to our communities and are rehabilitated, they are the Second Chance Act of 2007. I am the Second Chance Act of 2007. Will future rehabilitated individuals be treated like I was at Sheridan Correctional Center as an employee of WestCare Foundation, Inc.? What will you do about this situation? Examine the letter written to President Bush. After this read, read the letter dated May 12, 2008 to Governor Blagojevich for the details.

May 19, 2008

President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Re: The Second Chance Act, the Illinois Department of Corrections-Sheridan Correctional Center and WestCare Foundation, Inc.

Mr. President:

On or about April 9, 2008, you signed into law “The Second Chance Act.” Sir, I am “The
Second Chance Act.”

I was locked out of Sheridan Correctional Center (Sheridan) by Warden Michael Rothwell and the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC). My “Illinois Contract” employer, WestCare Foundation, Inc. (WestCare), terminated my employment suggesting the termination is due to IDOC locking me out from my employment.
I have filed a claim of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against IDOC and WestCare. I am sending you the following documents to suggest the conspiracy, discrimination and nefarious acts of IDOC and WestCare against me and “The Second Chance Act of 2007.” The documents are as follows:

State of Illinois-Labor Dispute Appeal Recommended Decision, dated November 29, 2006

State of Illinois-Labor Dispute Appeal Decision of the Director of Employment Security, dated December 22, 2006

WestCare Employee Discussion Report suggesting a sexual harassment charge by Melinda Gubbels and creating a hostile environment charge by Kyra Peters, dated November 8, 2007

Letter to WestCare’s Human Resource Senior Vice President Michael Shields, dated November 8, 2007, regarding Discussion Report dated November 8, 2007

Advocacy Letter to the Honorable Congressman Danny Davis, dated November 15, 2007

Letter to Michael Shields regarding the WestCare Employee Discussion Report of November 8, 2007, dated November 16, 2007 regarding Ms. Melinda Gubbels false charges of sexual harassment against me

E-mail to Stanley Brooks and Michael Shields regarding the WestCare Employee Discussion Report Conference of November 16, 2007

WestCare Employee Discussion Report finding me innocent of the false charges brought against me by Melinda Gubbels and Kyra Peters leading to my 2nd lockout from Sheridan, but alleging other “communication” charges against me, dated November 16, 2007

Letter to EEOC to supplement my charge of Discrimination, dated November 19, 2007

Letter to the Honorable Governor of Illinois, Rod R. Blagojevich, regarding my “experiences” at Sheridan, dated May 12, 2008

EEOC amended charge and additional charge against IDOC and WestCare, dated May 12, 2008

Termination of Employment letter from WestCare, dated May 14, 2008

Fred L Nance Jr. Curriculum Vitae and cover letter to a “new” employer, dated May 14, 2008

Sir, there may not be anything you can do about my situation. Nevertheless, I thought it imperative to send this letter to inform you and your committee of how “The Second Chance Act of 2007” is carried out by the Illinois Department of Corrections, specifically, Sheridan Correctional Center and WestCare Foundation, Inc.

The Second Chance Act of 2007 is meant to reduce recidivism. It appears Sheridan and WestCare may not be part of this reduction process if they continue to operate in the manner spoken of in my writings. Recidivism can be reduced. I am a part of this reduction, but my rehabilitation did not come from IDOC or WestCare. My rehabilitation came from understanding what honesty, integrity and truth is all about.

Respectfully submitted,

Fred Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS

cc:

The Honorable Congressman Danny Davis
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/ 

 

May 12, 2008
 
Honorable Rod R. Blagojevich
Governor of Illinois, Office of the Governor
207 State House
Springfield, Illinois 62706
 
Re: Sheridan Project – EEOC Charge #440-2007-04512
 
Governor:
 
I, Fred L Nance Jr., am African American and I have a pending discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against WestCare Foundation, Inc., which began on or about April 16, 2007, amended on May 7, 2007. On May 12, 2008 I will add the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) to this charge of discrimination and indifferent treatment.
 
I am working at Sheridan Correctional Center to reduce recidivism. One of the things that the “white” establishment at Sheridan resents most is that I am at the end of my doctoral program. When I was incarcerated for the 1st and only time in IDOC, I was 42-years-old without a G.E.D. I know what it takes to reduce recidivism. Racism and indifferent treatment does not reduce recidivism. Criminal activity flourishes with it. Individuals like me are not given the opportunities to make a change in a person’s life, maybe because of job security. IDOC may not want to reduce recidivism. IDOC may not want to honor the “Second Chance Act of 2007”, but I am sure they want to get the monies from the Act.
 
Where is my “Second Chance?” Does the “Second Chance Act of 2007” relate to me? Am I apart of it? I cannot tell from the behaviors of IDOC and WestCare.
 
On Mother’s Day, May 11, 2008, Mr. Stanley Brooks, Director of WestCare Illinois/Sheridan Correctional Center (Sheridan) called me stating I had a “stop order” on me, which means I am “locked out” of Sheridan. Mr. Brooks reports he does not know why I was “locked out” but that he was sent an email stating he should inform me.
 
Sir, I am not a security risk. This is the 3rd time I have been “locked out” at Sheridan. Mr. Brooks did not know if my employment with WestCare was terminated also. If I was “white” this would not be happening to me. “White” supervisors and line-staff have had many issues with “black” inmates and have not been treated as I am treated. This is clearly discrimination and indifferent treatment.
 
As you may remember, I was locked out of IDOC/Sheridan “illegally” by Warden Michael Rothwell (white/male) during the AFSCME union strike on June 6, 2006. On November 29, 2006 the Illinois Department of Employment Security rendered a decision, which states in part “…In the matter of the appeal of: Fred Nance Jr., Claimant-Employee of Gateway Foundation, Inc…The unemployment of the non-participatory claimant-appellants is not due to a work stoppage caused by the labor dispute…It was the unilateral actions of IDOC…The actions of IDOC were separate and the only cause of the claimant’s unemployment.” On December 22, 2006 Ms. Brenda Russell, Director of Employment Security, confirmed this decision. I received my unemployment insurance.
 
Sir, this present “lock out” is the continuous retaliation from IDOC and WestCare employees that I have suffered under since returning to work at Sheridan on September 6, 2006 after the AFSCME union strike. I have had to fight to retain my employment at Sheridan for nearly 2 years. I have had an onslaught of misinformation against me by WestCare and IDOC personnel, such as in November of 2007 WestCare employees Melinda Gubbels (white/female) filed a false charge of sexual harassment and Kyra Peters (white/female) filed a false charge of a hostile environment with WestCare against me. Ms. Gubbels and Ms. Peters suffered no consequences from filing these false charges with WestCare. WestCare did nothing to them. I was “locked out” from my employment with WestCare for 2 weeks because of these false charges. When it was time for the accusers to face me with their accusations, Ms. Gubbels called off sick and Ms. Peters was never summoned by WestCare management for testimony. To add insult to injury, I was forced to work with Ms. Gubbels. WestCare did not transfer Ms. Gubbels from under my supervision after she filed these false charges against me. More issues arose and finally, WestCare transferred Ms. Gubbels to another building. There were still no consequences for filing the false charges against me.
 
On July 16, 2007 I was promoted to clinical supervisor. I was assigned to building C6. On or about April 21, 2008 Warden Rothwell made WestCare transfer me to building C25/C Hall because of false complaints from IDOC and WestCare staff, and inmates. By transferring me to C25/C Hall, WestCare decided to transfer supervisor Denise Perry (black/female) to C6. I was told that Denise had created a bad reputation for herself with the inmates and IDOC personnel in C25/C Hall. What I was not told is that the inmates on C25/C Hall were incorrigible because they had no structure nor could structure manifest itself because of the WestCare staff and IDOC personnel. Here is another most recent account of activity at Sheridan with WestCare and IDOC staff.
 
In February of 2008 I conducted supervision on WestCare employee Justin Brewster (white/male under 40-years-old). Justin was upset because I reprimanded him on his poor work performance and attendance, which I documented and placed in his file. Justin adamantly requested a transfer to another building. Justin was transferred to C25/C Hall.
 
Building C6 Correctional Officers’ Mr. Forsyth (white/male) and Mr. Mann (white/male) told WestCare staff assigned to building C6 they could use their badges or any other objects to open the door to the bubble where security resides because the correctional officers were not going to get up from their seats every time someone wanted to come in the bubble to use the bathroom. I heard Correctional Officer Mr. Mann tell Jamie to use her ID badge to open the door to the bubble whenever she wanted to come inside. When I first saw WestCare employee Jamie Barringer using her badge to open the C6 bubble door, I warned her about it in front of Correctional Officers Forsyth and Mann. I was standing inside the bubble at the time. I informed Jamie, right in front of Mr. Mann and Mr. Forsyth, that if she used her ID to open that door I would write her up.

 

I also informed Lt. Truitt of Sheridan’s Internal Affairs Department that the Correctional Officers in C6 were allowing WestCare staff to use their ID badges to open the bubble door. Lt. Truitt told me at that time that I am always to write incident reports on anything I see that should not be going on. I am not sure of what Lt. Truitt did about this incident, but I have quickly learned not to ask that question.

 

One of the reasons I was transferred to C25/C Hall is because Correctional Officers Forsyth and Mann wrote an incident reports stating I said I run C6. Along with the Correctional Officer’s incident report they encouraged WestCare employees Justin Brewster and Charolette Hooper (black/female) to write statements supporting their incident report saying I said I run C6. Before Justin and Charolette wrote these statements, I warned them both about using their ID badges to open the bubble where the Correctional Officers are positioned. I saw both of them using their badges to open the bubble door. After I was transferred to C25/C Hall, I heard that Charolette is still using her ID badge to open the bubble door in C6.
 
In addition, after I was informed I would be transferred to C25/C Hall, I found out Justin was going to be transferred back to C6 when I was transferred to C25/C Hall. I informed Director, Stanley Brooks, that if Justin was moved back to C6 I would file a grievance on these issues concerning Justin. Mr. Brooks told me Justin would not be transferred to C6. Mr. Brooks told me Justin would be transferred somewhere because he would not let me get “set up” like that in C25/C Hall. Mr. Brooks may have made this statement because I informed him I could not work with Justin after he falsified that statement to get me transferred out of C6. Nevertheless, Sandy Smith (white/female) assured Justin remained on C25/C Hall when I was transferred there.
 
Now I had to deal with Justin and Sandy Smith in C25/C Hall. Sandy Smith has been mentioned in many of my writings to EEOC because of her involvement with the harassment, intimidation, punishment and intimidation upon me at Sheridan.
 
After being transferred to C25/C Hall, I wrote some incident reports and tickets. On April 28, 2008 I wrote a ticket on an inmate for assault, creating a dangerous disturbance, threats and intimidation and insolence because this inmate pushed me out of the way and entered my office, and then started talking out loud in front of other inmates about what he did creating a dangerous disturbance. Lt. Truitt and I discussed this ticket. Lt. Truitt and I modified the ticket so that the client could remain in Sheridan to receive more therapeutic treatment.
 
On May 1, 2008 at approximately 9:10 am I typed an incident report on 6 inmates who were creating a dangerous disturbance on C25/C Hall. When I typed the incident report on May 1, 2008 and sent it over the computer it went to WestCare’s Regional Vice President Leslie Balonick and to Springfield, Illinois, probably one of IDOC’s main offices. Ms. Balonick contacted Sandy Smith. Sandy Smith came to C25/C Hall to inquire about the incident.
 
The May 1, 2008 incident report happened at approximately 8:15 am. Only 2 WestCare staff showed up for work on May 1, 2008. The handwritten copy of the incident report did not get to the shift commander until approximately 11:30 am. I had to write it by hand after typing it on the computer because the computer generated incident report blended the inmate names into the text of the document. I explained this to the “powers” that be at Sheridan.
 
In addition, when the incident report of May 1, 2008 happened at 8:15 am, I alerted Correctional Officer Churchill. Correctional Officer Churchill responded to the incident, talked to the inmates, and locked the inmates up in their cells at approximately 8:40 am but did not report it to his building Sergeant. Evidently, when the shift commander alerted Warden Rothwell at approximately 11:30 am, because of the numerous inmates involved and found out the Sergeant did not know, the Correctional Officers were feeling nervous and embarrassed, while they looked for a scapegoat, which turned out to be me. Since IDOC officers did not want to take the blame for dropping the ball, suffering embarrassment and consequences, they blamed me and told me I could not go back in the building because I was a threat to the inmates. Sandy Smith gave me up to them because she knew the circumstances because I told her and she did not act in my behalf when IDOC staff and Warden Rothwell looked for a scapegoat and someone to blame. Warden Rothwell issued an order denying me access to my work assignment in C25/C Hall.
 
On May 9, 2008 I wrote an incident report on 7 inmates who were creating a dangerous disturbance. Part of the incident was that an inmate was sharing an emotional story about his family when another inmate teased him about it. The inmate sharing stopped telling his story and warned the other inmate about his actions. The inmates began approaching each other and I intervened to prevent them from fighting. After this was over, I had to write a ticket on an inmate (who was part of the original 7) for threats and intimidation and insolence because this inmate rose up from his seat and began to approach me in a dangerous way to do bodily harm to me, as the other 4 inmates left were continuing to negatively influence these issues.
 
There are 80 inmates out of their cells, on C Hall in C25 during the AM group, which I was facilitating by myself because the 2 staff present did not get involved in assisting me when the issues arose. With 80 inmates out of their cells at one time without any Correctional Officer present; anything can happen, at anytime with an inmate. This could create a dangerous disturbance.
 
There was no IDOC/WestCare staff support for me on the Hall. I had to handle the situations the best I knew how by myself. Building C25 was closed for a period of time this year because of safety issues like this. At times, you have IDOC staff sitting in the bubble with sun glasses on, and probably sleep. There were times when it took forever to get an office door open.
 
On May 9, 2008 Sandy Smith informed me that Director Stanley Brooks told her to tell me I could not go back to C25/C Hall but that I had to stay in C8 for the remainder of the day. I informed Sandy Smith that I was leaving work because I did feel well and that I was going to meet my wife at the doctor for her appointment to get results regarding the possibility of her having Thyroid cancer.

 

It was not until I talked to Stanley Brooks on Mother’s Day, May 11, 2008, that I learned from talking to Mr. Brooks that he told Sandy Smith to tell me to come to C8 to receive a call from him so I could tell him what was going on in C25/C Hall on May 9, 2008. Sandy Smith lied to me to meet her own means, which was to embarrassment, harass, intimidate and threaten me. Sandy Smith, along with the IDOC staff she engaged on the issues of May 9, 2008, denied me access to my work assignment. Sandy Smith always operates this way when it comes to dealing an issue involving me. This is why I informed Mr. Brooks that I did not trust her.
 
The message to me is I cannot write an incident report or a ticket, and if I do I will get punished and embarrassed. IDOC and Sandy Smith are also sending a message telling me I cannot do a good job if I am trying to structure C25/C Hall. They do not want me to succeed. No other supervisor or line-staff person is punished and embarrassed for structuring their building, writing incident reports or tickets but me. This is indifferent treatment. This is blatant discrimination. This is a story of discrimination and indifferent treatment. I am treated at Sheridan differently than similarly situated employees of WestCare.
 
Presently, I am being punished, harassed, intimidated and threatened by IDOC personnel because I wrote incident reports and tickets on inmates. IDOC personnel and WestCare continue to promote that they cannot tell you not to write an incident report and ticket, but since I did I am being punished, harassed, intimidated and threatened. I guess it has worked because now I am “locked out” from my employment. The only threat I pose to IDOC and WestCare is that I will speak the truth and I will not compromise my ethics, integrity or morals, and I will write my story.
 
Most importantly, what is the message being sent to the inmates seeking treatment in a therapeutic community? The inmates can see that IDOC and WestCare are sicker than they are. There are many more inmates seeking my assistance and appreciate me more than there are against me. The inmates tell me everyday. IDOC staff and WestCare supervisory staff on C25/C Hall are not sending the right message to the clients. The clients know now they can split staff and accomplish their goals of continued criminal thinking and behaving.
 
How does this promote a reduction in recidivism Mr. Governor? I informed Mr. Brooks that Sandy Smith referred a client home who is in Phase 1 of his treatment, instead of referring him to a halfway house or recovery home. This is one of the client’s who was listed on the May 1, 2008 incident report I wrote. I believe this client has been in the program for more than a year. I believe this client is in Phase 1 of treatment because he went to Segregation. I discovered this mishap while discussing the client’s 120 discharge plans. Also, when I assumed the duties of supervisor on C25/C Hall I discovered that the inmates filling out applications for Phase 4 were not qualified according to Mr. Brooks criteria/eligibility requirements. I had to deny these clients Phase 4. They were highly angry at me. I asked the staff “Why did they refer clients who did not meet the criteria/eligibility requirements?” The staff told me they just gave out applications. How does this happen? Is this going to reduce recidivism?

 

Sir, I am seeking your intervention in this matter. The Sheridan Project is constructed to reduce recidivism. The IDOC and WestCare staff that I have mentioned in this writing is not promoting the mission of the Sheridan Project.
 
I should not have suffered indifferent treatment and discrimination in employment with WestCare. No other WestCare staff has been treated like I have over the duration of my employment with Gateway/WestCare at Sheridan. Racism flourishes at Sheridan. If a female staff of WestCare had complained in writing about an inmate threatening and intimidating them, the inmate would have been taken to Segregation. If a female staff had written an incident report like mine, the inmates would have been locked up. If a “white” staff person had written reports like mine, the inmates would have been locked up. I had a client once where a “white” female sent the client to Segregation because his fingernails were too long. Because writings had my name on it, it made me a target for IDOC and WestCare employees who differ with my politics.
 
Sir, I started a book for publication on the Sheridan Project months ago. I have enough data to make a good read. I have shared a lot of it on the Internet in the past. What has happened in the past 16 months to me will not make for a good ending to my book on the Sheridan Project.
 
How can we make this work? One should never mess with a person’s livelihood. To lock me out from Sheridan and take my employment is to take food out of my family’s mouth. How do you think I will react? How would you react? Please respond.
 
 
Respectfully submitted,
 
 
Fred L Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS
 
cc:

 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Roger E. Walker Jr., Director IDOC
Danny Davis, Congressman 7th District (Co-Sponsor, Second Chance Act 2007)
Arlen Specter, Senator (Co-Sponsor, Second Chance Act 2007)
Joseph Biden, Senator (Co-Sponsor, Second Chance Act 2007)
Sam Brownback, Senator (Co-Sponsor, Second Chance Act 2007)
Patrick Leahy, Senator (Co-Sponsor, Second Chance Act 2007)
John Conyers, House of Representatives (Co-Sponsor, Second Chance Act 2007)
Lamar Smith, House of Representatives (Co-Sponsor, Second Chance Act 2007)
Stanley Brooks, Director WestCare Illinois
http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/

Illinois’ South Holland Police Department: Discriminatory Practices, Harassment, Intimidation and Retaliation

Update: August 18, 2008

 

On Saturday, August 16, 2008 at approximately 10:20 pm, I picked up a copy of the South Holland Traffic Crash Report. To my amazement Officer Burrow added another traffic charge. The additional charge is “Improper overtaking/passing….” I do not have an additional ticket for this charge. Officer Burrow may have stepped over the line with this one. There is no end to the discriminatory practices and retaliation of the South Holland Police Department. They will not prevail. I have submitted all documentation to my insurance agent, along with the photos taken at the scene. I will litigate this issue to the full extent of the law.

August 13, 2008

 

Mr. Warren Millsaps

Chief of Police, South Holland

16220 Wausau Ave.

South Holland, Illinois 60473

 

Mr. Millsaps:

 

On August 13, 2008 I, Fred Nance Jr., was involved in an automobile accident. Officer K. Burrow Star #129 responded to the call I made to the South Holland Police Department. When Officer Burrow arrived upon the scene I gave him my driver’s license and insurance card. Officer Burrow asked me for my phone number. Officer Burrow wrote my phone number on my insurance card. This was inappropriate. Officer Burrow issued me a ticket, which states “Fail to reduce speed to avoid accident.” There was no reduction in speed needed for this incident. We were only driving about 5 miles an hour. This is a bogus ticket.

 

I explained to Officer Burrow the following about the car accident: As I came around the bend in the road on Thornwood drive approaching the stop sign, a Dodge Caravan was stopped at the turn in the bend. The Dodge did not have its emergency blinkers on. I could not go around the Dodge at the time because another car was coming in the opposite direction.

 

When the other car went by, I was about to turn out and pass the “parked” Dodge. I blew my horn. The Dodge began to move. I turned back behind the Dodge. I began to move. The Dodge stopped again. I stopped my car. I blew my horn for the second time. The Dodge started moving again. I started moving again to turn out to pass the Dodge. All of sudden, the Dodge came to a dead stop again. This is when the front bumper passenger side of my vehicle hit the rear driver’s side bumper of the Dodge. The Dodge was about 30 to 40 feet from the stop sign. I took photos of the accident scene with my cell phone.

 

The driver of the Dodge got out of her car. This driver had her cell phone in her hand. The driver of the Dodge had been on her cell phone during these events. The driver of the Dodge lives in this complex. The driver of Dodge called her husband to come to the scene of the accident. When the husband came over to talk to her about the accident she informed him she was talking on her cell phone to someone when the accident occurred. The driver of the Dodge did not have an earpiece for her cell phone. She was talking on the cell phone and caused the accident.

 

I took pictures of the accident scene, that is, the position of the cars involved, where the cars had damage, the area between the Dodge and the stop sign, and the area of space I described above where the stop-and-go action occurred. The pictures will be faxed with this letter to South Holland Police Department Chief Millsaps.

 

When I objected to this ticket and refused to accept it from Officer Burrow, Officer Burrow through it in my car window. I informed Officer Burrow I had a AAA bond card, as I told him to give me my driver’s license. I informed Officer Burrow that when he decided to write me a ticket he was supposed to ask me if I had a bond card before taking my driver’s license. Officer Burrow told me don’t tell him how to do his job. I informed Officer Burrow if he was doing his job he would not have taken my driver’s license before asking me if I had a bond card. I informed Officer Burrow I know my rights.

 

Officer Burrow told me I would have come to the police station if I wanted my driver’s license because I was causing a disturbance. My wife drove up at this time. I told Officer Burrow I was not going to the South Holland Police Department to get my driver’s license. Officer Burrow decided to take my bond card but would not give me my driver’s license stating he had to check out if he could accept my bond card. I went to my car to get paper and pen to write information about this incident. After making me wait for several minutes, I had to go to Officer Burrow’s police car, and wait again before he gave me my driver’s license.

 

Officer Burrow should have given both drivers a ticket, if he was going to issue tickets. Officer Burrow was not on the scene when the accident occurred. The only person giving Officer Burrow information about this accident was the driver of the Dodge Caravan and me. If Officer Burrow says he got information from someone else, he is lying.

 

I called the duty officer, Lt. Becka. I informed Lt. Becka of the issues, stating Officer Burrow wrote me a bogus ticket retaliating and threatening me because of my complaints about the South Holland Police Department and him in past writings. I asked Lt. Becka how did he spell his name for the record. Lt. Becka immediately told me that I should know how to spell his name since I have written his name in past complaints.

 

On March 18, 2005 I was involved in a 3-car accident where there were no tickets given by the officer for the South Holland Police Department. I complained because the driver that caused the accident was “white” and should have received a ticket. My car and the other driver of the 3^rd car are “black.” The “white” police officer for the South Holland Police Department decided not to issue the “white” female driver a ticket. When the case was settled the “white” driver was found negligent and the cause of the accident. I filed a formal complaint about this issue with the South Holland Police Department. I never received a reply from the South Holland Police Department on the complaint written on or about March 18, 2005.

 

This is part of what I wrote to Chief Millsaps on or about March 18, 2005:

 

On March 18, 2005 I was involved in a three-car accident at 170^th and Langley. Involved in the car accident was a white woman (Denise Lenting) and her passenger (Bonita Vasquez) driving a Toyota Camry, license plate number 3472264; a black woman (Mary Ambrose) and her son (Sullivan Ambrose age 14) driving a Lexus, license plate number 2720486; and my car (Fred Nance, a black man) driving a Nissan Altima, license plate number 1268347.

 

There was an outside witness to the accident, Ms. Laura Clemons, license plate number C936809, telephone number 708-331-2291. As the Toyota came off of Langley to proceed onto 170^th Street, Ms. Clemons blew her car horn continuously attempting to alert the Toyota driver to the oncoming traffic, the Lexus and Nissan. The Toyota ignored the warning.

 

The Lexus and Nissan driver gave the above information to Officer Kremski (white). Officer Kemski ignored the information about Ms. Clemons stating that if she was a witness she should have stayed on the scene. I asked him why would she have to stay on the scene if she gave her information up freely to be contacted by SHPD. I asked Officer Kremski doesn’t he do an investigation into the facts of the matter. He informed me that he only questions people on the scene about car accidents.

 

I asked him why didn’t he issue tickets so that a fact-finder, such as the courts, could get testimony and seek all witnesses. Officer Kremski informed me that because of his past experiences with traffic court and people not showing up has discouraged him from giving tickets at the scene of accidents. This is ludicrous.

 

The South Holland police officer involved in the March 18, 2005 issue was Kremski, ID #106. I have written about this police officer many times coming to my house harassing and intimidating me (see documents I submitted to you on February 11, 2005). As with Officer Kremski, I have written many times about Officer Burrow harassing and intimidating me coming to my home.

 

Therefore, I am submitting this as a formal complaint against the South Holland Police Department. The ticket I received was bogus and I should not have received it especially, if Officer Burrow was not going to issue the other driver a ticket.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

Fred Nance Jr.

 

cc:

 

http://clickforjusticeandequality2.blogspot.com/

http://clickforjusticeandequality.wordpress.com/

http://click.townhall.com/

http://frednance.newsvine.com/ 

 

This case was also dismissed, after I wasted my day and time going to court for it. Chief Millsaps never answered this letter.

 

January 2, 2008

 

Mr. Warren Millsaps

Chief of Police, South Holland

16220 Wausau Ave.

South Holland, Illinois 60473

 

Re:       Racial Profiling – Harassment – Intimidation

 

Mr. Millsaps:

 

I, Fred L Nance Jr., am an African American. The racial profiling by the South Holland Police Department (SHPD) continues. On December 31, 2007, Officer Pedric of the SHPD issued a traffic citation to me for improper lane usage on Cottage Grove. This ticket was bogus and inappropriate.

 

As you know, there is only one lane of travel in each direction of travel going North and South on Cottage Grove between 170^th Street and 162^nd Street. If a person wants to make a left turn, they must cross the double lines and enter the lane for turning. If a person decides, after crossing the double lines to make this left turn, they want to return to the lane of original travel, they must cross the double lines again to enter their original lane of travel.

 

Officer Pedric, who is white, decided to stop me and tell me I misused the turning lane to pass another car on the road. This is not true. After entering the turning lane, I decided to get back into the original lane of travel. Officer Pedric did not ask me why I entered the turning lane in the first place. Officer Pedric told me I entered the turning lane to pass the car in front of me.

 

I was traveling North on Cottage Grove from 170^th Street, when a car turned into Cottage Grove from a side street in front of me. This car turned into Cottage Grove where I would have had an accident if I did not go into the turning lane. After going into the turning lane, I came out of the turning lane and re-entered my original lane of travel proceeding on my course. This is when Officer Pedric came upon me with his squad car and stopped me. Officer Pedric did not stop the other car that was driven by the “white” driver.

 

While Officer Pedric was writing my traffic citation, 2 other squad cars appeared on the scene. It is my belief because of previous written complaints about racial profiling and disparate/indifferent treatment of African Americans by SHPD, I was targeted by SHPD. I asked Officer Pedric for the other “white” Officers names and badge numbers. Officer Pedric refused to give me their names and badge numbers. I wrote the officers license plates numbers and car identification numbers down. They are Car #14 M146676 and Car #10 M153782, both “white” officers.

 

I went to SHPD on December 31, 2008 (a few hours after the incident) to report this incident. I asked to speak to the duty commander. I was informed he or she was out in the street on duty. I left a message requesting a call. I never received a call from the duty commander or SHPD.

 

Therefore, I am suggesting SHPD targets African Americans for traffic citations, especially those who complain about their other “professional” practices. I am suggesting Officer Pedric called in my name and I am in their system marked as a person of interest if I am ever stopped or approached about any police matters in South Holland. I am suggesting SHPD has a monthly ticket quota to assist in municipal revenue. I am suggesting SHPD does not adhere to public policy regarding racial profiling and harasses its citizens through intimidation, coercion and threats.

 

I have contested this ticket and will appear in a court of law. Contesting this ticket will cost me employment hours/work days and will become a financial burden to litigate. This financial burden is meant to create disparity and indifferent treatment toward African Americans in South Holland, Illinois.

 

Racism is alive and well in South Holland, Illinois, and in many other parts of Illinois. Illinois may be the most racist State in the Union. The South Holland Police Department is not racially motivated toward equality for all just because they hire African Americans on its police force. I am suggesting they hire African Americans on their police force for political purposes and because of present laws regarding hiring quotas for African Americans.

 

 

Fred L Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS

 

cc:

 

Mr. DeGraff, Mayor Village of South Holland

http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/

http://click.townhall.com/

 

P.S.

 

See other complaints about the South Holland Police Department on my website at http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/

Illinois Village of South Holland: Discriminatory Practices

Update: August 18, 2008

 

On or about August 14, 2008 I received a letter from the South Holland Attorney law firm of Hiskes, Dillner, O’Donnell, Marovich and Lapp. Their letter dated August 13, 2008 states, in part, “…Your request is denied since specific documents are not requested….” They also go on with how the South Holland “water billing” system is automated. I guess this will excuse the behavior of the Village of South Holland. Nevertheless, the statement issued in this letter will not suffice. I have gotten bills totaling what they believe is their cap where Village residents receive “shut-off” notices. I did not receive ”shut-off” notices for these bills. I will submit another request through the Freedom of Information Act with more “specific” details of documents. The “first” request is below.

August 6, 2008

 

Mr. Don DeGraff, Mayor of South Holland

16226 Wausau Ave.

South Holland, Illinois 60473

 

Re:       Water Shut-Off Notice

 

Mr. DeGraff:

 

On August 5, 2008 I received a “water shut-off notice” for a past due amount of $59.93 and a current amount of $50.97. On August 6, 2008 I filed with the Village of South Holland a request for public records under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (F.O.I.A.). This appears to be discriminatory, intimidating and threatening practice.

 

This request states: “I respectfully request the Village of South Holland Illinois give access to Fred Nance Jr. to inspect the records of the Water Department for the purpose of assuring equal access and for determining if discriminatory practices are occurring with residents of the Village of South Holland in receiving “water shut-off notices” due to being late for 1 month’s billing without receiving a regular bill with the past (1 month’s billing) and the current (1 month) charge.”

 

On December 2, 2005 I wrote a letter to Mayor DeGraff about this same practice. The mayor failed to respond to my correspondence. The letter stated in part “…On December 2, 2005, I received “a bright red letter” stating, “Water Shut-off Notice” from the Village of South Holland. It reports I have a past due balance of $36.73, and a current balance of $33.68. The notice states, in part, “If the Total Now Due is not paid in full by the 20^th of the month, your water service will be automatically suspended within 48 hours without further notice.” Sir, the current balance of $33.68 is not due until December 20, 2005, yet your letter infers we owe this balance now… The Village of South Holland reports my past due balance of $36.73 is from October 21, 2005 to November 20, 2005. The Village of South Holland reports my current balance is $33.68. This $33.68 must cover the period of November 21, 2005 to December 20, 2005. The Village of South Holland has determined my family deserves a “Water Shut-off Notice” because of the above. I am sure everyone living in South Holland with similar water bills has not received a “Water Shut-off Notice.” This “Water Shut-off Notice” is not signed.”

 

I request a response to my letter of December 2, 2005 and this correspondence, and access to the records requested through Freedom of Information Act.

 

Thank you.

 

Fred Nance Jr.

 

cc:

http://clickforjusticeandequality2.blogspot.com/

http://clickforjusticeandequality.wordpress.com/

www.frednance.newsvine.com/

 

December 2, 2005

 

Mr. Don DeGraff, Mayor of South Holland

16226 Wausau Ave.

South Holland, Illinois 60473

 

Re:       South Holland’s Harassment, Retaliation, and Discrimination: Here we go again

 

Mr. DeGraff:

 

Do you know what your departments are doing? Does the Village of South Holland believe they can keep on harassing, intimidating, and discriminating against my family and me? I will seek legal counsel to sue the Village of South Holland. The Village of South Holland is not demanding every citizen living in South Holland to be subject to this type of madness. This is intentional discrimination, harassment, and intimidation.

 

On December 2, 2005, I received “a bright red letter” stating, “Water Shut-off Notice” from the Village of South Holland. It reports I have a past due balance of $36.73, and a current balance of $33.68. The notice states, in part, “If the Total Now Due is not paid in full by the 20^th of the month, your water service will be automatically suspended within 48 hours without further notice.” Sir, the current balance of $33.68 is not due until December 20, 2005, yet your letter infers we owe this balance now. How can the Village of South Holland make a statement as “Total Now Due” when it is not due until December 20, 2005? The Village of South Holland is bogus.

 

The Village of South Holland reports my past due balance of $36.73 is from October 21, 2005 to November 20, 2005. The Village of South Holland reports my current balance is $33.68. This $33.68 must cover the period of November 21, 2005 to December 20, 2005. The Village of South Holland has determined my family deserves a “Water Shut-off Notice” because of the above. I am sure everyone living in South Holland with similar water bills has not received a “Water Shut-off Notice.” This “Water Shut-off Notice” is not signed. I guess the same coward who sent the bogus, harassing, and intimidating letter about my car sent this letter. This coward has the same statement, as before, that is “Our records indicate….”

 

The Village of South Holland has targeted my family for harassment, intimidation, and discrimination. My regular bill issued on November 1, 2005 reports a balance of $53.83 and $36.73 due on November 20, 2005. We sent a check to the Village of South Holland on October 25, 2005 in the amount of $53.83. This left a balance of $36.73. This balance is 12 days late as of the date of this letter. I have not received a “regular” statement of the current amount owed of $33.68, as stated in the “Water Shut-off Notice.” Instead of receiving a “regular” statement with the past due balance and the current balance due, the Village of South Holland decided to punish, discriminate, harass, and intimidate me for publishing and posting my complaints against on my website.

 

It is real clear what the Village of South Holland has done. They believe if they continue to harass, intimidate, threaten, and discriminate against me I will move. I am not going anywhere.

 

We will pay $36.73 as we had planned on or about December 3, 2005. We will have a balance of $33.68. We refuse to be harassed, intimidated, and discriminated against by the Village of South Holland. The Village of South Holland’s “Water Shut-off Notice” states, in part, “If a shut-off occurs, to get your water service turned back on you must pay the Total Amount Due shown above, plus the $75 Turn-On Fee.” The Village of South Holland should get ready to shut my water off for the amount due of $33.68 on December 20, 2005.

 

I have been writing my Illinois State Representatives for months, Mr. James Meeks and Mr. David Miller for years about the issues I face daily with the Village of South Holland. It appears none of my Illinois State Representatives has responded to the Village of South Holland or me. If a constituent cannot get assistance from their State Representatives then someone else needs to have their seat. I am not an isolated incident with the Village of South Holland or of my Illinois State Representatives non-actions. Even Mr. Jesse White, the Illinois Secretary of State (read my letter of November 15, 2005 about the Village of South Holland posted on my website), has not responded to my previous letter faxed to his office, which impacts his office directly.

 

I will continue to publish and post my complaints against the Village of South Holland alerting my Illinois State Representatives. I will continue to inform the general public of the non-actions of my Illinois State Representatives. Voters need to know how they can be ignored because they attempt to fight for their Constitutional rights and Human Right to be left alone.

 

This would not be happening if my Illinois State Representatives acted. Their non-actions fuel the fires of ignorance. People, Mississippi is burning.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Fred L Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS

 

cc:

 

Fax copies sent to the following:

 

Mr. Don DeGraff, Mayor of South Holland (hard copy mailed)

United States Senator Barack Obama

Illinois State Senator James Meeks

Illinois State Representative David Miller

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich

Illinois Secretary of State

http://clickforjusticeandequaltiy.blogspot.com/

 

P.S.

 

The Village of South Holland is so petty. This is all they can find on me. There is nothing to find.

 

This is a breakdown of my “Water” bill. The Village of South Holland bills its residents after usage. The bill will always be for the previous month.

 

For September 21, 2005 to October 20, 2005: Billing date November 1, 2005

 

• Sewer  Flat                              $  0.38
• Refuse Pickup                            15.00
• Sewer                                          3.29
• Water                                         10.06

Total                                                    $36.73

 

            For October 21, 2005 to November 20, 2000: Billing date December 1, 2005

 

·        Sewer Flat                                $ 0.38

·        Refuse Pickup                          15.00

·        Sewer                                         2.82

·        Water                                       15.48

 

Total                                                    $33.68

 

The Village of South Holland is outrageous. Future vendors and business people beware. The World should know how they operate.

 

Justice Center: The Council of State Governments

August 5, 2008

 

CSG Justice Center Releases Innovative Web-Based Tool to Help State and Local Officials Improve Prisoner/Inmate Reentry.

 

The Council of State Governments Justice Center unveiled today a first-of-its-kind interactive online tool for state and local government professionals working to make prison and jail reentry safer and more successful. The tool was developed with support from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice, to familiarize state and local government officials with different assessment instruments used in corrections systems across the nation to gauge the risks and needs of someone admitted to prison or jail.

 

“The only way we can stop the cycle of recidivism is to start planning for an individual’s return to the community from the very first step he or she takes into a prison or jail,” said Justin Jones, Director of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections. “Prison and jail officials need the latest thinking on assessment tool options to inform prison and jail programming, as well as decisions about release and community supervision.”

 

According to the Justice Center, such information is typically collected through a series of screenings, assessments, and evaluations conducted before sentencing and immediately after admittance to a correctional institution. This information should be updated periodically throughout the person’s incarceration and during any community supervision. The information also should be used to make decisions about how to manage risk, deliver treatment and other services, and allocate resources.

 

“One reason this tool is so valuable is because it allows staff to search for key information at particular decision points (such as admission to a facility) or to search by topic areas (such as risk and security classifications, mental health, substance abuse, education, employment, housing, family relationships, and financial status),” said AT Wall, Director of the Rhode Island Department of Corrections. “Each of these categories includes descriptions of information to gather, examples of validated assessment instruments, resources and recommendations about prioritization, and suggestions for who should be charged with collecting each kind of data.”

 

The online resource is part of a larger toolkit the Justice Center plans to release in fall 2008 that will include a policy guide and three case studies of the collective experiences of jurisdictions that applied the guide’s recommendations to improve their assessment processes. The availability of the complete toolkit will be announced this fall in an upcoming issue of the Reentry Policy Council’s newsletter.