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.,
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.,
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 3rd 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 14th and 6th 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 (3rd 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/
