Pursuant to my letter to the St. Clair County State’s Attorney and Chief Judge, I received an email from Brendan Kelly, the Clerk of the Circuit Clerk. Interestingly enough, of the 3 persons to receive my letter, Mr. Kelly is the only who is constitutionally impotent to afford any relief or take any action. The State’s Attorney and Chief Judge have failed to respond in any way whatsoever, but Mr. Kelly appears to be the hapless bureaucrat who acted with “good intentions” for little ‘ol me. However, since I am “special” and loved by so many in government, I was not charged any sort of filing fee for my complaints. The emails appear in order from the most recent to the oldest. I hope you ask the same questions I’ve been asking since this all began. It’s really very simple. Mr. Haida, charge the Fairview Heights Policemen, Joshua Alemond and Aaron Nyman with official misconduct and, Mr. Baricevic, if he fails to do so then you should appoint a special prosecutor. That’s what I thought.
Email from 8/27/10
Thank you for your reply.
The complaints which I described as misdemeanors were clearly captioned “Criminal Complaints”. I distinctly recall the clerks, on more than one occasion, asking me about the nature of my complaints, as well as inspecting them. They were shared with a number of people in your office in an effort, I presume, to determine the proper course of action. At one point I was instructed to leave the complaints with your clerks who then promised to investigate the process for filing, and who ultimately returned them to me via US Mail after a determination had been made that there was nothing they could do for such complaints. I admit that I acted in error by bringing them to your office and seeking guidance, but such has been the advice given to me by others. Although you and your staff are not charged with a duty of providing legal advice, it is not unreasonable for someone to inquire about whether your duties are proper for affording the relief sought. Again, mea culpa, for acting upon the advice of others who are presumed to know the law and procedures.
However, my complaints were clearly marked as “criminal complaints” and refused by your clerks on more than one occasion before being received by you, personally. There was no subterfuge or trickery in my attempting to slip criminal complaints past the clerks in effort to have them filed when they otherwise would not. The charges alleged in those complaints were subject to the statute of limitations, which you state was of no concern, for your office having received and filed them. Maybe I should have been more specific, since there are statutory limitations on the initiation of civil as well as criminal matters. So your statement that I was deprived of no relief by way of any lapsing statute is partially correct, if my complaints were civil in nature. I have yet to find a provision within the criminal code for tolling a statutory limitation for having filed complaints with the Clerk of the Court.
In the second paragraph of your email you make reference to deputized clerks of the court possessing a legal obligation to file documents which are presented to them. I thank you for your candor and confirmation in expressing the constitutional duties of the clerks serving under your direction. This does raise two questions, however. One, if the clerks do serve under such a constitutional obligation then I must inquire why it took so many visits to your office, and persistence, before I finally met with you to receive my complaints? I do not mean for the actions of the deputized clerks to reflect upon you personally, but in a sense, they do reflect the policies, duties, and standards promulgated by your office. If there existed such a duty at the time I engaged the clerks, over a number of visits, then I wish to inform you of either a lack of understanding for that duty or a reluctance to submit to it. I must say that the ultimate exercise of that duty was not realized until I met with you, and before that time, my visits to your office proved both frustrating and arduous. I do not believe the question has been answered as to whether or not the Clerk of the Court is constitutionally proper in receiving sworn criminal complaints. If the complaints were brought in error, which I now contend, then the clerks acted properly in not accepting them. The second question I have then is what, if any, filing fee would be assigned to my type of complaints; where in the published court rules and fees can said fee be found; and did the filing of my complaints inevitably bind me to remitting a fee that I am was not otherwise aware of? I have not been asked to remit a fee and since the papers were received and filed without a fee, does that affect the efficacy of the filing? Realizing my error, I would not choose to remit a fee for erroneous filing.
Lastly, addressing your final paragraph, you mention there has been no conversation with either the State’s Attorney or judiciary. In your voice message left on my mobile you make reference to, “…get the judge’s advice about where it should go…” which would indicate an intent to speak with a judge at some time in the future regarding the complaints. As documents were file stamped on June 17, 2010, and your email of August 26, 2010 states there has been no discussion with the judiciary, I would like to ask, within the context of your voice message of August 20, 2010, just when was a conversation to take place with the judiciary for advice about where the complaints should go? I would hope that some conversation had taken place with the judiciary, subsequent to the June 17, 2010 file stamp. I apologize if I was presumptuous in assuming any conversation had taken place, but I believe it is not unreasonable to believe such, given your voice message and amount of time, which had elapsed between the file stamp of June 17, 2010 and the present. I copied the State’s Attorney and Chief Judge on the documents you received on 8/16/2010, both of whom remain conspicuously silent on the matter. That issue is not germane for the purposes of this email, but it does speak to full disclosure to all parties who may be able to provide some guidance on the matter.
As an aside, the case management system of which you speak is, in my opinion, something less to be desired. Subsequent to a dismissal of charges on order of the court, I received orders filed by your office. The orders do not accurately reflect the proceedings. The Court dismissed all charges, yet, in Case Number 06TR0058724 the order states, “The Court orders the charge be dismissed by motion of the state.” The state made no such motion and the Court cannot compel the state to make such motion. Then again in Case Number(s) 09MC0000942, 09TR0009129, 09TR0009130, and 09TR0009132, the, “Court orders the charge be dismissed with prejudice by the Prosecution.”, which is incorrect. An official court reporter transcript clearly reflects the Court dismissing the charges, yet the record represents the Court ordering the charges be dismissed by the state, in some of the cases “with prejudice”. This is not an accurate reflection of the record. When I inquired with one of the clerks about this inconsistency, she commented that the system does not provide for orders being dismissed by the Court. This poses possibly serious consequences in that if a record were required for appellate review, the erroneous reflection of the record could significantly prejudice the defendant, as appeals deal specifically with the official record. In my opinion, this is a serious issue that I thought should be brought to your attention.
I appreciate your position in directing me towards legal counsel and yes, I agree there is a level of complexity in navigating the “system”, but a complexity that is not usually an insurmountable bar to study, inquiry, and reason, but one which has been intentionally belabored, compounded, manipulated, and obscured by the very persons with whom you suggest I should consult.
If you will indulge me this one diatribe; it is the function of government to protect the rights and property of the individual who voluntarily submits to the authority of that government which exists only through consent, support, and allegiance of the governed. All sovereignty begins with and remains with the people. What has manifested today is a “system” which purports to pass law; which is nothing more than legislative prohibitions upon otherwise non-violent acts masquerading as police powers or administrative regulations. Law is beyond the reach of government. It does not derive from legislative proclamations or will of the majority. Law is the master of governments, not clay to be molded into weapons by it, to be used against the inhabitants. The remedy I seek is discernible in both common law and statutes. If I sought lesser and more barbarous justice I would emulate a law enforcement officer and take shelter behind a policy for my wrongdoing. Just my observations. I have finished.
Finally, as I am distrusting of surgeons and aspirin, being a naturalist, I will pursue my objectives honestly, diligently, and peaceably, wherever they may take me.
Thank you for your time, and please abandon any further attempts to file my criminal complaints in any regard whatsoever, notwithstanding an arrangement facilitated through your efforts in my meeting with the Grand Jury. I look forward to your response and clarification on the questions posed herein.
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 10:39:07 -0500
“Brendan Kelly” <brendan.kelly [at] co.st-clair.il dot us> wrote:
> Mr. McCoy:
> The original complaints which you describe as misdemeanors were filed
> with this office and received a “file stamp” on the date which you filed
> them- June 17, 2010. When these documents received a case type
> assignment and placed into an actual file folder is not relevant to the
> issue of statute of limitations and does not deprive you of any relief
> at least in that regard. Again, the “file stamp” date of June 17, 2010
> is the relevant date for those documents- the very day you filed them
> Since those documents were received and file stamped by a deputized
> clerk of the court, and since the more recent package of information
> which you describe as felonies was also similarly file stamped- on
> August 16, 2010- a record of some type had to be created. That is legal
> obligation as the Clerk of the Court. As a matter of course, criminal
> charges of any type either felony or misdemeanor are initiated by the
> State’s Attorney or grand jury in our case management system. Since the
> documents you filed with my office were not filed by either entity, and
> because some record was required, those filings were assigned case
> number 10-MR-212. MR stands for “miscellaneous remedy.” A wide variety
> of legal issues fall into that category and is often the case type used
> when it may not be clear where a party’s pleadings need to go. In some
> circumstances, legal issues in an MR case are later assigned a different
> case type once the court has made a determination where they belong.
> This may or may not be the outcome in your case. Also, the earlier June
> filing in no way precludes the later August filing. They are both in
> the file. Which issues you pursue are up to you.
> At this point I have had absolutely zero discussions with the State’s
> Attorney regarding your case, nor have I had any discussions with the
> judiciary. As the Clerk, my role is not to comment on the merits of
> your case or particular legal arguments. In fact, I am prohibited from
> giving you any legal advise- that would violate my constitutional duty
> to be an unbiased administrative officer of the judicial branch. My
> role is to simply maintain some sort of record according to the laws of
> Illinois and allow the parties to present their case for resolution by
> the court. Truly, my very best advise to you is to seek legal counsel.
> Novel cases such as yours would be well served by a trained attorney.
> Our democratic system of laws should be easy to navigate in all cases by
> any citizen, but some cases definitely require the guidance of an
> officer of the court and member of the bar. Some physical ailments can
> be addressed by taking an aspirin, others require a surgeon.
> Please let me know if I can be of further assistance regarding the
> record in this case.
> Very Respectfully,
> Brendan F. Kelly
> Clerk of the Circuit Court
> St. Clair County, Illinois
> 10 Public Square
> Belleville, Illinois 62220
> (618) 277-6600 – Main Number
> (618) 277-1562 – FAX
>brendan.kelly [at] co.st-clair.il dot us
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this email (and in
> any accompanying documents) is covered by the Electronic Communications
> Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510-2521, is legally privileged and may
> constitute confidential information. If you are not the intended
> recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of
> this email or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have
> received this email communication in error, please notify the sender
> immediately and delete the message from your system.
> —–Original Message—–
> From: Mark McCoy [mailto:mark [at] markmccoy dot com] On Behalf Of Mark
> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 8:31 PM
> To: Brendan Kelly
> Subject: Re: case
> Mr. Kelly,
> Thank you for the reply,
> To answer your question, what I need to be done is, per my mail package
> received by your office, is to either present my complaints to the
> States Attorney or Grand Jury. Considering the inattentiveness of the
> State’s Attorney, I am inclined towards the Grand Jury.
> I mentioned to your assistant that the complaints which you took
> possession of were no longer required. Too much time had elapsed since I
> gave them to you and you contacting me on 8/20. The statute of
> limitations expired on the misdemeanors and I chose then to frame the
> complaints as official misconduct charges, which are felonies. Which
> leads me to my next question; why were criminal complaints filed after I
> sent message to you via your assistant that I no longer required them in
> that form, why were they filed outside the statute of limitations, and
> why were they filed as civil cases?
> With all due respect, Mr. Kelly, given the gravity of the charges I
> would have expected to have been contacted by the State’s Attorney by
> now. That issue is not your concern, but I reasonably assume that there
> has been some conversation between your office and the State’s Attorney
> in regards to this matter. I acted upon information imparted to me by
> others who were presumed to know the process, but upon witnessing the
> lack of knowledge and information amongst so many who are charged with
> the public trust to provide guidance, I must assume there is either an
> intentional refusal to assist private individuals in finding the proper
> forum for such matters or a genuine lack of understanding regarding the
> laws they are elected to administer.
> In your case, I see no further action necessary since this is not within
> the purview of the office of the Circuit Clerk to address. I requested
> your assistant to inform you of my wishes to abandon the complaints. The
> complaints were not only mis-filed, but filed at such a time so as to
> deprive me of any relief due to expiration of statutory limitations. It
> seems this has been serendipitous, since it caused me to discover the
> method by which misdemeanors could support felony complaints of official
> I will now pursue relief directly through the State’s Attorney or
> approach the Grand Jury directly. If you have any information which may
> prove helpful in expediting this objective I would be happy to receive
> it. Nevertheless, I will succeed in presenting the new complaints to
> those so encumbered with a constitutional duty to act, where their
> actions may be upon the record for all to see.
> Feel free to forward this message to any parties whom you may feel would
> find interest in the subject matter or who are otherwise empowered to
> Thank you for your time.
> On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 16:41:58 -0500
> “Brendan Kelly” <brendan.kelly [at] co.st-clair.il dot us> wrote:
> > Mr. McCoy:
> > Sometimes it is difficult to reach me by phone. I get nearly 30
> > messages a day so please try to e-mail and maybe we can figure out
> > what needs to be done at this point.
> > Very Respectfully,
> > Brendan F. Kelly
> > Clerk of the Circuit Court
> > St. Clair County, Illinois
> > 10 Public Square
> > Belleville, Illinois 62220
> > (618) 277-6600 – Main Number
> > (618) 277-1562 – FAX
> > firstname.lastname@example.org
> > <mailto:brendan.kelly [at] co.st-clair.il dot us>
> > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this email (and
> > in any accompanying documents) is covered by the Electronic
> > Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510-2521, is legally
> > privileged and may constitute confidential information. If you are
> > not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying,
> > distribution or use of this email or any attachment is strictly
> > prohibited. If you have received this email communication in error,
> > please notify the sender immediately and delete the message from your
> Mark McCoy – Articulate Anarchy, Reasoned Rebellion, Paroxysmal
> Philosophy Promoting Natural Rights and Civil Disobedience
> http://www.markmccoy.com email@example.com
Mark McCoy – Articulate Anarchy, Reasoned Rebellion, Paroxysmal Philosophy
Promoting Natural Rights and Civil Disobedience
mark [at] markmccoy dot com