Category Archives: Meet Judge Robert Lechien

Electile Dysfunction – Don't "Pull a Boner" and Vote for These People

When it comes to selecting a Democratic candidate from this year’s political menu, nothing speaks more to flaccid competency than the St. Clair County Democratic Party. I find all government to be a manifestation of a societal mental disorder, but the boots-on-the-ground for this political profundity are those served up on ballots across America. The fifedom known as a Judicial Hellhole, St. Clair County, is home to some of the more renowned malfeasants I have come to know.

I find it hard to believe that I would be so unfortunate to have encountered all of these officials and received the kind of treatment I witnessed. It is safe to say that arrogance, incompetence, and fraud are the order of the day for politics in St. Clair County and dare I say, probably everywhere. The issue is so systemic that jokes are made of public incompetence and corruption as though it were expected. Yet, people continue to vote for people like this and then proceed to whine.

The range of actions witnessed by the foregoing individuals goes from malfeasance to criminal. Mr. Kelly went so far as to invoke his constitutional duty, in one of our email conversations, and then in an act of fraud, file a civil case on my behalf.

I make no secret about my feelings towards government. I hold myself, and mankind, to a higher standard. Ordinary people elect ordinary people to do extraordinary things that in some way touch all of our lives. Truth be told, they are just ordinary people and have no power to do anything unless we surrender our will, and subsequently our wealth, to them and the institution they serve. Public service has become self-interest and becoming beholden to oligarchs who control us through our purse strings and threat of reprisal from the all-powerful State.

My experiences with these people was not an anomaly, or a one-off. I did not happen to catch them on a bad day. These are people who, when held to a standard presumed to be applicable to all who supposedly take an oath that at some point references a constitution designed to preserve and protect individual rights, resort to violence, fraud, and arrogance in either avoiding that duty or turning that power against us. I urge voters to not select any of these individuals for office. I make my case below.

Brendan Kelly - State's Attorney

State’s Attorney, Brendan Kelly. The man who mishandled criminal complaints as circuit clerk and filed a civil case on my behalf in an effort to derail my pursuit of criminal charges against police. I’ve had a number of actual, and attempted, conversations with Mr. Kelly all of which I have thoroughly documented. I believe if Mr. Kelly acted the way he did as Circuit Clerk then how can he be trusted with the power of the State’s Attorney? If Mr. Kelly acted in his official capacity and took sworn criminal complaints under the pretense of properly filing them, and then file a civil case on someone’s behalf where no filing fee is paid, how does that translate to being entrusted with executing the duties of the State’s Attorney where integrity should be primary consideration since we are talking about prosecuting individuals for violations of law which could result in their being imprisoned or executed? Is this the type of character we want in these matters? I think not. There are also other allegations brought to me by other concerned individuals concerning Mr. Kelly’s actions in office, but to be fair, until I have examined the allegations and evidence I can make no such mention here.

Zina Cruse - Associate Judge

Photo courtesy Zina Cruse for Judge

Judge, Zina Cruse. The woman who jailed me for contempt when I refused to enter a plea to a charge that was dismissed 3 years prior. I have posted about Ms. Cruse’s deficiencies a number of times. When confronted with a paper from her own court demanding an appearance for a specific issue, and then to adjudicate on another entirely different and moot issue is not the makings of a reasonable judge. Going further, when presented with the information, she becomes emotional and aggressive, calling the bailiffs to take me into custody for disagreeing with her and threatening to have me jailed over an entire weekend for contempt. Ms. Cruse seems to have some emotional or mental deficiencies that render her incapable of reason and impartiality.

Kahala Dixon - Circuit Clerk

Acting Circuit Clerk, Kahala Dixon. The woman who, then serving as Assistant State’s Attorney, argued that jurisdiction was related only to where an offense occurred (the situs), and that the State’s failure to file a verified complaint was not a jurisdictional matter. She also attempted to proceed to trial without a witness, and when the defendant moved to dismiss, she felt entitled to another court date because it is common for the State to not have their witnesses ready on the trial date. Ms. Dixon did not understand that there is subject matter jurisdiction, and in personam jurisdiction. She could only focus on “Did it happen in St. Clair County?” as her justification, and not on the fact that for the State to have in personam jurisdiction, there must be a properly filed complaint, and when the accused demands the filing of a verified complaint, under the law, she has a mental vapor-lock and requests a new trial date where she can really be prepared this time. Better she serve in the Circuit Clerk’s office where she can’t hurt anyone directly.

Judge Robert Lechien

Photo courtesy the Madison Record

Judge Robert Lechien. The judge who was previously assigned to my civil case against Fairview Heights Police. I filed the suit pro se, and in the usual course of business the opposing counsel filed motions for particular relief in a matter. Before I go on, some will say my opinion of Lechien results from sour grapes because I did not receive the ruling I desired and such is the way of law, and I’m just a poor loser. That may be said, even though I believe I thoroughly rebutted the opposing side based on the law, but the sticking point was when Judge Lechien called the letter of the law “punctilious”. What he was saying is, I am asking the court to apply the technical and specific wording of the law to the issue at hand, and that is presumably unreasonable. When I held him to the actual letter of the law and it’s application in other cases, he resorts to saying, “You’re just being picky.” If that is the case, then the Constitution, statutes, his oath…. are “punctilious”, and therefore of no power to bind him to any standard other than we he creates.

Judge Vincent Lopinot

Photo courtesy the Madison Record

Judge Vincent Lopinot. I originally had no issue with Judge Lopinot, as my initial exposure to him was as my instructor in a torts class I took at a local college. I may be judging Mr. Lopinot a little too harshly, but I took exception to the way he callously dismissed me when I attempted to approach him regarding criminal complaints against police officers, a duty bound to him by way of his position as a judge. He told me he did not have to hear such complaints and stomped out of the courtroom, after what I have to admit was a respectful ruling on a case he had just finished presiding over when the above, Khala Dixon, was acting as Assistant State’s Attorney. I also took exception to the way he handled a seat-belt ticket for my niece when she attempted to present a motion I had written to the court where Lopinot was presiding. He treated her with the same callousness and contempt he treated me. You could be my best friend, but when you have a duty to act then you act. You do not turn your back and walk away. On this point, I find it impossible to recommend Judge Lopinot for election. He may have acted out of ignorance, but as the adage goes, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

The elusive Brian Alben Babka

Judge Brian A. Babka. This judge is the consummate schmoozer and issue-dodger. Babka is the personification of the bastard-lawsuit filed on my behalf by Brendan Kelly when he was Circuit Clerk. I had 2 hearings before Babka regarding the issue, and he is aware that the case was not filed by me, but by Mr. Kelly. He continued to engage the fraud and hear my arguments regarding bringing criminal charges against Fairview Heights Police officers, Joshua Alemond and Aaron Nyman. Judge Babka actually had in his possession the criminal complaints, as well as my motions for presenting them to the court. Upon reviewing the supporting case law I provided where a private individual can present sworn complaints to a “magistrate” for hearing and upon finding probable cause issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused to be later held for possible prosecution, Babka managed to dodge the issue by claiming he did not know the difference between a magistrate and an associate judge. I went on to file a meticulous brief in support of my motion which Babka summarily dismissed.

I do not have a picture of Babka, but aside from my site information, here are some other links to his professional life.

Tagged , , , ,

Judge LeChien calls the letter of the law, "punctilios".

In the ongoing battle with the City of Fairview Heights, Patrolman Joshua Alemond and Patrolman Aaron Nyman, I had a hearing on Nov. 8, 2010 in courtroom 401 in St. Clair County, Illinois. The purpose for the hearing was to determine if the Defendant’s were to enjoy further protection under the Service Member’s Civil Relief Act. The Defendant’s received a 90 day stay in the proceedings on August 5, 2010 when the presiding judge, Robert LeChien, ruled that the motion for stay met the requirements of the SCRA. I argued that the evidence and exhibits submitted by the defense did not meet the requirements of the act. I lost, and the Defendant’s were entitled to an initial 90 day stay with a hearing to determine if the stay should be extended to cover the duration of Alemond’s deployment. Nov. 8, 2010 was that date.

I will not dwell on the particulars. I am bringing this action against the City of Fairview Heights and Patrolmen Alemond and Nyman, pro se. Most of the attorneys I spoke with would only take the case if I pursued a Title 42 action for violation of Civil Rights, which do not apply to me since I am  not a US citizen. So, my last recourse was to pursue an action in tort in state court.

What was particularly interesting in the hearing of Nov. 8, 2010 was the blatant bias exhibited by judge LeChien. I believe the man knows the law, but uses his position to either ignore it or use it as his personal tool and weapon against those who he feels is not worthy of his magnanimity.

The point raised in my objection was that the defense, after already enjoying a 90 day stay on an insufficient pleading, lacking the information specified by the Act, brought nothing more to the table in correcting the defective pleading. The Act clearly set fort the requirements for receiving a stay:

(2) Conditions for stay
An application for a stay under paragraph (1) shall include the following:
(A) A letter or other communication setting forth facts stating the manner in which current military duty requirements materially affect the servicemember’s ability to appear and stating a date when the servicemember will be available to appear.
(B) A letter or other communication from the servicemember’s commanding officer stating that the servicemember’s current military duty prevents appearance and that military leave is not authorized for the servicemember at the time of the letter.

The Defense did provide a letter – Alemond Deployment, but that letter does not conform with (B) of the Act. LeChien felt it would not be fair to have Alemond deal with his legal obligations should he be home on leave, especially during the holidays. However, commentators on the Act, as well as courts, have held that if leave is permitted, the servicemember must use that leave to tend to his obligations. I guess LeChien knows better than those who deal with this law on a regular basis.

I tried to argue that point and Judge LeChien, after reflecting on my objection to the Exhibit, said that I was dwelling on a “punctilios” reading of the statute and that the evidence did satisfy the “intent” of the Act. For those who do not know what “punctilios” means:

1. a fine point, particular, or detail, as of conduct, ceremony, or procedure.
2. strictness or exactness in the observance of formalities or amenities.
Now, this is coming from a judge who deals with the “black letter of the law” daily, but who, when  posed with a defect in a pleading turns on me to say I am being “punctilios”. In my opinion, after having observed LeChien’s demeanor with other attorneys in his court, is that he twists the law as he sees fit to benefit who he deems deserving. The Act clearly states what is required in a letter where a stay is requested, but LeChien apparently does not need to be encumbered by such surplusage.
The Defense won, again, and justice once more delayed. A great lesson in the game of “law” where power-hungry and corrupt men use their position to benefit their doting sycophants.
I expect to be filing a complaint with the Judicial Review Board against LeChien as well as a motion for substitution of judge, since he will obviously be biased against me for having publicly criticized him. All the better. I prefer to not have that man involved in my case since I would not receive any justice or fairness.