1

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
ior
26
Page 1 – PETITION – MOTION TO RECONSIDER January 20, 2010 Decision by Judge Prather
 request of the Court and of the State‟s Attorney, the Petitioner provided a copy to the State‟s
1
Attorney and Judge Prather.
2
While placing the document into the court record, Judge Prather ruled without considering the
3
amended filing.
4

5 Statement of Facts:
6
1. The Circuit Court has the authority to address the petitioner‟s request. „The members of the
7
Grand Jury are under supervisory authority of circuit courts.” (Report of Grand Jury of
8
Marshal County, 438 N.E.2d 1316, Ill.App.3.Dist.,1982).
9
2. The petitioner is desirous of seeing the US Constitution, the Illinois Constitution and the laws
10
of the State of Illinois being upheld. The petitioner asserts she is a victim of voter fraud.
11
3. The petitioner argues that the matters raised in her petition are most extraordinary and
12

13 involving due process and miscarriage of justice. “It is only under most extraordinary

14 circumstances, where necessary to prevent deprivation of due process or miscarriage of

15 justice, that court should exercise supervisory power over grand jury investigation. (Matter of

16 Swan, 415 N.E.2.d 1354, Ill.App.2.Dist., 1981)

17 4. The petitioner‟s suit is peculiarly within the public‟s interest and the public‟s right to know”

18 5. On February 3, 2010, the petitioner went before Judge Michael Caldwell on a Motion for a

19 Temporary Restraining Order. During the time the Petitioner was before Judge Caldwell, he

20 informed her that he had used a portion of the 2 hour break from the court processes, to

21 review the full file, including the amended filing. His ruling therefore reflects at least some

22 review of the petitioner‟s arguments in the amended motion and he found:

23

24 “In the instant case, however, the nature of the case, the allegations contained in the
pleadings and the relief requested has a unique public interest. The challenge is to the
25 validity of elections and the commission of fraud in relation to those elections. The mere
fact that such a charge has been formally made and that the petitioner has moved forward
26 with it in the public domain is peculiarly within the public‟s interest and the public‟s right

Page 2 – PETITION – MOTION TO RECONSIDER January 20, 2010 Decision by Judge Prather
 to know what is occurring in the judicial system that could affect the election system. No
1 more important public question could be raised by such a suit……
2 Continuing, Judge Caldwell found that
3 “The nature of the case and its importance to the public seriously outweigh any personal
considerations that the plaintiff may have regarding access to papers filed.. “
4
6. “The judge of the circuit court may order a special venire to be issued for a grand jury at any
5
time when he is of the opinion that public justice requires it.” (705 ILCS 305/19) (from
6
Ch. 78, par. 19) This issue has already been found to be peculiarly within the public‟s
7

8 interest and the public‟s right to know” and requires an in-depth review of election processes

9 in the state of Illinois.

10 7. The Petitioner was not provided opportunity to have evidence presented in the amended

11 motion, to be reviewed by Judge Prather.

12 8. The Grand Jury is empowered to hear the petitioner‟s complaint about the theft of her vote.

13 “The Grand Jury has the authority to inquire into and true presentment make of all such

14 matters and things as shall be given in their charge or otherwise come of their knowledge

15 touching the present service.” (705 ILCS 305/18ch.78, par.18)

16 9. The Grand Jury has never been informed of this court action involving them and therefore
17 without due process, denied knowledge touching their service. They are the Defendants.
18 10. Because the petitioner named the Grand Jury in her suit, she sent the 12/06/09 petition
19 through the U.S. Mail via the McHenry County Government Center, addressed to each of the
20 Grand Jury, and fully informed the Court and the States Attorney of her actions so they could
21
serve the grand jury notice of the court proceedings involving them. (12/16/09) The Grand
22
Jury was denied access to these documents until determination at the hearing on 1/20/10.
23
11. Besides the original petition, and a letter, included in each packet mailed to the Sitting Grand
24
Jury, were 30 letters from McHenry County residents who affirmed they are aware of matters
25
related to the original motion and believe it is worthy for the Grand Jury to investigate.
26
Page 3 – PETITION – MOTION TO RECONSIDER January 20, 2010 Decision by Judge Prather
 1 12. The Courts have already decided that “grand jury proceedings are not restrained by technical,

2 procedural, and evidentiary rules governing conduct of criminal trials.” People V Pinjoli, 581

3 N.E. 2d 693 Ill App.3.ist., 1991) The petitioner argues the grand jury must be unfettered in

4 considering information that comes to them in the course of their service.

5 13. The Court erred in failing to rule on permitting this information to be delivered to the
6 intended recipients.
7 14. Besides preventing the delivery of the petitioner‟s mail, likewise the letters from about 30
8 other residents, who believe this matter is of significant public interest, have not been
9
delivered.
10
15. Because the Court has denied the Sitting Grand Jury access to these documents, as
11
defendants they are deprived the right to information that “otherwise come of their
12
knowledge touching the present service”
13
16. The petitioner is denied access to her right to the Grand Jury‟s review of the knowledge that
14
touches their service. She asserts she is competent to testify to a crime against her that she has
15
personal knowledge of.
16
17. “It is the duty of grand jury to inquire into offenses which come to its knowledge whether
17
from court, state‟s attorney, its own members or from any source, but the proper channel for
18
presenting information to grand jury is the state‟s attorney and it is improper to communicate
19
directly with the grand jury.” (People v. Sears, 273 N.E. 2d 380 Ill., 1971) (S.H.A. Const. 1870, art.
20
2 &8;?art. 6, 1et,; ? S.H.A. Const.1970 art.1, 7; ? S.H>A. ch 14, 5, 6,; ?ch.38, 112-3(a), 112-4(a); ?ch.
21
78, 19.Corp. )
22
18. The petitioner has provided evidence to the State‟s attorney and met with him. He refused to
23

24 act. The petitioner has also made complaint to the court which has jurisdiction to rule on this

25 matter. “A citizen should not be permitted to communicate with a grand jury, but if he

26 possesses any information justifying the accusation of anyone, he should impart the

Page 4 – PETITION – MOTION TO RECONSIDER January 20, 2010 Decision by Judge Prather
 1 information to the State‟s attorney, and if the State‟s attorney refuses to act, the citizen can

2 make his complaint to a committing magistrate.” (People v Parker, 30, N>E 2d 11 Ill., 1940)

3 19. In denying the petitioner‟s request without review of the evidence, the Court erred. The court

4 did not consider the evidence presented and therefore no review of the competence of the
5 evidence or of the petitioners claim that she is the victim of a crime. “The Courts inherent
6 power to review proceedings of the grand jury is limited to determining whether there was
7 any competent evidence presented and whether indictment was result of prosecutorial
8 misconduct.” (People v Cora, 606 N.E. 2d 455 Ill. App. 1. Dist., 1992)
9
20. Act 725 ILS 5, Section 112-4 specifically addresses Duties of Grand Jury and the State‟s
10
Attorney. This section does not address other roles of the Grand Jury specifically relating to
11
when the States attorney refuses to act or to inform the jury of information touching their
12
service.
13
21. There is sufficient substance in the Grand Jury Act and in the Grand Jury Handbook referring
14
to this role of addressing matters that touches the grand jury‟s service, authorizing the Court.
15
22. “However, the grand jury possesses broad powers of its own to inquire into crime and
16
corruption in its jurisdiction. It has a right under the law to make its own investigation
17
unaided by the Court and assisted by any prosecuting attorney. On petition signed by the
18
foreperson and eight other grand jurors, showing good cause for some, the Court may appoint
19
an investigator or investigators to assist the grand jury in its inquiries. Included in this power
20
of investigation is the right of the grand jury to subpoena witnesses and documents. While
21
neither the Court nor the prosecutor may limit the scope of a grand jury investigation, you
22

23 should remember that these officials are available for advice and counsel in any investigation

24 of the grand jury may wish to undertake. Ordinarily, the grand jury will not act independently

25 of the Court and the prosecutor. However, if these officials may be concerned in any

26 investigation contemplated by the grand jury, the jury has the right to seek the advice of the

Page 5 – PETITION – MOTION TO RECONSIDER January 20, 2010 Decision by Judge Prather
 1 Attorney General.

2 (http://co.mchenry.il.us/departments/courtadmin/PDFDocs/22ndRules10.pdf)

3 23. There is precedence for the grand jury to receive its own US mailed documents without the

4 court‟s interference.
5 24. Legal precedence for the use of a Grand Jury as a government oversight: The petitioner cites
6 precedence of grand juries in the role separate from the courts in section 3.0 of her original
7 petition filed December 2nd, 2009.
8 Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and other judicial
9
auspices, its institutional relationship with the Judicial Branch has traditionally been, so to
10
speak, at arm‟s length.” (United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48, 1992)
11
25. A few historical Grand Juries involving government oversight from the McHenry County
12
area.
13

14 Coal Conspiracy Jan 18 1903

McHenry County Corrupt Labor Leaders June 1905
15 Lorimer Grand Jury May 1909
Herrin-Marian Mine Riots Aug 1922
16 Clean Prison Grand Jury May 1924
McHenry County Bootlegging Grand Jury Sep 1927
17 Woodstock Police Taping Feb 1993
Tollway Probe Jan 1995
18
Crystal Lake City Manager Grand Jury Aug 1998
19

20

21

22 Remedy Sought:

23 1. Therefore, permit the mail containing the documents including the court petition, and held by

24 the court be delivered to the grand jury informing them of this action.

25

26
Page 6 – PETITION – MOTION TO RECONSIDER January 20, 2010 Decision by Judge Prather
 1 2. Therefore the Court reconsiders the decision of January 20, 2010, and allows the petitioner to

2 testify before the Grand Jury permitting them to decide the merits of her claim, or schedules a

3 hearing to determine the competence of the petitioner‟s evidence.

4 3. This petitioner should be permitted to testify before the McHenry County Grand Jury, as is
5 currently, duly and legally in session.
6 4. The Court should use its discretion over the Sitting Grand Jury or appoint a Special Grand
7 Jury, and permit the petitioner to testify before them.
8 5. The Court should award other relief in law and equity as they deem proper and as held forth
9
in the U.S. and Illinois Constitutions.
10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26
Page 7 – PETITION – MOTION TO RECONSIDER January 20, 2010 Decision by Judge Prather
 VERIFICATION OF CLAIMS
1
The Statements and Claims made herein are the statements and claims of the petitioner‟s
2 and those statements incorporated herein of others as part of the public record concerning these
3 matter. On oath and subject to the laws of perjury, the undersigned petitioner affirm and assert
that the preceding allegations and factual statements, including those factual statements alleged
4 on information and belief are true to the best of her knowledge, and that she has asserted these
claims, being legally competent to testify to these matters, and having acted voluntarily without
5 promise of payment or by threat; in good faith and based upon her understanding of the United
States Constitution and the Illinois Constitution, and the duly enacted laws which spring there
6 under.

7 On my sacred honor and in witness before my Lord God.

9 ________________________________
10 XXXXXX XXX XXXXXX (AKA Chalice Jackson)
AND FOUNDER OF PATRIOT‟S HEART MEDIA NETWORK,
11 IT‟S DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE,
12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26
Page 8 – PETITION – MOTION TO RECONSIDER January 20, 2010 Decision by Judge Prather