would this suffice ?
- STATE OF ILLINOIS )
COUNTY OF COOK )
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
THIRD MUNICIPAL DISTRICT
PEOPLE OF THE STATE )
OF ILLINOIS, )
v. ) No. 06 MC
CH ..., )
Notice of Withdrawal of Plea
I, Ch ..., being of full age and of sound mind, withdraw
hereby the plea of "Not Guilty" as entered before without knowledge,
unintelligently, and without assistance of counsel, but with licensed
I do not consent to trial on a complaint unverified by a judge as to
probable cause or without assistance of counsel, according to the
original tenor and meaning of that phrase.
Wherefore, a notice of a hearing is due to the accused to determine
whether or not a complaint against him is verified as to probable cause,
according to the due course of law.
> -----Original Message-----Not "Defendant", but "Accused" because defendants are people who have
> From: one [mailto:jm367@...]
> Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2007 10:19 AM
> To: tips
> Subject: [tips_and_tricks] would this suffice ?
> PEOPLE OF THE STATE )
> OF ILLINOIS, )
> Plaintiff, )
> v. ) No. 06 MC
> CH ..., )
> Defendant. )
been arraigned. Until then, you are only "accused", maybe, if they have
a real complaint, which they usually do not. If you put "Defendant"
just because they did, you admit you've been arraigned.
> Notice of Withdrawal of Plea"full"?
> I, Ch ..., being of full age
> and of sound mind,I wouldn't raise that issue...
> herebyI'd say "hereby withdraw", but whatever...
> the plea of "Not Guilty" as entered before without knowledge,I'd make it:
> unintelligently, and without assistance of counsel, but with licensed
> attorney bystanding.
the plea of "Not Guilty" entered without assistance of counsel. Then
I'd put a few good counsel cites.
Did you really see an attorney's license??! Wow! And what does
"bystanding" do for an attorney as far as getting authority to represent
one? Here, we'd call it "Grandstanding"!
> I do not consent to trial on a complaint unverified by a judgeToo bad, because it isn't the judge that does the verifying. How about
just not consenting to an unverified complaint of dubious character with
obvious flaws you'd be glad to draw to the attention of anyone who
> as toI'd say the issue is not one of probable cause at this time, because no
> probable cause
valid complaint has initiated a case despite what appears to be a
widespread belief that one has. If the Accused had been sharper earlier
he might have caught these errors that also escaped the notice of those
professionals paid to notice such irregularities. All we need to do is
take this back to arraignment and start over, doing it with due process
this time. We realize the court has jurisdiction because bail was paid.
This does not address any issues of the judge's disqualification, but he
should now recuse himself or be disqualified by the Accused for
permitting such a gross injustice and lack of due process. I'd want a
new judge with no preconceived bias against me for discovering that I
had almost been snookered, one who interprets lawful demands for due
process as contempt.
The time to raise the issue of probable cause is immediately upon being
dragged into court for the very first time, hopefully within hours of
being arrested, not later.
> or without assistance of counsel, according to theAgain, there's a time to make the demand otherwise it is deemed waived.
> original tenor and meaning of that phrase.
They cannot ever give you a complete list of all of your rights, nor
advise you of them. You need to know the ones you'll want to defend all
the way to the Supreme Court, and you'll need to defend them from the
IMOC, not later as you learn that witnesses saw you waive them only
because at the time you didn't even know you had them. If your list of
those rights right now is short, one blames oneself and nobody else
(besides high school teachers?!).
> Wherefore, a notice of a hearing is due to the accused to determineNot anymore, because of the bail paid. Nobody pays bail when there's no
> whether or not a complaint against him is verified as to probable
> cause, according to the due course of law.
charges! Bail setting comes after probable cause is determined. Why
sit and argue about a bail amount if there's no probable cause to try
the person?! Nobody competent would do that, as it is not "first things
first". And nobody holds a bail setting hearing if they agree with the
standard set bail amount, which is again evidence of agreement of the
reasonableness of the bail amount, and thusly of the probable cause to
> Respectfully,I have no respect for slime.
> The AccusedThere you go!
- Agree about the point concerning accused versus defendant.
"full age" is the proper phrase from Blackstone to assert having
attained the age of full legal capacity, as is "sound mind".
It seems to me these have to be asserted because the person withdrawing
plea has been heretofore represented by an attorney.
In Illinois the standard for arrest is reasonable grounds and the
standard to hold for trial is probable cause and complaints are attacked
There cannot be, according to the due course of the process of the law,
an arraignment until after a judge has verified there is probable cause
to hold the accused over for trial.
There is nothing in Illinois statutes guaranteeing counsel to a person
charged. But, Constitution SECTION 8. RIGHTS AFTER INDICTMENT
In criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the
right to appear and defend in person and by counsel;
Could this be construed to mean only accused persons which have been
indicted have the rights in this section ?
SECTION 24. RIGHTS RETAINED
The enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights
shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained
by the individual citizens of the State.
At common law, natural persons of full age and sound mind could not
appear by attorney in a criminal case. So, the courts are licensing
attorneys to do something which the law forbids. All licenses allow the
licensee to do what the law would not allow without the license. So,
attorneys don't have licenses; they are, however, granted license by
the courts to act unlawfully in criminal proceedings in the court in
representing natural persons not having legal disabilities. This is
similar to the license granted banks in 1933, except I think the
Secretary of the Treasury does a license application procedure and
issues a bank license document. But to allow an officer of the court to
act unlawfully is judicial corruption in depth.
The accused's brother put up $100 for bail. The accused never had a
probable cause hearing or a bail hearing or signed anything.