Free Web Hosting Provider - Web Hosting - E-commerce - High Speed Internet - Free Web Page
Search the Web

Exhibit S for Supplemental Complaint #3476 in Chicago Federal Case #99CV 4148

This has only been partially transcribed, the the point is made.

(Added 7 July 2001 upon transcription for upcoming trial in Los Angeles Federal Court: There is no law library accessible to inmates in the Illinois jail where I was held on $250,000 bail in May, June, and July 1999 for having written petition #2871. The jails own rules say that I can ask for material. I retaliation for my having assisted other inmates, the jail canceled my copying privileges. Incidentally, I wrote a memo to one inmate's lawyer. This inmate got caught with a suitcase full of marijuana on I-80. He used my memo to get the inmate released immediately because police had no right to search his vehicle on the basis of a broken front headlight. The jail policy on materials is this:

"Inmate rights . . .B. You have the right to have access to legal information. The most current copy of West's Illinois criminal law and procedure has been given to each cell block. If more specific information is needed, you can request a specific portion of the law and it will be copied and provided to you. [No. They refused to follow their own policy.] Any information beyond this must be obtained from your attorney, not the jail staff members." - LaSalle county jail handbook.

I asked for material. They gave the request to my opposition, the state's attorney! This constitutes intrusion into the defense camp. I filed a supplemental complaint to the Illinois Supreme Court. They did nothing! They did not even answer me. Here is the list of material I requested. The original is stamped filed "received July 06 1999 LaSalle County States [sic, apostrophe is missing] Attorneys" which proves that they received my work product and research in formation. What if I had been researching some matter about which they did not yet know? It is clearly illegal for the prosecution to intrude into the defense camp like this - even though it was approved by Judge H. Chris Ryan - who later disproved the method using the pretext that I had requested too many materials. In fact, somebody likely clued him in that what he had approved was illegal. Only 2 to 5 of the 54 materials were provided to me.)

Memo #3469

To: Jailers

From: Douglas Palaschak, cell B-32

Date: Friday July 2, 1999.



Please return a copy of this memo to me so that I can correctly cite the cases named herein in the writing that I am writing now. I have 10 days to write a petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Dan Bute is no longer on my case. Therefore I request the following documents or copies thereof:

  1. I need a copy of the final pages of my writ petition to the Illinois Supreme Court. Please call them as soon as possible and ask them to fax you page 1, pages 43-53 (the end), page #1 of the prayer, page #2 of the prayer, Exhibit M. That is a total of 12 pages. Had you copied them when I first asked you, I would have had them now. (Retrospect: Supreme Court zip code: 62701. Telephone: 217-782-2035)
  2. Easy one: Brandenburg v Ohio (1969) 23 L Ed 2d 430, 395 US 444, 89 S Ct 1827 preferably the Lawyer's Edition. (Retrospect: They gave this one to me.)
  3. Quinn v Robinson (CA9 Cal 783 F2d 776) Very Important. (Retrospect: Today 7 July 2001 I finally looked up this case in the Ventura county law library. Indeed it would have been very useful to me because it spelled out the various duties of the appeal courts to which I petitioned for habeas corpus. Mine was a case where the facts were undisputed and the clear and present danger test would have set me free but no judge of any court in Illinois had the political courage to stand up for freedom despite having sworn to uphold the constitution.)
  4. 39 Am Jur 2d, Habeas Corpus ¶117 et seq: "Procdure in Habeas cases to challenged extradition." (Retrospect: They would not obtain the materials that would have helped me challenge extradition.)
  5. 8 Am Jur Legal form 2d. Extradition.
  6. 9 Fed Procedure L Ed Criminal Procedure ¶22:1359 et seq
  7. ALR Digest: Extradition.
  8. 21 Am Jur 2d Crimnal Law ¶404-407
  9. California Business and Professions code §6126 annotated. (Retrospect: This is where the meat is for criminal defense. I likely could have found an application of the clear and present danger test - but it makes no difference. This is a tool that lawyers use to prepare for a case. They handicapped me by locking me away from it!!)
  10. Debs v U.S. 249 US 211 (1919) (Retrospect: This is a famous case of the United States Supreme court; they should have easily been able to copy it for me! Their attitude was "So sue me.")
  11. Supreme Court Digest. Attorneys. All I need is the case that says that only the California Supreme Court may disbar attorneys.
  12. I need Sheparization of