Editors Note: The following Motion is evidence that Judge Terence M. Sheen is ignorant of the law in cases other than the Kost case.  Thank you Mr. Nevers for exposing the judicial incompetence in the DuPage County Courts.
This site is available for exposing further incompetence in our courts.

Jeanine W. Nevers             )
                              )
                              )
               Petitioner,    )
         vs.                  )     No. 94 D 1605
                              )
David M. Nevers               )
                              )
                              )
          Respondent          )

NOW COMES David Nevers, on his own behalf, and moves this Court to declare a mistrial in the indirect criminal contempt petition currently at trial before this Court. In support of this petition, David Nevers states the following:

1. That on September 17, 1998, David Nevers filed a Motion for Substitution of Judge for Cause, naming the Honorable Judge Terence Sheen.

2. That Illinois State Statute 735 ILCS 5/2-1001(a)(3)(iii) provides that a trial judge may not hear or rule on a Motion for Substitution of Judge for Cause in which he is named. Further, the statute provides that as soon as possible after a judge becomes aware of a Motion for Substitution of Judge for Cause has been filed, the trial court judge is obligated to refer the Motion to a different judge for a hearing. Jiffy Lube International, Inc., v. Agarwal, 661 N.E.2d 463 (Ill. App. 2 Dist., 1966) at 467., People v. Brim (1993), 608 N.E.2d 958,

3. That once a Motion for Substitution of Judge for Cause is filed, naming the trial court judge, that judge loses all jurisdiction, power and authority over pending matters until such time as the Motion for Substitution of Judge for Cause is heard. People v. Bell, 658 N.E.2d 1372 (Ill. App. 2 Dist. 1995) at 1377, 1378.

4. That on September 17, 1998, when David Nevers advised the Honorable Judge Sheen of a pending Motion for Substitution of Judge for Cause, Judge Sheen improperly denied said Motion.

5. That from the time the Motion for Substitution of Judge for Cause was improperly denied, the Honorable Judge Sheen had no jurisdiction, power and authority over the above named case.

6. That on September 17, 1998, after improperly denying the Motion for Substitution of Judge for Cause, the Honorable Judge Sheen began hearing on a petition alleging David Nevers was guilty of indirect criminal contempt of court. David Nevers alleges that Judge Sheen acted without the necessary jurisdiction to hear said petition.

7. That after hearing witnesses and entering exhibits, the Honorable Judge Sheen continued David Nevers' indirect criminal contempt hearing to Friday, September 18, 1998.

8. That at the beginning of David Nevers' indirect criminal contempt hearing on Friday, September 18, 1998 the Honorable Judge Sheen recanted, and said he was referring the Motion for Substitution of Judge for Cause out to the presiding judge for a hearing.

9. That the Illinois Appellate Courts have consistently held that all actions taken by a trial judge after improperly denying a Motion for Substitution of Judge for Cause are null and void. The court in Brim held:

"If a motion for substitution of judge is improperly denied, all subsequent action by the trial court judge is void." People v. Brim (1993), 241 Ill.App.3d at 249, 181 Ill.Dec. 707, 608 N.E.2d 958.

10. In People v. Banks (1991), 571 N.E.2d 935, 213 Ill. App. 3d 205, 156 Ill. Dec. 955, the Illinois Appellate Court held that:

"Once a motion for substitution of judge is brought, the trial judge loses all authority and power over the defendant's cause, except to make all necessary orders to effectuate the change; and if the motion is improperly denied, all subsequent action of the trial court is void. (Citation: People v. Redisi (1989) (2d Appellate District), 188 Ill. App. 3d 797, 801, 544 N.E.2d 1136, 1139.)"

11. That based on the 2nd District rulings in Jiffy Lube, Bell, and the Appellate rulings in Brim and Banks, Judge Sheen did not have jurisdiction, power or authority to hear substantive matters until after the Motion for Substitution of Judge for Cause was heard. Conducting a contempt hearing, listening to testimony, considering exhibits, are all substantive matters, not simply ministerial duties. No hearing on the petition for indirect criminal contempt should have taken place until David Nevers' Motion for Substitution of Judge for Cause was heard.

Therefore, David Nevers respectfully requests that for all the above reasons, this Court declare a mistrial in David Nevers' hearing for indirect criminal contempt, strike all testimony and exhibits taken on September 17, 1998, and for other such relief as it deems appropriate and just.

                                        David M. Nevers

email:  clr@clr.org

    Return to Sheen's Home Page




December 3, 1998