July 13, 1998 Peggy Chiampas Assistant State's Attorney Narcotics Division 2650 South California Chicago, Illinois 60608 Dear Ms. Chiampas:Please, immediately, return all of my documents.
When you phoned to say that you were with Public Integrity and wanted to meet with me to discuss my allegations of corruption in Probate Court, I was inclined to refuse because I didn't want to waste my time with you as I had with Kevin Illia, Chief Judge O'Connell's administrative assistant. When litigants report judicial misconduct to Illia, he tells us that if it's a "bad ruling," we can appeal it. That works well for the lawyers ($$$$$$), but not for the litigants--their lives and money are at stake. In my case, it isn't just "bad rulings," there is conspiracy and fraud and a judge who signs fraudulent court orders.
I only agreed to meet with you because I thought that if I refused, you would say that I was unwilling to back up my allegations. I'm writing a book about my experience: Chapter 14, WHAT PUBLIC INTEGRITY?
When I met with you and Investigator, Henry Ziegler, I said I was skeptical about the State's Attorney's office doing anything about court corruption and that it would be obvious if you just had me there for show. How many times has the Cook County State's Attorney investigated and prosecuted a judge?
Legally, Probate judges are supposed to protect the estates, but they have a different agenda--enabling the lawyers to rip off the estates with needless litigation and outright theft. You said that you had instructions to investigate only my claims. I claimed that I am not an isolated case and that my experience in Probate is not unique. There are other litigants with similar complaints. I told you that James Gallagher was recently disbarred for stealing more than $150,000.00 from two estates he was "administering." I said that I was certain an investigation of Probate would reveal many more instances of outright theft of estates by lawyers and litigation purely for the sake of litigation fees.
Each time I related an outlandish incident in Probate, you made excuses for it. When I said that the judge ruled against me even though I had an on point Illinois Supreme Court case and the other side cited no case for their claim (because none exists), you said that you don't always have to cite case law. Your statement was incredible. The judge is supposed to rule on the law. The law says that statements without case cites are just statements, not law. Under your theory why bother going before a judge, why not just have arbitrators or lay people decide all cases?
Your investigator seemed genuinely shocked and appalled when I described the lawyers' and judges' conduct in my case. What does that say? People, who are not lawyers, find lawyers' and judges' dishonest behavior reprehensible, but you, a lawyer, rationalize this conduct as normal and acceptable.
You stated that you had no idea who referred my complaint to you. Yet, you had a copy of my letter to Kevin Illia. Before I left the meeting, you volunteered to phone the ARDC about my complaint against Alvin Meyers and would phone me the following Monday or Tuesday. You never bothered to do those things.
I phoned you several weeks later and was told that you had been transferred from "Public Integrity" to Narcotics, that another attorney had been assigned to my case and that attorney would return my call. That never happened either. I phoned numerous times, but no one returned my calls. Finally, I phoned you in Narcotics, instead of calling me back, you wrote me a letter indicating you still worked in Public Integrity and stated "... there is absolutely no evidence to support any criminal charges with respect to the ongoing litigation of your father's estate in Probate Court."
It looks like Probate judges work on commission. They conspire with the lawyers, who conspire with each other to litigate issues that were resolved a hundred years ago. The lawyer deliberately wrote- my father's Will to create litigation upon his death. The judges and lawyers pretend not to know the law, they decide in advance who will win the case based on their pretenses. At least one judge allows the lawyers to write fraudulent court orders. Some of the lawyers just outright rip off estates without any pretenses. If this conduct isn't criminal, what is it?
Recently, the Tribune reported that Judge Lawrence Fox, in a bench trial acquitted Marina Shap of knowingly buying stolen merchandise. "The verdict stood in stunning contrast to official claims made at the time of a police raid on the boutique April 23, 1997." It is obvious why Ms. Shap's attorney asked for a bench trial--based on the evidence, a jury would have convicted her.
When Judge Wilson, in a bench trial, acquitted Harry Aleman of murder despite the evidence which included an eyewitness to the murder, everyone in the courtroom knew that Wilson was fixed. During the Greylord investigations, when Wilson realized he might be under investigation, he committed suicide. At least taxpayers were spared the expense of trying him. For just $10,000.00, Wilson let a mafia hit man out on the street.
In the 1980s, it was common knowledge that you could fix traffic and narcotics court cases. Except to the State's Attorney? Or Chief Judge Comerford? When a group called Court Watchers told the presiding judge of Traffic Court that it was obvious something very wrong was going on in his courtrooms, he told them he would take care of it. After a defendant admitted on the witness stand that she was driving drunk, the judge dismissed the case saying there wasn't enough evidence. He only charged $100.00. Ultimately, the presiding judge was convicted because he was in charge of the bribery scheme.
I'm not inferring that anything has changed--I haven't been to Traffic Court in years. I can tell you from first hand knowledge that a judge could be bribed in Traffic Court and that a State's Attorney for $50.00 could be bought off to drop a narcotics charge. I know that the fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud in Probate Court is criminal.
The question is not how many judges are still fixable, but how little they charge for their services. Judges should provide honest services which includes knowing the law, ruling accordingly and doing justice between the parties--the litigants that is, not the lawyers. Honesty in judges should be a given--not a perk.
Our meeting was a sham. My experience with you is identical to another litigant who reported Judge Perivolidis and Judge Siracusa for similar conduct to State's Attorney Jack O'Malley. NOTHING was done. Now I know what Judge Siracusa meant when he said that he has a special relationship with the State's Attorney's office. It is obvious that corruption in Cook County Courts exists because the lawyers, the judges and the State's Attorney are in cahoots.
It is pathetic that the State's Attorney's office concentrates on convicting people who take drugs, but ignores court corruption. If taxpayers could choose how to spend tax money honest courts would be the priority.
Please return my documents.
Sincerely, Renee Kalish cc: Internet bcc:
Copyright© 1998 by Citizens for Legal Responsibility®. All rights reserved. email: clr@clr.org Return to Home Page
July 15, 1998