Update: January 10, 2009
I received a check for $65.00 from John's Pro Tree Service, Inc. today.
Update: December 18, 2008
On December 18, 2008 at approximately 10:30 a.m. Energy Savers representatives repaired the downspout for $65.00. I paid the Energy Savers' representatives $65.00. I faxed the receipt for the $65.00 payment to Energy Savers to John's Pro Tree Service. I talked to John and he stated he will bring the $65.00 reimbursement to me.
Update: November 22, 2008
November 22, 2008
Better Business Bureau
Diana MendezAssistant Manager-Home/Transportation Services
Complaint ID#: 94208140Business Name: Energy Savers Vinyl Windows
Ms. Mendez:
I will address the response of Energy Saver’s paragraph according to how it is marked from the paperwork I received from the Better Business Bureau:
1. Energy Savers’ Response to my complaint: Fred Nance is satisfied with the work that Energy Savers did. Nance Response: The issue is not about whether I am satisfied with the work that was done by Energy Savers. Talking about that: I have screw tips that installers installed that have exposed tips, which could injure someone. These tips should have been “budded” to prevent injury to people. I want the ends of these screws budded.
2. Energy Savers’ Response to my complaint: If John Pro Tree Service damage something and are will to pay for damage what’s the problem. I don’t think John’s Pro Tree Service works for free. Nance Response: John Pro Tree Service stated they would pay for the downspout when it receives a billing statement from me, which I should get from Energy Savers when they make the repairs. I informed Energy Savers’ representative Joe Lipuma that John’s Pro Tree Service would pay for the downspout replacement. Energy Savers and Joe Lipuma decided they were going to ignore my request to fix the downspout, and in fact, deny claims such as downspout and screws that are explicit in their contract for services. See Energy Savers’ service contract stating “…Customer Satisfaction: We at Energy Savers Vinyl Windows value your business. If at any time you are unsatisfied with our service, we would like the opportunity to remedy any issues that you may have. Our main objective is customer satisfaction….” See attached Energy Savers’ contract received for services to my home.
3. Energy Savers’ Response to my complaint: A downspout is very simple…to come out an do assessment it’s just a down spout – if there is a hole in it we do not repair hole we replace the downspout because that’s the correct way to fix it. Nance Response: If the downspout is so simple, why didn’t Energy Savers’ come out and fix it. An assessment is an evaluation, a judgment about something based on an understanding of the situation. An assessment is what any logical business person would do before any repairs or installation of a product. An assessment allows a business to know what is needed for the work. Before Energy Savers did the work on my home Mr. Lipuma did an assessment/evaluation of the property. I never asked Energy Savers to fix the hole in the downspout. I asked them to replace the downspout. I informed Mr. Lipuma that I had a piece of downspout vinyl his installers left that fit the section of drain spout needed. This statement suggests a down spout replacement, not a “hole” fix. See original letter from me, paragraph #4.
4. Energy Savers’ Response to my complaint: We do not piece together down spouts not the correct way to fix it. Nance Response: The downspout mentioned here in paragraph 3 is a full piece of downspout. There is nothing to piece together. It is a perfect fit, with extra length. It is their product.
5. Energy Savers’ Response to my complaint: Our fax machine here is used for ordering and receiving orders only. Nance Response: I have no response.
6. Energy Savers’ Response to my complaint: The cost to replace not repair downspout is 199 labor & material if Mr. Nance think 199 is to much have John’s Pro Tree Service replace it. Nance Response: John’s Pro Tree Service will incur the cost for repair. I hope the cost of this replacement is universal with the pricing of other entities providing similar services.
7. Energy Savers’ Response to my complaint: I would like to have the BBB consider removing this complaint because we have a customer that got damage done by another company may be the complaint should have been to John’s Pro Tree Service if Mr. Nance is looking for a estimate for repair we can send him one. Nance Response: I am not sure what Energy Savers is saying here, but I will attempt to respond. The Better Business Bureau should not remove the complaint from their files because the damage was done by another company. The complaint is on Energy Savers. The complaint is about Energy Savers’ policy on Customer Satisfaction. Energy Savers refused to live up to its policies. John’s Pro Tree Service has always acted with integrity and honesty. John’s Pro Tree Service specializes in tree trims, bush removal, tree cutting, stump removal, etc.
Energy Savers gives a post script to its response. Energy Savers states “isn’t it terrible to have a hit on you’re BBB report over something so Stupid.” Energy Savers also states “My salesman even offered to come out to Mr. Nance’s home and fix it himself but Mr. Nance said he put a bad rap on us in his blog and now the BBB Mr. Nance is on his own don’t call us for anything.” Nance Response: I guess Energy Savers is Stupid. What company would allow their integrity and honesty challenged over an event that they could have so easily rectified? This story tells us that Energy Savers has no integrity and honesty. Energy Savers surely does not honor its “Customer Satisfaction” policy. This is exactly why I posted my complaint on the Internet and with the Better Business Bureau. This statement violates Energy Savers “Customer Satisfaction” policy. Energy Savers should be held to the standards of their company policy. To say, “…don’t call us for anything” violates Energy Savers’ policy.
Posting truth on the Internet is in agreement with the 1st Amendment clause of the United States Constitution, Freedom Speech. Second, if Energy Savers’ salesman offered to come out to “evaluate” and fix the problem, why didn’t he come? Just because I exercised my right to “free speech” does not give Energy Savers the right to violate its company policy. Energy Savers should be prosecuted to full extent of the law. I will post this response on my blogs. I will post this response to the Better Business Bureau on their website in its response section. I will mail this response to Ms. Diana Mendez by Certified Mail to assure its receipt and to assure the Better Business Bureau has a copy of Energy Savers' "Customer Satisfaction" policy.
Respectfully submitted,
Fred Nance Jr.
Update: November 14, 2008
Complaint ID#: 94208140
Business Name: Energy Savers Vinyl Windows
Thank you for contacting the BBB. Your complaint was received by the Bureau on November 10, 2008 and has been assigned case # 94208140 in our files.
Your complaint has been applied to the following business:Energy Savers Vinyl Windows11535 183rd PL Unit 117Orland Park, IL 60467-4901
The case has been reviewed by one of our Complaint Specialists and has now been forwarded to the business for their response. The business is allowed ten days to respond. If we do not receive a response from them after ten days, we will send them a second notification. You will be informed once a response has been received.
As this complaint progresses, you may also consider using BBB alternative dispute resolution services such as binding arbitration. For more details about arbitration, please visit: www.chicago.bbb.org/ADRindex.html
We encourage you to use our ONLINE COMPLAINT system to keep up with the progress of this complaint. The URL (website address) below will take you directly to this complaint on our website: Complaint Status Page
If the above link does not work for you, please copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://www.chicago.bbb.org/complaint/view/94208140/c/63sxf3
Sincerely,
Diana Mendez
Assistant Manager-Home/Transportation Servicesdmendez@chicago.bbb.org
Update: November 10, 2008
Consumers Beware: Do not do business with this company. This company does not honor its agreements or contracts. This company will get your money and disregard their obligation to their contract.
I called Energy Savers today requesting to speak with the owner. A female answered the phone informing me the owner was not present and she could take a message in his behalf. I left a message with her for the owner. I informed her I had talked to the representative, Joe Lipuma, who sold me $10,000.00 worth of merchandise that I needed someone to come to my home and assess the damage to the down spout attached to my gutters. I informed the young lady that this representative has promised to come to my home several times but has not made it.
I have filed a complaint with the Better Business Bureau of Chicago, 330 North Wabash Ave., Suite 2006, Chicago, Illinois 60611-7621, 312-832-0500 (office), 312-832-9985 (fax), email-info@chicago.bbb.org, website: http://www.chicago.bbb.org/. If you have suffered an injustice from Energy Savers give the Better Business Bureau a call and file a complaint.
Update: November 6, 2008
Energy Savers has not lived up to its warranty services.
Update: November 4, 2008
On October 31, 2008 I personally delivered this statement to Mr. Joe Lipuma. Joe told me he would come out to my home and personally take care of my problem on Monday, November 3, 2008. As of Tuesday, November 4, 2008, Joe has not come to my home. Joe also told me I should take this writing off my blog.
October 31, 2008
Mr. Bill Shaheen, Owner
Energy Savers
11535 West 183rd Place, Suite 117
Orland Park, Illinois 60467-4901
Re: Future home improvement investors should beware of those businesses promoting customer satisfaction and care that neither provide customer satisfaction nor care after they get your money.
Mr. Shaheen:
On or about July 2, 2007 Energy Savers installed windows, soffits, gutters, drains and downspouts on my home. I paid $10,000.00 for this purchase and labor. Energy Savers’ has a clause in their contract stating, “Customer Satisfaction: If at any time you are unsatisfied with our service, we would like the opportunity to remedy any issues that you may have. Our main objective is customer satisfaction….” This is not true. Customer Satisfaction is not the goal of Energy Savers.
On October 24, 2008 Pro Tree Service removed a tree in the backyard of my home. The tree removal employees punched a hole in the downspout of the drain on the North-front side of my home. Pro Tree Service owner John Baio informed me he would pay for the cost of repair.
On October 24, 2008 I called Energy Savers requesting a home visit to assess the repair. I talked to Lucy, who may be the administrative assistant of Energy Savers, informing her of the issue. Lucy called me back on or about October 27, 2008 with a quote from the owner Bill Shaheen, which seemed ridiculous to me without an assessment of damage. Instead of providing home service to assess the repair, Lucy gave me some ridiculous price to fix this hole.
On October 24, 2008 I called Joseph Lipuma, the salesperson of my purchase. I informed him of what I needed. Mr. Lipuma told me to have the tree removal people repair the downspout. I informed Mr. Lipuma this suggestion was inappropriate. I informed Mr. Lipuma his suggestion was absurd. I informed Mr. Lipuma I have a piece of downspout vinyl left by the original installers that would fit the damaged area. I requested he visit my home and assess the damage for repair. Mr. Lipuma made several appointments, but has failed to come to my home to assess the damage.
On October 31, 2008 I called Energy Savers talking to Lucy about this issue again. I asked for the name of the owner of Energy Savers so that I could address this letter appropriately. Lucy told me she could not give me that information.
Energy Savers is located in the township of Orland Park, Illinois. I called the township of Orland Park’s Business and Development to get the business information for Energy Savers since I was being denied access to it by Energy Savers. The Orland Park Business and Development entity states they do not have a fax number on file for this company. This is strange.
What does Energy Savers have to hide? Why would a company deny its customers their owner’s name? I asked Lucy for the fax number to Energy Savers so that I could send this letter to them by fax. Lucy informed me that Energy Savers does not have a fax number. Why would a company hide the fax number information from their customers?
Viewers of my blogs: How many companies do you know that deny you access to their fax numbers? There is something wrong with the business ethics of Energy Savers.
Therefore, I respectfully request a home visit to reasonably assess the damage of my downspout so repairs can be made, paid for, the cost passed on to Pro Tree Removal for payment.
I will drive to the Energy Savers location in Orland Park and hand-deliver this letter.
Respectfully submitted,
Fred Nance Jr.
cc:
Pro Tree Service
http://clickforjusticeandequality2.blogspot.com/
http://click.townhall.com/
http://clickforjusticeandequality.wordpress.com/
http://www.frednance.newsvine.com/
Friday, November 14, 2008
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Obama sweeps to victory as first black president - Yahoo! News
Obama sweeps to victory as first black president - Yahoo! News
What should the conversation be now? Can we mend the relationships of the country? It will take all of us. It will take a bit of humility and wisdom, but it can be done.
What should the conversation be now? Can we mend the relationships of the country? It will take all of us. It will take a bit of humility and wisdom, but it can be done.
Harlem Furniture Faulty Products - Consumers Beware of business ties for warranty service with Conlon & Sons, Stainsafe and Global Care Solutions
Update: November 6, 2008
It appears Global Care Solutions has taken over for the failing and unreliable Stainsafe company. Harlem Furniture's policies, procedures and contractual warranty services for the poor quality furniture sold to its consumers is continuously going against its customer's best interest. I was informed by a service representative of Global Care Solutions that I cannot have a copy of the service policy from which they operate to resolve warranty services. Global Care Solutions' representative informs me I have to get the policy they use from Harlem Furniture. Is there illegal activity here? Why does Global Care Solutions deny it customers a copy of the warranty service used to determine whether they get services or not? I requested my denial of this policy in writing from the representative of Global Care Solutions. I was denied a response letter.
Update: November 3, 2008
On October 31, 2008 Stainsafe's representative Global Care released a document regarding this issue. The states:
Full Item Replacement Authorization, Claim #1568823, Sales Receipt number 1107504XOPW; We are pleased to inform you that a full replacement has been authorized for the following item(s) Chest/SKU - 551221107. We have notified the Roomplace at Harlem that we have authorized you to select merchandise of your choice with a value that is less than or equal to your original purchase price of the above referenced item(s)...Thank you for the opportunity to serve you.
There may be some integrity here. There was no response to the nefarious character and behavior of their representatives who handled this case.
October 27, 2008
Conlon & Sons
Mr. Joe Conlon, President/Owner
700 New York Ave., Suite D
Huntington, New York 11746
Mr. Conlon:
Harlem Furniture contracts with Stainsafe for repair service with its furniture needs. I was informed by your representative that you company, Conlon & Sons, provide services for Stainsafe. Stainsafe has 196 complaints against its organization on www.ripoffreport.com/.
On Friday, October 24, 2008, I was scheduled for a repair appointment for furniture I bought from Harlem Furniture. When I purchased my furniture from Harlem Furniture I bought a warranty with Stainsafe, which utilizes your company to provide repair services. My appointment time frame was 8:00 am to 12:00 pm.
At approximately 10:30 am, I received a call from your representative stating my repair person’s car had broken down and he was at the repair shop to get it fixed. I was told when he got his car fixed he would be coming to my house. I received a call late Friday afternoon, October 24, 2008, from your representative stating my repair person would not be coming out. I waited for your repair person for over 7 hours before I got a call stating he was not coming. I was told I had to re-schedule. I re-scheduled for Monday, October 27, 2008, between the hours of 7:00 am to 10:00 am.
On Monday, October 27, 2008, at approximately 8:15 am I had to make a run out of the neighborhood. I left because your repair person had not showed up and thinking about the wait I had Friday, October 24, 2008, I believed I would get a courtesy call to alert me to when this repair person would come to my house.
At approximately 8:35 am I received a call from your representative stating your repair person was sitting outside my home. I informed your representative I was not at home. Your representative asked me how long will it take for me to get home. I informed your representative I would be home in 30 minutes. I got home at approximately 9:00 am. I called your office and your representative told me I had to re-schedule for another day. Sir, I have a problem with the service I am receiving with your company.
On Friday, October 24, 2008, I waited for 6 hours, all day at home for your service. No one showed up. I did not get upset. I re-scheduled. On Monday, October 27, 2008, your representative told me I did not ask for a call to alert me your repair person was on there way. Sir, I should not have to ask for this call. This is a courtesy call, which I should have received anyway because of Friday, October 24, 2008. I deserved a courtesy call.
On Monday, October 27, 2008, your representative informed me your repair person was stuck in traffic for 2 hours coming to my house. I am not sure where your repair person is traveling from to come to my house, but coming to my house is driving against the traffic, not with the traffic. What I mean there is no traffic coming to my house. All the traffic is going toward downtown Chicago. I live in the opposite direction. Nevertheless, if your repair person was stuck in traffic, I should have received a courtesy call stating so, because I waited as I did on Friday, October 24, 2008, I should have received a courtesy call.
Your representative informs me now I have to make another appointment, and they were very adamant and unconcerned about my service. This is totally unprofessional. On Monday, October 27, 2008, I have spoken to Suelette and Antoinette from your office. I informed Suelette and Antoinette that I would write this letter, sending a copy to Harlem Furniture, posting it on my blogs and posting it on www.ripoffreport.com/.
From viewing www.ripoffreport.com/, it appears it is 196 complaints against Stainsafe. Stainsafe employs your company to repair the items it contracts for with various furniture stores. Sir, how does your company fair with www.ripoffreport.com/?
Sir, I want service today, Monday, October 27, 2008. I have asked to speak to a supervisor. I have been told your supervisor is Linda. I have been repeatedly told that Linda is not available. The last response I received from your representative about speaking to Linda is that she is in a meeting. I would like to receive a call about my issue. Please respond.
Respectfully submitted,
Fred Nance Jr.
cc:
http://clickforjusticeandequality2.blogspot.com/
http://click.townhall.com/
http://clickforjusticeandequality.wordpress.com/
http://frednance.newsvine.com/
It appears Global Care Solutions has taken over for the failing and unreliable Stainsafe company. Harlem Furniture's policies, procedures and contractual warranty services for the poor quality furniture sold to its consumers is continuously going against its customer's best interest. I was informed by a service representative of Global Care Solutions that I cannot have a copy of the service policy from which they operate to resolve warranty services. Global Care Solutions' representative informs me I have to get the policy they use from Harlem Furniture. Is there illegal activity here? Why does Global Care Solutions deny it customers a copy of the warranty service used to determine whether they get services or not? I requested my denial of this policy in writing from the representative of Global Care Solutions. I was denied a response letter.
Update: November 3, 2008
On October 31, 2008 Stainsafe's representative Global Care released a document regarding this issue. The states:
Full Item Replacement Authorization, Claim #1568823, Sales Receipt number 1107504XOPW; We are pleased to inform you that a full replacement has been authorized for the following item(s) Chest/SKU - 551221107. We have notified the Roomplace at Harlem that we have authorized you to select merchandise of your choice with a value that is less than or equal to your original purchase price of the above referenced item(s)...Thank you for the opportunity to serve you.
There may be some integrity here. There was no response to the nefarious character and behavior of their representatives who handled this case.
October 27, 2008
Conlon & Sons
Mr. Joe Conlon, President/Owner
700 New York Ave., Suite D
Huntington, New York 11746
Mr. Conlon:
Harlem Furniture contracts with Stainsafe for repair service with its furniture needs. I was informed by your representative that you company, Conlon & Sons, provide services for Stainsafe. Stainsafe has 196 complaints against its organization on www.ripoffreport.com/.
On Friday, October 24, 2008, I was scheduled for a repair appointment for furniture I bought from Harlem Furniture. When I purchased my furniture from Harlem Furniture I bought a warranty with Stainsafe, which utilizes your company to provide repair services. My appointment time frame was 8:00 am to 12:00 pm.
At approximately 10:30 am, I received a call from your representative stating my repair person’s car had broken down and he was at the repair shop to get it fixed. I was told when he got his car fixed he would be coming to my house. I received a call late Friday afternoon, October 24, 2008, from your representative stating my repair person would not be coming out. I waited for your repair person for over 7 hours before I got a call stating he was not coming. I was told I had to re-schedule. I re-scheduled for Monday, October 27, 2008, between the hours of 7:00 am to 10:00 am.
On Monday, October 27, 2008, at approximately 8:15 am I had to make a run out of the neighborhood. I left because your repair person had not showed up and thinking about the wait I had Friday, October 24, 2008, I believed I would get a courtesy call to alert me to when this repair person would come to my house.
At approximately 8:35 am I received a call from your representative stating your repair person was sitting outside my home. I informed your representative I was not at home. Your representative asked me how long will it take for me to get home. I informed your representative I would be home in 30 minutes. I got home at approximately 9:00 am. I called your office and your representative told me I had to re-schedule for another day. Sir, I have a problem with the service I am receiving with your company.
On Friday, October 24, 2008, I waited for 6 hours, all day at home for your service. No one showed up. I did not get upset. I re-scheduled. On Monday, October 27, 2008, your representative told me I did not ask for a call to alert me your repair person was on there way. Sir, I should not have to ask for this call. This is a courtesy call, which I should have received anyway because of Friday, October 24, 2008. I deserved a courtesy call.
On Monday, October 27, 2008, your representative informed me your repair person was stuck in traffic for 2 hours coming to my house. I am not sure where your repair person is traveling from to come to my house, but coming to my house is driving against the traffic, not with the traffic. What I mean there is no traffic coming to my house. All the traffic is going toward downtown Chicago. I live in the opposite direction. Nevertheless, if your repair person was stuck in traffic, I should have received a courtesy call stating so, because I waited as I did on Friday, October 24, 2008, I should have received a courtesy call.
Your representative informs me now I have to make another appointment, and they were very adamant and unconcerned about my service. This is totally unprofessional. On Monday, October 27, 2008, I have spoken to Suelette and Antoinette from your office. I informed Suelette and Antoinette that I would write this letter, sending a copy to Harlem Furniture, posting it on my blogs and posting it on www.ripoffreport.com/.
From viewing www.ripoffreport.com/, it appears it is 196 complaints against Stainsafe. Stainsafe employs your company to repair the items it contracts for with various furniture stores. Sir, how does your company fair with www.ripoffreport.com/?
Sir, I want service today, Monday, October 27, 2008. I have asked to speak to a supervisor. I have been told your supervisor is Linda. I have been repeatedly told that Linda is not available. The last response I received from your representative about speaking to Linda is that she is in a meeting. I would like to receive a call about my issue. Please respond.
Respectfully submitted,
Fred Nance Jr.
cc:
http://clickforjusticeandequality2.blogspot.com/
http://click.townhall.com/
http://clickforjusticeandequality.wordpress.com/
http://frednance.newsvine.com/
Monday, November 03, 2008
Sunday, November 02, 2008
The Dynamic Response Group, Inc. & American Express Account: Beware of automated purchases
November 2, 2008
American Express Credit Card Account
Customer Service Department
P.O. Box 981532
El Paso, Texas 79998-1532
Re: Account Ending In – xxxxx
In September of 2008 I called RIDDEX to order their RIDDEX Plus product. The order process took place by phone, talking to an automated voice. During the order process, the call was cut off before I finalized my order. The cut-off was abrupt leading me to believe something was wrong. I called the RIDDEX number back, hoping to talk to a live person. I got automation again. Therefore, I immediately called AMEX to stop payment because I had entered my card number over the phone to an automated voice. I was informed by an AMEX representative that I had to wait until the charge was posted on my account before I could challenge it.
On or about October 3, 2008 I received the product for which I wanted AMEX to cancel payment. Upon receipt of this product by mail, I called RIDDEX Plus talking to a supervisor named Margaret. Margaret told me to take it to my local post office and send it back to them. I immediately took it back to the South Holland Post Office, giving it to one of the postal representative, instructing them to send it back to the sender. I made a photo copy of the shipping receipt before I took the package back to the post office. I did not get a receipt for returning it because I did not get a receipt to receive it. I left the package, the post office and went home.
On or about October 3, 2008 I talked to Amy, an AMEX representative, about this issue stating I was disconnected before the transaction was completed with RIDDEX. Amy opened case number HU40661. I informed Amy I received the product through the mail on or about October 3, 2008 and returned it to the Post Office without opening it.
On or about October 14, 2008 I talked to Andrea, another RIDDEX Plus representative. Andrea asked me did I have a receipt with a tracking number for their package that I took back to the post office. I informed Andrea that I do not have a receipt or a tracking number because I took their package and returned it to the post office telling the postal representative to send it back to the sender. After talking to Andrea, I did some research on RIDDEX Plus. I found out the corporate name for RIDDEX Plus is The Dynamic Response Group, Inc. Melissa K. Rice is the CEO, and that Kevin Sepe is the President. The Dynamic Response Group, Inc. is located at 4770 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 780, Miami Florida 33137. I called 212-614-4203 and talked Julicia Brooks about this issue. I was directed to a supervisor named Ivan who informed me he would submit a research request to Marcella a supervisor. I was told to fax the shipping receipt I had to them. I faxed a copy of the shipping receipt and the notes I took to Ivan at 972-407-3750 (fax number given to me by Ivan).
On or about October 14, 2008 I called the corporate office of The Dynamic Response Group, Inc. at 305-576-6889 seeking to talk to Ms. Melissa Rice, CEO and/or Mr. Kevin Sepe, President. I talked to Ms. Luz who requested I fax my shipping receipt to her. I fax my shipping receipt to Ms Luz at 305-576-6997. Ms. Luz assured me she would track the receipt of the package I sent back to them (shipping receipt, notes attached).
I received correspondence from AMEX dated October 4, 2008 with dispute reference number HU40661 from H. Figueroa Customer Service Supervisor stating in part, “…Thank you for contacting us regarding a charge(s) on your account. We have referred your inquiry regarding RIDDEX to one of our Customer Care Professionals for review. In the meantime, we have suspended the amount of $115.50 on your account which can be seen on an upcoming statement….” I received correspondence from AMEX dated October 8, 2008 with dispute reference number HU40661 from H. Figueroa, Customer Service Supervisor stating in part, “…We are writing regarding your inquiry about the charge(s) from Riddex. We have determined that we need some additional information from you to continue our investigation. What we need to proceed, in order for us to proceed on your behalf, we need you to provide us with: a copy of the Return/Postal Receipt relating to this inquiry….” I did not answer this correspondence.
I received correspondence on October 27, 2008 from AMEX dated October 24, 2008 from H. Figueroa Customer Service Supervisor stating in part, “…As you know, we have been investigating your claim with RIDDEX. During this time we suspended the disputed amount of $115.50. Our investigation is now complete and we have received credit for $67.65….” I immediately called AMEX requesting the full credit. I was told by an AMEX representative that an additional $29.95 was credited to my account. I asked the representative, where is the rest of the credit? The AMEX representative informed me they would continue investigating.
On November 1, 2008 I received correspondence from H. Figueroa Customer Service Supervisor dated October 28, 2008 stating in part, “…We are writing regarding your inquiry about the charge(s) from RIDDEX. We have determined that we need some additional information from you to continue our investigation. What we need to proceed, in order for us to proceed on your behalf, we need you to provide us with a signed, detailed letter describing the events surrounding your claim, including the exact amount of credit you are requesting. Steps we have taken, we have temporarily suspended the amount of $17.90 from the balance during the period of our investigation, which will reflect on your upcoming statement….” The correspondence dated October 28, 2008 has a different dispute reference number on it, which is HY64016.
This is the detailed letter requested by AMEX. First, why is the dispute reference number different? Second, I request the full credit amount to my account of $115.50, which $97.60 has been credited to my account according to correspondence dated October 22, 2008 for $67.65, and a statement from an AMEX representative on October 27, 2008 stating my account was credited for $29.95. I expect the balance of $17.90 be credited to my account. In addition, I request a correspondence from AMEX stating the full amount of $115.50 was credited to my account.
Respectfully submitted,
Fred Nance Jr.
cc:
http://clickforjusticeandequality2.blogspot.com/
http://click.townhall.com/
http://clickforjusticeandequality.wordpress.com/
http://frednance.newsvine.com/
American Express Credit Card Account
Customer Service Department
P.O. Box 981532
El Paso, Texas 79998-1532
Re: Account Ending In – xxxxx
In September of 2008 I called RIDDEX to order their RIDDEX Plus product. The order process took place by phone, talking to an automated voice. During the order process, the call was cut off before I finalized my order. The cut-off was abrupt leading me to believe something was wrong. I called the RIDDEX number back, hoping to talk to a live person. I got automation again. Therefore, I immediately called AMEX to stop payment because I had entered my card number over the phone to an automated voice. I was informed by an AMEX representative that I had to wait until the charge was posted on my account before I could challenge it.
On or about October 3, 2008 I received the product for which I wanted AMEX to cancel payment. Upon receipt of this product by mail, I called RIDDEX Plus talking to a supervisor named Margaret. Margaret told me to take it to my local post office and send it back to them. I immediately took it back to the South Holland Post Office, giving it to one of the postal representative, instructing them to send it back to the sender. I made a photo copy of the shipping receipt before I took the package back to the post office. I did not get a receipt for returning it because I did not get a receipt to receive it. I left the package, the post office and went home.
On or about October 3, 2008 I talked to Amy, an AMEX representative, about this issue stating I was disconnected before the transaction was completed with RIDDEX. Amy opened case number HU40661. I informed Amy I received the product through the mail on or about October 3, 2008 and returned it to the Post Office without opening it.
On or about October 14, 2008 I talked to Andrea, another RIDDEX Plus representative. Andrea asked me did I have a receipt with a tracking number for their package that I took back to the post office. I informed Andrea that I do not have a receipt or a tracking number because I took their package and returned it to the post office telling the postal representative to send it back to the sender. After talking to Andrea, I did some research on RIDDEX Plus. I found out the corporate name for RIDDEX Plus is The Dynamic Response Group, Inc. Melissa K. Rice is the CEO, and that Kevin Sepe is the President. The Dynamic Response Group, Inc. is located at 4770 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 780, Miami Florida 33137. I called 212-614-4203 and talked Julicia Brooks about this issue. I was directed to a supervisor named Ivan who informed me he would submit a research request to Marcella a supervisor. I was told to fax the shipping receipt I had to them. I faxed a copy of the shipping receipt and the notes I took to Ivan at 972-407-3750 (fax number given to me by Ivan).
On or about October 14, 2008 I called the corporate office of The Dynamic Response Group, Inc. at 305-576-6889 seeking to talk to Ms. Melissa Rice, CEO and/or Mr. Kevin Sepe, President. I talked to Ms. Luz who requested I fax my shipping receipt to her. I fax my shipping receipt to Ms Luz at 305-576-6997. Ms. Luz assured me she would track the receipt of the package I sent back to them (shipping receipt, notes attached).
I received correspondence from AMEX dated October 4, 2008 with dispute reference number HU40661 from H. Figueroa Customer Service Supervisor stating in part, “…Thank you for contacting us regarding a charge(s) on your account. We have referred your inquiry regarding RIDDEX to one of our Customer Care Professionals for review. In the meantime, we have suspended the amount of $115.50 on your account which can be seen on an upcoming statement….” I received correspondence from AMEX dated October 8, 2008 with dispute reference number HU40661 from H. Figueroa, Customer Service Supervisor stating in part, “…We are writing regarding your inquiry about the charge(s) from Riddex. We have determined that we need some additional information from you to continue our investigation. What we need to proceed, in order for us to proceed on your behalf, we need you to provide us with: a copy of the Return/Postal Receipt relating to this inquiry….” I did not answer this correspondence.
I received correspondence on October 27, 2008 from AMEX dated October 24, 2008 from H. Figueroa Customer Service Supervisor stating in part, “…As you know, we have been investigating your claim with RIDDEX. During this time we suspended the disputed amount of $115.50. Our investigation is now complete and we have received credit for $67.65….” I immediately called AMEX requesting the full credit. I was told by an AMEX representative that an additional $29.95 was credited to my account. I asked the representative, where is the rest of the credit? The AMEX representative informed me they would continue investigating.
On November 1, 2008 I received correspondence from H. Figueroa Customer Service Supervisor dated October 28, 2008 stating in part, “…We are writing regarding your inquiry about the charge(s) from RIDDEX. We have determined that we need some additional information from you to continue our investigation. What we need to proceed, in order for us to proceed on your behalf, we need you to provide us with a signed, detailed letter describing the events surrounding your claim, including the exact amount of credit you are requesting. Steps we have taken, we have temporarily suspended the amount of $17.90 from the balance during the period of our investigation, which will reflect on your upcoming statement….” The correspondence dated October 28, 2008 has a different dispute reference number on it, which is HY64016.
This is the detailed letter requested by AMEX. First, why is the dispute reference number different? Second, I request the full credit amount to my account of $115.50, which $97.60 has been credited to my account according to correspondence dated October 22, 2008 for $67.65, and a statement from an AMEX representative on October 27, 2008 stating my account was credited for $29.95. I expect the balance of $17.90 be credited to my account. In addition, I request a correspondence from AMEX stating the full amount of $115.50 was credited to my account.
Respectfully submitted,
Fred Nance Jr.
cc:
http://clickforjusticeandequality2.blogspot.com/
http://click.townhall.com/
http://clickforjusticeandequality.wordpress.com/
http://frednance.newsvine.com/
Monday, October 27, 2008
Thursday, October 23, 2008
IDOC Roger Walker & Deanne Benos: Request for rational basis on adverse employment action
Update: December 9, 2008
Federal authorities arrested Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich Tuesday on charges that he brazenly conspired to sell or trade the U.S. Senate seat left vacant by President-elect Barack Obama to the highest bidder.Blagojevich also was charged with illegally threatening to withhold state assistance to Tribune Co., the owner of the Chicago Tribune, in the sale of Wrigley Field, according to a federal criminal complaint. In return for state assistance, Blagojevich allegedly wanted members of the paper's editorial board who had been critical of him fired.
A 76-page FBI affidavit said the 51-year-old Democratic governor was intercepted on court-authorized wiretaps over the last month conspiring to sell or trade the vacant Senate seat for personal benefits for himself and his wife, Patti.
Otherwise, Blagojevich considered appointing himself. The affidavit said that as late as Nov. 3, he told his deputy governor that if "they're not going to offer me anything of value I might as well take it."
I have been writing to Federal and Illinois Government officials in Illinois for the last 2 years about alleged corruption in Governor Blagojevich’s office. I wrote President-elect Obama when he was an Illinois Senator. When I worked at Sheridan Correctional Center as a clinical supervisory counselor I suggested corruption in the Governor’s office and Sheridan Correctional Center when AFSCME Union Local 31 conducted a strike at Sheridan Correctional Center on June 6, 2006. I suggested corruption in the Governor’s office with the contract given to West Care Foundation, Inc. at Sheridan Correctional Center to provide counseling services to the inmates. West Care Foundation, Inc. is based in Las Vegas, Nevada. My employment at Sheridan Correctional Center was terminated on or about May 15, 2008. I was a supervisor. When Warden Michael Rothwell took my security clearance on or about May 15, 2008 he did not give me a reason. I wrote Illinois Department of Corrections’ Director Roger Walker, who has not answered my letter to give me a reason why they took my security clearance. Read my writings regarding the indifferent and disparate treatment, and racism at Sheridan Correctional Center on my blog at http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/ and on President-elect Obama’s website. I am posting this comment on my blogs at http://clickforjusticeandequality.wordpress.com/, www.frednance.newsvine.com/ and http://click.townhall.com/, and on President-elect Obama’s website.
Update: October 23, 2008
Illinois Department of Corrections Director Roger E. Walker Jr. and Assistant Director Deanne E. Benos has not responded. In addition, I posted this statement due to the recent Toolkit release.
10/23/2008: New Toolkit on Law Enforcement Role in Prisoner Reentry: Four Agencies Selected as "Learning Sites" with Justice Department Grant Reentry Policy Council
How can reentry work with entities like Illinois' Sheridan Project, which operates out of Illinois' Sheridan Correctional Center? Read my articles on the blatant racism, indifferent treatment and discriminatory practices by Sheridan Correctional Center and WestCare Foundation, Inc. WestCare provides the substance abuse counseling services at Sheridan Correctional Center.
On October 23, 2008 I was informed from a reliable source that Melinda Gubbels was the supervisor in Building 23 at Sheridan Correctional Center. Melinda Gubbels, who is a white female, filed false charges with WestCare against Fred Nance Jr. for sexual harassment in November of 2007. WestCare determined the charges by Ms. Gubbels were unfounded. When it was time for Ms. Gubbels to face Mr. Nance with her accusations she called off sick from work. Nevertheless, WestCare "rewards" racism, indifferent treatment, prejudice and discrimination by promoting a person like Ms. Gubbels who WestCare "knows" filed false charges against a fellow employee.
WestCare terminated Nance on or about May 13, 2008 because Warden Michael Rothwell of Sheridan Correctional Center took Nance's security clearance without giving Nance reason for the action. WestCare and Warden Rothwell terminated Nance because he complained about blatant racism, indifferent treatment and discrimination. Nance's informer also told him that Sheridan Corrrectional Center and WestCare have recently put 2 other black females employees of WestCare Foundation Inc. out of Sheridan Correctional Center. One of the females' name is Rose. I will provide additional information on this when I receive it.
Don't be mistaken. Recidivism will continue as long as you have blatant racism, indifferent treatment and discrimination polarizing our society. Sheridan Correctional Center and WestCare Foundation, Inc. are following in the footsteps of President and Vice Presidential candidates McCain and Palin. From the demonstration portrayed on National television by the McCain/Palin Presidential ticket, anyone can see they practice and proclaim separatism and divisiveness of the races. All you have to do is open your eyes. Many in this country are afraid to open their eyes, and this is why racial prejudice, indifferent treatment and discrimination exist.
Update: October 1, 2008
There has not been a response from Illinois Department of Corrections Director Roger E. Walker Jr. and Assistant Director Deanne E. Benos.
Update: September 5, 2008
I have not received any response to the letter below sent to Mr. Roger E. Walker Jr. and Ms. Deanne E. Benos regarding the indifferent treatment and discriminatory practices of Warden Michael Rothwell at Sheridan Correctional Center taking my security clearance and not giving any reasoning behind his actions. In addition to this dilemma, while working at Sheridan Correctional Center my car was a victim of a hit-and-run accident.
I filed all the necessary paperwork with the State of Illinois' Court of Claims, Case #07CC3511. Commissioner David Neal of 116 N. Chicago Street, Suite 602, Joliet Illinois was assigned the case to adjudicate it. On September 5, 2008 I received a call from the Illinois Attorney General Office, specifically, Mr. Robert Sklamberg stated that his client "Sheridan Correctional Center" is denying fault. My car was parked in Sheridan Correctional Center's parking lot when it was hit. I had to pay $567.26 for the damages to my car.
Update: August 21, 2008
We know there is very little integrity and honesty in the office of Illinois Governor Rod R. Blagojevich's office. Therefore, we can assume there will be no integrity and honesty in the Illinois Department of Corrections. I have not received a response from Mr. Roger E. Walker Jr. or Ms. Deanne E. Benos regarding the lockout of Fred Nance Jr. from Sheridan Correctional Center.
Is there any integrity or honesty in the Office of the Illinois Department of Corrections? How can the Sheridan Project at Sheridan Correctional Center promote a reduction in recidivism when this reduction is, in part, an act of integrity and honesty? If there is no integrity and honesty within the ranks of the Illinois Department of Corrections, then reducing recidivism is non-existent.
Therefore, it may be safe to deduce that coupled with Illinois Governor Rod R. Blagojevich's budget cuts of "aftercare" substance abuse programs, recidivism will produce continued job security for the employees of the Illinois Department of Corrections. Governor Blagojevich cut 50% or more from "aftercare" programs in Illinois causing massive layoffs and closing of programs needed to reduce recidivism, which provided the continuity of care needed for substance abuse services to inmates exiting prisons in Illinois.
Governor Blagojevich may have cut services at Sheridan Correctional Center by 10%. Governor Blagojevich's massive budget cuts did not include the Illinois Department of Corrections. Governor Blagojevich's budget cuts did affect the lives of 52 Women and children of Safe Haven's residential program who were put out of their residents and shipped to homeless shelters around the Chicago area.
Haymarket, a leading entity of substance abuse treatment has closed its detox program. Haymarket may have layoffs of 120 staff. These are some examples of how Governor Blagojevich's budget cuts are rippling through human/social services in Illinois and the "aftercare" substance abuse programs, which are a major part of reducing recidivism. There is no integrity and honesty in Illinois Governor Blagojevich's budget cuts and the Illinois Department of Corrections.
July 30, 2008
Illinois Department of Corrections
Mr. Roger E. Walker Jr., Director
1301 Concordia Court
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9277
Illinois Department of Corrections
Ms. Deanne E. Benos, Assistant Director
1301 Concordia Court
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9277
James R. Thompson Center
100 West Randolph Street
Chicago, Illinois 60601
CERTIFIED MAIL
Mr. Walker:
The Illinois Department of Corrections has not offered a rational basis for locking out Fred Nance Jr., which was an adverse employment action on or about May 14, 2008. On May 1, 2006 I began working at Sheridan Correctional Center (Sheridan) as a counselor III for Gateway Foundation, Inc. (Gateway) On or about November 1, 2006, Gateway relinquished their counseling contract with the State of Illinois at Sheridan.
On or about November 1, 2006, WestCare Foundation, Inc. (WestCare) began providing counseling services at Sheridan. On Mother’s Day, May 12, 2008, Mr. Stanley Brooks, WestCare Director, called me while I was having dinner with my mother stating Warden Michael Rothwell had locked me out of Sheridan. I asked Mr. Brooks if Warden Rothwell gave a reason for the lockout. Mr. Brooks informed me he was not given a reason for the lockout.
On or about May 15, 2008 I received a letter from WestCare dated May 14, 2008 stating, in part, “…Please let this letter serve as a notification that your employment with WestCare is being terminated, effective May 14, 2008, due to the determination of the Illinois Department of Corrections to issue an Administrative Lockout of your security clearance at Sheridan Correctional Facility. As you are aware, it is a requirement of employment that you maintain an active security clearance to enter the facility….” (WestCare letter attached)
Sir, please provide a basis and cause, along with supporting documentation, for the Administrative Lockout of the security clearance for Fred Nance Jr.
Respectfully submitted,
Fred L Nance Jr.
cc:
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/
http://click.townhall.com/
http://www.frednance.newsvine.com/
http://www.clickforjusticeandequality.wordpress.com/
Federal authorities arrested Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich Tuesday on charges that he brazenly conspired to sell or trade the U.S. Senate seat left vacant by President-elect Barack Obama to the highest bidder.Blagojevich also was charged with illegally threatening to withhold state assistance to Tribune Co., the owner of the Chicago Tribune, in the sale of Wrigley Field, according to a federal criminal complaint. In return for state assistance, Blagojevich allegedly wanted members of the paper's editorial board who had been critical of him fired.
A 76-page FBI affidavit said the 51-year-old Democratic governor was intercepted on court-authorized wiretaps over the last month conspiring to sell or trade the vacant Senate seat for personal benefits for himself and his wife, Patti.
Otherwise, Blagojevich considered appointing himself. The affidavit said that as late as Nov. 3, he told his deputy governor that if "they're not going to offer me anything of value I might as well take it."
I have been writing to Federal and Illinois Government officials in Illinois for the last 2 years about alleged corruption in Governor Blagojevich’s office. I wrote President-elect Obama when he was an Illinois Senator. When I worked at Sheridan Correctional Center as a clinical supervisory counselor I suggested corruption in the Governor’s office and Sheridan Correctional Center when AFSCME Union Local 31 conducted a strike at Sheridan Correctional Center on June 6, 2006. I suggested corruption in the Governor’s office with the contract given to West Care Foundation, Inc. at Sheridan Correctional Center to provide counseling services to the inmates. West Care Foundation, Inc. is based in Las Vegas, Nevada. My employment at Sheridan Correctional Center was terminated on or about May 15, 2008. I was a supervisor. When Warden Michael Rothwell took my security clearance on or about May 15, 2008 he did not give me a reason. I wrote Illinois Department of Corrections’ Director Roger Walker, who has not answered my letter to give me a reason why they took my security clearance. Read my writings regarding the indifferent and disparate treatment, and racism at Sheridan Correctional Center on my blog at http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/ and on President-elect Obama’s website. I am posting this comment on my blogs at http://clickforjusticeandequality.wordpress.com/, www.frednance.newsvine.com/ and http://click.townhall.com/, and on President-elect Obama’s website.
I want to suggest a conspiracy between Governor Blagojevich, AFSCME Union Local 31 and the Illinois Department of Corrections to force Gateway Foundation, Inc. (Gateway) to give up their contractual agreement to provide counseling services at Sheridan Correctional Center (Sheridan) when they allowed the strike of June 6, 2006 at Sheridan to prevent Gateway employees from crossing the picket lines. This conspiracy may involve Governor Blagojevich, Deanne Buenos, Roger Walker, Michael Rothwell and officials of AFSCME Union Local 31. This conspiracy paved the way for West Care Foundation, Inc., which may be in bed with this conspiracy. Follow the money. West Care Foundation, Inc. may have bought this contractual agreement from Governor Blagojevich and his government officials. This is what I am asking the FBI to investigate.
Update: October 23, 2008
Illinois Department of Corrections Director Roger E. Walker Jr. and Assistant Director Deanne E. Benos has not responded. In addition, I posted this statement due to the recent Toolkit release.
10/23/2008: New Toolkit on Law Enforcement Role in Prisoner Reentry: Four Agencies Selected as "Learning Sites" with Justice Department Grant Reentry Policy Council
How can reentry work with entities like Illinois' Sheridan Project, which operates out of Illinois' Sheridan Correctional Center? Read my articles on the blatant racism, indifferent treatment and discriminatory practices by Sheridan Correctional Center and WestCare Foundation, Inc. WestCare provides the substance abuse counseling services at Sheridan Correctional Center.
On October 23, 2008 I was informed from a reliable source that Melinda Gubbels was the supervisor in Building 23 at Sheridan Correctional Center. Melinda Gubbels, who is a white female, filed false charges with WestCare against Fred Nance Jr. for sexual harassment in November of 2007. WestCare determined the charges by Ms. Gubbels were unfounded. When it was time for Ms. Gubbels to face Mr. Nance with her accusations she called off sick from work. Nevertheless, WestCare "rewards" racism, indifferent treatment, prejudice and discrimination by promoting a person like Ms. Gubbels who WestCare "knows" filed false charges against a fellow employee.
WestCare terminated Nance on or about May 13, 2008 because Warden Michael Rothwell of Sheridan Correctional Center took Nance's security clearance without giving Nance reason for the action. WestCare and Warden Rothwell terminated Nance because he complained about blatant racism, indifferent treatment and discrimination. Nance's informer also told him that Sheridan Corrrectional Center and WestCare have recently put 2 other black females employees of WestCare Foundation Inc. out of Sheridan Correctional Center. One of the females' name is Rose. I will provide additional information on this when I receive it.
Don't be mistaken. Recidivism will continue as long as you have blatant racism, indifferent treatment and discrimination polarizing our society. Sheridan Correctional Center and WestCare Foundation, Inc. are following in the footsteps of President and Vice Presidential candidates McCain and Palin. From the demonstration portrayed on National television by the McCain/Palin Presidential ticket, anyone can see they practice and proclaim separatism and divisiveness of the races. All you have to do is open your eyes. Many in this country are afraid to open their eyes, and this is why racial prejudice, indifferent treatment and discrimination exist.
Update: October 1, 2008
There has not been a response from Illinois Department of Corrections Director Roger E. Walker Jr. and Assistant Director Deanne E. Benos.
Update: September 5, 2008
I have not received any response to the letter below sent to Mr. Roger E. Walker Jr. and Ms. Deanne E. Benos regarding the indifferent treatment and discriminatory practices of Warden Michael Rothwell at Sheridan Correctional Center taking my security clearance and not giving any reasoning behind his actions. In addition to this dilemma, while working at Sheridan Correctional Center my car was a victim of a hit-and-run accident.
I filed all the necessary paperwork with the State of Illinois' Court of Claims, Case #07CC3511. Commissioner David Neal of 116 N. Chicago Street, Suite 602, Joliet Illinois was assigned the case to adjudicate it. On September 5, 2008 I received a call from the Illinois Attorney General Office, specifically, Mr. Robert Sklamberg stated that his client "Sheridan Correctional Center" is denying fault. My car was parked in Sheridan Correctional Center's parking lot when it was hit. I had to pay $567.26 for the damages to my car.
Update: August 21, 2008
We know there is very little integrity and honesty in the office of Illinois Governor Rod R. Blagojevich's office. Therefore, we can assume there will be no integrity and honesty in the Illinois Department of Corrections. I have not received a response from Mr. Roger E. Walker Jr. or Ms. Deanne E. Benos regarding the lockout of Fred Nance Jr. from Sheridan Correctional Center.
Is there any integrity or honesty in the Office of the Illinois Department of Corrections? How can the Sheridan Project at Sheridan Correctional Center promote a reduction in recidivism when this reduction is, in part, an act of integrity and honesty? If there is no integrity and honesty within the ranks of the Illinois Department of Corrections, then reducing recidivism is non-existent.
Therefore, it may be safe to deduce that coupled with Illinois Governor Rod R. Blagojevich's budget cuts of "aftercare" substance abuse programs, recidivism will produce continued job security for the employees of the Illinois Department of Corrections. Governor Blagojevich cut 50% or more from "aftercare" programs in Illinois causing massive layoffs and closing of programs needed to reduce recidivism, which provided the continuity of care needed for substance abuse services to inmates exiting prisons in Illinois.
Governor Blagojevich may have cut services at Sheridan Correctional Center by 10%. Governor Blagojevich's massive budget cuts did not include the Illinois Department of Corrections. Governor Blagojevich's budget cuts did affect the lives of 52 Women and children of Safe Haven's residential program who were put out of their residents and shipped to homeless shelters around the Chicago area.
Haymarket, a leading entity of substance abuse treatment has closed its detox program. Haymarket may have layoffs of 120 staff. These are some examples of how Governor Blagojevich's budget cuts are rippling through human/social services in Illinois and the "aftercare" substance abuse programs, which are a major part of reducing recidivism. There is no integrity and honesty in Illinois Governor Blagojevich's budget cuts and the Illinois Department of Corrections.
July 30, 2008
Illinois Department of Corrections
Mr. Roger E. Walker Jr., Director
1301 Concordia Court
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9277
Illinois Department of Corrections
Ms. Deanne E. Benos, Assistant Director
1301 Concordia Court
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9277
James R. Thompson Center
100 West Randolph Street
Chicago, Illinois 60601
CERTIFIED MAIL
Mr. Walker:
The Illinois Department of Corrections has not offered a rational basis for locking out Fred Nance Jr., which was an adverse employment action on or about May 14, 2008. On May 1, 2006 I began working at Sheridan Correctional Center (Sheridan) as a counselor III for Gateway Foundation, Inc. (Gateway) On or about November 1, 2006, Gateway relinquished their counseling contract with the State of Illinois at Sheridan.
On or about November 1, 2006, WestCare Foundation, Inc. (WestCare) began providing counseling services at Sheridan. On Mother’s Day, May 12, 2008, Mr. Stanley Brooks, WestCare Director, called me while I was having dinner with my mother stating Warden Michael Rothwell had locked me out of Sheridan. I asked Mr. Brooks if Warden Rothwell gave a reason for the lockout. Mr. Brooks informed me he was not given a reason for the lockout.
On or about May 15, 2008 I received a letter from WestCare dated May 14, 2008 stating, in part, “…Please let this letter serve as a notification that your employment with WestCare is being terminated, effective May 14, 2008, due to the determination of the Illinois Department of Corrections to issue an Administrative Lockout of your security clearance at Sheridan Correctional Facility. As you are aware, it is a requirement of employment that you maintain an active security clearance to enter the facility….” (WestCare letter attached)
Sir, please provide a basis and cause, along with supporting documentation, for the Administrative Lockout of the security clearance for Fred Nance Jr.
Respectfully submitted,
Fred L Nance Jr.
cc:
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/
http://click.townhall.com/
http://www.frednance.newsvine.com/
http://www.clickforjusticeandequality.wordpress.com/
Monday, October 20, 2008
Joseph & Stephens Associates: Debt collection company refusing to discuss an account and starting litigation
Update: April 21, 2009
The State of Georgia has decided not to prosecute fraud. What type of government is this that allows fraud to be perpetrated? The Government of Georgia has given this company a license to fraud. I received this letter dated February 27, 2009:
State of Georgia
Governor's Office of Consumer Affairs
2 Martin Luther King, Jr., Drive, SE, Suite 356
Atlanta, Georgia 30334-4600
404-651-8600
RE: Reference File Number 230366
"...Thank you for sending us the information regarding your complaint against Joseph & Stephens Associates. As we do not have jurisdiction in matters of this nature beyond a facilitation process, and as this process has taken place, we are closing the file...Although we cannot take further action on your behalf at this point, we are retaining your complaint in our files for future reference..."
Sincerely,
Faye Allen
Customer Service Representative
Update: January 10, 2009
On January 10, 2009 I received correspondence from the State of Georgia, Governor's Office of Consumer Affairs. The letter states in part
"...Our office has received the enclosed complaint from Mr. Fred L. Nance Jr. regarding your debt collection practices for an account numbered xxxxxxxxx9116 indicating Bank of America as the original creditor. The consumer is alleging harassment and/or inappropriate communications from your company, and particularly that you are not contacting the correct party...
The Georgia Governor's Office of Consumer Affairs enforces the Fair Business Practices Act...which prohibits unfair and deceptive practices in the context of consumer transactions. Our enforcement powers allow us to conduct civil or criminal investigations, issue subpoenas, assess civil penalties up to $2,000 per day for violations, and pursue violators in court...
This letter serves as notice that a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act...is also a violation of the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act...
Please also review your records and provide to this office a written response to the specific allegations of this consumer within ten business days. If the matter has been resolved, state the precise manner in which it was resolved...."
October 20, 2008
Joseph & Stephens Associates
5150 Stilesboro Road, Suite 610
Kennesaw, Georgia 30152
Re: Bank of America 4673671189116
Joseph & Stephens Associates:
Please be advised: During the first week of October 2008, Mr. Steve Larrimore called me threatening and intimidating me and my family with litigation regarding this account. Mr. Larrimore informed me he had reason to believe I owed a debt for this account. I informed Mr. Larrimore I did not have nor have I ever had an account with the Bank of America. I asked Mr. Larrimore to give me some details about this debt, and why he believed I owed this debt. Mr. Larrimore refused to elaborate on the account, stating since I did not want to take ownership of the debt he would start litigation against me. I informed Mr. Larrimore since he was not going to discuss this alleged debt with me, that he should call me anymore. Mr. Larrimore informed me I would be receiving litigation paperwork in the mail at the end of October 2008.
On or about October 14, 2008 I received a letter of settlement on this account suggesting I owed a current amount of $4,838.38. The letter states a settlement offer of $3,139.04 with a settlement date of October 24, 2008. On or about October 16, 2008 my daughter received the same letter at her address. I do not live with my daughter. On October 20, 2008 I called and left a message for Mr. Larrimore. Mr. Larrimore returned my call and refused to give me any information on this account, which he is charging me with being delinquent. Mr. Larrimore informed me that since I did not take ownership the litigation proceedings have gone forward against me.
Wherefore the foregoing, if I receive any litigation papers in the mail or by any other means of delivery I will proceed with a counterclaim stating threats, intimidation and defamation of character to start. I will be seeking damages for legal fees, court costs and any and all other remedies the court of jurisdiction deems necessary and appropriate for the willful, nefarious and deliberate acts complained.
Respectfully submitted,
Fred Nance Jr.
cc:
Court of Jurisdiction
http://clickforjusticeandequality2.blogspot.com/
http://click.townhall.com/
http://frednance.newsvine.com/
http://clickforjusticeandequality.wordpress.com/
The State of Georgia has decided not to prosecute fraud. What type of government is this that allows fraud to be perpetrated? The Government of Georgia has given this company a license to fraud. I received this letter dated February 27, 2009:
State of Georgia
Governor's Office of Consumer Affairs
2 Martin Luther King, Jr., Drive, SE, Suite 356
Atlanta, Georgia 30334-4600
404-651-8600
RE: Reference File Number 230366
"...Thank you for sending us the information regarding your complaint against Joseph & Stephens Associates. As we do not have jurisdiction in matters of this nature beyond a facilitation process, and as this process has taken place, we are closing the file...Although we cannot take further action on your behalf at this point, we are retaining your complaint in our files for future reference..."
Sincerely,
Faye Allen
Customer Service Representative
Update: January 10, 2009
On January 10, 2009 I received correspondence from the State of Georgia, Governor's Office of Consumer Affairs. The letter states in part
"...Our office has received the enclosed complaint from Mr. Fred L. Nance Jr. regarding your debt collection practices for an account numbered xxxxxxxxx9116 indicating Bank of America as the original creditor. The consumer is alleging harassment and/or inappropriate communications from your company, and particularly that you are not contacting the correct party...
The Georgia Governor's Office of Consumer Affairs enforces the Fair Business Practices Act...which prohibits unfair and deceptive practices in the context of consumer transactions. Our enforcement powers allow us to conduct civil or criminal investigations, issue subpoenas, assess civil penalties up to $2,000 per day for violations, and pursue violators in court...
This letter serves as notice that a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act...is also a violation of the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act...
Please also review your records and provide to this office a written response to the specific allegations of this consumer within ten business days. If the matter has been resolved, state the precise manner in which it was resolved...."
October 20, 2008
Joseph & Stephens Associates
5150 Stilesboro Road, Suite 610
Kennesaw, Georgia 30152
Re: Bank of America 4673671189116
Joseph & Stephens Associates:
Please be advised: During the first week of October 2008, Mr. Steve Larrimore called me threatening and intimidating me and my family with litigation regarding this account. Mr. Larrimore informed me he had reason to believe I owed a debt for this account. I informed Mr. Larrimore I did not have nor have I ever had an account with the Bank of America. I asked Mr. Larrimore to give me some details about this debt, and why he believed I owed this debt. Mr. Larrimore refused to elaborate on the account, stating since I did not want to take ownership of the debt he would start litigation against me. I informed Mr. Larrimore since he was not going to discuss this alleged debt with me, that he should call me anymore. Mr. Larrimore informed me I would be receiving litigation paperwork in the mail at the end of October 2008.
On or about October 14, 2008 I received a letter of settlement on this account suggesting I owed a current amount of $4,838.38. The letter states a settlement offer of $3,139.04 with a settlement date of October 24, 2008. On or about October 16, 2008 my daughter received the same letter at her address. I do not live with my daughter. On October 20, 2008 I called and left a message for Mr. Larrimore. Mr. Larrimore returned my call and refused to give me any information on this account, which he is charging me with being delinquent. Mr. Larrimore informed me that since I did not take ownership the litigation proceedings have gone forward against me.
Wherefore the foregoing, if I receive any litigation papers in the mail or by any other means of delivery I will proceed with a counterclaim stating threats, intimidation and defamation of character to start. I will be seeking damages for legal fees, court costs and any and all other remedies the court of jurisdiction deems necessary and appropriate for the willful, nefarious and deliberate acts complained.
Respectfully submitted,
Fred Nance Jr.
cc:
Court of Jurisdiction
http://clickforjusticeandequality2.blogspot.com/
http://click.townhall.com/
http://frednance.newsvine.com/
http://clickforjusticeandequality.wordpress.com/
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Bush team, Congress haggle over $700B bailout
Bush team, Congress haggle over $700B bailout - Yahoo! News
Is this bailout appropriate? Who is responsible? Where is the accountability? Who is to blame? If these questions are not answered, why are we bailing the "rich" out of their greed?
Is this bailout appropriate? Who is responsible? Where is the accountability? Who is to blame? If these questions are not answered, why are we bailing the "rich" out of their greed?
FBI - Most Wanted - The FBI's Ten Most Wanted Fugitives
FBI - Most Wanted - The FBI's Ten Most Wanted Fugitives
If you have any information about these people, please contact your local FBI office.
If you have any information about these people, please contact your local FBI office.
Illinois Courts: South Holland Police Department Discriminatory Practices and Disparate Treatment
Update: October 10, 2008
The Honorable Judge William H. Hooks dismissed the charges in this case. The Assistant States Attorney issued a recommendation to dismissal because the complaining witness was not in court. South Holland Police Department's Officer Burrow star #129 did not show up for this court appearance. This is a victory against Tyranny and Discriminatory Practices.
Update: September 23, 2008
On September 15, 2008 I received the following correspondence from AAA my auto insurance company. I applaud AAA's courage in addressing this issue in behalf of its client/consumer Fred Nance Jr. The letter, in part, states:
AAA
September 12, 2008
Re:
Insured: Fred Nance Jr.
Claim #: 3007042
Claimant: Rose Bradford
Date of Accident: 8/13/2008
Your Claim #: 13A399586
Dear State Farm:
"This will acknowledge receipt of your claim for damages to your vehicle arising out of the above captioned accident. After a careful examination of the facts, it appears that there is sufficient negligence on the part of your insured and that is a bar to any recovery from our insured. Payment under our insured's policy is dependent upon legal liability imposed by law. In view of the facts revealed by our investigation, we feel that this is a case where there is no legal liability on the part of our insured. Therefore, we regret to advise you that we will be unable to make any payment to you on this claim."
Sincerely,
Vicky Hughes
Claims Representative
cc:
State Farm
Fred Nance Jr.
September 12, 2008
On or about September 12, 2008, I received the following correspondence from the Illinois Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County
Dear Fred Nance Jr.:
Re:
Ticket Citation Number YM-575-749
Your traffic case(s), listed above is/are scheduled to take place on October 10, 2008 in room CL04, at 1:30 p.m. The hearing(s) will take place at 50 West Washington Street, Chicago, Illinois 60602.
Sincerely,
Dorothy Brown
Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
Update: September 9, 2008
As I left my home on September 9, 2008 I noticed that the Village of South Holland has now put up "no parking" signs where this accident occurred. What is the Village of South Holland proclaiming now? Should they have issued the driver "who caused the accident" a ticket, which was the driver of Unit 2? Why have they put a "no parking" sign up now? It appears the Village of South Holland has reviewed my "motion to substitute the judge...." below. In the "motion" below I cite legal authorities suggesting the driver of Unit 2 is guilty of violating.
Update: August 29, 2008
On August 29, 2008, my case was adjudged by the Honorable Judge John Turner in Markham Courtroom 098. Judge John Turner addressed an individual who had some relationship with him where he stated he was going to transfer the case to the Honorable Presiding Judge Ronald C. Riley. The prosecutor for Courtroom 098 went over the South Holland Police Officer who wrote the ticket to discuss the ticket. The prosecutor came back to Judge Turner and told him that the South Holland Police Officer was not going to prosecute the case. Judge Turner dismissed the case.
Judge Turner and the prosecutor did not do that for me. Judge Turner granted my request for a "substitution of Judge" as a matter of right. Judge Turner forwarded my motion below to the Presiding Judge, the Honorable Ronald C. Riley, to make a decision on my request for a "Change of Venue."
Judge Riley's personal secretary informed me that when Judge Riley returns on Tuesday, September 2, 2008, he will sign my request and send my motion with the ticket to the Clerk of the Court, the Honorable Dorothy Brown, for disposition. Judge Riley's secretary reports it will be my responsibility to follow-up with the results of the Change of Venue. Judge Riley's secretary suggested I call Ms. Dorothy Brown's office to find out if they have received my paperwork. Judge Riley's secretary reports that if Ms. Dorothy Brown's office does not receive my paperwork I should contact the Clerk of the Court for the Markham Courthouse.
While awaiting my case to be heard by Judge Turner, I had the opportunity to see the South Holland Police Department at work in the courtroom, supporting my motion to transfer my case to another venue. Officer Johnson, Star #128, of the South Holland Police Department demonstrated the South Holland Police Department's lack of integrity, honesty and professionalism. Officer Johnson is white. The people he wrote tickets against were all black.
I saw Officer Johnson address about 6 cases. He won 4 and lost 2, partially. Judge Turner found a hispanic woman guilty because Officer Johnson stated she did not stop at a stop sign. Officer Johnson stated in testimony that he knew the lady did not stop for the stop sign because her car did not "rock" at the stop sign. Officer Johnson did not testify the woman did not come to a complete stop, and then proceed beyond the stop sign. Officer Johnson testified the woman's car did not "rock" and Judge Turner found the woman guilty of not stopping for a stop sign.
About the other 3 cases won, they resulted from Officer Johnson reporting using his radar gun to determine the speed of a car, where apparently there was no obstruction of sight even though Officer Johnson testified he had to make U-turns to get behind the vehicles.
Officer Johnson lost 2 cases. Officer Johnson testified that he determined a car was going too fast because "his" odometer stated he was traveling at 48 miles per hour. For whatever reason, Officer Johnson did think he needed to use an instrument that determines the speed of a vehicle. Judge Turner dismissed this case.
Officer Johnson wrote another ticket on a young black woman for not having her rear lights working. The young black woman informed Judge Turner that when she was stopped by Officer Johnson, she got out of her, told her husband who was sitting in the passenger seat of the car, to step on the brakes so that she and Officer Johnson could see her that her rear lights work. Officer Johnson testified in open court that the rear lights worked.
The young black woman told Judge Turner that she then asked Officer Johnson why was he giving her a ticket for not having rear lights. The young black woman told Judge Turner that Officer Johnson told her to "deal with it in court." In my case, Officer Burrow told me to take care of my issues in court also when I challenged receiving a ticket.
Judge Turner ruled against Officer Johnson for this ticket against the young black woman. The spectators in the courtroom started clapping and talking to each other about the lack of integrity, honesty and professionalism of Officer Johnson. Judge Turner cleared all spectators out of his courtroom after this outburst. No one could observe any further proceedings for the 9:00 a.m. call in the Markham Illinois Courtroom 098.
Officer Johnson gave the young black woman a ticket knowing she did not violate any rule of the road for Illinois. After stopping this woman Officer Johnson found her license plate sticker had expired. Judge Turner found this lady guilty of not having an updated sticker. The fine started at $135.00 and that was just for being in the courtroom.
Before the 10:30 a.m. call began at 12:10 p.m., the court clerk gave a summary of what to expect in the courtroom. She reported that the court makes it decision by a "preponderance" of the evidence, and not "beyond a reasonable doubt." A traffic offense is considered to be a "criminal" offense.
According to Black's Law Dictionary, a "preponderance of evidence" is evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it. A preponderance of evidence is generally used for civil cases.
According to Black's Law Dictionary, "beyond a reasonable doubt" in evidence means fully satisfied, entirely convinced, satisfied to a moral certainty; and phrase is the equivalent of the words clear, precise and indubitable. In criminal cases, the accused's guilt must be established "beyond a reasonable doubt" , which means that facts proven must, by virtue of their probative force, establish guilt.
If this criteria is not met, then entities like the South Holland Police Department can continue to violate the constitutional and other legal rights of people. If an entity like the South Holland Police Department is not held to a professional standard of honesty and integrity, it can only lead to anarchy.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT – SIXTH MUNICIPAL DISTRICT
TRAFFIC COURT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
the Village of South Holland and Rose Bradford et. al.
Traffic complaint #YM 575749, Room 098
Plaintiff,
vs.
Fred Nance Jr., Defendant.
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF JUDGE
AND CHANGE OF VENUE
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, on August 29, 2008 at approximately 10:30 am, or as soon thereafter as defendant may be heard, defendant shall appear before the Honorable Judge in Room 098 at the Markham Courthouse, Markham, Illinois, and then and there present defendant’s motion.
___________________________
Fred L. Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Fred L. Nance Jr., certify that I caused the above Notice, attached Motion and Affidavit to be served in “open” Traffic Court, Room 098 on August 29, 2008 to the plaintiff(s) and/or their representative(s).
Respectfully submitted,
Fred L Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT – SIXTH MUNICIPAL DISTRICT
TRAFFIC COURT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
the Village of South Holland and Rose Bradford et. al.
Traffic complaint #YM 575749, Room 098
Plaintiff,
vs.
Fred Nance Jr., Defendant.
MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF JUDGE
AND CHANGE OF VENUE
Now Comes, Fred L Nance Jr., respectfully requesting a Substitution of Judge as a matter of right pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2 1001 (a)(2)(i)(ii)(iii); and for cause 725 ILCS 5/114 5 (a); and Change of Venue pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2 1001.5 (a).
Defendant submits an Affidavit to support this motion.
Respectfully submitted,
Fred L Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS
STATE OF ILLINOIS
SS.
COUNTY OF COOK
A F F I D A V I T
1. I, the Defendant Fred Nance Jr. and Unit 1 driver (Defendant), respectfully request this Honorable Court transfer this matter to the First Municipal District Traffic Center of Cook County at the Daley Center for trial.
2. On August 13, 2008 a traffic accident occurred in the County of Cook, South Holland Illinois.
3. On August 29, 2008 Defendant is scheduled for a traffic court hearing in Room 098 in the Illinois Markham Courthouse.
4. The Defendant strongly believes the Illinois Markham court, any Illinois Markham courtroom and the South Holland police department is prejudiced toward him, demonstrated by disparate treatment and discriminatory practices toward the Defendant in the past and in this present matter.
5. The Defendant received a “Certificate of Extension” for four (4) years when renewing his driver’s license on September 1, 2007. As this court knows, this is given to drivers who have first-rate driving records.
6. The Defendant is a defensive driver.
7. In 1988 convicted felon Judge Paul Foxgrover convicted the Defendant of “upgraded” criminal charges in a Markham Courtroom because the Defendant would not cooperate with police investigations of others who had no relationship to the defendant, such as wearing a wire, along with other vicarious disparities, such as the Markham Courthouse State’s Attorney alleged that the Defendant was a convicted felon with a handgun when the Defendant was not a convicted felon (Case #88CR04675). At the time of this Defendant’s trial in case #88CR04675, the Defendant accused Judge Paul Foxgrover of taking his money, which was taken by Country Club Hills police officers and given to Judge Foxgrover for “safe-keeping” at the time of Defendant’s arrest in case #88CR04675.
8. In addition, convicted felon Judge Paul Foxgrover allowed the Illinois Markham Assistant State’s Attorney to prosecute me knowing the “ineffective assistance of counsel”, such as attorney Daniel Gallagher being an alcoholic and the attorney I replaced him with William Swano who was being investigated in the Greylord scandal, which led to Swano’s indictment and suspension at bar. The Defendant did not know about Gallagher, Swano and Foxgrover’s conviction until he received notice from a 3rd attorney he hired who filed a “petition for post conviction relief.” See Petition for Post Conviction Relief filed February 25, 1992 in case number 88CR4675.
9. Trial Judge Paul Foxgrover’s misconduct for “theft of funds”, which led to his indictment and removal from the bench, in unrelated cases during the same time period that he heard the Defendant’s cases bore on the quality of the court’s ability to be fair and impartial and denied the Defendant due process of law and a fair trial as guaranteed by the 14th and 6th Amendments of the United States Constitution. See Petition for Post Conviction Relief filed February 25, 1992 in case number 88CR4675, paragraphs 9 & 10, page 3.
10. When incarcerated regarding case #88CR4675 on January 16, 1992 at the age of 42-years-old the Defendant did not have a high school diploma. The Defendant received his G.E.D. in the Cook County jail while awaiting placement in the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC).
11. While incarcerated the Defendant began college. Upon release from IDOC, the Defendant achieved his Bachelor degree in Social Science and a Master degree in Community Counseling from Roosevelt University.
12. The Defendant will receive his PhD in Human Services with a focus on Social Policy Analysis and Planning in the Fall/Winter session of 2008 from Walden University. The Defendant has been going to school for the past 16 years.
13. In the instant matter, due to the Defendant’s familiarity with the South Holland police department, the Defendant filing complaints against the South Holland police department, posting the complaints on the Defendant’s websites/blogs, and the relationships of the South Holland police department with the Markham court officials, that is, Cook County Sheriff police and officials and sitting Judge in Room 098, the Defendant strongly believes he will not get a fair hearing, nor will he be heard, and the verbal evidence below, which will be presented by the Defendant, will not be given any weight toward his innocence.
14. The testimony here, given by the Defendant regarding the present traffic charge of “Fail to reduce speed to avoid accident” will demonstrate the Defendant, beyond a reasonable doubt, is not guilty.
15. The testimony here will demonstrate Unit 2’s negligence and total disregard for Illinois’ Rules of the Road, and illustrate Unit 2 being responsible for the accident on August 13, 2008.
16. It is the contention of the Defendant that Unit 2 caused the accident of August 13, 2008. At the time of the accident, Unit 2 informed the officer on the scene that there were no injuries to the individuals in her car. See Illinois Traffic Crash Report (A no injury/drive away).
17. On August 13, 2008 I, Fred Nance Jr., was involved in an automobile accident in the Village of South Holland Illinois. I asked the driver of the other car for their information, that is, driver’s license and insurance card. The driver of Unit 2 refused to give me the information.
18. 625 ILCS 5/11-403 (from Ch. 95 ½, par. 11-403) Sec. 11-403. Duty to give information and render aid. The driver of any vehicle involved in a motor vehicle accident resulting in…damage to any vehicle which is driven or attended by any person shall give the driver’s name, address, registration number and owner of the vehicle the driver is operating and shall upon request and if available exhibit such driver’s license to the person struck or the driver or occupant of or person attending any vehicle collided with and shall render to any person….
19. I called the South Holland Police Department. Officer K. Burrow Star #129 responded to the call I made to the South Holland Police Department.
20. When Officer Burrow arrived upon the scene I gave him my driver’s license and insurance card. Officer Burrow asked me for my phone number. Officer Burrow wrote my phone number on my insurance card. This was inappropriate.
21. Officer Burrow issued me a ticket, which states “Fail to reduce speed to avoid accident.” There could not be a reduction in speed because both cars could not have been going more than 5 miles an hour because of the stop-and-go of vehicles before the accident.
22. I explained to Officer Burrow the following about the car accident: As I came around the bend in the road on Thornwood drive approaching the stop sign, a Dodge Caravan was stopped at the turn in the bend.
23. 625 ILCS 5/11 1301 (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11 1301) Sec. 11 1301. Stopping, standing or parking outside of business or residence district. (a) “…no person shall stop, park or leave standing any vehicle, whether attended or unattended, upon the roadway when it is practicable to stop, park or so leave such vehicle off the roadway, but in every event an unobstructed width of the highway opposite a standing vehicle shall be left for the free passage of other vehicles and a clear view of such stopped vehicle shall be available from a distance of 200 feet in each direction upon such highway.
24. Unit 2 continued to stop her vehicle when it was not practicable or appropriate to stop or park her vehicle.
25. Unit 2 did not have its emergency blinkers on. Unit 1 could not go around Unit 2 at the time because another car was coming in the opposite direction.
26. When the other car went by, Unit 1 was about to turn out and pass the parked/stopped Unit 2. Unit 1 blew its horn.
27. Unit 2 began to move. Unit 1 turned back behind Unit 2. Unit 1 began to move. Unit 1 was traveling 5 miles an hour. There was 5-10 feet between Unit 1 and Unit 2 when Unit 2 began to move.
28. Unit 2 moved a few feet and stopped again. Unit 1 stopped its car. Unit 1 blew its horn for the second time. Unit 2 started moving again. Unit 1 began to move, traveling 0-5 miles an hour, to turn out to pass Unit 2. All of sudden, Unit 2 came to a dead stop again. Unit 1 was traveling 0-5 miles an hour.
29. 625 ILCS 5/11-1416 (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-1416) Sec. 11-1416. No person shall willfully and unnecessarily hinder, obstruct or delay, or willfully and unnecessarily attempt to delay, hinder or obstruct any other person in lawfully driving or traveling along or upon any highway within this State…so as to interfere with the effective movement of traffic.
30. Unit 2 willfully and unnecessarily hindered, obstructed and delayed my traveling along a highway in this State and interfered with the effective movement of traffic.
31. 625 ILCS 5/11-804 (from Ch. 95 ½, par. 11-804) Sec. 11-804. (c) No person may stop or suddenly decrease the speed of a vehicle without first giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided in this Chapter to the driver of any vehicle immediately to the rear when there is opportunity to give such a signal.
32. The driver of Unit 2 could have put her blinkers on suggesting she was going to pause, delay or stop her vehicle, which she had time to do. The driver of Unit 2 never gave an appropriate signal suggesting she would pause, delay or stop her vehicle or suddenly decrease her speed.
33. The driver of Unit 2 caused the accident with her negligent driving pausing, delaying, and stopping her car when the driver of Unit 1 began to safely pass Unit 2 on the left side at a speed of 0-5 miles an hour.
34. 625 ILCS 5/11-703 (from Ch. 95 ½, par. 11-703) Sec. 11-703. Overtaking a vehicle on the left. The following rules govern the overtaking and passing of vehicles proceeding in the same direction, subject to those limitations, exceptions, and special rules otherwise stated in this Chapter: (a) The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left thereof at a safe distance…(b) Except when overtaking and passing on the right is permitted, the driver of an overtaken vehicle shall give way to the right in favor of the overtaking vehicle on audible signal and shall not increase the speed of his vehicle until completely passed by the overtaking vehicle.
35. Unit 2 was about 30 from the stop sign when she stopped her car, causing the accident. The Defendant took photos of the accident scene with my cell phone, which is available for review.
36. 625 ILCS 5/11 1303 (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11 1303) Sec. 11 1303. Stopping, standing or parking prohibited in specified places. (a) Except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic, or in compliance with law or the directions of a police officer or official traffic control device, no person shall: (2) Stand or park a vehicle, whether occupied or not, except momentarily to pick up or discharge passengers; (d) within 30 feet upon the approach to any flashing signal, stop sign….
37. The driver of Unit 2 reports she never stopped her car before impact.
38. How could Unit 1 hit Unit 2 in the angle of impact if Unit 2 was not stopped? See Illinois Traffic Crash Report attached.
39. The only way impact could have taken place, in the angle of impact, is that Unit 2 had to be stopped. Unit 2 was stopped at least 30 feet from the upcoming stop sign.
40. The driver of Unit 2 got out of her car. The Unit 2 driver had her cell phone in her hand.
41. The driver of Unit 2 had been on her cell phone during these events of pausing, delaying and stopping her vehicle.
42. The driver of Unit 2 lives in the complex which we were driving. The Unit 2 driver called her husband to come to the scene of the accident.
43. When the husband came over to talk to her about the accident she informed him she was talking on her cell phone to someone when the accident occurred.
44. The Unit 2 driver did not have an earpiece for her cell phone. She was talking on the cell phone and caused the accident.
45. I took pictures of the accident scene, that is, the position of the cars involved, where the cars had damage, the area between Unit 2 and the stop sign, and the area of space Unit 1 described above where the stop-and-go action occurred.
46. When Unit 1 objected to this ticket and refused to accept it from Officer Burrow, Officer Burrow through it in the car window of Unit 1.
47. Unit 1 informed Officer Burrow he had a AAA bond card, as Unit 1 told Officer Burrow to give him his driver’s license.
48. Unit 1 informed Officer Burrow that when he decided to write him a ticket he was supposed to ask Unit 1 if he had a bond card before taking his driver’s license. Officer Burrow told Unit 1 do not tell him how to do his job.
49. Unit 1 informed Officer Burrow if he was doing his job he would not have taken Unit 1 driver’s license before asking him if he had a bond card. Unit 1 informed Officer Burrow he knew his rights.
50. Officer Burrow told Unit 1 he would have come to the police station if he wanted his driver’s license because Unit 1 was causing a disturbance.
51. Unit 1’s wife drove up on the scene at this time. Unit 1 told Officer Burrow he was not going to the South Holland Police Department to get his driver’s license.
52. Officer Burrow decided to take Unit 1’s bond card but would not give him his driver’s license stating he had to check out if he could accept Unit 1’s bond card.
53. Unit 1 went to his car to get paper and pen to write information about this incident.
54. After making Unit 1 wait for several minutes, Unit 1 had to go to Officer Burrow’s police car, and wait again before he gave him his driver’s license.
55. The Defendant has been designated Unit 1 on Officer Burrow’s Illinois Traffic Crash Report.
56. Officer Burrow reports “…The driver of Unit 2 stated that she was driving slowly (never stopping) when her vehicle was struck from behind by Unit 1….”
57. Unit 1 and Unit 2’s approach/distance to the stop sign was 170 feet from the curve where Unit 1 first encountered Unit 2 stopped in traffic. Unit 2 stopped her vehicle 3 different times approaching this stop sign. Unit 2 stopped her vehicle approximately 30 feet at a time, finally stopping approximately 30 feet from the stop sign before impact of the 2 vehicles.
58. The Defendant (Unit 1) could not have hit Unit 2 if Unit 2 did not stop her vehicle. Unit 1 never took his eyes off of Unit 2’s process. Unit 2 stopped her vehicle 3 different times before Unit 1 attempted to pass Unit 2. Unit 1 and Unit 2’s approach/distance to the stop sign was 170 feet.
59. 625 ILCS 5/11-409 (from Ch. 95 ½, par. 11-409) Sec. 11-409. False motor vehicle accident reports or notices. Any person who provides information in an oral written report required by this Code with knowledge or reason to believe that such information is false shall be guilty of a Class C misdemeanor.
60. On August 26, 2008 Unit 1 received notice from the Law offices of J. Richard Hisaw and Associates, located at 222 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2100, Chicago Illinois 60601, stating their office has been retained by the driver of Unit 2, Rose Bradford, et. al.
61. A Change of Venue will not cause undue burden on this case and will not pose a problem for Unit 1’s request because Unit 2 retained lawyers who have their office location nearer to the Daley Center than the Markham Courthouse.
62. United States Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis once stated, “Crime is contagious. If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law.”
63. A statement of Montesquier De L’Espirit Des Lois was used in U.S. v. Jannottie, 673 F2d 578, 614 (3rd 1982) “There is no more cruel tyranny than that which is exercised under cover of law, and with the colors of justice.”
64. Thomas Jefferson once stated “Experience hath shown that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operation, perverted it into tyranny.”
65. Therefore, the Defendant Fred Nance Jr. who is Unit 1 driver, respectfully request this Honorable Court transfer this matter to the First Municipal District Traffic Center of Cook County at the Daley Center, Chicago Illinois because no social change or preconceived notions toward the defendant/Unit 1 have occurred in the Markham Courthouse or Courtrooms; and with the police officers in the surrounding south suburbs of Chicago.
Respectfully submitted,
Fred L Nance Jr.
cc:
http://clickforjusticeandequality2.blogspot.com/
http://clickforjusticeandequaltiy.wordpress.com/
http://click.townhall.com/
http://www.frednance.newsvine.com/
The Honorable Judge William H. Hooks dismissed the charges in this case. The Assistant States Attorney issued a recommendation to dismissal because the complaining witness was not in court. South Holland Police Department's Officer Burrow star #129 did not show up for this court appearance. This is a victory against Tyranny and Discriminatory Practices.
Update: September 23, 2008
On September 15, 2008 I received the following correspondence from AAA my auto insurance company. I applaud AAA's courage in addressing this issue in behalf of its client/consumer Fred Nance Jr. The letter, in part, states:
AAA
September 12, 2008
Re:
Insured: Fred Nance Jr.
Claim #: 3007042
Claimant: Rose Bradford
Date of Accident: 8/13/2008
Your Claim #: 13A399586
Dear State Farm:
"This will acknowledge receipt of your claim for damages to your vehicle arising out of the above captioned accident. After a careful examination of the facts, it appears that there is sufficient negligence on the part of your insured and that is a bar to any recovery from our insured. Payment under our insured's policy is dependent upon legal liability imposed by law. In view of the facts revealed by our investigation, we feel that this is a case where there is no legal liability on the part of our insured. Therefore, we regret to advise you that we will be unable to make any payment to you on this claim."
Sincerely,
Vicky Hughes
Claims Representative
cc:
State Farm
Fred Nance Jr.
September 12, 2008
On or about September 12, 2008, I received the following correspondence from the Illinois Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County
Dear Fred Nance Jr.:
Re:
Ticket Citation Number YM-575-749
Your traffic case(s), listed above is/are scheduled to take place on October 10, 2008 in room CL04, at 1:30 p.m. The hearing(s) will take place at 50 West Washington Street, Chicago, Illinois 60602.
Sincerely,
Dorothy Brown
Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
Update: September 9, 2008
As I left my home on September 9, 2008 I noticed that the Village of South Holland has now put up "no parking" signs where this accident occurred. What is the Village of South Holland proclaiming now? Should they have issued the driver "who caused the accident" a ticket, which was the driver of Unit 2? Why have they put a "no parking" sign up now? It appears the Village of South Holland has reviewed my "motion to substitute the judge...." below. In the "motion" below I cite legal authorities suggesting the driver of Unit 2 is guilty of violating.
Update: August 29, 2008
On August 29, 2008, my case was adjudged by the Honorable Judge John Turner in Markham Courtroom 098. Judge John Turner addressed an individual who had some relationship with him where he stated he was going to transfer the case to the Honorable Presiding Judge Ronald C. Riley. The prosecutor for Courtroom 098 went over the South Holland Police Officer who wrote the ticket to discuss the ticket. The prosecutor came back to Judge Turner and told him that the South Holland Police Officer was not going to prosecute the case. Judge Turner dismissed the case.
Judge Turner and the prosecutor did not do that for me. Judge Turner granted my request for a "substitution of Judge" as a matter of right. Judge Turner forwarded my motion below to the Presiding Judge, the Honorable Ronald C. Riley, to make a decision on my request for a "Change of Venue."
Judge Riley's personal secretary informed me that when Judge Riley returns on Tuesday, September 2, 2008, he will sign my request and send my motion with the ticket to the Clerk of the Court, the Honorable Dorothy Brown, for disposition. Judge Riley's secretary reports it will be my responsibility to follow-up with the results of the Change of Venue. Judge Riley's secretary suggested I call Ms. Dorothy Brown's office to find out if they have received my paperwork. Judge Riley's secretary reports that if Ms. Dorothy Brown's office does not receive my paperwork I should contact the Clerk of the Court for the Markham Courthouse.
While awaiting my case to be heard by Judge Turner, I had the opportunity to see the South Holland Police Department at work in the courtroom, supporting my motion to transfer my case to another venue. Officer Johnson, Star #128, of the South Holland Police Department demonstrated the South Holland Police Department's lack of integrity, honesty and professionalism. Officer Johnson is white. The people he wrote tickets against were all black.
I saw Officer Johnson address about 6 cases. He won 4 and lost 2, partially. Judge Turner found a hispanic woman guilty because Officer Johnson stated she did not stop at a stop sign. Officer Johnson stated in testimony that he knew the lady did not stop for the stop sign because her car did not "rock" at the stop sign. Officer Johnson did not testify the woman did not come to a complete stop, and then proceed beyond the stop sign. Officer Johnson testified the woman's car did not "rock" and Judge Turner found the woman guilty of not stopping for a stop sign.
About the other 3 cases won, they resulted from Officer Johnson reporting using his radar gun to determine the speed of a car, where apparently there was no obstruction of sight even though Officer Johnson testified he had to make U-turns to get behind the vehicles.
Officer Johnson lost 2 cases. Officer Johnson testified that he determined a car was going too fast because "his" odometer stated he was traveling at 48 miles per hour. For whatever reason, Officer Johnson did think he needed to use an instrument that determines the speed of a vehicle. Judge Turner dismissed this case.
Officer Johnson wrote another ticket on a young black woman for not having her rear lights working. The young black woman informed Judge Turner that when she was stopped by Officer Johnson, she got out of her, told her husband who was sitting in the passenger seat of the car, to step on the brakes so that she and Officer Johnson could see her that her rear lights work. Officer Johnson testified in open court that the rear lights worked.
The young black woman told Judge Turner that she then asked Officer Johnson why was he giving her a ticket for not having rear lights. The young black woman told Judge Turner that Officer Johnson told her to "deal with it in court." In my case, Officer Burrow told me to take care of my issues in court also when I challenged receiving a ticket.
Judge Turner ruled against Officer Johnson for this ticket against the young black woman. The spectators in the courtroom started clapping and talking to each other about the lack of integrity, honesty and professionalism of Officer Johnson. Judge Turner cleared all spectators out of his courtroom after this outburst. No one could observe any further proceedings for the 9:00 a.m. call in the Markham Illinois Courtroom 098.
Officer Johnson gave the young black woman a ticket knowing she did not violate any rule of the road for Illinois. After stopping this woman Officer Johnson found her license plate sticker had expired. Judge Turner found this lady guilty of not having an updated sticker. The fine started at $135.00 and that was just for being in the courtroom.
Before the 10:30 a.m. call began at 12:10 p.m., the court clerk gave a summary of what to expect in the courtroom. She reported that the court makes it decision by a "preponderance" of the evidence, and not "beyond a reasonable doubt." A traffic offense is considered to be a "criminal" offense.
According to Black's Law Dictionary, a "preponderance of evidence" is evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it. A preponderance of evidence is generally used for civil cases.
According to Black's Law Dictionary, "beyond a reasonable doubt" in evidence means fully satisfied, entirely convinced, satisfied to a moral certainty; and phrase is the equivalent of the words clear, precise and indubitable. In criminal cases, the accused's guilt must be established "beyond a reasonable doubt" , which means that facts proven must, by virtue of their probative force, establish guilt.
If this criteria is not met, then entities like the South Holland Police Department can continue to violate the constitutional and other legal rights of people. If an entity like the South Holland Police Department is not held to a professional standard of honesty and integrity, it can only lead to anarchy.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT – SIXTH MUNICIPAL DISTRICT
TRAFFIC COURT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
the Village of South Holland and Rose Bradford et. al.
Traffic complaint #YM 575749, Room 098
Plaintiff,
vs.
Fred Nance Jr., Defendant.
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF JUDGE
AND CHANGE OF VENUE
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, on August 29, 2008 at approximately 10:30 am, or as soon thereafter as defendant may be heard, defendant shall appear before the Honorable Judge in Room 098 at the Markham Courthouse, Markham, Illinois, and then and there present defendant’s motion.
___________________________
Fred L. Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Fred L. Nance Jr., certify that I caused the above Notice, attached Motion and Affidavit to be served in “open” Traffic Court, Room 098 on August 29, 2008 to the plaintiff(s) and/or their representative(s).
Respectfully submitted,
Fred L Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT – SIXTH MUNICIPAL DISTRICT
TRAFFIC COURT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
the Village of South Holland and Rose Bradford et. al.
Traffic complaint #YM 575749, Room 098
Plaintiff,
vs.
Fred Nance Jr., Defendant.
MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF JUDGE
AND CHANGE OF VENUE
Now Comes, Fred L Nance Jr., respectfully requesting a Substitution of Judge as a matter of right pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2 1001 (a)(2)(i)(ii)(iii); and for cause 725 ILCS 5/114 5 (a); and Change of Venue pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2 1001.5 (a).
Defendant submits an Affidavit to support this motion.
Respectfully submitted,
Fred L Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS
STATE OF ILLINOIS
SS.
COUNTY OF COOK
A F F I D A V I T
1. I, the Defendant Fred Nance Jr. and Unit 1 driver (Defendant), respectfully request this Honorable Court transfer this matter to the First Municipal District Traffic Center of Cook County at the Daley Center for trial.
2. On August 13, 2008 a traffic accident occurred in the County of Cook, South Holland Illinois.
3. On August 29, 2008 Defendant is scheduled for a traffic court hearing in Room 098 in the Illinois Markham Courthouse.
4. The Defendant strongly believes the Illinois Markham court, any Illinois Markham courtroom and the South Holland police department is prejudiced toward him, demonstrated by disparate treatment and discriminatory practices toward the Defendant in the past and in this present matter.
5. The Defendant received a “Certificate of Extension” for four (4) years when renewing his driver’s license on September 1, 2007. As this court knows, this is given to drivers who have first-rate driving records.
6. The Defendant is a defensive driver.
7. In 1988 convicted felon Judge Paul Foxgrover convicted the Defendant of “upgraded” criminal charges in a Markham Courtroom because the Defendant would not cooperate with police investigations of others who had no relationship to the defendant, such as wearing a wire, along with other vicarious disparities, such as the Markham Courthouse State’s Attorney alleged that the Defendant was a convicted felon with a handgun when the Defendant was not a convicted felon (Case #88CR04675). At the time of this Defendant’s trial in case #88CR04675, the Defendant accused Judge Paul Foxgrover of taking his money, which was taken by Country Club Hills police officers and given to Judge Foxgrover for “safe-keeping” at the time of Defendant’s arrest in case #88CR04675.
8. In addition, convicted felon Judge Paul Foxgrover allowed the Illinois Markham Assistant State’s Attorney to prosecute me knowing the “ineffective assistance of counsel”, such as attorney Daniel Gallagher being an alcoholic and the attorney I replaced him with William Swano who was being investigated in the Greylord scandal, which led to Swano’s indictment and suspension at bar. The Defendant did not know about Gallagher, Swano and Foxgrover’s conviction until he received notice from a 3rd attorney he hired who filed a “petition for post conviction relief.” See Petition for Post Conviction Relief filed February 25, 1992 in case number 88CR4675.
9. Trial Judge Paul Foxgrover’s misconduct for “theft of funds”, which led to his indictment and removal from the bench, in unrelated cases during the same time period that he heard the Defendant’s cases bore on the quality of the court’s ability to be fair and impartial and denied the Defendant due process of law and a fair trial as guaranteed by the 14th and 6th Amendments of the United States Constitution. See Petition for Post Conviction Relief filed February 25, 1992 in case number 88CR4675, paragraphs 9 & 10, page 3.
10. When incarcerated regarding case #88CR4675 on January 16, 1992 at the age of 42-years-old the Defendant did not have a high school diploma. The Defendant received his G.E.D. in the Cook County jail while awaiting placement in the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC).
11. While incarcerated the Defendant began college. Upon release from IDOC, the Defendant achieved his Bachelor degree in Social Science and a Master degree in Community Counseling from Roosevelt University.
12. The Defendant will receive his PhD in Human Services with a focus on Social Policy Analysis and Planning in the Fall/Winter session of 2008 from Walden University. The Defendant has been going to school for the past 16 years.
13. In the instant matter, due to the Defendant’s familiarity with the South Holland police department, the Defendant filing complaints against the South Holland police department, posting the complaints on the Defendant’s websites/blogs, and the relationships of the South Holland police department with the Markham court officials, that is, Cook County Sheriff police and officials and sitting Judge in Room 098, the Defendant strongly believes he will not get a fair hearing, nor will he be heard, and the verbal evidence below, which will be presented by the Defendant, will not be given any weight toward his innocence.
14. The testimony here, given by the Defendant regarding the present traffic charge of “Fail to reduce speed to avoid accident” will demonstrate the Defendant, beyond a reasonable doubt, is not guilty.
15. The testimony here will demonstrate Unit 2’s negligence and total disregard for Illinois’ Rules of the Road, and illustrate Unit 2 being responsible for the accident on August 13, 2008.
16. It is the contention of the Defendant that Unit 2 caused the accident of August 13, 2008. At the time of the accident, Unit 2 informed the officer on the scene that there were no injuries to the individuals in her car. See Illinois Traffic Crash Report (A no injury/drive away).
17. On August 13, 2008 I, Fred Nance Jr., was involved in an automobile accident in the Village of South Holland Illinois. I asked the driver of the other car for their information, that is, driver’s license and insurance card. The driver of Unit 2 refused to give me the information.
18. 625 ILCS 5/11-403 (from Ch. 95 ½, par. 11-403) Sec. 11-403. Duty to give information and render aid. The driver of any vehicle involved in a motor vehicle accident resulting in…damage to any vehicle which is driven or attended by any person shall give the driver’s name, address, registration number and owner of the vehicle the driver is operating and shall upon request and if available exhibit such driver’s license to the person struck or the driver or occupant of or person attending any vehicle collided with and shall render to any person….
19. I called the South Holland Police Department. Officer K. Burrow Star #129 responded to the call I made to the South Holland Police Department.
20. When Officer Burrow arrived upon the scene I gave him my driver’s license and insurance card. Officer Burrow asked me for my phone number. Officer Burrow wrote my phone number on my insurance card. This was inappropriate.
21. Officer Burrow issued me a ticket, which states “Fail to reduce speed to avoid accident.” There could not be a reduction in speed because both cars could not have been going more than 5 miles an hour because of the stop-and-go of vehicles before the accident.
22. I explained to Officer Burrow the following about the car accident: As I came around the bend in the road on Thornwood drive approaching the stop sign, a Dodge Caravan was stopped at the turn in the bend.
23. 625 ILCS 5/11 1301 (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11 1301) Sec. 11 1301. Stopping, standing or parking outside of business or residence district. (a) “…no person shall stop, park or leave standing any vehicle, whether attended or unattended, upon the roadway when it is practicable to stop, park or so leave such vehicle off the roadway, but in every event an unobstructed width of the highway opposite a standing vehicle shall be left for the free passage of other vehicles and a clear view of such stopped vehicle shall be available from a distance of 200 feet in each direction upon such highway.
24. Unit 2 continued to stop her vehicle when it was not practicable or appropriate to stop or park her vehicle.
25. Unit 2 did not have its emergency blinkers on. Unit 1 could not go around Unit 2 at the time because another car was coming in the opposite direction.
26. When the other car went by, Unit 1 was about to turn out and pass the parked/stopped Unit 2. Unit 1 blew its horn.
27. Unit 2 began to move. Unit 1 turned back behind Unit 2. Unit 1 began to move. Unit 1 was traveling 5 miles an hour. There was 5-10 feet between Unit 1 and Unit 2 when Unit 2 began to move.
28. Unit 2 moved a few feet and stopped again. Unit 1 stopped its car. Unit 1 blew its horn for the second time. Unit 2 started moving again. Unit 1 began to move, traveling 0-5 miles an hour, to turn out to pass Unit 2. All of sudden, Unit 2 came to a dead stop again. Unit 1 was traveling 0-5 miles an hour.
29. 625 ILCS 5/11-1416 (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-1416) Sec. 11-1416. No person shall willfully and unnecessarily hinder, obstruct or delay, or willfully and unnecessarily attempt to delay, hinder or obstruct any other person in lawfully driving or traveling along or upon any highway within this State…so as to interfere with the effective movement of traffic.
30. Unit 2 willfully and unnecessarily hindered, obstructed and delayed my traveling along a highway in this State and interfered with the effective movement of traffic.
31. 625 ILCS 5/11-804 (from Ch. 95 ½, par. 11-804) Sec. 11-804. (c) No person may stop or suddenly decrease the speed of a vehicle without first giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided in this Chapter to the driver of any vehicle immediately to the rear when there is opportunity to give such a signal.
32. The driver of Unit 2 could have put her blinkers on suggesting she was going to pause, delay or stop her vehicle, which she had time to do. The driver of Unit 2 never gave an appropriate signal suggesting she would pause, delay or stop her vehicle or suddenly decrease her speed.
33. The driver of Unit 2 caused the accident with her negligent driving pausing, delaying, and stopping her car when the driver of Unit 1 began to safely pass Unit 2 on the left side at a speed of 0-5 miles an hour.
34. 625 ILCS 5/11-703 (from Ch. 95 ½, par. 11-703) Sec. 11-703. Overtaking a vehicle on the left. The following rules govern the overtaking and passing of vehicles proceeding in the same direction, subject to those limitations, exceptions, and special rules otherwise stated in this Chapter: (a) The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left thereof at a safe distance…(b) Except when overtaking and passing on the right is permitted, the driver of an overtaken vehicle shall give way to the right in favor of the overtaking vehicle on audible signal and shall not increase the speed of his vehicle until completely passed by the overtaking vehicle.
35. Unit 2 was about 30 from the stop sign when she stopped her car, causing the accident. The Defendant took photos of the accident scene with my cell phone, which is available for review.
36. 625 ILCS 5/11 1303 (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11 1303) Sec. 11 1303. Stopping, standing or parking prohibited in specified places. (a) Except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic, or in compliance with law or the directions of a police officer or official traffic control device, no person shall: (2) Stand or park a vehicle, whether occupied or not, except momentarily to pick up or discharge passengers; (d) within 30 feet upon the approach to any flashing signal, stop sign….
37. The driver of Unit 2 reports she never stopped her car before impact.
38. How could Unit 1 hit Unit 2 in the angle of impact if Unit 2 was not stopped? See Illinois Traffic Crash Report attached.
39. The only way impact could have taken place, in the angle of impact, is that Unit 2 had to be stopped. Unit 2 was stopped at least 30 feet from the upcoming stop sign.
40. The driver of Unit 2 got out of her car. The Unit 2 driver had her cell phone in her hand.
41. The driver of Unit 2 had been on her cell phone during these events of pausing, delaying and stopping her vehicle.
42. The driver of Unit 2 lives in the complex which we were driving. The Unit 2 driver called her husband to come to the scene of the accident.
43. When the husband came over to talk to her about the accident she informed him she was talking on her cell phone to someone when the accident occurred.
44. The Unit 2 driver did not have an earpiece for her cell phone. She was talking on the cell phone and caused the accident.
45. I took pictures of the accident scene, that is, the position of the cars involved, where the cars had damage, the area between Unit 2 and the stop sign, and the area of space Unit 1 described above where the stop-and-go action occurred.
46. When Unit 1 objected to this ticket and refused to accept it from Officer Burrow, Officer Burrow through it in the car window of Unit 1.
47. Unit 1 informed Officer Burrow he had a AAA bond card, as Unit 1 told Officer Burrow to give him his driver’s license.
48. Unit 1 informed Officer Burrow that when he decided to write him a ticket he was supposed to ask Unit 1 if he had a bond card before taking his driver’s license. Officer Burrow told Unit 1 do not tell him how to do his job.
49. Unit 1 informed Officer Burrow if he was doing his job he would not have taken Unit 1 driver’s license before asking him if he had a bond card. Unit 1 informed Officer Burrow he knew his rights.
50. Officer Burrow told Unit 1 he would have come to the police station if he wanted his driver’s license because Unit 1 was causing a disturbance.
51. Unit 1’s wife drove up on the scene at this time. Unit 1 told Officer Burrow he was not going to the South Holland Police Department to get his driver’s license.
52. Officer Burrow decided to take Unit 1’s bond card but would not give him his driver’s license stating he had to check out if he could accept Unit 1’s bond card.
53. Unit 1 went to his car to get paper and pen to write information about this incident.
54. After making Unit 1 wait for several minutes, Unit 1 had to go to Officer Burrow’s police car, and wait again before he gave him his driver’s license.
55. The Defendant has been designated Unit 1 on Officer Burrow’s Illinois Traffic Crash Report.
56. Officer Burrow reports “…The driver of Unit 2 stated that she was driving slowly (never stopping) when her vehicle was struck from behind by Unit 1….”
57. Unit 1 and Unit 2’s approach/distance to the stop sign was 170 feet from the curve where Unit 1 first encountered Unit 2 stopped in traffic. Unit 2 stopped her vehicle 3 different times approaching this stop sign. Unit 2 stopped her vehicle approximately 30 feet at a time, finally stopping approximately 30 feet from the stop sign before impact of the 2 vehicles.
58. The Defendant (Unit 1) could not have hit Unit 2 if Unit 2 did not stop her vehicle. Unit 1 never took his eyes off of Unit 2’s process. Unit 2 stopped her vehicle 3 different times before Unit 1 attempted to pass Unit 2. Unit 1 and Unit 2’s approach/distance to the stop sign was 170 feet.
59. 625 ILCS 5/11-409 (from Ch. 95 ½, par. 11-409) Sec. 11-409. False motor vehicle accident reports or notices. Any person who provides information in an oral written report required by this Code with knowledge or reason to believe that such information is false shall be guilty of a Class C misdemeanor.
60. On August 26, 2008 Unit 1 received notice from the Law offices of J. Richard Hisaw and Associates, located at 222 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2100, Chicago Illinois 60601, stating their office has been retained by the driver of Unit 2, Rose Bradford, et. al.
61. A Change of Venue will not cause undue burden on this case and will not pose a problem for Unit 1’s request because Unit 2 retained lawyers who have their office location nearer to the Daley Center than the Markham Courthouse.
62. United States Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis once stated, “Crime is contagious. If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law.”
63. A statement of Montesquier De L’Espirit Des Lois was used in U.S. v. Jannottie, 673 F2d 578, 614 (3rd 1982) “There is no more cruel tyranny than that which is exercised under cover of law, and with the colors of justice.”
64. Thomas Jefferson once stated “Experience hath shown that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operation, perverted it into tyranny.”
65. Therefore, the Defendant Fred Nance Jr. who is Unit 1 driver, respectfully request this Honorable Court transfer this matter to the First Municipal District Traffic Center of Cook County at the Daley Center, Chicago Illinois because no social change or preconceived notions toward the defendant/Unit 1 have occurred in the Markham Courthouse or Courtrooms; and with the police officers in the surrounding south suburbs of Chicago.
Respectfully submitted,
Fred L Nance Jr.
cc:
http://clickforjusticeandequality2.blogspot.com/
http://clickforjusticeandequaltiy.wordpress.com/
http://click.townhall.com/
http://www.frednance.newsvine.com/
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Illinois Village of South Holland: Discriminatory Practices 2nd letter
Update: September 9, 2008
On August 27, 2008 I updated my request to view the water bills of other residents in South Holland, being more "specific" as requested by the attorneys for the Village of South Holland. On September 9, 2008 I received another letter of denial stating in part "...Please be advised that pursuant to 5 ILCS 140/7b, the Village of South Holland will not provide information to you on individual water bills because this is an invasion of the individual's privacy...." This is absurd. The Village of South Holland could have "blacken" out the names of these individuals, leaving the addresses clear.
I called the attorney who signed this letter, who is Timothy Lapp. I asked him how was I supposed to examine documents to see if I am being discriminated against by the Village of South Holland. Lapp told me that I would have to ask my neighbors or the people of the addresses I submitted to write a letter giving me permission to review their water bills. In other words, Lapp told me I was not going to get anything to assess if I am being discriminated against by the Village of South Holland. This is what I requested and the words I used:
I, Fred Nance Jr., respectfully request to inspect the following records of the South Holland Water Department to determine if similarly situated residents of South Holland are receiving "Water Shut-Off Notices" due to being late for 1 month's billing cycle and the current month. The following water bills are requested for a 6-month period, February 2008 to July 2008: 17258 Thornwood Drive, 17245 Evans Avenue, 17234 Evans Avenue, 17309 Parkside, 528 Thornwood Dr., 548 Thornwood Dr., 620 Thornwood Dr., 636 173rd St., 17249 Langley, 17233 School St., and 17160 School St.
Update: August 18, 2008
On or about August 14, 2008 I received a letter from the South Holland Attorney law firm of Hiskes, Dillner, O'Donnell, Marovich and Lapp. Their letter dated August 13, 2008 states, in part, "...Your request is denied since specific documents are not requested...." They also go on with how the South Holland "water billing" system is automated. I guess this will excuse the behavior of the Village of South Holland. Nevertheless, the statement issued in this letter will not suffice. I have gotten bills totaling what they believe is their cap where Village residents receive "shut-off" notices. I did not receive "shut-off" notices for these bills. I will submit another request through the Freedom of Information Act with more "specific" details of documents. The "first" request is below.
August 6, 2008
Mr. Don DeGraff, Mayor of South Holland
16226 Wausau Ave.
South Holland, Illinois 60473
Re: Water Shut-Off Notice
Mr. DeGraff:
On August 5, 2008 I received a “water shut-off notice” for a past due amount of $59.93 and a current amount of $50.97. On August 6, 2008 I filed with the Village of South Holland a request for public records under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (F.O.I.A.). This appears to be discriminatory, intimidating and threatening practice.
This request states: “I respectfully request the Village of South Holland Illinois give access to Fred Nance Jr. to inspect the records of the Water Department for the purpose of assuring equal access and for determining if discriminatory practices are occurring with residents of the Village of South Holland in receiving “water shut-off notices” due to being late for 1 month’s billing without receiving a regular bill with the past (1 month’s billing) and the current (1 month) charge.”
On December 2, 2005 I wrote a letter to Mayor DeGraff about this same practice. The mayor failed to respond to my correspondence. The letter stated in part “…On December 2, 2005, I received “a bright red letter” stating, “Water Shut-off Notice” from the Village of South Holland. It reports I have a past due balance of $36.73, and a current balance of $33.68. The notice states, in part, “If the Total Now Due is not paid in full by the 20th of the month, your water service will be automatically suspended within 48 hours without further notice.” Sir, the current balance of $33.68 is not due until December 20, 2005, yet your letter infers we owe this balance now… The Village of South Holland reports my past due balance of $36.73 is from October 21, 2005 to November 20, 2005. The Village of South Holland reports my current balance is $33.68. This $33.68 must cover the period of November 21, 2005 to December 20, 2005. The Village of South Holland has determined my family deserves a “Water Shut-off Notice” because of the above. I am sure everyone living in South Holland with similar water bills has not received a “Water Shut-off Notice.” This “Water Shut-off Notice” is not signed.”
I request a response to my letter of December 2, 2005 and this correspondence, and access to the records requested through Freedom of Information Act.
Thank you.
Fred Nance Jr.
cc:
http://clickforjusticeandequality2.blogspot.com/, http://clickforjusticeandequality.wordpress.com/, www.frednance.newsvine.com/
On August 27, 2008 I updated my request to view the water bills of other residents in South Holland, being more "specific" as requested by the attorneys for the Village of South Holland. On September 9, 2008 I received another letter of denial stating in part "...Please be advised that pursuant to 5 ILCS 140/7b, the Village of South Holland will not provide information to you on individual water bills because this is an invasion of the individual's privacy...." This is absurd. The Village of South Holland could have "blacken" out the names of these individuals, leaving the addresses clear.
I called the attorney who signed this letter, who is Timothy Lapp. I asked him how was I supposed to examine documents to see if I am being discriminated against by the Village of South Holland. Lapp told me that I would have to ask my neighbors or the people of the addresses I submitted to write a letter giving me permission to review their water bills. In other words, Lapp told me I was not going to get anything to assess if I am being discriminated against by the Village of South Holland. This is what I requested and the words I used:
I, Fred Nance Jr., respectfully request to inspect the following records of the South Holland Water Department to determine if similarly situated residents of South Holland are receiving "Water Shut-Off Notices" due to being late for 1 month's billing cycle and the current month. The following water bills are requested for a 6-month period, February 2008 to July 2008: 17258 Thornwood Drive, 17245 Evans Avenue, 17234 Evans Avenue, 17309 Parkside, 528 Thornwood Dr., 548 Thornwood Dr., 620 Thornwood Dr., 636 173rd St., 17249 Langley, 17233 School St., and 17160 School St.
Update: August 18, 2008
On or about August 14, 2008 I received a letter from the South Holland Attorney law firm of Hiskes, Dillner, O'Donnell, Marovich and Lapp. Their letter dated August 13, 2008 states, in part, "...Your request is denied since specific documents are not requested...." They also go on with how the South Holland "water billing" system is automated. I guess this will excuse the behavior of the Village of South Holland. Nevertheless, the statement issued in this letter will not suffice. I have gotten bills totaling what they believe is their cap where Village residents receive "shut-off" notices. I did not receive "shut-off" notices for these bills. I will submit another request through the Freedom of Information Act with more "specific" details of documents. The "first" request is below.
August 6, 2008
Mr. Don DeGraff, Mayor of South Holland
16226 Wausau Ave.
South Holland, Illinois 60473
Re: Water Shut-Off Notice
Mr. DeGraff:
On August 5, 2008 I received a “water shut-off notice” for a past due amount of $59.93 and a current amount of $50.97. On August 6, 2008 I filed with the Village of South Holland a request for public records under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (F.O.I.A.). This appears to be discriminatory, intimidating and threatening practice.
This request states: “I respectfully request the Village of South Holland Illinois give access to Fred Nance Jr. to inspect the records of the Water Department for the purpose of assuring equal access and for determining if discriminatory practices are occurring with residents of the Village of South Holland in receiving “water shut-off notices” due to being late for 1 month’s billing without receiving a regular bill with the past (1 month’s billing) and the current (1 month) charge.”
On December 2, 2005 I wrote a letter to Mayor DeGraff about this same practice. The mayor failed to respond to my correspondence. The letter stated in part “…On December 2, 2005, I received “a bright red letter” stating, “Water Shut-off Notice” from the Village of South Holland. It reports I have a past due balance of $36.73, and a current balance of $33.68. The notice states, in part, “If the Total Now Due is not paid in full by the 20th of the month, your water service will be automatically suspended within 48 hours without further notice.” Sir, the current balance of $33.68 is not due until December 20, 2005, yet your letter infers we owe this balance now… The Village of South Holland reports my past due balance of $36.73 is from October 21, 2005 to November 20, 2005. The Village of South Holland reports my current balance is $33.68. This $33.68 must cover the period of November 21, 2005 to December 20, 2005. The Village of South Holland has determined my family deserves a “Water Shut-off Notice” because of the above. I am sure everyone living in South Holland with similar water bills has not received a “Water Shut-off Notice.” This “Water Shut-off Notice” is not signed.”
I request a response to my letter of December 2, 2005 and this correspondence, and access to the records requested through Freedom of Information Act.
Thank you.
Fred Nance Jr.
cc:
http://clickforjusticeandequality2.blogspot.com/, http://clickforjusticeandequality.wordpress.com/, www.frednance.newsvine.com/
Monday, August 18, 2008
Illinois' South Holland Police Department: Discriminatory Practices, Harassment and Retaliation
Update: August 18, 2008
On Saturday, August 16, 2008 at approximately 10:20 pm, I picked up a copy of the South Holland Traffic Crash Report. To my amazement Officer Burrow added another traffic charge. The additional charge is "Improper overtaking/passing...." I do not have an additional ticket for this charge. Officer Burrow may have stepped over the line with this one. There is no end to the discriminatory practices and retaliation of the South Holland Police Department. They will not prevail. I have submitted all documentation to my insurance agent, along with the photos taken at the scene. I will litigate this issue to the full extent of the law.
August 13, 2008
Mr. Warren Millsaps
Chief of Police, South Holland
16220 Wausau Ave.
South Holland, Illinois 60473
Mr. Millsaps:
On August 13, 2008 I, Fred Nance Jr., was involved in an automobile accident. Officer K. Burrow Star #129 responded to the call I made to the South Holland Police Department. When Officer Burrow arrived upon the scene I gave him my driver’s license and insurance card. Officer Burrow asked me for my phone number. Officer Burrow wrote my phone number on my insurance card. This was inappropriate. Officer Burrow issued me a ticket, which states “Fail to reduce speed to avoid accident.” There was no reduction in speed needed for this incident. We were only driving about 5 miles an hour. This is a bogus ticket.
I explained to Officer Burrow the following about the car accident: As I came around the bend in the road on Thornwood drive approaching the stop sign, a Dodge Caravan was stopped at the turn in the bend. The Dodge did not have its emergency blinkers on. I could not go around the Dodge at the time because another car was coming in the opposite direction.
When the other car went by, I was about to turn out and pass the “parked” Dodge. I blew my horn. The Dodge began to move. I turned back behind the Dodge. I began to move. The Dodge stopped again. I stopped my car. I blew my horn for the second time. The Dodge started moving again. I started moving again to turn out to pass the Dodge. All of sudden, the Dodge came to a dead stop again. This is when the front bumper passenger side of my vehicle hit the rear driver’s side bumper of the Dodge. The Dodge was about 30 to 40 feet from the stop sign. I took photos of the accident scene with my cell phone.
The driver of the Dodge got out of her car. This driver had her cell phone in her hand. The driver of the Dodge had been on her cell phone during these events. The driver of the Dodge lives in this complex. The driver of Dodge called her husband to come to the scene of the accident. When the husband came over to talk to her about the accident she informed him she was talking on her cell phone to someone when the accident occurred. The driver of the Dodge did not have an earpiece for her cell phone. She was talking on the cell phone and caused the accident.
I took pictures of the accident scene, that is, the position of the cars involved, where the cars had damage, the area between the Dodge and the stop sign, and the area of space I described above where the stop-and-go action occurred. The pictures will be faxed with this letter to South Holland Police Department Chief Millsaps.
When I objected to this ticket and refused to accept it from Officer Burrow, Officer Burrow through it in my car window. I informed Officer Burrow I had a AAA bond card, as I told him to give me my driver’s license. I informed Officer Burrow that when he decided to write me a ticket he was supposed to ask me if I had a bond card before taking my driver’s license. Officer Burrow told me don’t tell him how to do his job. I informed Officer Burrow if he was doing his job he would not have taken my driver’s license before asking me if I had a bond card. I informed Officer Burrow I know my rights.
Officer Burrow told me I would have come to the police station if I wanted my driver’s license because I was causing a disturbance. My wife drove up at this time. I told Officer Burrow I was not going to the South Holland Police Department to get my driver’s license. Officer Burrow decided to take my bond card but would not give me my driver’s license stating he had to check out if he could accept my bond card. I went to my car to get paper and pen to write information about this incident. After making me wait for several minutes, I had to go to Officer Burrow’s police car, and wait again before he gave me my driver’s license.
Officer Burrow should have given both drivers a ticket, if he was going to issue tickets. Officer Burrow was not on the scene when the accident occurred. The only person giving Officer Burrow information about this accident was the driver of the Dodge Caravan and me. If Officer Burrow says he got information from someone else, he is lying.
I called the duty officer, Lt. Becka. I informed Lt. Becka of the issues, stating Officer Burrow wrote me a bogus ticket retaliating and threatening me because of my complaints about the South Holland Police Department and him in past writings. I asked Lt. Becka how did he spell his name for the record. Lt. Becka immediately told me that I should know how to spell his name since I have written his name in past complaints.
On March 18, 2005 I was involved in a 3-car accident where there were no tickets given by the officer for the South Holland Police Department. I complained because the driver that caused the accident was “white” and should have received a ticket. My car and the other driver of the 3rd car are “black.” The “white” police officer for the South Holland Police Department decided not to issue the “white” female driver a ticket. When the case was settled the “white” driver was found negligent and the cause of the accident. I filed a formal complaint about this issue with the South Holland Police Department. I never received a reply from the South Holland Police Department on the complaint written on or about March 18, 2005.
This is part of what I wrote to Chief Millsaps on or about March 18, 2005:
On March 18, 2005 I was involved in a three-car accident at 170th and Langley. Involved in the car accident was a white woman (Denise Lenting) and her passenger (Bonita Vasquez) driving a Toyota Camry, license plate number 3472264; a black woman (Mary Ambrose) and her son (Sullivan Ambrose age 14) driving a Lexus, license plate number 2720486; and my car (Fred Nance, a black man) driving a Nissan Altima, license plate number 1268347.
There was an outside witness to the accident, Ms. Laura Clemons, license plate number C936809, telephone number 708-331-2291. As the Toyota came off of Langley to proceed onto 170th Street, Ms. Clemons blew her car horn continuously attempting to alert the Toyota driver to the oncoming traffic, the Lexus and Nissan. The Toyota ignored the warning.
The Lexus and Nissan driver gave the above information to Officer Kremski (white). Officer Kemski ignored the information about Ms. Clemons stating that if she was a witness she should have stayed on the scene. I asked him why would she have to stay on the scene if she gave her information up freely to be contacted by SHPD. I asked Officer Kremski doesn’t he do an investigation into the facts of the matter. He informed me that he only questions people on the scene about car accidents.
I asked him why didn’t he issue tickets so that a fact-finder, such as the courts, could get testimony and seek all witnesses. Officer Kremski informed me that because of his past experiences with traffic court and people not showing up has discouraged him from giving tickets at the scene of accidents. This is ludicrous.
The South Holland police officer involved in the March 18, 2005 issue was Kremski, ID #106. I have written about this police officer many times coming to my house harassing and intimidating me (see documents I submitted to you on February 11, 2005). As with Officer Kremski, I have written many times about Officer Burrow harassing and intimidating me coming to my home.
Therefore, I am submitting this as a formal complaint against the South Holland Police Department. The ticket I received was bogus and I should not have received it especially, if Officer Burrow was not going to issue the other driver a ticket.
Respectfully submitted,
Fred Nance Jr.
cc:
http://clickforjusticeandequality2.blogspot.com/
http://clickforjusticeandequality.wordpress.com/
http://click.townhall.com/
http://frednance.newsvine.com/
This case was also dismissed, after I wasted my day and time going to court for it. Chief Millsaps never answered this letter.
January 2, 2008
Mr. Warren Millsaps
Chief of Police, South Holland
16220 Wausau Ave.
South Holland, Illinois 60473
Re: Racial Profiling – Harassment – Intimidation
Mr. Millsaps:
I, Fred L Nance Jr., am an African American. The racial profiling by the South Holland Police Department (SHPD) continues. On December 31, 2007, Officer Pedric of the SHPD issued a traffic citation to me for improper lane usage on Cottage Grove. This ticket was bogus and inappropriate.
As you know, there is only one lane of travel in each direction of travel going North and South on Cottage Grove between 170th Street and 162nd Street. If a person wants to make a left turn, they must cross the double lines and enter the lane for turning. If a person decides, after crossing the double lines to make this left turn, they want to return to the lane of original travel, they must cross the double lines again to enter their original lane of travel.
Officer Pedric, who is white, decided to stop me and tell me I misused the turning lane to pass another car on the road. This is not true. After entering the turning lane, I decided to get back into the original lane of travel. Officer Pedric did not ask me why I entered the turning lane in the first place. Officer Pedric told me I entered the turning lane to pass the car in front of me.
I was traveling North on Cottage Grove from 170th Street, when a car turned into Cottage Grove from a side street in front of me. This car turned into Cottage Grove where I would have had an accident if I did not go into the turning lane. After going into the turning lane, I came out of the turning lane and re-entered my original lane of travel proceeding on my course. This is when Officer Pedric came upon me with his squad car and stopped me. Officer Pedric did not stop the other car that was driven by the “white” driver.
While Officer Pedric was writing my traffic citation, 2 other squad cars appeared on the scene. It is my belief because of previous written complaints about racial profiling and disparate/indifferent treatment of African Americans by SHPD, I was targeted by SHPD. I asked Officer Pedric for the other “white” Officers names and badge numbers. Officer Pedric refused to give me their names and badge numbers. I wrote the officers license plates numbers and car identification numbers down. They are Car #14 M146676 and Car #10 M153782, both “white” officers.
I went to SHPD on December 31, 2008 (a few hours after the incident) to report this incident. I asked to speak to the duty commander. I was informed he or she was out in the street on duty. I left a message requesting a call. I never received a call from the duty commander or SHPD.
Therefore, I am suggesting SHPD targets African Americans for traffic citations, especially those who complain about their other “professional” practices. I am suggesting Officer Pedric called in my name and I am in their system marked as a person of interest if I am ever stopped or approached about any police matters in South Holland. I am suggesting SHPD has a monthly ticket quota to assist in municipal revenue. I am suggesting SHPD does not adhere to public policy regarding racial profiling and harasses its citizens through intimidation, coercion and threats.
I have contested this ticket and will appear in a court of law. Contesting this ticket will cost me employment hours/work days and will become a financial burden to litigate. This financial burden is meant to create disparity and indifferent treatment toward African Americans in South Holland, Illinois.
Racism is alive and well in South Holland, Illinois, and in many other parts of Illinois. Illinois may be the most racist State in the Union. The South Holland Police Department is not racially motivated toward equality for all just because they hire African Americans on its police force. I am suggesting they hire African Americans on their police force for political purposes and because of present laws regarding hiring quotas for African Americans.
Fred L Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS
cc:
Mr. DeGraff, Mayor Village of South Holland
http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/
http://click.townhall.com/
P.S.
See other complaints about the South Holland Police Department on my website at http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/
On Saturday, August 16, 2008 at approximately 10:20 pm, I picked up a copy of the South Holland Traffic Crash Report. To my amazement Officer Burrow added another traffic charge. The additional charge is "Improper overtaking/passing...." I do not have an additional ticket for this charge. Officer Burrow may have stepped over the line with this one. There is no end to the discriminatory practices and retaliation of the South Holland Police Department. They will not prevail. I have submitted all documentation to my insurance agent, along with the photos taken at the scene. I will litigate this issue to the full extent of the law.
August 13, 2008
Mr. Warren Millsaps
Chief of Police, South Holland
16220 Wausau Ave.
South Holland, Illinois 60473
Mr. Millsaps:
On August 13, 2008 I, Fred Nance Jr., was involved in an automobile accident. Officer K. Burrow Star #129 responded to the call I made to the South Holland Police Department. When Officer Burrow arrived upon the scene I gave him my driver’s license and insurance card. Officer Burrow asked me for my phone number. Officer Burrow wrote my phone number on my insurance card. This was inappropriate. Officer Burrow issued me a ticket, which states “Fail to reduce speed to avoid accident.” There was no reduction in speed needed for this incident. We were only driving about 5 miles an hour. This is a bogus ticket.
I explained to Officer Burrow the following about the car accident: As I came around the bend in the road on Thornwood drive approaching the stop sign, a Dodge Caravan was stopped at the turn in the bend. The Dodge did not have its emergency blinkers on. I could not go around the Dodge at the time because another car was coming in the opposite direction.
When the other car went by, I was about to turn out and pass the “parked” Dodge. I blew my horn. The Dodge began to move. I turned back behind the Dodge. I began to move. The Dodge stopped again. I stopped my car. I blew my horn for the second time. The Dodge started moving again. I started moving again to turn out to pass the Dodge. All of sudden, the Dodge came to a dead stop again. This is when the front bumper passenger side of my vehicle hit the rear driver’s side bumper of the Dodge. The Dodge was about 30 to 40 feet from the stop sign. I took photos of the accident scene with my cell phone.
The driver of the Dodge got out of her car. This driver had her cell phone in her hand. The driver of the Dodge had been on her cell phone during these events. The driver of the Dodge lives in this complex. The driver of Dodge called her husband to come to the scene of the accident. When the husband came over to talk to her about the accident she informed him she was talking on her cell phone to someone when the accident occurred. The driver of the Dodge did not have an earpiece for her cell phone. She was talking on the cell phone and caused the accident.
I took pictures of the accident scene, that is, the position of the cars involved, where the cars had damage, the area between the Dodge and the stop sign, and the area of space I described above where the stop-and-go action occurred. The pictures will be faxed with this letter to South Holland Police Department Chief Millsaps.
When I objected to this ticket and refused to accept it from Officer Burrow, Officer Burrow through it in my car window. I informed Officer Burrow I had a AAA bond card, as I told him to give me my driver’s license. I informed Officer Burrow that when he decided to write me a ticket he was supposed to ask me if I had a bond card before taking my driver’s license. Officer Burrow told me don’t tell him how to do his job. I informed Officer Burrow if he was doing his job he would not have taken my driver’s license before asking me if I had a bond card. I informed Officer Burrow I know my rights.
Officer Burrow told me I would have come to the police station if I wanted my driver’s license because I was causing a disturbance. My wife drove up at this time. I told Officer Burrow I was not going to the South Holland Police Department to get my driver’s license. Officer Burrow decided to take my bond card but would not give me my driver’s license stating he had to check out if he could accept my bond card. I went to my car to get paper and pen to write information about this incident. After making me wait for several minutes, I had to go to Officer Burrow’s police car, and wait again before he gave me my driver’s license.
Officer Burrow should have given both drivers a ticket, if he was going to issue tickets. Officer Burrow was not on the scene when the accident occurred. The only person giving Officer Burrow information about this accident was the driver of the Dodge Caravan and me. If Officer Burrow says he got information from someone else, he is lying.
I called the duty officer, Lt. Becka. I informed Lt. Becka of the issues, stating Officer Burrow wrote me a bogus ticket retaliating and threatening me because of my complaints about the South Holland Police Department and him in past writings. I asked Lt. Becka how did he spell his name for the record. Lt. Becka immediately told me that I should know how to spell his name since I have written his name in past complaints.
On March 18, 2005 I was involved in a 3-car accident where there were no tickets given by the officer for the South Holland Police Department. I complained because the driver that caused the accident was “white” and should have received a ticket. My car and the other driver of the 3rd car are “black.” The “white” police officer for the South Holland Police Department decided not to issue the “white” female driver a ticket. When the case was settled the “white” driver was found negligent and the cause of the accident. I filed a formal complaint about this issue with the South Holland Police Department. I never received a reply from the South Holland Police Department on the complaint written on or about March 18, 2005.
This is part of what I wrote to Chief Millsaps on or about March 18, 2005:
On March 18, 2005 I was involved in a three-car accident at 170th and Langley. Involved in the car accident was a white woman (Denise Lenting) and her passenger (Bonita Vasquez) driving a Toyota Camry, license plate number 3472264; a black woman (Mary Ambrose) and her son (Sullivan Ambrose age 14) driving a Lexus, license plate number 2720486; and my car (Fred Nance, a black man) driving a Nissan Altima, license plate number 1268347.
There was an outside witness to the accident, Ms. Laura Clemons, license plate number C936809, telephone number 708-331-2291. As the Toyota came off of Langley to proceed onto 170th Street, Ms. Clemons blew her car horn continuously attempting to alert the Toyota driver to the oncoming traffic, the Lexus and Nissan. The Toyota ignored the warning.
The Lexus and Nissan driver gave the above information to Officer Kremski (white). Officer Kemski ignored the information about Ms. Clemons stating that if she was a witness she should have stayed on the scene. I asked him why would she have to stay on the scene if she gave her information up freely to be contacted by SHPD. I asked Officer Kremski doesn’t he do an investigation into the facts of the matter. He informed me that he only questions people on the scene about car accidents.
I asked him why didn’t he issue tickets so that a fact-finder, such as the courts, could get testimony and seek all witnesses. Officer Kremski informed me that because of his past experiences with traffic court and people not showing up has discouraged him from giving tickets at the scene of accidents. This is ludicrous.
The South Holland police officer involved in the March 18, 2005 issue was Kremski, ID #106. I have written about this police officer many times coming to my house harassing and intimidating me (see documents I submitted to you on February 11, 2005). As with Officer Kremski, I have written many times about Officer Burrow harassing and intimidating me coming to my home.
Therefore, I am submitting this as a formal complaint against the South Holland Police Department. The ticket I received was bogus and I should not have received it especially, if Officer Burrow was not going to issue the other driver a ticket.
Respectfully submitted,
Fred Nance Jr.
cc:
http://clickforjusticeandequality2.blogspot.com/
http://clickforjusticeandequality.wordpress.com/
http://click.townhall.com/
http://frednance.newsvine.com/
This case was also dismissed, after I wasted my day and time going to court for it. Chief Millsaps never answered this letter.
January 2, 2008
Mr. Warren Millsaps
Chief of Police, South Holland
16220 Wausau Ave.
South Holland, Illinois 60473
Re: Racial Profiling – Harassment – Intimidation
Mr. Millsaps:
I, Fred L Nance Jr., am an African American. The racial profiling by the South Holland Police Department (SHPD) continues. On December 31, 2007, Officer Pedric of the SHPD issued a traffic citation to me for improper lane usage on Cottage Grove. This ticket was bogus and inappropriate.
As you know, there is only one lane of travel in each direction of travel going North and South on Cottage Grove between 170th Street and 162nd Street. If a person wants to make a left turn, they must cross the double lines and enter the lane for turning. If a person decides, after crossing the double lines to make this left turn, they want to return to the lane of original travel, they must cross the double lines again to enter their original lane of travel.
Officer Pedric, who is white, decided to stop me and tell me I misused the turning lane to pass another car on the road. This is not true. After entering the turning lane, I decided to get back into the original lane of travel. Officer Pedric did not ask me why I entered the turning lane in the first place. Officer Pedric told me I entered the turning lane to pass the car in front of me.
I was traveling North on Cottage Grove from 170th Street, when a car turned into Cottage Grove from a side street in front of me. This car turned into Cottage Grove where I would have had an accident if I did not go into the turning lane. After going into the turning lane, I came out of the turning lane and re-entered my original lane of travel proceeding on my course. This is when Officer Pedric came upon me with his squad car and stopped me. Officer Pedric did not stop the other car that was driven by the “white” driver.
While Officer Pedric was writing my traffic citation, 2 other squad cars appeared on the scene. It is my belief because of previous written complaints about racial profiling and disparate/indifferent treatment of African Americans by SHPD, I was targeted by SHPD. I asked Officer Pedric for the other “white” Officers names and badge numbers. Officer Pedric refused to give me their names and badge numbers. I wrote the officers license plates numbers and car identification numbers down. They are Car #14 M146676 and Car #10 M153782, both “white” officers.
I went to SHPD on December 31, 2008 (a few hours after the incident) to report this incident. I asked to speak to the duty commander. I was informed he or she was out in the street on duty. I left a message requesting a call. I never received a call from the duty commander or SHPD.
Therefore, I am suggesting SHPD targets African Americans for traffic citations, especially those who complain about their other “professional” practices. I am suggesting Officer Pedric called in my name and I am in their system marked as a person of interest if I am ever stopped or approached about any police matters in South Holland. I am suggesting SHPD has a monthly ticket quota to assist in municipal revenue. I am suggesting SHPD does not adhere to public policy regarding racial profiling and harasses its citizens through intimidation, coercion and threats.
I have contested this ticket and will appear in a court of law. Contesting this ticket will cost me employment hours/work days and will become a financial burden to litigate. This financial burden is meant to create disparity and indifferent treatment toward African Americans in South Holland, Illinois.
Racism is alive and well in South Holland, Illinois, and in many other parts of Illinois. Illinois may be the most racist State in the Union. The South Holland Police Department is not racially motivated toward equality for all just because they hire African Americans on its police force. I am suggesting they hire African Americans on their police force for political purposes and because of present laws regarding hiring quotas for African Americans.
Fred L Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS
cc:
Mr. DeGraff, Mayor Village of South Holland
http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/
http://click.townhall.com/
P.S.
See other complaints about the South Holland Police Department on my website at http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
Illinois Village of South Holland: Discriminatory Practices 1st letter
December 2, 2005
Mr. Don DeGraff, Mayor of South Holland
16226 Wausau Ave.
South Holland, Illinois 60473
Re: South Holland’s Harassment, Retaliation, and Discrimination: Here we go again
Mr. DeGraff:
Do you know what your departments are doing? Does the Village of South Holland believe they can keep on harassing, intimidating, and discriminating against my family and me? I will seek legal counsel to sue the Village of South Holland. The Village of South Holland is not demanding every citizen living in South Holland to be subject to this type of madness. This is intentional discrimination, harassment, and intimidation.
On December 2, 2005, I received “a bright red letter” stating, “Water Shut-off Notice” from the Village of South Holland. It reports I have a past due balance of $36.73, and a current balance of $33.68. The notice states, in part, “If the Total Now Due is not paid in full by the 20th of the month, your water service will be automatically suspended within 48 hours without further notice.” Sir, the current balance of $33.68 is not due until December 20, 2005, yet your letter infers we owe this balance now. How can the Village of South Holland make a statement as “Total Now Due” when it is not due until December 20, 2005? The Village of South Holland is bogus.
The Village of South Holland reports my past due balance of $36.73 is from October 21, 2005 to November 20, 2005. The Village of South Holland reports my current balance is $33.68. This $33.68 must cover the period of November 21, 2005 to December 20, 2005. The Village of South Holland has determined my family deserves a “Water Shut-off Notice” because of the above. I am sure everyone living in South Holland with similar water bills has not received a “Water Shut-off Notice.” This “Water Shut-off Notice” is not signed. I guess the same coward who sent the bogus, harassing, and intimidating letter about my car sent this letter. This coward has the same statement, as before, that is “Our records indicate….”
The Village of South Holland has targeted my family for harassment, intimidation, and discrimination. My regular bill issued on November 1, 2005 reports a balance of $53.83 and $36.73 due on November 20, 2005. We sent a check to the Village of South Holland on October 25, 2005 in the amount of $53.83. This left a balance of $36.73. This balance is 12 days late as of the date of this letter. I have not received a “regular” statement of the current amount owed of $33.68, as stated in the “Water Shut-off Notice.” Instead of receiving a “regular” statement with the past due balance and the current balance due, the Village of South Holland decided to punish, discriminate, harass, and intimidate me for publishing and posting my complaints against on my website.
It is real clear what the Village of South Holland has done. They believe if they continue to harass, intimidate, threaten, and discriminate against me I will move. I am not going anywhere.
We will pay $36.73 as we had planned on or about December 3, 2005. We will have a balance of $33.68. We refuse to be harassed, intimidated, and discriminated against by the Village of South Holland. The Village of South Holland’s “Water Shut-off Notice” states, in part, “If a shut-off occurs, to get your water service turned back on you must pay the Total Amount Due shown above, plus the $75 Turn-On Fee.” The Village of South Holland should get ready to shut my water off for the amount due of $33.68 on December 20, 2005.
I have been writing my Illinois State Representatives for months, Mr. James Meeks and Mr. David Miller for years about the issues I face daily with the Village of South Holland. It appears none of my Illinois State Representatives has responded to the Village of South Holland or me. If a constituent cannot get assistance from their State Representatives then someone else needs to have their seat. I am not an isolated incident with the Village of South Holland or of my Illinois State Representatives non-actions. Even Mr. Jesse White, the Illinois Secretary of State (read my letter of November 15, 2005 about the Village of South Holland posted on my website), has not responded to my previous letter faxed to his office, which impacts his office directly.
I will continue to publish and post my complaints against the Village of South Holland alerting my Illinois State Representatives. I will continue to inform the general public of the non-actions of my Illinois State Representatives. Voters need to know how they can be ignored because they attempt to fight for their Constitutional rights and Human Right to be left alone.
This would not be happening if my Illinois State Representatives acted. Their non-actions fuel the fires of ignorance. People, Mississippi is burning.
Respectfully submitted,
Fred L Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS
cc:
Fax copies sent to the following:
Mr. Don DeGraff, Mayor of South Holland (hard copy mailed)
United States Senator Barack Obama
Illinois State Senator James Meeks
Illinois State Representative David Miller
Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich
Illinois Secretary of State
http://clickforjusticeandequaltiy.blogspot.com/
P.S.
The Village of South Holland is so petty. This is all they can find on me. There is nothing to find.
This is a breakdown of my “Water” bill. The Village of South Holland bills its residents after usage. The bill will always be for the previous month.
For September 21, 2005 to October 20, 2005: Billing date November 1, 2005
Sewer Flat $ 0.38
Refuse Pickup 15.00
Sewer 3.29
Water 10.06
Total $36.73
For October 21, 2005 to November 20, 2000: Billing date December 1, 2005
· Sewer Flat $ 0.38
· Refuse Pickup 15.00
· Sewer 2.82
· Water 15.48
Total $33.68
The Village of South Holland is outrageous. Future vendors and business people beware. The World should know how they operate.
Mr. Don DeGraff, Mayor of South Holland
16226 Wausau Ave.
South Holland, Illinois 60473
Re: South Holland’s Harassment, Retaliation, and Discrimination: Here we go again
Mr. DeGraff:
Do you know what your departments are doing? Does the Village of South Holland believe they can keep on harassing, intimidating, and discriminating against my family and me? I will seek legal counsel to sue the Village of South Holland. The Village of South Holland is not demanding every citizen living in South Holland to be subject to this type of madness. This is intentional discrimination, harassment, and intimidation.
On December 2, 2005, I received “a bright red letter” stating, “Water Shut-off Notice” from the Village of South Holland. It reports I have a past due balance of $36.73, and a current balance of $33.68. The notice states, in part, “If the Total Now Due is not paid in full by the 20th of the month, your water service will be automatically suspended within 48 hours without further notice.” Sir, the current balance of $33.68 is not due until December 20, 2005, yet your letter infers we owe this balance now. How can the Village of South Holland make a statement as “Total Now Due” when it is not due until December 20, 2005? The Village of South Holland is bogus.
The Village of South Holland reports my past due balance of $36.73 is from October 21, 2005 to November 20, 2005. The Village of South Holland reports my current balance is $33.68. This $33.68 must cover the period of November 21, 2005 to December 20, 2005. The Village of South Holland has determined my family deserves a “Water Shut-off Notice” because of the above. I am sure everyone living in South Holland with similar water bills has not received a “Water Shut-off Notice.” This “Water Shut-off Notice” is not signed. I guess the same coward who sent the bogus, harassing, and intimidating letter about my car sent this letter. This coward has the same statement, as before, that is “Our records indicate….”
The Village of South Holland has targeted my family for harassment, intimidation, and discrimination. My regular bill issued on November 1, 2005 reports a balance of $53.83 and $36.73 due on November 20, 2005. We sent a check to the Village of South Holland on October 25, 2005 in the amount of $53.83. This left a balance of $36.73. This balance is 12 days late as of the date of this letter. I have not received a “regular” statement of the current amount owed of $33.68, as stated in the “Water Shut-off Notice.” Instead of receiving a “regular” statement with the past due balance and the current balance due, the Village of South Holland decided to punish, discriminate, harass, and intimidate me for publishing and posting my complaints against on my website.
It is real clear what the Village of South Holland has done. They believe if they continue to harass, intimidate, threaten, and discriminate against me I will move. I am not going anywhere.
We will pay $36.73 as we had planned on or about December 3, 2005. We will have a balance of $33.68. We refuse to be harassed, intimidated, and discriminated against by the Village of South Holland. The Village of South Holland’s “Water Shut-off Notice” states, in part, “If a shut-off occurs, to get your water service turned back on you must pay the Total Amount Due shown above, plus the $75 Turn-On Fee.” The Village of South Holland should get ready to shut my water off for the amount due of $33.68 on December 20, 2005.
I have been writing my Illinois State Representatives for months, Mr. James Meeks and Mr. David Miller for years about the issues I face daily with the Village of South Holland. It appears none of my Illinois State Representatives has responded to the Village of South Holland or me. If a constituent cannot get assistance from their State Representatives then someone else needs to have their seat. I am not an isolated incident with the Village of South Holland or of my Illinois State Representatives non-actions. Even Mr. Jesse White, the Illinois Secretary of State (read my letter of November 15, 2005 about the Village of South Holland posted on my website), has not responded to my previous letter faxed to his office, which impacts his office directly.
I will continue to publish and post my complaints against the Village of South Holland alerting my Illinois State Representatives. I will continue to inform the general public of the non-actions of my Illinois State Representatives. Voters need to know how they can be ignored because they attempt to fight for their Constitutional rights and Human Right to be left alone.
This would not be happening if my Illinois State Representatives acted. Their non-actions fuel the fires of ignorance. People, Mississippi is burning.
Respectfully submitted,
Fred L Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS
cc:
Fax copies sent to the following:
Mr. Don DeGraff, Mayor of South Holland (hard copy mailed)
United States Senator Barack Obama
Illinois State Senator James Meeks
Illinois State Representative David Miller
Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich
Illinois Secretary of State
http://clickforjusticeandequaltiy.blogspot.com/
P.S.
The Village of South Holland is so petty. This is all they can find on me. There is nothing to find.
This is a breakdown of my “Water” bill. The Village of South Holland bills its residents after usage. The bill will always be for the previous month.
For September 21, 2005 to October 20, 2005: Billing date November 1, 2005
Sewer Flat $ 0.38
Refuse Pickup 15.00
Sewer 3.29
Water 10.06
Total $36.73
For October 21, 2005 to November 20, 2000: Billing date December 1, 2005
· Sewer Flat $ 0.38
· Refuse Pickup 15.00
· Sewer 2.82
· Water 15.48
Total $33.68
The Village of South Holland is outrageous. Future vendors and business people beware. The World should know how they operate.
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
Justice Center: The Council of State Governments
August 5, 2008
CSG Justice Center Releases Innovative Web-Based Tool to Help State and Local Officials Improve Prisoner/Inmate Reentry.
The Council of State Governments Justice Center unveiled today a first-of-its-kind interactive online tool for state and local government professionals working to make prison and jail reentry safer and more successful. The tool was developed with support from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice, to familiarize state and local government officials with different assessment instruments used in corrections systems across the nation to gauge the risks and needs of someone admitted to prison or jail.
"The only way we can stop the cycle of recidivism is to start planning for an individual's return to the community from the very first step he or she takes into a prison or jail," said Justin Jones, Director of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections. "Prison and jail officials need the latest thinking on assessment tool options to inform prison and jail programming, as well as decisions about release and community supervision."
According to the Justice Center, such information is typically collected through a series of screenings, assessments, and evaluations conducted before sentencing and immediately after admittance to a correctional institution. This information should be updated periodically throughout the person's incarceration and during any community supervision. The information also should be used to make decisions about how to manage risk, deliver treatment and other services, and allocate resources.
"One reason this tool is so valuable is because it allows staff to search for key information at particular decision points (such as admission to a facility) or to search by topic areas (such as risk and security classifications, mental health, substance abuse, education, employment, housing, family relationships, and financial status)," said AT Wall, Director of the Rhode Island Department of Corrections. "Each of these categories includes descriptions of information to gather, examples of validated assessment instruments, resources and recommendations about prioritization, and suggestions for who should be charged with collecting each kind of data."
The online resource is part of a larger toolkit the Justice Center plans to release in fall 2008 that will include a policy guide and three case studies of the collective experiences of jurisdictions that applied the guide's recommendations to improve their assessment processes. The availability of the complete toolkit will be announced this fall in an upcoming issue of the Reentry Policy Council's newsletter.
CSG Justice Center Releases Innovative Web-Based Tool to Help State and Local Officials Improve Prisoner/Inmate Reentry.
The Council of State Governments Justice Center unveiled today a first-of-its-kind interactive online tool for state and local government professionals working to make prison and jail reentry safer and more successful. The tool was developed with support from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice, to familiarize state and local government officials with different assessment instruments used in corrections systems across the nation to gauge the risks and needs of someone admitted to prison or jail.
"The only way we can stop the cycle of recidivism is to start planning for an individual's return to the community from the very first step he or she takes into a prison or jail," said Justin Jones, Director of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections. "Prison and jail officials need the latest thinking on assessment tool options to inform prison and jail programming, as well as decisions about release and community supervision."
According to the Justice Center, such information is typically collected through a series of screenings, assessments, and evaluations conducted before sentencing and immediately after admittance to a correctional institution. This information should be updated periodically throughout the person's incarceration and during any community supervision. The information also should be used to make decisions about how to manage risk, deliver treatment and other services, and allocate resources.
"One reason this tool is so valuable is because it allows staff to search for key information at particular decision points (such as admission to a facility) or to search by topic areas (such as risk and security classifications, mental health, substance abuse, education, employment, housing, family relationships, and financial status)," said AT Wall, Director of the Rhode Island Department of Corrections. "Each of these categories includes descriptions of information to gather, examples of validated assessment instruments, resources and recommendations about prioritization, and suggestions for who should be charged with collecting each kind of data."
The online resource is part of a larger toolkit the Justice Center plans to release in fall 2008 that will include a policy guide and three case studies of the collective experiences of jurisdictions that applied the guide's recommendations to improve their assessment processes. The availability of the complete toolkit will be announced this fall in an upcoming issue of the Reentry Policy Council's newsletter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
