"Rocky" <wook...@att.net> wrote in
news:Ro6dnRO2qIKyegjVnZ2dnUVZ_rzinZ2d@giganews.com:

Forgive my intrusion for one last time. I see that Mr. Wittekind has
decided to take it upon himself to post publicly some direct and rather
serious allegations.

Mr. Wittekind, you are crossing a line that you absolutely might want to
consider very carefully before you proceed any farther. Your websites are
one thing and they are easily overlooked, because your own words written on
those sites contradict certain allegations quite effectively.

I fail to understand why you have chosen to take it upon yourself to invade
a usenet group with no subjective or expressed interest in the dealings you
have had with others revolving around decade old legal matters, and why you
have now chosen to use this same group to launch a smear campaign against
those whom you feel have denied you some perceived and unfulfilled justice.

Your "opinions, all of which I intend to address in this post, may very
well cause you more grief than you dare wish to endure, especially if you
choose to ignore what will be my one and only warning to you, to cease and
desist immediately. You skated free two and a half decades ago, and how you
view your acquittal is up to you, but don't think that you hold a gold key
to the courthouse crapper and that you are immune from being charged with
wrongdoing because you managed to appear in front of a Judge and managed to
effect a win in court.

To put it mildly, you were handed a win due to an error committed before
you were charged, and an error that is well documented on your own site,
and nothing more. The error was unknown prior to you being charged, and
that's all I intend to offer in a public forum about the events of that
day.

If it was signed, any "alteration or missing things" are not the
responsibility of anyone but the party/parties that prepared the report.

Your issue is with them, and not the Judge.

Could you be any less vague? What "items"? What are you referring to as
"good faith"? Are you under some impression that a court of law is like an
insurance policy, where "good faith" claims are defined and outlined? This
is terminology that has nothing at all to do with any point of law as it
pertains to you being charged with a crime. The accusation by the plaintiff
is all that is needed, and that is why you were made to answer in court to
a charge.

It is not up to any Judge to determine the truth to any claim of wrongdoing
prior to the date that it is heard in court. Blame the Judge if you must,
if the outcome is not what you hoped for or expected, but don't think for
one second that he or she can make any decisions prior to the moment and
time that the charges are read in court.

Charges are brought when a credible accusation is made, or in your case,
based upon a violation of the right that another has to be secure in their
home. You were charged with a form of trespass, and the fact is that there
was an error in the preparation of those charges, more likely overlooked by
all up to the point and time they were discussed in detail on the day of
your trial, rather than any act of intentional attempt to falsely accuse.

I have no idea under the heavens what "good faith" has to do with anything
here. You effectively illustrated the mistake in the preparation of the
charges, the jury understood this and the charges were dismissed, and that
Sir, was supposed to be the end of it. People are accused in error all the
time, and the courts are where the accusations are sorted out and
corrected.

Your mistake in life, was to take it upon yourself to view it in reverse
terms, as if the Judge is to make decisions as to the validity of charges
before a word is uttered, and that is ludicrous.

How is this the fault of anyone but who recorded the events of that day?

Your complaint is very misguided, and for you to suggest in any manner,
that one or more people purposely altered a transcript is without merit,
and a very serious accusation to make.

YOU hired the service who took notes of the trial. They were not there at
anyone's behest but your own. Why on earth would anyone have any reason to
change something that would not have normally been recorded to begin with?

You have no basis for offering such a baseless charge, and to do so
publicly in this forum is libelous. If you do not understand that word, I
suggest you look up it's meaning Mr. Wittekind. You need not be under oath
in here to be guilty of a crime, or to be held accountable for it.

You weren't required to sign it.

Again, you requested a record be kept of the trial and you were granted it.
If you had any dispute with the transcript, the time to have raised it
would have been immediately upon viewing it when you received it.

How is this any current issue some two and a half decades later? If you
want to make it an issue, I will be more than happy to accomodate you by
answering to your charges from the position as a plaintiff, and with you as
a defendant once again, for make no mistake Mr. Wittekind, I will not sit
her and allow you to impugn my my untarnished reputation as a fair and
impartial man, who served the State of Illinois for many years on the
bench.

And make no mistake either, it will not be performed in a small claims
court, and it will not be inexpensive for you to answer to your claims.

In short, if you want to continue to pursue your campaign in this forum,
you're going to pay far more in sanctions for years to come, than the State
caused you to pay in 1991.

And that Sir is an unfounded, unsubstantiated, and publicly expressed
libelous statement.

How in the world could an aquittal of all charges in my court be a denial
of your 6th Amendment rights?

As I understand it, Judge John Telleen sat on the bench in your small
claims hearing. You attempted to introduce evidence from your criminal
trial into that hearing, which for brevity's sake, may or may not be
allowed as the Judge is allowed to determine. If the Judge considers it
irrelevant, you will be denied certain evidence.

You sought sanctions for being brought up on charges, and the long and
short of it, was that you were denied sanctions because the charges were
valid, based on a history of well documented exchanges between the family
in question and yourself. You had violated their right to privacy more than
a few times. You appealed a small claims ruling, not once, not twice, but
three times.

You were told in no uncertain terms that you have no concept of the law,
and why you were denied sanctions, and the defendant was awarded sanctions
for the time and trouble to appear and answer several times to your pursuit  
in further harassing the family.

Now this is how it is recorded, and how it shall remain on the books for
the rest of your life. Accept it or do not accept it. That's your right.
But you do NOT have the right to make unfounded accusations in a public
forum about events which you cannot prove, in some attempt to revive this
for whatever reason, and I am here to tell you today that I will not sit
still for one more word of this.

You stop or I promise you, I will make accusations of my own, and with more
than enough proof to cause you financial discomfort for years to come.

Are we clear on this? Not one more word. One more accusation, and you and I
will meet again, and it will not be over coffee, or to discuss legal
theories. It will be in my own quest to see just how much I can ammass from
you in the form of sanctions for making accusations for which you have no
evidence whatsoever to base them upon, and for attempting to debase my
character.

If you want to play like an Attorney, I'll be happy to give you the
opportunity to know what it feels like to receive a good butt whipping in
court.

Trust me fella', they sting more than you know.

JMB

 Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
                http://www.usenet.com