The Exhibits used to win a Jury Trial 12 - 0 as a Pro-se litigant
The proof that the jury trial 90-CM-9 was won 12 to 0 by a Pro se litigant is here. That link states: "Def appears pro se." . . . "Jury retires to deliberate at 4:00 p.m. Jury returns at 4:40 p.m. with a verdict of NOT GUILTY." A close up of the 12 - 0 verdict can be found here.
The two main exhibits used for impeachment (definition),
should still be on file because the Report of Proceedings
came from case #83 CM 20257 of the Circuit Court and the Police Report
came from the State's Attorneys Office when I attempted to have the Rusk charged with
perjury because of the false statements they made to neighbors and police. More
about why the "follow through" failed can be found at:
This is a quick note proving that evidence presented below was completely thrown away in a Malicious Prosecution lawsuit.
Transcripts for the subsequent trial for "Malicious
Prosecution" in PDF format can be found at:
There is a reason the transcript for the Jury trial is not placed at the above URL and it can be found here.
Those transcripts prove I was prevented from using a single word from
the transcript of case 90-CM-9 and the only exhibit I would be allowed to reuse from the
trial I won would be a letter signed by Beverly Rusk when Judge Telleen stated: "I'm
going to admit the letter." Page 21 line 10.
But the letter signed by Beverly Rusk didn't show anything by itself it had to be introduced with the letter that she replied to since both of them show that Beverly wasn't even attempting to learn the facts.
Some of the facts that Beverly Rusk kept concealed from her own daughter are in Defense Exhibit #4 below and they can be used to prove the "circumstances of prosecution are inconsistent with good faith on part of the prosecutor" (Item 8. in Mack vs. First Security Bank of Chicago).
Before the Exhibits, I want to show part of the State's "Opening Remarks" that would end up being completely undermined by my very first exhibit.
This is a story of infatuation. Of a boy following a girl where the girl shows no interest, has not interest in him, and all the mother is trying to do is protect her daughter who has some problems.
To help show where I was leading the jury with my exhibits, this is part of my "Opening Remarks."
For starters you might think there are two people here. There's me the defendant, and there is if you want to call it a ghost or Beverly's delusion, this person that the people are saying committed a crime is over there. He doesn't exist. They've been trying to tell, they've been coming up with all sorts of crazy actions, you know telling all sorts of stories, trying to stick to their prejudices.
Their whole story is going to be based on prejudices. A story just because of their prejudices. He did mention something about the daughter's, the daughter's problem. I am well aware of that problem, and they know nothing of it. They are so prejudiced they refuse to see the facts, and it's just malice that is causing them to do this.
It's like again, it's like a ghost. They're afraid of a ghost. There's never anything to run from. And as far as telephone calls, I'd have to deny the one they say, but I am going to go on - I am going to go on motive where there was never any intent to harass.
|The 5 Exhibits used by the Defense (Note: Bold shows they were entered specifically for "purposes of impeachment")|
|1. How Exhibit #1 was introduced||Report of Proceedings from 83 CM 20257.|
|2. How Exhibit #2 was introduced||Letter from My Attorney to Beverly.|
|3. How Exhibit #3 was introduced||Letter from Beverly to My Attorney.|
|4. How Exhibit #4 was introduced||List of things, most that Beverly never knew.|
|5. How Exhibit #5 was introduced||Police Report kept out of the 83 CM 20257 trial.|
There were other possible Exhibits, but after Beverly was caught in a
BIG lie right on the witness stand, they were no longer necessary. The following is
quoted from a letter I wrote that is found at:
I have to mention Beverly's BIGGEST screw up! When Beverly started her testimony she mentioned a child 9 years old. I wrote this down in my notebook. It just so happened that this 9 year old child had been at an earlier Hearing to Quash Subpoenas, and said "There was NO phone call!" Anyway, when I tried to ask Beverly further questions about a 9 year old child, she said "She did not mention anything." I said I have it written down that you did! She denied it again! I was standing in front of the jury at this time. I then held up my notebook, and drew a box around the place where I'd made my note, then placed a ? inside the same box. At the same time I said "Hmmmm" loud enough for the jury to hear! I'm pretty sure this was the most critical error Beverly made. CHEATERS NEVER PROSPER.
I had two letters to the person that started the lies. I was told by his mother to leave his name out of the Jury trial, so I did, but I did not have any restrictions after that. I wanted to use those letter in the trial for "Malicious Prosecution", to show where the word "infatuated" came from, but I could not get the word "infatuated" entered as evidence. I tried to pry the word "infatuated" off the "Probable Cause" I tried to pry the words "infatuated" and "faggot" out of the transcript, but Duane Thompson blocked both those, so I didn't have a basis to enter these two exhibits.
I had a copy of the letter that Beverly had withheld from the State. In the jury trial, Beverly Rusk completely destroyed her own credibility when she denied mentioning her granddaughter after she had testified about her in her detailed description of the alleged phone call. I determined, all this letter would do was kick the jury trial into a second day, so I passed on introducing it.
In the trial for "Malicious Prosecution" the letter above was going to be introduced to show Beverly withheld information and the people dealing with the "Probable Cause" did not know about it. But since the definition of "Probable Cause" was never applied, I never got to dispute how badly tainted the "Probable Cause" was with one of Beverly Rusk's malicious words, deception and lies.
The number of my exhibits is right below. It looks like I only had 5, but since one of them proved Cheryl did not complain in an earlier trial, it turned all the State's exhibits into exhibits of Beverly, Cheryl's overprotective mother abusing the system again, making my total number of exhibits 5 + 7.
Why was Beverly abusing the system? Because she had fallen victim to malicious slander or "Tainted Evidence" of a boy that her daughter spurned meaning everything Beverly Rusk had used the courts for was the Fruit of a poisonous tree.
Note: pages 86 and 87 are below.
EVIDENCE OF MALICE
First I want to point out that I proved "Malice" for a "Malicious Prosecution" lawsuit on page 30 which is "any reason other than to bring party to justice."
In case 90-SC-3806 Judge Telleen proved that he would have accepted the
word "faggot" as "Evidence of Malice" when her husband used the same
word. Start at page 28 line 16 and see what Judge Telleen says for himself about the
And given Judge Telleen's remark above here is evidence of Malice that the Appellate Court probably saw and didn't acknowledge since the word "faggot" was actually used a few times in the transcript for case 90-CM-9.
After I was allowed to use the Report of Proceedings below for purposes of impeachment I knew I had won the jury trial.
If the prosecuting attorney Charles H. Stengel also known as Casey Stengel knew that the Report of Proceedings undermined his "Opening Remarks", it would completely impeach Cheryl with prior inconsistent statements, that he had no way to stop me from presenting a Police Report for purposes of impeachment as my last exhibit, that I had the correct jury instructions with me and that I was going to object to his use of a prejudicial word in his closing remarks he should have called it quits as soon as this Report of Proceedings was entered into evidence.
As it stands, I am the only Pro-se litigant to "beat" Casey Stengel before he became Judge Stengel. And not only did I "beat" him, I beat him 12 - 0. But the neatest part about winning that trial was how many of Beverly Rusk's friends that worked at the courthouse with her stepped in to watch part of the jury trial and walked out after seeing Beverly Rusk's testimony fall apart.
The most important part of this exhibit is how it completely undermined the State's "Opening Remarks." This exhibit shows that Cheryl had some interest by a question she asked and that was inconsistent with the "Opening Remarks" used by the State.
I could have gone further into Cheryl's questions. Since the State had most all my letters on a table, I could have proven that the letters I wrote Cheryl were to answer other questions Cheryl asked me. I used letters to avoid having to deal with the violent reactions of her mother and her step-dad when they would answer the phone.
This exhibit would also show that it was an over protective mother getting in the way just like she did in high school. Beverly even had a friend of hers write me a letter from the courthouse and when Cheryl was asked about the letter, Cheryl states: "I had nothing to do with that."
I am sure after the jury saw the following testimony from Cheryl they could only think: "Why has Cheryl's testimony changed so much?" I know I was thinking that, when I heard what Cheryl testified to in the second jury trial.
The other strange thing about Cheryl's testimony in the 1990 trial was, that it fit a poem I wrote years ago that the State entered as evidence. The State entered a Card I sent Cheryl that had the poem. The poem stated: "...showed an interest in me. The way you talked was contrary."
One more note. In court the second time I would be allowed to introduce the exact same police report I tried to introduce in this exhibit.
Link for entire "Report of Proceedings"
Looking at the following, it should show that Exhibit #2, the letter from my Attorney, came from the table, that Casey Stengel, the Prosecutor was sitting at. I asked Beverly a question about it, then I found it on his table.
Defendant's Exhibit #2 came from the letters on the Prosecutor's table (See above).
Where it is stated below "he is prepared to prove that he has
not" is exactly what I did.
This is to show why the 2 was crossed out on
the Defendant's Exhibit #3.
Defendant's Exhibit #3 (This came from case #83 CM 20257 along with Exhibit #1)
I will point out one thing here, that I could have pointed out to the jury. In the letter below, when Beverly states "we do not want any letters" she is referring to the letters I used to answer questions Cheryl had asked me.
Beverly and the step-dad would go ballistic when I would call to talk to Cheryl. If Cheryl or her brother answered the phone I didn't have to deal with any verbal abuse at all. I used those letters to answer questions, just so I could avoid talking to Beverly or the step-dad and going through their unneeded verbal abuse.
If you see that Cheryl had questions, I had answers and I'd always known about Cheryl's insecurities because I had some of my own then what purpose did this letter serve? This letter served to demonstrate an Over Protective Mother using fraud just like Exhibit #1 did.
There is a reason why the list of items below were entered as an Exhibit instead of part of my testimony. I was told by a friend if I testified to them the jury might think I was "bragging" and turned against me.
Defendant's Exhibit #4 (A copy of this is still with case # 90 CM 9)
While this link certainly wasn't part of the
jury trial, it shows that "Body language" is a study,
as you can see from this link on AskMen.com : Top 10: Signs She's Flirting With You
Before the jury saw the following exhibit, they heard this testimony:
For the complete Pages 90 and 91 from the Jury Trial click here
Note: The following exhibit would have
made more sense if
I had also entered two letters to Donny Geiger found here.
7-30-90Some items that have only earned Cheryl
the highest respect that anyone could earn.
Although these items might not prove anything, they do show why there has been so much respect for Cheryl Wingert. The listed items start out with just little odds and ends but turn into things that can't be denied.
1. Less than 3 days after I moved to this area, Cheryl started a conversation with me while we were both getting things out of our lockers.
2. Although Cheryl walked around with a frown on her face, when she'd walk into 10th grade English class she'd look at me and occasionally put a smile on her face.
3. Once during English class the boy next to me tried to make a smart remark about me and Cheryl jumped back at him. I thought it was kind of strange to see Cheryl act this way, so I asked the boy next to me what happened and he said that she was sticking up for me.
4. Since Cheryl and I both had last names that started with WI we ended up sitting next to each other in a few different classes and she was always willing to talk to me before class.
5. In 11th grade English Class Cheryl ended up sitting where she could see me without turning around. I thought nothing of it until I noticed that she was sitting like a guy sits and when I looked back at myself I was sitting that way. Further test made me come to the conclusion that she was copying my sitting positions. The line I've heard my mother say then came into play, it was:
IMITATION IS THE SINCEREST FLATTERY
She didn't have to know what she was doing to do the following:
6. Not only was she copying my sitting positions but 4 days out of the week she'd wear the exact same outfit I had worn the previous day! That meant that she copied most my entire wardrobe. This happened most in 11th grade.
7. Walking to class occasionally she'd bump into me, I'd think nothing of this until I was bumped into a second time only to turn and see her talking to one of her girlfriends smiling from ear to ear. Each time she'd run into me she'd do it a second time just like she was saying the first time was no accident.
8. If she were walking behind me, and I'd turn around, I'd find that she was on the exact same step that I was on. It was like she was saying she had her attention on me.
9. If you've ever seen a cats eyes when it sees food the black part of their eyes get real big. Although this will also happen when a cat sees a dog there are other signs to indicate weather it's fear or interest. Cheryl was consistent at this. This is why it was so neat to watch her eyes over any other part of her. Her eyes would say WOW and then she'd end up smiling. Ugh, this part of her can't be replaced very easily, and can't be faked by anyone.
10. I was wrapped up in her pretty bad at this time, I hated it, she was so small and to have so much of my attention it got to me. I ended up hating, hearing her name out loud. The strange thing was she was saying "She hated the sound of my name." It looked, to me, like whatever it was, effected both of us about the same. Beverly, the mother, had a lot of fun teasing Cheryl about that.
11. When Ed Rusk wanted to kill me the most, his words were "I don't even know your last name." Knowing how cruel Beverly could be, this was a quite impressive act for Cheryl to do.
12. When I asked Cheryl just what she wanted me to do, whether it was OK for me to keep calling or not she didn't give me an answer. The answer came after Beverly accused me of harassing her at work, then Cheryl's only complaint was I was upsetting her mother. She made it very obvious that Beverly was twisting her arm to get her to say this!
13. Although Cheryl is doing her best to act like her mother, there was ONE major difference. She couldn't there was NO way Cheryl could ever hang up the phone on me without giving me a chance to talk. On top of that she was always very polite at the end of the phone call and end say my name. I was really taken by this as small as it seemed to be, everything has to start somewhere.
14. Cheryl would not let her mom know that we had been talking practically every Sunday for 3 months. It was most confusing for me, she'd talk one week and next week cold as ice. Hot and cold, hot and cold. This indicated to me she was being torn by something, there has never been any reason why she should be so cold toward me. She's been given the ultimate in respect and she knew it. I never pressured her and if I did ask her out and she said no I was actually happier because I'm really terrified that she might frown at me for some strange reason.
In the second jury trial, The prosecuting attorney, kept trying to say "alleged" perjury. Once this exhibit was entered, it was as good as saying there is no "alleged" in front of the word perjury, and the only reason she got away with it was because she worked at the courthouse.
Now for the Police report that I tried to have introduced in the first jury trial but failed. At that time, I did not know the correct process for impeaching a witness and that you had to proceed it by "Laying a foundation" as I did above.
Another note: The lies were actually were started by Beverly, not Ed (the report says: "his daughter"). I heard Beverly state them to the three neighbors, before one of the neighbors handed me my glasses.
If you use this link to look at Defense Exhibit #1 at the same time you look at the above Exhibit you can see that Beverly Rusk and her husband got away with using perjured testimony in an earlier jury trial and that in itself is "Evidence of Malice."
I would like to use more of the transcript of the Jury trial but there is a reason I can not agree with it.
The Transcript of the Jury trial is inconsistent with facts.
1. About 18 1/2 minutes of "Opening Remarks" and a "Detailed description of the Alleged phone call" by Beverly Rusk are missing.
a. The missing evidence makes it look like questions were asked that were not consistent with the trial when they were consistent with the trial. The missing "Opening Remarks" would have helped to show what a total joke that jury trial really was.
b. The missing evidence also removes the biggest lie that Beverly Rusk used right in front of the jury and that lie shortened the trial by a full day.
2. Part of the "Closing Remarks" are also missing, like where I objected to Casey Stengel using the word "Good" and the Judge sustained that objection, but what is worse than the missing part is the added part.
a. If I had used the "Closing Remarks" that the State has me listed as using then Casey Stengel would have been able to reply and he did not.
b. The reason I didn't use those "Closing Remarks" is I learned from my first jury trial not to do that. In reality, the comments they have me making about the alleged phone call were when I tried to introduce my phone bill and not in the "Closing Remarks."
c. My "Closing Remarks" were almost completely along the line of everything has been to answer Cheryl's questions than to debate the existence of an alleged phone call. Note: I had already won the jury trial when Beverly Rusk told her "Big Lie" on the stand, but the "Big Lie" never made it to the Transcript so something else had to be altered to make it look like I won the trial by my closing Remarks when that was not true.
d. Since Judge Brinn was the only one that knows what I did in my first jury trial and the altered "Closing Remarks" are similar to what I used in my first Jury trial then that manipulation of the Transcript only points to Judge Brinn.
e. Judge Brinn had a lot to lose if the Transcript had not been manipulated and it wouldn't be the first time he did something like that either. The "Report of Proceedings" from an earlier trial was also manipulated to make it look like Beverly Rusk was a Saint. Judge Brinn let Richard Coppula, a now disbarred attorney, get away with his unauthorized manipulations of the "Report of Proceedings" and he told me to sign it because we would get to make changes to it later. Well, I'm still waiting for the "later."
f. My first Appeal was based on "Statue Held Invalid" and if I had won the Appeal on that argument Judge Brinn would have had to answer to the Judicial Inquiry Board and I'm sure he didn't want that. Judge Brinn had do whatever it took to help conceal the fact he had indeed sat in on a trial where the "Statue was held Invalid." From everything I've seen I have a solid reason to believe Judge Brinn was the one behind the major manipulations of the Transcript prepared by Diane Reason.
Now for what the "Closing Remarks" really consisted of:
had used the word "befriended" in his closing remarks so I stated:
"Yes, Cheryl was a friend when I needed one the most and that is what they never knew."
After catching both Beverly and Cheryl lying on the witness stand, and referring to the above Police Report, I used this quote from Adolph Hitler.
"The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of a nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies but would be ashamed to tell big ones."
Then I stated: "What they say happened, did not happen."
I also thanked the jury for "Finally giving me a chance to talk."
All Beverly has really been doing, is trying to keep someone else's lies alive. For more information on that see: OverProtectiveMother.com.
Last Updated: 04/18/2010