AFFADIVIT AMENDMENT TO MOTIONS FOR COMMAND STRUCTURE OF POLICE AND STATE'S ATTORNEY AND FOR THEIR INVESTIGATIVE PROCESSES
NOW COMES the defendant, Gale A, by pro se, and still upon her word as a Judaic-Christian and under penalties of perjury as in numerous filings in this case before a notary and asks the court and the state to amend her previous motions in regards to the command structure and investigative processes of both the Chicago police department and the State's Attorney Office, Branch 46 of Chicago Illinois and states:
- That if the Court finds this amendment to the motion for Command Structures and Investigative Processes frivolous, that the defendant respectfully objects to that in advance, asks for the motion to stand for appellate review of its merits and will accept whatever sanction the Court deems necessary to put upon her in her disagreement of this motion's frivolity vs. meritorious factors. "Blessed are those who are persecuted for the sake of justice". St. Matthew.
- That on February 25, 2000, the defendant called the State's Attorney offices, Branch 46, at 13th and Michigan to inquire about the status of her formal complaint against Adam Maclean, see Exhibit K, and was told that the State's Attorney's office cannot charge anyone without there being a police report of the matter while the police refuse to take any report on such matters as against their procedure.
- That this is at best an obfuscation by the State's attorney's office since the defendant was charged in open court on February 17, 2000 without there being a process of a police report and had substantive punishment tactics applied to her by way of I-bonds, finger-printing, et al. This must mean that if there is evidence in an on-going case to alleged criminal conduct that the State's Attorney has jurisdiction sans police report and that the defendant has brought evidence to court regarding Adam Maclean's non payment of wages and wage supplements in her various motions definitely related to the case against her, and the statute itself is clear about the State's Attorney having the jurisdiction to prosecute this violation. 820 ILCS 115/11 (c) "Nothing herein shall be construed to limit the authority of the State's attorney of any county to prosecute actions for violation of this Act or to enforce the provisions thereof."
- That there is incompetence at the police investigative stage of the case against the defendant, since it was up to the police investigating Adam Maclean's complaints, one officer whom the defendant knows as Detective McCurio, to determine if any criminal conduct had been committed by the complainant as regular procedure in any investigation. The police report filed by Adam Maclean on August 25, 1999 and on record in this case, defendant's Exhibit L, shows that the defendant claimed unfair termination by Maclean and this is clearly enough for knowledgeable law enforcement to investigate whether or not Maclean violated statute 820 ILCS 115/1 et seq. which he did indeed violate and upon defendant's best knowledge and belief continues to violate to this day -- or is one required to be a lawyer in order to obtain equal protection under the law in this state. "Woe to you ... for you take tithes ... and have overlooked the more important matters of the law, such as justice, mercy, and trustworthiness. These were necessary for you to have done, and these very things by no means to have left undone. O blind guides who strain at gnats and swallow camels!" St. Matthew.
That for Adam Maclean's criminal conduct in this matter to go unquestioned and uninvestigated from the start of this case through today, including by the State's Attorney who should be substantively more knowledgeable than the police regarding Illinois statutes indicates many steps in the process are indeed broken, malfunctioning, in error and/or maliciously not working -- to this date the State's attorney office is telling the defendant to file a Police Report and the Police are saying it's not in their jurisdiction -- and the defendant has the right to know the hows, whys and wherefores of this breakdown as a part of her defense.
Defendant, Pro Se