[weishaupt1776]

This lady allegedly whipped off this paper in 2 hrs and got her kids back:


TO THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT,* I _____________ feel there is a deliberate attempt by and thru the state to deny an effective appeal to this court. The issue addressed are only procedural errors and will be reveiwed under the harmless error standard of review, See
In Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967), the Supreme Court held that the standard for determining whether a verdict must be set aside because of a federal constitutional error is whether the error “was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” In Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993), the Supreme Court limited the Chapman harmless error standard to direct review of constitutional error and announced a different harmless error standard for collateral habeas corpus review. Brecht adopted the standard set forth in Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (1946), which is whether the error “had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” Id. at 776. The Brecht Court reasoned that the Kotteakos harmless error standard is better tailored to the nature and purpose of collateral review because application of a less onerous harmless error standard on collateral review promotes the considerations underlying habeas jurisprudence. The Court did not decide whether this less onerous harmless error standard also applies where the federal court is the first to determine that a constitutional error has occurred, although some circuits have since addressed that question.
*** Further, Petitioner is concerned why the plain error standard of review is not address as to her substantive Due Process Rights. Why the children were held without a warrant, not mirandaized during a custodual interogation, see,* Edwards v Arizona,* 451 US 477, 68 L Ed2d 378, 101 S Ct 1880 (1981)*, Massiah v US,* 377 US 201 12 L Ed2d 246, 84 S Ct 1199* (1964), & Maine v Moulton, 474 US 159, 88 L Ed2d 481, 106 S Ct 477 (1985).* When appellate counsel omits a significant and obvious issue without a legitamate startegic purpose, his performance will be deemed defiecient, Kitchen v US, 227 F3rd 1014 (7th Cir 2000) Gale was taken, locked in a room for some 5 hours while the children were questioned without a Miranda warning & denied counsel or parential guidance. A conviction must rest upon firmer ground than an uncorroborated admission or confession of the accused, US v Smallwood, 188 f3rd 905 (7th Cir 1999) 2nd Issue, Discovery Violations under *BRADY v. MARYLAND
373 U.S. 83 (1963).The police investigative reports, doctors medical reports, DCFS reports. None of the false statements constituting perjury have been properly addressed nor preserved under MOONEY v. HOLOHAN
294 U.S. 103 (1935)* That no convcition can be gained by the use of perjury & US v Agurs, 427 US 97, 49 L Ed2d 342, 96 S Ct 2392 (1976) & Mesareosh v US, 352 US 1, 1 L Ed2d 1, 77 S Ct 1 (1956). The perjury violation denied the mandates of the confrontation Clause requires reversal unless they are harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, see Davis v Alaska, 415 US 308, 39 L Ed2d 347, 92 S Ct 1105 (1974) & Pointer v Texas, 380 US 400, 13 L Ed2d 923, 85 S Ct 1065 (1965). There were witness that came forth to rebut the perjured testimony, but this 6th Amend mandate was ignored by the court, hearing counsel & not on appeal before this court, which requires reversal if prejudice is proven on lawyer/client relationship. The right of an accused in a criminal trial to due process is, in essence, the right to a fair opportunity to defend against the State's accusations. The rights to confront and cross-examine witnesses and to call witnesses in one's own behalf have long been recognized as essential to due process. Mr. Justice Black, writing for the Court in In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 273 (1948), identified these rights as among the minimum essentials of a fair trial: Therefore the Plain error standard of review should apply as the original court/hearing lost jurisdiction under JOHNSON v. ZERBST
304 U.S. 458 (1938)** & as a hearing was held where Gail has a constitution right to be present at every stage of the proceeds & to be heard, the ensuing mandate of the court/hearing is null & void under* ESCOE v. ZERBST
295 U.S. 490 (1935)** Gale has never had proper counsel & has never fully understand the Natures & Cause REQUIREMENTS of the Sixth Amend, which is fully documented in the record. Therefore Gale respectfull;y requests the immediate return of her children & order DCFS to comply with the federal housing act--cannot