Cherron Marie Phillips indicted

[Judge Roy Bean]

I wonder how many inmates in that facility will now be edumacated on paper-terrorism techniques.

[morrand]

Back in this post, I'd introduced a bit player by the name of Jose Banks, who, oddly enough, was accused of robbing them:

According to the Sun-Times,

Bemused jurors watched as the Evanston resident began his defense by arguing that he is a “Moorish national” who is not bound by federal law, repeatedly interrupting the trial to tell the judge, “I object to everything.”

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/1685 ... chair.html

This strategy didn't work out so well, so a few days later, in December, 2012,

...Jose Banks decided to take a somewhat more traditional approach to getting out of prison:

Officials at a federal Loop jail discovered that two convicted bank robbers had escaped after employees arriving for work at about 7 a.m. today and saw a makeshift rope hanging from the outside of the high-rise facility, federal officials said in charging the two with escape.

Joseph "Jose" Banks and Kenneth Conley made good their escape from the Metropolitan Correctional Center after last being seen for a head count conducted at about 10 p.m. Monday, authorities said.

The two are believed to have scurried down ropes made from bedsheets from the high-rise cell they shared.

They weren't gone for long: Banks was back in jail in a couple of days. However, he apparently decided that this injustice could not stand, and so he sought redress through the federal courts, claiming that the United States (and some 70 of its employees, none of whom were served properly) had been negligent in permitting his escape from the MCC. He failed: the district court bounced the suit as frivolous, without leave to amend. Banks appealed. (In testament either to how bad his case was, or how slow the federal sentencing process is, he made it all the way into the appeals court before he was actually sentenced on the original bank robbery charges.)

No surprise that, in the 7th Circuit's order on appeal, it had no trouble with the case being thrown out as frivolous. "Banks gets credit for chutzpah," the court wrote, "but that is not a basis for damages."

Perhaps there's something in the air, or perhaps the flotilla of nonsense papers that Banks launched in his trial have interfered with the US Attorney's judgement, but the US answered Banks's appeal in part by claiming it was actually an attack on the validity of his sentence. Evidently, this stems from his sentence having been enhanced by the escape (obstruction of justice, anyway); somehow, the US Attorney argued that brought Heck v. Humphrey into play. Heck doesn't work that way, is I think the court's answer to that point, but it's not clear what the argument was, nor even that the court understood the point to begin with. In which case, I'm not about to go spend my PACER account trying to figure it out myself.

Banks is under order to show cause why he shouldn't be sanctioned for the appeal. Apparently the court was unamused by this continuation of his antics.

[KickahaOta]

Perhaps there's something in the air, or perhaps the flotilla of nonsense papers that Banks launched in his trial have interfered with the US Attorney's judgement, but the US answered Banks's appeal in part by claiming it was actually an attack on the validity of his sentence. Evidently, this stems from his sentence having been enhanced by the escape (obstruction of justice, anyway); somehow, the US Attorney argued that brought Heck v. Humphrey into play. Heck doesn't work that way, is I think the court's answer to that point, but it's not clear what the argument was, nor even that the court understood the point to begin with. In which case, I'm not about to go spend my PACER account trying to figure it out myself.

I think I can help you with that one. (Well, given the fact that I'm trying to explain the 'logic' of this suit, maybe 'help' is the wrong word. But Heck v. Humphrey is a useful case for scholars of the frivolous to understand, so the other gentle readers may find this useful.)

Heck v. Humphrey says that once you have been convicted of something, you cannot sue someone for damages if the premise of that suit would contradict the conviction, unless the conviction has first been somehow set aside. But this doesn't mean 'no suit is allowed that in any way touches on the circumstances and players involved in your crime'; it's only barred if it would call the conviction into question.

Here's the classic example: Suppose I am forcefully arrested by Officer Smith on suspicion of bank robbery. I am subsequently charged with and convicted of that robbery. Needless to say, I am unhappy, and I sue Officer Smith for wrongful arrest and for excessive force in making the arrest. The wrongful arrest claim is barred; the jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that I committed bank robbery, and therefore the arrest for bank robbery cannot have been wrongful. However, the excessive force claim is not barred; even bank robbers have constitutional rights, and a jury would be entitled to find that Officer Smith used a level of force that was clearly unjustified for that occasion.

In the case of Mr. Banks, he was never actually convicted of escape -- his sentence for bank robbery was increased to account for the escape. Heck doesn't seem to have ever been applied in that context. And Mr. Banks' argument wasn't that he didn't escape; it was that the jail personnel induced him to escape by making it too easy. So a win in the lawsuit wouldn't require questioning the escape conviction (even if one existed). And that meant that Heck was probably the wrong reason to dismiss the suit. The right reason to dismiss the suit was 'This suit is incredibly stupid,' which is what the Seventh Circuit found. You don't have a right to be prevented by the police from committing a crime.

[Dr. Caligari]

Here's the classic example: Suppose I am forcefully arrested by Officer Smith on suspicion of bank robbery. I am subsequently charged with and convicted of that robbery. Needless to say, I am unhappy, and I sue Officer Smith for wrongful arrest and for excessive force in making the arrest. The wrongful arrest claim is barred; the jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that I committed bank robbery, and therefore the arrest for bank robbery cannot have been wrongful. However, the excessive force claim is not barred; even bank robbers have constitutional rights, and a jury would be entitled to find that Officer Smith used a level of force that was clearly unjustified for that occasion.

That's a great explication of Heck-- not an easy case to explain. Kudos!

[KickahaOta]

That's a great explication of Heck-- not an easy case to explain. Kudos!

Thanks! As a layman, Heck is a case that makes me feel kinda yicky. I can understand the necessity for it -- it would be insane to have the criminal branch of the courts say "You're guilty, sit in prison" while the civil branch says "You're innocent, here's some money". But in practice it seems to cause a lot of hangups in getting recourse for genuine abuses, especially if you don't have representation (which 99% of prisoners probably don't have for civil cases).

To briefly explain to the gentle readers what the problem can be: Normally, when you sue someone and you think you have multiple claims against them, you're expected to sue them for everything at once -- or at least everything that came from the same underlying incident. And you're expected to sue reasonably quickly. If you don't do those things, you can lose your claim even if you would have won it on the merits.

Now let's go back to my previous example, where I want to sue for false arrest and excessive force. The false arrest claim is blocked by Heck. I can't sue for that now. And because it would be unfair to have the statute of limitations run out while I'm blocked from suing, the Supreme Court has said that the statute of limitations on that claim is suspended too. But since the excessive force claim is not blocked, the statute of limitations on that starts running immediately, and so I'm expected to sue for that quickly. My case gets divided in two.

This doesn't seem so bad in this example, where the difference between false arrest and excessive force for Heck purposes is pretty clear. But there are other claims where the facts of the conviction and the claim make the question of 'Would allowing this claim undermine the conviction?' an extremely subtle one. If I decide it's not blocked and sue immediately, and the judge decides it's blocked after all, then I've wasted my time and money; and if this is the federal system, I run the risk of having the judge assess a strike against me under the Prison Litigation Reform Act -- three of those strikes, and I pretty much lose access to the civil courts completely. If I decide it is blocked and wait to sue, and the judge decides it isn't blocked, then there's a good chance that the statute of limitations may have run out in the meantime, and I completely lose my claim.

The distinctions can be hard for me to understand, and I'm a white-collar guy who gets to sit in an office and read appeals cases for recreation. For a prisoner, who often has extremely limited access to any sort of law library, it's probably a lost cause.

[KickahaOta]

On a lighter note, while Mr. Banks didn't get to collect from the government, he did get to be on the front page of Fark. So I suppose he has that going for him, which is nice.

Illinois court tosses out $10 million lawsuit filed by an inmate against prison for allowing him to escape

[alexhammer]

I know I'm super late to this. I just learned about Cherron's case and have been reading through the filings. Courtlistener happens to have the transcript for day 1 of the trial and it's amazing so far.

Does anyone have a pointer for the transcript for days 2 or 3, or for the sentencing hearing? If not I'll buy and post when my PACER allowance resets...

[KickahaOta]

Because I'm curious and also insane, I chipped in for the transcript of day 2 (docket number 222). It's now available through RECAP.

[morrand]

Because I'm curious and also insane, I chipped in for the transcript of day 2 (docket number 222). It's now available through RECAP.

Because I was there for the other two days of the trial, I've gone ahead and gotten day 3 (docket #223) up onto RECAP myself. Enjoy!

And despite being roundly drubbed in her previous appearance, Ms Phillips continues to try to get back into court (under her birth name, this time). It will come as no surprise that she has scored the equivalent of a vexatious-litigant designation in the Northern District of Illinois, which hampers her ability to file papers in the court or to attend hearings. This is because the court found that she was disruptive, mostly having to do with the trial of her brother. This has been going on since 2011, and this year she petitioned (again) to take the restrictions off. The Northern District's denial of that petition was upheld by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals at the end of July.

The docket report for that case suggests that she took the opportunity to ask to be released from prison during the pendency of here appeal. Since the appeal had nothing to do with why she was in prison in the first place, you can guess how that turned out.

[notorial dissent]

Amazing. I wish I could say I was surprised, but guess I 'm not. Her brother was full on cray cray but I think she has him beat hands down. I am surprised that she hasn't managed to get her very own custodial sentence after all this time.

[alexhammer]

Because I'm curious and also insane, I chipped in for the transcript of day 2 (docket number 222). It's now available through RECAP.

Because I was there for the other two days of the trial, I've gone ahead and gotten day 3 (docket #223) up onto RECAP myself. Enjoy!

Because I asked and you were kind enough to hook everyone up, I've gone and purchased the sentencing transcript. It's also up on RECAP for all to enjoy.

morrand I did enjoy your trial commentary in this thread. I'm only sorry I missed it. I need to get to more of these things... I continue to regret not being in Omaha for Mikey Parsons' trial.

[alexhammer]

The docket report for that case suggests that she took the opportunity to ask to be released from prison during the pendency of here appeal. Since the appeal had nothing to do with why she was in prison in the first place, you can guess how that turned out.

In case anyone else wants to follow the rabbit, Cherron decided during her Federal stay that the criminal court wasn't going to release her. But she doesn't take no for an answer. So she filed a civil suit trying to vacate her verdict. Spoiler alert: it doesn't work that way.

[Gregg]

Because I'm curious and also insane, I chipped in for the transcript of day 2 (docket number 222). It's now available through RECAP.

Because I was there for the other two days of the trial, I've gone ahead and gotten day 3 (docket #223) up onto RECAP myself. Enjoy!

Because I asked and you were kind enough to hook everyone up, I've gone and purchased the sentencing transcript. It's also up on RECAP for all to enjoy.

morrand I did enjoy your trial commentary in this thread. I'm only sorry I missed it. I need to get to more of these things... I continue to regret not being in Omaha for Mikey Parsons' trial.

I am quietly hoping HATJ and friends appeal gets oral arguments, and even have a chip on the very longshot that she succeeds in ditching any real lawyer and gets to come appear herself. The 6th Circuit is here in Cincinnati and if that happens, no human event will keep me from going.

[KickahaOta]

In case anyone else wants to follow the rabbit, Cherron decided during her Federal stay that the criminal court wasn't going to release her. But she doesn't take no for an answer. So she filed a civil suit trying to vacate her verdict. Spoiler alert: it doesn't work that way.

I'm not sure I'd agree.

I only reviewed the original petition, since it's the one available for free on RECAP. But to my uneducated eyes, it reads as "wrong" without descending to the usual sovcit "not even wrong".

Yes, it's a civil suit; but that's actually correct. Although she doesn't utter the words "habeas corpus", she does say that she's filing under 28 USC §2255, which is the federal habeas corpus statute. And a habeas corpus suit is considered a civil action, although it's really sort of a weird sui generis thing because it has aspects of criminal as well as civil law.

She does talk about inappropriate concepts for a habeas corpus case -- quashing the indictment, etc. And it seems like a sure loser in the end. But it's not a bad effort at all for a pro se prisoner.

[KickahaOta]

Also, I bought the amended petition, though I didn't splurge for the second amended petition that the court slapped her down for trying to file.

[KickahaOta]

On the other hand, the "Bill for an accounting" is where she falls out of the treehouse of coherence and hits every sovcit branch on the way down. And the judicial pavement below was unforgiving:

Additionally, the Court is in receipt of Petitioner's "Petition for Bill for an Accounting" (Doc. 10) wherein Petitioner appears to seek financial records regarding her underlying criminal case, though it is not clear exactly what Petitioner seeks because the document is replete with 'sovereign citizen' like rhetoric. The Court DENIES this request (Doc. 10) without prejudice because it is unclear what information is sought, and Petitioner currently has no authority to file extraneous requests in this case. The request may be renewed after the United States responds on June 16, 2017, if it is appropriate at that time. However, the Petitioner should exercise discretion before making any future filings because the Court is not required to endure vexatious and repetitive filings by a prisoner who simply will not take no as an answer.

[notorial dissent]

True sovcit cray cray, running true to script.

[alexhammer]

On the other hand, the "Bill for an accounting" is where she falls out of the treehouse of coherence and hits every sovcit branch on the way down. And the judicial pavement below was unforgiving:

Additionally, the Court is in receipt of Petitioner's "Petition for Bill for an Accounting" (Doc. 10) wherein Petitioner appears to seek financial records regarding her underlying criminal case, though it is not clear exactly what Petitioner seeks because the document is replete with 'sovereign citizen' like rhetoric. The Court DENIES this request (Doc. 10) without prejudice because it is unclear what information is sought, and Petitioner currently has no authority to file extraneous requests in this case. The request may be renewed after the United States responds on June 16, 2017, if it is appropriate at that time. However, the Petitioner should exercise discretion before making any future filings because the Court is not required to endure vexatious and repetitive filings by a prisoner who simply will not take no as an answer.

Thank you for this KickahaOta. I really got a kick out of that Bill for an Accounting. It's amazing how she tries to string together conclusion after conclusion with no proof, no citation, no support of any kind.

Her attorney at sentencing said that Cherron had admitted she was wrong and would never file false or misleading court documents again. Based on this, I wager she'll file a fake lawsuit or more liens within a year of her release.

At least I got to laugh at her writing her name as Cherron Marie:Phillips. Like a half-assed parse-syntax grammar.

[notorial dissent]

I think it is safe to safe that Cherron grasped at reality, and missed.