Injustice Experienced By Yongping Zhou In Illinois

The System Is Known To Trample On People...and sometimes people trample back.

Note: Due to Yongping's English language difficulty, caught.net has had to edit Mr. Zhou's submission for grammar.

Jump To Misconduct Listings or Search This Site

Mr. Yongping Zhou has done the following:

  • He defeated the INS pro se with his friend's help in February 2003.
  • He defeated attorney Scott Pollock and INS both in his appeal case in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals (Chicago) in April 2003. The case number is: No. 02-3064.

Mr. Zhou asserts the following regarding his case: My case was a civil case in Cook County Circuit Court ("CCCC"), I counter-claimed to sue my previous lawyer, Attorney Scott Pollock, for legal malpractice. Atty. Pollack caused me to be illegally detained by the Federal government by failing to file a Habeas Corpus ("HC"). Note that Atty Pollack had written several letters to me stating he would file HC. He also promised the same to my two friends when they paid him $2,000 to hire him.

Note: that original case was filed with United States Court of Appeals For the 7th Circuit in Chicago with case No. 02-3064. In March 2003, Mr. Zhou discovered collusion between his Attorney Scott Pollock and the U.S. Attorney General. Together they had filed a Joint Motion For Voluntary Dismissal without Mr. Zhou's knowledge and agreement. Mr. Zhou caught this unethical conduct by court internet records and filed an Emergency Motion to inform the judge. The 3 judge panel ordered attorney Scott Pollock to withdraw, and granted Mr. Zhou's pro se victory in his appeal.

Read Mr. Zhou's Counter Claim [PDF]

In this civil case which started in 2003, Atty. Scott Pollock hired Attorney Stephen Tyma to assist his law firm, Scott Pollock Associates.

The initial judge in the case, Judge Healy of CCCC courtroom 1501, was a good and honest Judge. He denied Atty. Stephen Tyma's challenge to my lawsuit against Atty. Pollock. Attorney Stephen Tyma had motioned to dismiss my lawsuit of legal malpractice against Atty. Scott Pollock. The motion was denied and my case was allowed to go forward.

Later, in 2005, the case came into the hands of Judge Francis Dolan. Judge Francis Dolan was very unfair and hostile toward me openly in court on many occasions. (Judge Francis Dolan always arranged my case as the last one, so that there was no other people inside courtroom 1503 when my case was being heard). Caught.net Note: Many judges have a policy of hearing pro se cases in empty courtrooms.

I had no idea why Judge Francis Dolan was so unfair to me until I got the evidence in September 2006 about 3 weeks before the trial. This evidence showed he (Judge Francis Dolan) had improper ex-parte communications with opposing council's Attorney Stephen Tyma. This was a violation of the Judicial Conduct Rules of Illinois.

The evidence consisted of two emails from Stephen Tyma to me. On August 30, 2006, Stephen Tyma sent me two emails attached by Judge Francis Dolan's two different versions of an order for the next day's [August 31, 2006] court hearing.

These were made between Judge Francis Dolan and Stephen Tyma on August 30, 2006 when there was no court hearing and when I was absent. In my absence, Judge Francis Dolan and opposing council Atty. Stephen Tyma worked outside the courtroom together to make up his 5-page draft order to favor Atty. Stephen Tyma. In these orders Judge Francis Dolan ruled to dismiss my legal malpractice lawsuit against Atty. Stephen Tyma's client Atty. Scott Pollock. These two rulings only differed on the findings part but were in agreement on the dismissal of my case.

I was unaware of Atty. Stephen Tyma's emails on August 30, 2006 before I went to the August 31, 2006's hearing in the early morning. I discovered the collusion between Judge Francis Dolan and Atty. Stephen Tyma at the beginning of the hearing of 08-31-2006.

At the very beginning of the hearing on August 31, 2006, trial Judge Francis Dolan gave me his 5-page order to review, which was dated as August 31, 2006. He said to me he would sign the order immediately if I had no argument.

When I reviewed it quickly, I found it was drafted by Stephen Tyma (Page 5), it said he (Dolan) rules to dismiss my lawsuit. I was shocked. I immediately pointed out to the trial Judge Francis Dolan that the whole 5 page draft order had never been argued previously and he (Judge Francis Dolan) had never ruled or had a full and fair hearing on the 4 points made on pages 1-4. I immediately asserted it was improper for both the judge and opposing council to be acting in this manner.

(It is routine in CCCC courts that after a Judge rules in a case, one of the parties drafts the order. Then the Judge and both parties review it to check whether it accurately reflects what the Judge's ruling was. It is then signed. However, in my case, on August 31, 2006, the 5-page draft order and the issues contained in it had never been argued in any open hearing.

Atty. Stephen Tyma claimed that drafting in advance was to save another pre-trial conference since the time was too tight before the trial date of 09-18-2006. I rebutted that it was misconduct for the Judge and opposing council to work together on an order ex-parte and to do so without full and fair hearings on the merits and arguments of the case.

Judge Francis Dolan did not sign the order or dismiss the case. On the contrary, on August 31, 2005, the judge ruled to add Atty. Scott Pollock as the top agent of Scott Pollock Associate PC. The misconduct just mentioned was in violation of Illinois Supreme Court Rule Judicial Conducts 63(A)(4) and 63(C)(1)(b).

Caught.net Note: A critic might say, "This wasn't misconduct because the judge did not sign the order or dismiss the case. But the court was trying to manipulate and intimidate a pro se litigant. It is very easy to be overwhelmed when representing yourself and, in plain English, they were trying to pull the wool over Mr. Zhou's eyes and intimidate him into going along with it. THIS IS MISCONDUCT, and so was any ex-parte communications between the Judge and opposing council.

Other misconduct of Judge Francis Dolan in my case include things like illegally confiscating 1.5 feet height documents, returned back to me by a civil rights group, allowing Atty. Scott Pollock to be absent from hearings despite subpoenas and not allowing my two witnesses to testify in the trial even though I listed them in my Intake Form For Trial from the beginning. All of this is detailed in the letter to Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans below.

I filed my Motion To Disqualify Judge Francis Dolan in September 2006 just before the trial. Judge Francis Dolan refused to hear it in open court and threatened to throw me into jail if I insisted it be heard in front of bailiff and court staff.

Judge Evans wrote me twice to ask a lower chief Judge Wright Jr. to take over the proceedings, but Judge Wright Jr. never took any action. (Judge Francis Dolan belongs to the municipal division which lower chief Judge Wright Jr. presides over.)

Best Regards,
Yongping Zhou

Caught.net Note: We are unaware of the rules of Illinois courts but in Rhode Island writing a letter to any judge's superior WILL NOT and, according to the Rhode Island system, CAN NOT result in any corrective or disciplinary action. ALL judicial discipline in Rhode Island is handled exclusively by the Rhode Island Supreme Court Council of Judicial Tenure And Discipline. If your state is set up the same, do not waste any time writing to superior judges - file a complaint with the disciplinary councils immediately or there is a good chance your letter will be ignored or valuable time will be wasted.

Letter To Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans

October 18, 2007
Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans
50 W. Washington St. Room 2600 Chicago IL 60603
Regarding:
(A) serious bad faith misconduct of Judge Francis Dolan committed in the case 03 M1-159148; and
(B) Judge Wright's refusal to take proper action against Judge Francis Dolan's misconduct
Dear Chief Judge Evans:

I ask you to take remedial, corrective action regarding the serious bad faith misconduct of Judge Francis Dolan of Courtroom 1503 of Cook County based on Illinois Supreme Court Rule 62 B(3). The chief Judge Wright Jr. refused to take initial actions regarding Judge Francis Dolan's serious bad faith misconduct, even after you had transferred my Complaint letters to chief Judge Wright Jr.

In my Complaint, there are two important issues raised:
(1) Serious bad faith misconduct of Judge Francis Dolan of courtroom 1503 when he presided in the case of 03 M1-159148;
(2) Judge Wright Jr. violation of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 62 B - Judge Wright's refusal to take any necessary action upon the serious bad faith misconduct of Judge Francis Dolan for almost 15 months.

1. I have filed more than 6 Complaints to the chief Judge Wright Jr. to complain about the serious bad faith misconduct of Judge Francis Dolan of courtroom 1503 in the case of 03 M1-159148 since September 06, 2006. I also faxed many letters to chief Judge Wright Jr. during the last 15 months to ask him to take the necessary actions upon Judge Francis Dolan's serious bad faith misconduct based on Illinois Supreme Court Rule 62 B(3); but Judge Wright Jr. refused to take the initial action until today. I had served these copies of my Complaints to your office of Room 2600 at Richard Daley Center before. You replied to me twice by asking Judge Wright Jr. to take the initial action upon Judge Francis Dolan. I serve to you copies of my previous Complaints once again. In these Complaints, I clarified the facts of serious bad faith misconduct of Judge Francis Dolan with relevant evidence. Here I emphasis some critical points once again in order to assist your investigation:

(I)
On August 30, 2006, Judge Francis Dolan had ex parte communications with Attorney Stephen Tyma, who is the Attorney of counter-defendant Atty. Scott Pollock Associate PC in this case. The purpose of the ex-parte communication was to make up a draft order to favor counter-defendant when there was no full and fair hearing on the issues.

On August 30, 2006, there was NO hearing in this case. At that day August 30, 2006, I was traveling from my Michigan home to Chicago for next day's pre-trial conference; thus, I could not check email. As a result I did not find that on August 30, 2006 the Attorney Stephen Tyma sent to me two different versions of Judge Francis Dolan's 5-page order by two emails, and both versions of the order were dated as August 31, 2006

On August 31, 2006, there was a pre-trial conference in this case. At the beginning of that hearing, Judge Francis Dolan gave me the drafted order. I immediately pointed out to the trial Judge Francis Dolan that the whole 5 pages draft order had never been argued previously and he (Judge Francis Dolan) had never made these findings before and he had NEVER ruled on the 4 points mentioned. On the 5th page was the following:
"NOW THEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, it is ordered as follows:
1. Defendant Yong-Ping Zhou is not entitled to have the Court instruct the jury at trial of this cause on any theory of liability which involves Mr. Pollock individually. All proposed instructions which Mr. Zhou had tendered to the Court and which assert individual liability against Mr. Pollock will not be used at trial.
2. Defendant Yongping Zhou's Second Amended Counterclaim is dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, and Defendant is denied leave to amend his Second Amended Counterclaim.
3. Defendant Yongping Zhou is only entitled to assert legal malpractice at trial as an affirmative defense to Plaintiff's claims to recover fee from him.
4 Count II of Defendant Yongping Zhou's Second Amended Counterclaim will be deemed an appropriate denial of the allegations permitted by Ill. Sup. Ct. Rule 133(c)."

I objected to Judge Francis Dolan stating all these 4 points on the 5th page of his 5-page draft order of August 31, 2006 had never had any full and fair hearing nor had they been ruled on at any hearing by him (Judge Francis Dolan). How could he (Judge Francis Dolan) plan to sign this order without any argument or full and fair hearing?

Attorney Stephen Tyma immediately interrupted me and claimed that the arguments from Page 1 to Page 4 of Judge Francis Dolan's 5-page draft order of August 31, 2006 are what he (Atty. Stephen Tyma) plans to argue today (August 31, 2006). Tyma asserted that because the trial date is coming within 15 days, he (Stephen Tyma) drafted from Page 1 to Page 4 in advance of what he planned to argue today. Then Attorney Stephen Tyma said that in his previous motions he had made false claims that a law firm could not be sued for legal malpractice, only lawyers could be. He admitted the false statement and withdrew it admitting that law firms could be sued for legal malpractice. I objected to the Judge and opposing council trying to railroad the proceedings against me calling it collusion and dirty.

For my service issues of my initial Counterclaim and my 1st Amended Counterclaim in 2003, Attorney Stephen Tyma never challenged these service issues in 2003 when Judge Healy ruled to dismiss without prejudice on my first two Counter claims.

However, after three years in 2006, Judge Francis Dolan found some problems of my services of my two Counter claims and ruled in his 5-page draft order to favor Attorney Stephen Tyma because of these service issues, after these motions had been dismissed by Judge Healy 3 years ago in 2003, but Attorney Stephen Tyma himself had satisfied for my services of my two Counter claims and Stephen Tyma NEVER challenged the issues of my service in 2003.

These service issues of my Counter claims had gone forever in 2003 when Judge Healy dismissed my two Counter claims without prejudice. But Judge Francis Dolan planned to use these forever-gone service issues to favor Attorney Stephen Tyma in the hearing of August 31, 2006, which was already drafted by Attorney Stephen Tyma in advance on August 30, 2006 for two different versions ----- it just indicated that there was some inappropriate and dirty relationships between he (Francis Dolan) and Attorney Stephen Tyma, it also indicated that he (Francis Dolan) and Attorney Stephen Tyma had made ex parte contacted on August 30, 2006 to draft two different versions for Judge's next day's 5-page order.

Judge Francis Dolan's misconduct with Attorney Stephen Tyma were, absolutely in violation of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 63(A)(4) of Judicial Conduct Rules; the 5-page order also indicated that Judge Francis Dolan was acting as the lawyer in the behalf of Counter-defendant in this case in violation of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 63(C)(1)(b). He (Francis Dolan) worked as the lawyer for counter-defendant and Stephen Tyma. Clearly they acted in collusion.

Although Judge Francis Dolan hesitated and did not sign it after I caught his misconduct, it did not change the fact that he (Francis Dolan) and Attorney Stephen Tyma had ex parte communications when I was absent.

(II)
Judge Francis Dolan forbid my two critical witnesses Ms. Stultz and Ms. Yan to testify in the trial, and repeatedly threatened to put me into jail if I brought these witnesses to the trial.

On May 12, 2005, I listed Ms. Stultz and Ms. Yan in my Intake Form when my case was transferred from Judge Healy's courtroom 1501 to Judge Francis Dolan's courtroom 1503 at the first time hearing in front of Judge Francis Dolan

These two witnesses hired Attorney Scott Pollock on August 1, 2002 when I was illegally detained and paid huge money [$2000] to Atty. Scott Pollock. It was my legal right to call these witnesses Ms. Stultz and Ms. Yan to testify in the trial. Caught.net Note: As anyone that knows the courts today will tell you, the evidence and witnesses being allowed has become a whimsical crap shoot having little to nothing to do with the realities or facts of the case. Then the higher courts give the trial justice "broad discretion" during the appeals.

But prior to the trial, Judge Francis Dolan suddenly barred these witnesses Ms. Stultz and Ms. Yan and barred me from calling these two witnesses to testify during the trial. In his order, Judge Francis Dolan claimed his ridiculous reason "evidences speaks for itself", but scratched it out after he had signed the order and insisted on barring Ms. Stultz and Ms. Yan.

Judge Francis Dolan even threatened me that if I bring Ms. Stultz and Ms. Yan in the trial to testify, he (Judge Francis Dolan) will throw me into jail. It is outrageous bias and violation of due process and civil rights. Obviously, Judge Francis Dolan was trying to prejudice my case

In the trial of this case in September 2006, as soon as I testified that Ms. Stultz and Ms. Yan told me why they hired Atty. Scott Pollock on August 1, 2002, the Judge barred me to testify for what Ms. Stultz and Ms. Yan said to me; I asked for close bench to ask Judge Francis Dolan again to let me bring Ms. Stultz and Ms. Yan to testify, Judge Francis Dolan threatened to throw me into jail if I do it.

During the trial, Judge Francis Dolan repeatedly censured me in front of jurors when I raised the issue how my two friends Ms. Stultz and Ms. Yan hired Attorney Pollock on August 1, 2003 and it was rational that calling these two witnesses in. Later Judge Francis Dolan called both parties in the hallway, threatened me that I was close to jail just one step, if I mentioned these two witnesses' names once again, He (Judge Francis Dolan) put me into jail before the trial ended. And Judge Francis Dolan also forbid sending my evidences to jury room to deliberate after I had used these evidences to argue in the trial. The trial was unfair. After the trial was finished, in the hallway, jurors asked me where my witnesses. Then I could tell the truth how Judge Francis Dolan forbid them but it was too late for jurors to hear the truth.

Judge Francis Dolan had illegally possessed the large amount of documents [about 1.5 feet height] since 2005 and refused to release them to me before the trial. These included many privileged communications between me and the lawyers of Midwest Human Rights Organization in Chicago. The lawyers of Midwest Human Rights Organization told Judge Francis Dolan in the pre-trial conference that they decided to turn these 1.5 feet-height pile of documents to me as my property. Judge Francis Dolan had no legal right to possess these documents and his doing so intentionally prejudiced my case and made it impossible for me to use this evidence during the trial in 2006. During the trial, Judge Francis Dolan brought these 1.5 feet-height documents for short time, and critical documents were missing.

(2) Judge Francis Dolan illegally made ex parte communications with Attorney Stephen Tyma of the counter-defendant in this case prior to the pretrial conference. He allowed Attorney Scott Pollock to be excused from attending the pre-trial conference after the subpoena was served upon Attorney Scott Pollock.

(3) Judge Francis Dolan repeatedly threatened my freedom when I tried to subpoena the relevant witnesses for the discovery issues and he barred these witnesses to testify after they had showed up in the courtroom to testify for the discovery issue.

Accumulated all this shows Judge Francis Dolan's bad faith, bias, abuse of authority, abuse of judicial discretion, disregard for fundamental rights, intentional disregard of law, or any purpose other than the faithful discharge of judicial duty; see STEVEN DELGADO v. BERT RICE, WARDEN, 67 F. Supp. 2d 1148; 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15380; see Guenther and Guenther v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue 939 F.2d 758; 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 15893; see United States v. Lorenzo A. MARTINEZ, 40 M.J. 82, 1994 CMA LEXIS 54; see United States v. Lorenzo A. MARTINEZ, 40 M.J. 82, 1994 CMA LEXIS 54; Guenther and Guenther v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue 939 F.2d 758; 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 15893.

Dear chief Judge Evans, after you twice transferred my Complaints to chief Judge Kenneth Wright Jr., he (Judge Wright Jr.,) violated Illinois Supreme Court Rule 62 B(3) and refused to take any necessary action upon Judge Francis Dolan's serious bad faith misconduct. In my Complaints and my personal letters to Judge Kenneth Wright Jr. during the last 15 months, I asked him to obtain Judge Francis Dolan's yellow pad, in which Judge Francis Dolan wrote all notes for the case 03 M1-159148 about what he ruled. This yellow pad was Judge Francis Dolan's hand-writing notes about my case 03 M1-159148 and was the critical evidence for all Judge Francis Dolan's misconduct. But Judge Kenneth Wright Jr. refused to tell me whether he obtained the yellow pad from Judge Francis Dolan, and refused to tell me what was his investigation for all Judge Francis Dolan's bad faith misconduct, refused to tell me what were Judge Francis Dolan's replies to him when he contacted Judge Francis Dolan with all my Complaints! My last fax to Judge Kenneth Wright Jr. was on September 14, 2007, his secretary Stacy confirmed that she transferred it to Judge Kenneth Wright Jr., but the Judge Wright Jr. continued to refuse to take actions against Judge Francis Dolan.

Because of the refusal of Judge Wright Jr. to take the initial discipline actions upon Judge Francis Dolan for outrageous 15 months, it forced me to file this long Complaint letter to you and I ask you to take the initial discipline action upon the serious bad faith misconduct of Judge Francis Dolan based on Illinois Supreme Court Rule 62 B(3) and make your reporting to Illinois Judicial Board and serve me a copy of your reporting.

Here I serve my long Complaint letter to you by registered mail, I am asking you to reply me in written for what you investigate both the bad faith misconduct of Judge Francis Dolan and the refusal action of Judge Kenneth Wright Jr. based on Illinois Supreme Court Rule 62 B(3). I am asking you to supply me the copy of Judge Francis Dolan's yellow pad.

I am asking you to arrange a meeting between you and me as soon as possible for all these issues of all Complaints since August 30, 2006, including the new issues of this long Complaint, which I only file to you. Our meeting will be helpful for your investigation.

Truly Yours,
Yongping Zhou

Caught.net Note: Judicial disciplinary proceedings are usually always held in secret with the public not having access to any evidence or investigative findings. At best the public will be informed of the final ruling on the matter without the underlying details.


FOOD FOR THOUGHT

Many times the reason or purpose for events in our life initially escapes us,
but I am certain we can find reason and/or purpose in everything that happens!


It takes a short time to learn to exercise power, but a lifetime to learn how to avoid abusing it.


We are no longer a country of laws, we are a country where laws are "creatively interpreted."



This site is a 100% volunteer effort.  Please help us!
Donate online NOW
Due to volume, we only deal with electronic communications now (email).
Email caught.net

Caught.Net | Pro Se Way | Handling Judges | Secret Canons | Trial Handbook | Bad Judges | Bad Lawyers | Legal Abuse Syndrome | Aggrieved Citizens List

-- ADVERTISEMENTS --

Learn How To Represent Yourself In Court!


Is Gay Prejudice Taught In The Bible?
Tithing - Fact vs. Fiction


Checked with CSE HTML Validator