There was news brought to our attention yesterday concerning this case. And, we have not been avoiding making an update about it. We just were incredibly sad, and disheartened, and angry, and emotional yesterday. Because, that original mandamus that Kwame Raoul, THE Attorney General, the highest legal authority in the State of Illinois, petitioned to file with the Illinois Supreme Court?

It was denied.

The reason it was denied?

"Double Jeopardy Clause"

So we have been learning a lot since yesterday. We learned how to access copies of Supreme Court transcripts. We learned some about how the Supreme Court handles criminal appeals. We learned what the "Double Jeopardy Clause" is all about. And we learned what it isn't.

Attorney General Raoul's petition to the Supreme Court for leave to file an original writ of mandamus DOES NOT violate Double Jeopardy. Denial to grant mandamus for that reason is insubstantial, and it is an invalid argument for denying mandamus to be granted. 

You know. It was hard work for the Vaughan family to fight through the original criminal felony case in the 8th Judicial Circuit of Illinois. They made that effort, and the verdict was a guilty conviction. Then, inexplicably, Judge Adrian changed his ruling. And the Vaughans, and Cammy, felt dismissed and violated by our local judiciary. So, they took the lawful next step. They spoke out, which they were within their right to do. An appeal was filed with the 4th Appellate Court of Illinois and a separate motion was filed with the Illinois Supreme Court. There was good traction for the wrong that was dealt them January 3rd to be righted. But now, the denial for "motion for leave to file mandamus" with the Supreme Court is jeopardizing everything we have been working so hard to fix. And worst and most demeaning of all, this "it violates double jeopardy" argument for denial... it isn't even a valid reason. Much akin to how Judge Adrian vacated his original guilty verdict for a not-legal reason, the order entered to deny a petition for mandamus is also not. legal.

All of these legal authorities whom we have been told we can and should trust... who have years of schooling and professional associations... who were elected into positions for the specific reason that they have been deemed the most fit persons to uphold our trust in their ethical propensity to interpret and follow the laws -- the lawyers, the judges, the courts... they are the people comfortable so blithely handing us some invalid, lame duck excuse for why we aren't worth their time. They want us to give up. They want us to stop. We know, because they keep telling us to stop and saying "it's over" and "there's nothing left to do" and "they knew all along this would never get anywhere." It's ironic, this stand we are taking to exercise our rights against the people in positions of authority who keep telling us to stop trying to do these perfectly legal remedies we are attempting to exercise - seeing as though this case is concerning people failing to stop illegal activities. 

In any case, a message to the following:

Anne Burke, Rita Garman, Mary Jane Theis, P. Scott Neville, Jr., Michael Burke, David Overstreet, Robert Carter -

WE WANT TO FILE A PETITION FOR REHEARING. 

We whole-heartedly believe the grounds for denial of AG Kwame Raoul's petition for leave to file an original writ of mandamus is not legitimate and we challenge that denial. 

We do understand that this petition is not a legally binding method of filing a petition for rehearing, but we have been attempting to contact the criminal appeals department at the Attorney General's office, which does have the authority to file this petition, and it IS The People's intention to file this petition. We would like it publicly known that we started the process to file this petition on March 4, 2022. In an Illinois Supreme Court criminal appeals case, this petition is legally able to be filed within 25 days of the day after the denial was ordered - we are hoping to hear back from the Illinois criminal appeals office in a timely manner to have the petition for rehearing filed or in the event that it could not possibly be filed with that timeframe that an extension of time be granted. We already have a first draft written. Hopefully within three weeks we may have even more concrete reasonings for why this petition for rehearing needs to be granted, but we think we have really solid reasons already, so here are our thoughts:

**************************************

In re:    People ex rel. Farha v. Adrian
    128177

    Appeal from the Appellate Court,
    Fourth District,
    No. 4-22-0083

    Trial Court Case No.:
    2021CF396

    Honorable
    Robert K. Adrian
    Judge, Presiding

1. The Supreme Court overlooked or misunderstood the fact that allowing a petition for original writ of mandamus would not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. Drew Clinton is not the proposed respondent to a petition for an original writ of mandamus; Robert K. Adrian is the respondent to the mandamus, and Robert K. Adrian has not been prosecuted in regards to this case. There has been no request to relitigate any issue between the same parties or create a new lawsuit with Drew Clinton as respondent. The filing of mandamus does not violate any of these three abuses. There has been no ask for a second prosecution of Drew Clinton. Robert Adrian has not been prosecuted concerning this issue. There has been no ask for any additional punishment for the offense.  ((People v. Placek, 184 Ill.2d 370, 704 N.E.2d 393 (1998) The double jeopardy clause "protects against three distinct abuses": (1) a second prosecution for the same offense after an acquittal, (2) a second prosecution for the same offense after a conviction, and (3) multiple punishments for the same offense.)) 

2. The Supreme Court overlooked or misunderstood the fact that the sentencing hearing for the original circuit case at this moment provides the benefit of illegally not upholding Illinois mandatory minimum sentencing statutes for a first offense Class 1 Felony. The “factfinder,” in this case Robert Adrian, is bound to not concern himself with what possible consequences may be attached to any specific offense. His statements reflect he vacated the original conviction as a means to not fulfill mandatory minimum sentencing and provided he was doing so in an attempt to circumvent the public’s rights to appeal his decision. The respondent’s statements for motive to change his guilty verdict was “quasi judicial,” unethical, and illegal. ((People v. Runge, 234 Ill.2d 68, 917 N.E.2d 940 (2009) “Judicial estoppel” is an equitable doctrine which can be invoked where the party to be estopped: (1) has taken factually inconsistent positions in separate judicial or quasi judicial proceedings, (2) intended for the trier of fact to accept the truth of the facts alleged, and (3) succeeded in receiving some benefit in the first proceeding.)) 

3. The Supreme Court overlooked or misunderstood the fact that in all three of the cases cited within the denial filed 03/02/2022, the petition to file an original mandamus was granted. If those cases are cited to set precedent for how this motion should proceed, the mandamus should be granted. In United States v DiFrancesco, the court upheld the constitutionality of two-stage criminal proceedings. “The Double Jeopardy Clause does not provide the defendant with a right to know at any specific moment in time what the exact limit of his punishment will turn out to be.”