• I am following up my last blog by providing more information on the unacceptable actions on my trial and post trial/appellate attorney’s.  They didn’t just jeopardize my freedom they charged me to do so.  Now, I am posting some of my legal transcripts that I was able to obtain.  The one’s I need none of my attorney’s wanted to provide me with.  I petition the courts 2 times and I was denied because the State knows the grand jury transcripts and police reports are exhibits that I can use to get back into court with. 


    I want to start with my arrest report, as you can see I turned myself in with my attorney but never did my attorney bring that to the courts attention.  (exhibit C10)  Instead he allowed the State to make it seem like I was caught on the run.  Next I am providing my complaint made by the arresting officer Jeaneth Hayes #2905, in which both state the charge of “Reckless Homicide”.


    I am providing the medical examiner’s report because my case from the beginning was base on fraud and misrepresentation of facts by the police and the State’s Attorney.  (exhibits B1)  The report is date 6-26-03, in which it was being investigated as a motor vehicle mishap/homicide.  (exhibits B1-B2)  The police try to provide the medical examiner’s office with fraudulent information as to one of the victims, “Gabriel Vasquez was transferred to Mt. Sinai Hospital in critical condition”.   (exhibit B2)  The police did this in hopes the medical examiners office would use this information to rule my case a homicide, otherwise why provide fake information to the medical examiners office.  In my post trial motion it clearly states “Gabriel Vasquez did not sustain any injuries, other than he was rendered unconscious.”  (exhibit C75-C79).  On the date of 8-27-03 Eupil Choi, MD. ruled manner of death: accident, even with the misrepresentation of facts provided by the police.  (exhibit B3)


    My first indictment took place on August 7, 2003, in which Edith and Anacelis Rojas were the only victims/witnesses to appear.  Only a “Reckless Homicide” indictment was returned.  The State was not satisfied with that outcome.  My original indictment was dismissed on 8-28-03 and superceded with a new one.  (exhibit C100).  Never did the State get leave from the court on the record to dismiss my original indictment in order to supercede it.  One day after my case was ruled an accident and already being indicted on “Reckless Homicide” the State went to another grand jury in Roll Meadows instead of returning before the original grand jury.  The only witness present before the second grand jury was the arresting officer Jeaneth Hayes #2905.  The true bill of indictment clearly states that.  (exhibit C15)  Jeaneth Hayes #2905 provided fraudulent information as to injuries that occurred to Gabriel Vasquez and to another individual with a gun being in my vehical which none of the witnesses provided this information in any police report.  My attorney Raymond Bendig allowed Gabriel Vasquez to testify to the other individual and the gun when at no time was that apart of his original statement.  Never did my trial attorney or the State call Officer Jeaneth Hayes #2905 to testify at my trial.  This is the reason my attorney’s of the courts will not provide me with any police reports.


    Once I was found guilty I fired Raymond Bendig and hired Dave Wiener and James W. Perlman.  I explained to them the broken jaw not occurring and that my indictment went pass 30 days because at this time I never knew or was I told I was originally indicted for reckless homicide.  The post trial motion filed on my behalf had 2 ineffective counsel claims (exhibit C75-79).  After I payed them all their money they withdrew the ineffective counsel claims on the record.  The 2 different ineffective claims were point 4 and point 9, in which were good issues.  My charge of first degree murder under count 1, 9-1(a)(1) does not display in the charging instrument the “intent” which is one of the elements of first degree murder (exhibit C16).


    The charging instrument has to state that I intented to kill or do great bodily harm, etc.  My charging instrument states the word intent and knowledge modified the act of driving in other words I knowingly drove is what the indictment states.  It never stated I knew that I intented to kill or do great bodily harm and this is why the first count is defective, this is a jurisdictional issue (exhibit C16).


    Now, James N. Perlman states on the record that the ineffective counsel claim relied on witnesses so that’s why he withdrew it (exhibit C3-C4).  If you look at my post trial motion of “judgment notwithstanding the verdict, in arrest of judgment” the 2 ineffective claims, point 4 has to do with my trial attorney not raising the void charge of first degree murder.  The other claim was Point 9 which had to do with my trial attorney failing to adequately investigate and preparing for trial.  One half of that point has to do with a witness.  James N. Perlman stated on the record all the claims had to do with witnesses.  These could have been my argument on appeal to help me obtain a re-trial base on my trial attorney’s ineffectiveness and unacceptable actions before trial and during trial.  Instead all that Dave and James raised on appeal was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, trial court erroneously ruled on my gang membership to establish that he had the specific intent to commit attempted murder, trial court error in considering his gang membership as an aggravating factor during sentencing.


    Also in my post trial motion point 8, it states “there was no proof of any injury to Gabriel Vasquez”, “there was no proof that he sustained a broken jaw”.  The court changed count 4 aggravated battery on Gabriel Vasquez to a not guilty (exhibit C19).  My charging instrument of the aggravated battery on Gabriel Vasquez clearly states the broken jaw was an element (exhibit C19).  The problem is my attempted murder (count 3) also has the broken jaw as an element to display an act toward the commission of the offense.  This charging instrument is also defected because of the false element (exhibit C18).  James N. Perlman never argued the attempted murder should also be a not guilty or dismissed.


    The State conceded on the record and professed error to the broken jaw not occurring (exhibit 9A).  The State is conceding to perjury before the grand jury because that’s where the information was provide by officer Jeaneth Hayes #2905.  She was the only witness present before the second grand jury.  At no time before that or during trial did the State correct what it knew to be false, including my trial attorney who was useless.  I am providing transcripts where Gabriel Vasquez testified to sustaining injuries but my trial attorney does not clearly ask him about sustaining a broke jaw or does my attorney state he (Gabriel) never sustained any injuries (exhibit 39-41).  The State never corrects that no injuries were sustained but instead objects to assume facts not in evidence because the false injury kept coming up.


    Well, I just wanted to display that I am not someone just accusing my attorney of being ineffective when in fact I have the proof of their incompetence and unacceptable representation.  I know many other individuals have went through this or who will go through this in the future.  It’s sad when your trial attorney sells you out and all the attorneys you hire follow suit too.  They take your money and can care less about your freedom.  If anyone has any advise or any information that can be useful I would really appreciate it.  I hope I can shed some light on how these attorneys got away with jeopardizing my freedom, the struggle continues...