Summary: Circuit Court Associate Judge Charles D. Johnson has set a March 1, 2007 date for the a Pre-Trial Motion to dismiss the charges as unconstitutional. This follows a Illinois Supreme Court November 20, 2006 denial of the October 17, 2006 Motion for Supervisory Order.
Summary: I remind the court that 36 of the 39 arguments remain unresolved. I grouped the 36 remaining arguments into 10 requests from the court that it may respond to more easily if it chooses not to respond to all 36 arguments.
Summary: Case Revered and Remanded solely on basis (29) defendant never knowingly waived his rights to a jury trial. No other arguments were considered although this also resolves arguments (27) and (28) sufficiently for my interests.
Summary: Appellant notifies the court of relevant information available on his webpage and refines the difference between weapons of mass destruction, weapons of mass murder and his non-projectile traditional farming implements.
Summary: Appellant appealled on 39 alternative bases (including 2 numbered 32): (1) the court should develop a uniform body of precedent and reach a just result; (2) using the ordinary and popularly understood meanings defeats perceived legislative intent; (3) statute ambiguity mandates statutory construction of legislative intent of the phrase "martial arts devices" (especially whether all devices used by martial artists including protective devices and black belts are truly outlawed); (4) statutory construction should consider the reason and necessity of the statute; (5) statutory construction should consider the spirit of the statute; (6) statutory construction should be the most socially beneficial so as to prevent hardship or injustice and avoid prejudice to the public interest; (7) related statutes should be harmonious; (8) statutory construction should be clear enough to avoid the doctrine of ejusdem generis; (9) statutory construction should delineate deadly weapons consistently; (10) statutory construction should govern public parks consistently; (11) statutory construction should be consistent with prior Appellate Court rulings; (12) statutory construction should not contradict a prior statute without expressly repealing it; (13) statutory construction should be consistent with the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius; (14) statutory construction should sustain, favor and affirm constitutionality; (15) statutory construction should give the effect that represents legislative intent; (16) statutory construction must remedy the absence of prior judicial interpretation; (17) statutory construction should resolve all ambiguous terms in the statute including "martial arts devices", "display", and "use"; (18) statutory construction should consider the Kobudo class of implements commonly used by martial artists, but traditionally used as farming implements, as not correctly falling under the definition of martial arts device with respect to the application of the statute at issue; (19) statutory construction should be consistent with all other IL rulings on weapons use; (20) statutory construction should consider the superior alternative definitions above the ordinary and popularly understood meanings; (21) statutory construction should consider whether legislative intent was likely to preclude use of projectile weapons; (22) statutory construction should consider whether unsharpened daggers are of like character to sharpened ones; (23) statutory construction should consider the true and intended meaning of the word "use", especially as it relates to misuse; (24) statutory construction should extend the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius from items to acts; (25) statutory construction should consider that prior rulings suggest that "the Criminal Code never intended to prohibit mere possession of equipment used in a legitimate sport."; (26) statutory construction should consider the common and ordinary meaning of the word display as it relates to acts by defendant; (27) defendants rights to a trial by jury should be considered; (28) defendant had requested a trial by jury of his peers and was never offered one; (29) defendant never knowingly waived his rights to a jury trial; (30) the manner of use and circumstances of the case are a question for a jury; (31) the manner of use is peaceable; (32) the circumstances of the case are special; (32) [sic] concerns for court safety neither were stated clearly enough nor were sufficient enough to deny defendant's request to bring real evidence into the courtroom; (33) real evidence is admissible if it is relevant to some issue in the case and helps the trier of facts to understand the case (34) the trial court erred in denying defendant's real evidence (the weapons at issue); (35) proper foundation for the introduction of the object is easily established and was not questioned; (36) my unimpeached testimony was sufficient for admission; (37) the officers' pictures of the weapons should be produced and admitted; and (38) the posed photos requested and taken by the officers are admissible.
Summary: Judge chose to rewrite the events on the day of the trial court proceedings to exclude extra-judiciary proceedings. The Appellee submitted no Bystander's report. The Judge's version was certified, but the Defendant-Appellant's version is also on the record.