Mike Nifong, the now infamous Durham County District Attorney in Durham, North Carolina, failed in his vigorous attempt to convict Duke University Lacrosse players of the alleged gang rape of a black stripper. According to published reports, Mr. Nifong's efforts to convict those players was conducted in disregard of, and by concealing, evidence of their innocence. Due to the apparent integrity of the North Carolina Attorney General, or possibly the influence of Duke University and/or affluent parents, Mr. Nifong has been rewarded for his prosecutorial misconduct by being publicly discredited and disbarred for his "dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation" and relieved of his position as the Durham County District Attorney.

Wellsofjustice.org research indicates that Mr. Nifong is not the only County Prosecutor to practice prosecutorial misconduct or prosecutorial abuse instead of prosecuting charges that are supported by evidence. There have been numerous instances of prosecutorial abuse, especially in high profile cases, over the past century. Other cases are ongoing at this time.

Such a case is presently taking place in Rockford, Illinois, which has its own version of Mike Nifong. His name is Winnebago County State's Attorney Paul A. Logli. Paul Logli has been unjustly prosecuting Mr. Vance, since October 18, 2001, on the basis of a document issued in disregard of 28 U.S.C 1257 (a statute of the United States originally enacted by the Congress of the United States in 1789) and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine of the United States Supreme Court. As early as July 3, 2000, Paul Logli was provided with information and evidence of a land-stealing scheme that resulted in the issuing of the document upon which the criminal charges against Mr. Vance are based. In disregard of the evidence of that scheme, and in what appears to be an effort to conceal or validate that scheme, Paul Logli instituted what he had reason to know to be criminal charges against Mr. Vance that are not supported by probable cause and Paul Logli continues to vigorously prosecute those ongoing charges.

Unlike the North Carolina Attorney General, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, who knows or has reason to know of the misconduct of Paul Logli, has been reported to have publicly stated that she is a friend of Paul Logli. The document upon which the criminal charges against Mr. Vance are based was unlawfully issued by Thomas J. Lester, an attorney and partner of the Hinshaw & Culbertson law firm, under color of official right. Obviously, Hinshaw& Culbertson has a vested interest in obtaining a conviction of Mr. Vance on those charges.

Hinshaw & Culbertson advertises that its attorneys serve as Special Assistant Attorneys General, Special Assistant State's Attorneys as well as in other positions of government. As a consequence, that law firm has a close working relationship with the Illinois Attorney General's Office and the U.S. Attorney General's Office in Chicago, Illinois. That law firm also advertises that its attorneys are highly experienced in all aspects of conflict of interests laws applicable to local government officers.

The purpose of this page is to set forth the "dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation" by which Paul Logli unjustly instituted criminal charges against Mr. Vance and his ongoing prosecution of those charges. The pleadings and documents linked to this page speak for themselves and need no description or elaboration. According to published reports, Paul Logli, unlike North Carolina's Mike Nifong, is being rewarded for his misconduct by being approved, on July 9, 2007, by the Justices of the Illinois Supreme Court to fill the unexpired term of Circuit Judge Gerald F. Grubb who is retiring on August 1, 2007. Paul Logli is scheduled to be sworn in to fill that vacancy on August 10, 2007.

Complaints dated July 1, 2000, October 9, 2000, November 3, 2000, March 28, 2001, and July 1, 2002, were served on Winnebago County State's Attorney Paul A. Logli. Those Complaints claimed, with supporting documentation attached, that an ongoing land stealing scheme, defined as "extortion" by 18 U.S.C. 1951(A)(2), was being perpetrated by Thomas Lester, an attorney and partner of the Hinshaw & Culbertson law firm, and others "under color of official right". Paul Logli failed to respond to or investigate those claims.

In utter disregard of those Complaints, Paul Logli instituted six (6) different criminal charges against Mr. Vance, from October 18, 2001 until August 22, 2002, on the basis of the document issued by Hinshaw attorney Thomas Lester to Alan F. Miller as a "Purchaser". Paul Logli continues his rush to judgment on what he has reason to know to be the unjust prosecution of those charges.

Since then, Wendy Larson, a long time assistant to Winnebago County State's Attorney Paul Logli, stated to Judge Richard W. Vidal, during a criminal proceeding conducted against Mr. Vance on April 28, 2004, that:

Wendy Larson then stated to Judge Richard W. Vidal that "There is a valid trustee's deed" issued by Thomas J. Lester, as Trustee of Clarence's Bankruptcy Estate in Adversary Case 99-A-5023, to "Purchaser" Alan F. Miller on September 26, 2000.

Wendy Larson failed to explain to Judge Vidal how Trustee Thomas J. Lester could issue "a valid trustee's deed" to Alan Miller Seventeen (17) years after Clarence's Title interest in that real estate had been lawfully transferred and that transfer was confirmed by the Winnebago County Circuit Court FINAL JUDGMENT ORDER, rendered in Case 97-ED-1 on October 27, 1997. Wendy Larson also failed to explain how that "trustee's deed" came to be "valid" despite the fact the bankruptcy court is deprived of subject matter jurisdiction, by 28 U.S.C. 1257 and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, to entertain a claim of ownership contrary to that state-court judgment and to thereupon review that state-court judgment and effectively nullify it.

After that Wendy Larson acknowledgement, or slip of the lip, Winnebago County Assistant State's Attorney Charles J. Prorok became the Prosecutor of the criminal charges against Mr. Vance. Charles Prorok filed a Motion in Limine on or about September 10, 2004, and therein asked Judge Vidal to:

". . . enter an order preventing the Defendant from offering evidence in any form and from making any comments in the presence of the jury regarding his belief that the land upon which the soy beans were growing was obtained by the (alleged) land owner improperly."

" . . . should be investigating the transaction involving Complainant Alan Miller rather than attempting to obtain an unjust conviction of said Defendant by employing said Motion in Limine and thereby concealing the evidence from the jury that the subject criminal charges are based on what said Plaintiff has acknowledged, . . . to be the bogus claim of ownership of 'this land' by said Alan Miller."

Nevertheless, Judge Vidal signed a "gag-order" dated October 15, 2004, and thereby deprived Mr. Vance of any opportunity to defend himself against the criminal charges wrongfully instituted by Paul Logli and also thereby deprived the jury of any knowledge as to how the subject document was issued, by stating, in pertinent part, that:

Mr. Vance filed a Motion to Reconsider on November 12, 2004 and therein reminded Judge Vidal that the criminal charges instituted against him by Paul Logli are based upon a document issued as the direct result of the bankruptcy court:

"Engaging in an impermissible appellate review . . . when (it was) asked to entertain a claim that was not even argued in the state court but is 'inextricably intertwined' with the (October 27, 1998) state-court judgment".

That state-court judgment conclusively confirmed the Public Title Records establishing the lawful ownership of the subject real estate to be vested in persons other than Mr. Vance. Nevertheless, Judge Vidal summarily "denied" that Motion by an Order dated January 13, 2005.

Thereafter, Mr. Vance filed a Motion to Dismiss Invalid Criminal Charges on October 16, 2006, in which he set forth the fact that the document, upon which the criminal charges against him are based, is by law void. In that Motion, Mr. Vance also set forth the dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation and disregard of 28 U.S.C. 1257 and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine by which that document was issued by that Hinshaw & Culbertson attorney and partner.

Assistant State's Attorney Charles Prorok, filed a Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on October 30, 2006. The allegations set forth in that Response appeared to be intentionally vague and contradictory so to confuse the issues. Although styled as a response, Charles Prorok failed to refute, disprove or forthrightly address any fact or allegation set forth in Mr. Vance's Motion to Dismiss. Charles Prorok's Response also failed to substantiate his allegation, set forth therein, that: "The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is inapplicable".

Mr. Vance filed a Motion for Clarification on November 6, 2006, and asked Judge Vidal to order the prosecution to clarify the allegations specified in Mr. Vance's Motion. Charles Prorok then filed another a Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on or about November 20, 2006, and stated that: "2. The People's response to the Defendant's motion to dismiss needs no clarification."

Mr. Vance filed a Defendant's Response to Prorok's Responses on November 29, 2006, and therein asked Judge Vidal to dismiss each criminal charge, based on the document issued by Thomas Lester, and "thereby remove the question as to the validity of both the 28 U.S.C. 1257 Statute of the United States and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine of the United States Supreme Court."

Judge Vidal retired on December 1, 2006, and J. Edward Prochaska was elected in the November 6, 2006 general election to the position of Winnebago County Judge to fill the vacancy created by Judge Vidal's retirement.

Mr. Vance filed a Motion for Order Consistent with the Evidence on December 29, 2006, and therein set forth that Judge Vidal failed to consider the evidence and pertinent law in the issuing of his December 1, 2006 Order. Mr. Vance filed an Amendment to his Motion for Order Consistent with the Evidence on January 10, 2007, and therein cited a U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision distinguishing between res judicata and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

Mr. Vance filed a Request to Take Judicial Notice of Pertinent Indisputable Facts of Record on January 17, 2007, and therein asked Judge Prochaska to take judicial notice of those facts of Record when rendering his ruling of Mr. Vance's Motion for Order Consistent with the Evidence.

Judge Prochaska summarily "Heard and Denied" Mr. Vance's Motion for Order Consistent with the Evidence by an Order dated February 12, 2007. Mr. Vance claims that prior to signing that Order, drafted by Charles Prorok, Judge Prochaska told Mr. Vance that he was going to deny the Motion because Mr. Vance had filed too many motions and the trial had been rescheduled too many times. Mr. Vance claims that Judge Prochaska effectively stated that Mr. Vance's attempts to exercise his right to due process were wasting Judge Prochaska's time.

"Appeals in criminal cases in which a statute of the United States or of this State has been held invalid . . . shall lie directly to the Supreme Court as a matter of right. All other appeals in criminal cases shall be taken to the Appellate Court."

The Clerk of the Illinois Supreme Court returned Mr. Vance's Notice of Appeal, filed in his criminal cases, accompanied by a Letter dated March 23, 2007, which states that his "notice of appeal will not be filed and docketed in the Supreme Court for want of compliance with Supreme Court Rule 303(b)(3)", which rule applies strictly to civil appeals. Mr. Vance returned his criminal Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court Clerk and it was again returned to him accompanied by an identical Letter except that it was dated March 29, 2007.

Mr. Vance again returned his Notice of Appeal to the Clerk of the Illinois Supreme Court, this time with a Letter dated April 5, 2007. The Supreme Court Clerk again returned Mr. Vance's package accompanied by a Letter dated April 10, 2007, which therein recited Supreme Court Rule 603. Mr. Vance again returned his Notice of Appeal to the Clerk of the Illinois Supreme Court, this time with a Letter dated April 13, 2007.

Mr. Vance claims that, during the hearing conducted on April 12, 2007, Judge Prochaska again belittled Mr. Vance's attempts to exercise his right to due process and stated that he was going to conduct a trial of Mr. Vance on April 23, 2007, no matter what, and refused Mr Vance's request that he sign an order pertaining thereto.

Alarmed by Judge Prochaska's actions, Mr. Vance did research and discovered that Judge Prochaska accepted contributions to his 2006 election campaign from several Hinshaw & Culbertson attorneys and partners. That research also revealed that prosecutor Charles Prorok also accepted contributions from several Hinshaw & Culbertson attorneys and partners to his unsuccessful 2000 campaign to be elected to a position as a Circuit Judge.

(b) A public prosecutor or other government lawyer shall not institute or cause to be instituted criminal charges when such prosecutor or lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the charges are not supported by probable cause.

(c) A public prosecutor or other government lawyer in criminal litigation shall make timely disclosure to . . . the defendant, if the defendant is not represented by a lawyer, of the existence of evidence, known to the prosecutor or other government lawyer, that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigate the degree of the offense."

Mr. Vance filed a Bill Quia Timet (a statement filed "Because he fears") on April 20, 2007, which set forth the conflicts of interest which he discovered involving Judge Prochaska and Charles Prorok and Paul Logli. That pleading also set forth the fact that the Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct requires Judge Prochaska to disqualify himself from the Cases against Mr. Vance due to his noted conflict of interest. Mr. Vance also filed another Request to take Judicial Notice on April 20, 2007 and therein asked judicial notice be taken that Paul Logli has reason to know that the criminal charges that he filed and continues to prosecute against Mr. Vance "are not supported by probable cause".

On April 23, 2007, Judge Prochaska denied Mr. Vance's Request to take Judicial Notice and disregarded the Bill Quia Timet because, as he claimed, he did not know what it was or what to do with it. Judge Prochaska refused to disqualify himself and proceeded immediately to conduct a trial of Mr. Vance. Charles Prorok vigorously employed the October 15, 2004 "gag-order" and Judge Prochaska apressively enforced that "gag-order". As a consequene, the jury was deprived of the knowledge that the criminal charges instituted against Mr. Vance "are not supported by probable cause" and that the evidence of record actually "tends to negate the guilt of the accused".

On April 24, 2007, the jury returned the predictable verdict of "guilty", in Case 01-CF 2701, of Criminal Damage to Property (more than $300.00, less than $10,000.00). Mr. Vance claims that the jury took only about thirty (30) minutes or less to elect a foreman, discuss the limited evidence available to them and vote. Mr. Vance also claims that, when the jury re-entered the courtroom, several jurors appeared distraught as if they had agreed to a guilty verdict under duress or threats.

Mr. Vance filed a Motion for Order to Direct the Clerk of this Court to File and Docket the Subject Criminal Appeal on April 25, 2007, and mailed a copy to Justice Robert Thomas as required. He also mailed a Letter , dated April 25, 2007, to the Illinois Supreme Court Clerk. The Illinois Supreme Court Clerk again returned Mr. Vance's documents to him, accompanied by a Letter dated April 25, 2007. Mr. Vance's Motion was denied by a Supreme Court Order dated May 15, 2007.

Mr. Vance filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings with the Winnebago County Circuit Clerk on May 24, 2007, and therein asked that the 01-CF-2701 criminal charge be dismissed on the basis of the evidence and the law OR that he be granted a new trial in which he is allowed to exercise his constitutional right to defend against the charge without the subject gag-order.

The Rockford Register Star reported, in an article published about June 1, 2007, that Illinois Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Thomas would be appointing a person to fill the unexpired term of Circuit Judge Gerald F. Grubb who is retiring on August 1, 2007.

Mr. Vance filed a Motion fto Reconsider Denial of Motion to Direct the Clerk with the Clerk of the Illinois Supreme Court on June 4, 2007, and mailed a copy to Justice Robert Thomas. That Motion was denied by a Supreme Court Order dated June 27, 2007.

Mr. Vance filed a Affidavit and Petition for Substitution and Change of Venue with the Winnebago County Circuit Clerk on June 20, 2007, and therein asked for a substitution of judge and prosecutor for cause and for a change of venue as provided for by Illinois Law. An Amendment to that Petition was filed on June 26, 2007. Illinois Law prohibits Judge Prochaska from hearing that Petition because he is the judge named it in.

In disregard of the requirement of Illinois Law, that the Petition for Substitution for Cause be transferred "upon the filing of such motion" to the Chief Judge for hearing or assignment to another judge, Judge Prochaska, during the hearing conducted on June 27, 2007, again belittled Mr. Vance's attempts to exercise his right to due process and justice and thereupon signed an order requiring Mr. Vance to comply with that order of be subjected to a bond forfeiture. Judge Prochaska stated that if Mr. Vance did not comply with that order, he would put Mr. Vance in jail.

On July 5, 2007, Mr. Vance filed a Emergency Motion Requesting the Chief Judge Hear the Petition for Substitution of Judge Prochaska for Cause with the Clerk of the Circuit Court and asked that a hearing be scheduled before the Chief Judge. Mr. Vance claims that a Deputy