Report to Attorney General Madigan Regarding Unlawful Arrest
and Police Misconduct on December 9, 2017
Dear Attorney General Madigan:
Please see below my letter to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County. I and my partner Mark Paul Acesor are scheduled to appear in court on January 8, 2010. We have no substantive information regarding the nature of the charges and thus have no way to prepare for trial. In fact, we were arrested for unclear reasons and as of yet requests for police reports have been denied.
The incident relayed below occurred on December 9, 2010. At this time, Mark Paul Acesor (Filipino) made an attempt to secure his mail and car title from the apartment in which has been legal tenant for several years. The individual with whom he had shared this space during this time (White) had on information and belief taken actions to prevent Mr. Acesor from regular to access to his mail and personal belongings, and had threatened to dispose of these belongings if the were not removed by January 1 (the last date of Mark's tenancy) while creating unreasonable burdens for removal of the items.
As Mr. Acesor's partner and advocate, I took actions in written correspondence and by accompanying Mr. Acesor to the dwelling unit on December 9th to facilitate Mr. Acesor's access to his own belongings, in particular his mail and car title. I believed (and continue to believe) that Mr. Acesor had the full rights of tenancy through December 31, as he possessed in the dwelling unit (1) an oral agreement with the owner that he was tenant (2) a record of personally paying for renter's insurance and utilities (3) a storage unit (4) many personal belongings and records. He shared the space with the White occupant, yet the White occupant denied him access to his personal records (including copies of car title, lease, and key to safety deposit box, etc.).
On the morning of December 9, I called the police, at the White occupant's request, to supervise retrieval of Mark Paul's personal belongings. The letter below describes in greater detail what happened next, and our subsequent arrest.
We have not yet retained criminal defense counsel and are still actively seeking substantive information about the charges prior to any court appearance and to ensure that our constitutional rights are protected; as well, that any deficiencies in the method and manner of our arrest be corrected, for we believe that were were not arrested in a just manner, that we were unreasonably incarcerated, and that we were not provided with humane and decent treatment during our incarceration - for a crime we surely, by my estimation, did not commit.
Dan Sullivan
(c) 202-340-6724
www.dansullivanprojects.com
LinkedIn / Facebook / Twitter
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Daniel F Sullivan <dan@dansullivanprojects.com>
Date: Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 7:43 PM
Subject: Urgent:
To: courtclerk@cookcountycourt.com
Dorothy Brown
Clerk of the Circuit Court
Richard J. Daley Center, Room 1001
50 West Washington Street
Chicago, Illinois 60602
BY EMAIL: courtclerk@cookcountycourt.com
Angela Robinson
Chief Deputy Clerk
2650 South California Avenue
Room 526
Chicago , IL 60608
BY FAX 773-674-4444
RE: Constitutional and Other Significant Issues to Address in the Arrest, Incarceration, and Trial of Daniel Francis Sullivan & Marl Paul Acesor
Dear Clerks:
I am writing regarding the arrest and subsequent incarceration of Defendants Mark Paul Acesor (D.O.B 1-13-73) and Daniel Francis Sullivan (D.OB. 1-1-75) on December 9, 2017 in the 19th district on charges (per a sheet of paper provided) of violations of 720 ILCS 5/26-5-3-A-5).
First, the Defendants during incarceration provided their permanent addresses of record which appeared on their driver's licenses only and these shall remain in effect until such time as the owners of one or either address officially acknowledge termination of tenancy/residency in writing to the Defendants.
Regardless, until such time as counsel may be secured, you are asked to contact both Defendants via this email address, dan@dansullivanprojects.comor by my cell phone at 202-340-6724. U.S. mail is not an appropriate method by which to disseminate information to proceed with any criminal proceedings for charges that are as vague and ambiguous as those presented here.
Second, Defendants are charged with harassment by electronic means. The law is quite clear that harassment must involve a physical or bodily threat. The complaining witness, Jessie Malinowksi, was never so threatened. Defendant Daniel Sullivan specifically asked the complaining witness if he preferred the police to be involved in any attempt by Defendant Mark Acesor to secure personal documents in Mr. Malinowski's possession. Mr. Malinowski asked for the Defendants to come to him and to bring the police. Mr. Sullivan called the police for assistance in retrieving private documents of Mr. Acesor's being held unreasonably by Mr. Malinowski, and the police for reasons not explained arrested Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Acesor (despite the fact there was obviously no threat to Mr. Malinowski because Mr. Sullivan had contacted the police in the first place).
During arrest, Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Acesor were never presented with evidence leading to their arrest. Prior to arrest, police refused to review documents brought by Mr. Acesor proving his tenancy and right to access personal documents being held unreasonably by Mr. Malinowski. Police instead only reviewed evidence offered by Mr. Malinowski, who is White. Mr. Acesor is of Filipino national origin. On information and belief, I therefore allege differential treatment by the police force on the basis of national origin--discrimination of an obvious and insidious variety. When Defendant Sullivan requested that the police review Mr. Acesor's documentation of his right to access his own personal belongings being withheld by Mr. Malinowski, police threatened arrest and subsequently arrested Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Acesor.
Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Acesor were held in prison for several hours without food or water or medical attention. Mr. Sullivan's medication was taken from him by police. Mr. Acesor began to experience severe health problems and both Mr. Acesor and Mr. Sullivan asked to call emergency assistance at 911 for medical attention and protection from being held without charges being made clear. Police refused to allow Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Acesor to make this telephone call and refused to provide or offer medical assistance to Mr. Acesor, who was in a state of obvious medical distress. Police did not read Miranda rights to the Defendants during the arrest process, but only afterwards. Mr. Acesor specifically had to request that his Miranda rights be read to him. Police indicated that the entire affair was filmed, and we therefore will be making a FOIA request for a video of the entire affair from start to finish, and will plan to release this video, or any refusal to provide the video, to the media for public review of the practices of the Cook County Police Department.
According to release papers, a trial date has been set for January 8, 2018, presumably before Judge Calabrese. However, we have not received and never did receive any substantive information regarding the charges or the evidence substantiating the charges. There is absolutely no way to prepare for a fair trial. I have therefore submitted FOIA requests to the Cook County Sheriff's Office to secure (at the very least) police reports.
The US Constitution protects our freedom of speech, and as well protects us from unreasonable seizure, and indeed specifies our rights to be informed of the nature and cause of any accusation and be confronted with witnesses against us. To my mind, Defendants have been arrested for exercising their freedom of speech in an effort to (1) secure property rightly belonging to one Defendant that had been unreasonably withheld by the complaining witness (2) protect one Defendant from acts of apparent identity theft that the complaining witness may have been implicated in depending on the outcome of an ongoing investigation. The freedom of speech is one of our most important rights, and it is the job of the police to protect civilians from identity theft and theft of their personal belongings. It is not the job of police to arrest persons whimsically without evaluating and judging documentation and evidence by a Defendant because he is of Filipino national origin, as I am herein alleging.
Defendants were unreasonable seized, without Miranda rights being read, for cause unspecified, without evaluation of evidence brought by Defendants of wrongs perpetrated by the complaining witness (who was White). Police were deferent to and reviewed documents provided by the White complaining witness but refused to entertain documents provided by the Filipino Defendant. When the Filipino Defendant's companion took issue with this discrimination in the provision of police services, he and the Filipino Defendant were arrested and on information and belief charges were created in the aftermath by the police as justification for arresting two civilians who expressed concern that their process of policing was unfair and biased to a White person and against a Filipino person. In short, the evidence suggests the police arrested the Defendants not for the vague and ambiguous charges stated in the release papers but because the Defendants exercised their right of free speech during the police visit to ask for police service that was equitable rather than biased. This can be demonstrated by video evidence and shall be quite clear.
Finally, there is no indication that the complaining witness will be present at trial so there will be no opportunity for Defendants to confront their accuser. This is simply not acceptable and is clearly a violation of Defendant's constitutional rights.
I therefore request, on Defendant's behalf, that you (1) expedite the FOIA request referenced and (2) permit continuance of trial such that there is time for Defendants to prepare for a fair trial.
If you lack authority to do this, I ask for an appearance before Judge Calabrese to request a continuance and provide evidence that the arrest made was unconstitutional, biased, and grounds for civil action to request damages for pain and suffering.
Very truly yours,
Dan Sullivan
(c) 202-340-6724
www.dansullivanprojects.com
LinkedIn / Facebook / Twitter
Please see below my letter to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County. I and my partner Mark Paul Acesor are scheduled to appear in court on January 8, 2010. We have no substantive information regarding the nature of the charges and thus have no way to prepare for trial. In fact, we were arrested for unclear reasons and as of yet requests for police reports have been denied.
The incident relayed below occurred on December 9, 2010. At this time, Mark Paul Acesor (Filipino) made an attempt to secure his mail and car title from the apartment in which has been legal tenant for several years. The individual with whom he had shared this space during this time (White) had on information and belief taken actions to prevent Mr. Acesor from regular to access to his mail and personal belongings, and had threatened to dispose of these belongings if the were not removed by January 1 (the last date of Mark's tenancy) while creating unreasonable burdens for removal of the items.
As Mr. Acesor's partner and advocate, I took actions in written correspondence and by accompanying Mr. Acesor to the dwelling unit on December 9th to facilitate Mr. Acesor's access to his own belongings, in particular his mail and car title. I believed (and continue to believe) that Mr. Acesor had the full rights of tenancy through December 31, as he possessed in the dwelling unit (1) an oral agreement with the owner that he was tenant (2) a record of personally paying for renter's insurance and utilities (3) a storage unit (4) many personal belongings and records. He shared the space with the White occupant, yet the White occupant denied him access to his personal records (including copies of car title, lease, and key to safety deposit box, etc.).
On the morning of December 9, I called the police, at the White occupant's request, to supervise retrieval of Mark Paul's personal belongings. The letter below describes in greater detail what happened next, and our subsequent arrest.
We have not yet retained criminal defense counsel and are still actively seeking substantive information about the charges prior to any court appearance and to ensure that our constitutional rights are protected; as well, that any deficiencies in the method and manner of our arrest be corrected, for we believe that were were not arrested in a just manner, that we were unreasonably incarcerated, and that we were not provided with humane and decent treatment during our incarceration - for a crime we surely, by my estimation, did not commit.
Dan Sullivan
(c) 202-340-6724
www.dansullivanprojects.com
LinkedIn / Facebook / Twitter
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Daniel F Sullivan <dan@dansullivanprojects.com>
Date: Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 7:43 PM
Subject: Urgent:
To: courtclerk@cookcountycourt.com
Dorothy Brown
Clerk of the Circuit Court
Richard J. Daley Center, Room 1001
50 West Washington Street
Chicago, Illinois 60602
BY EMAIL: courtclerk@cookcountycourt.com
Angela Robinson
Chief Deputy Clerk
2650 South California Avenue
Room 526
Chicago , IL 60608
BY FAX 773-674-4444
RE: Constitutional and Other Significant Issues to Address in the Arrest, Incarceration, and Trial of Daniel Francis Sullivan & Marl Paul Acesor
Dear Clerks:
I am writing regarding the arrest and subsequent incarceration of Defendants Mark Paul Acesor (D.O.B 1-13-73) and Daniel Francis Sullivan (D.OB. 1-1-75) on December 9, 2017 in the 19th district on charges (per a sheet of paper provided) of violations of 720 ILCS 5/26-5-3-A-5).
First, the Defendants during incarceration provided their permanent addresses of record which appeared on their driver's licenses only and these shall remain in effect until such time as the owners of one or either address officially acknowledge termination of tenancy/residency in writing to the Defendants.
Regardless, until such time as counsel may be secured, you are asked to contact both Defendants via this email address, dan@dansullivanprojects.comor by my cell phone at 202-340-6724. U.S. mail is not an appropriate method by which to disseminate information to proceed with any criminal proceedings for charges that are as vague and ambiguous as those presented here.
Second, Defendants are charged with harassment by electronic means. The law is quite clear that harassment must involve a physical or bodily threat. The complaining witness, Jessie Malinowksi, was never so threatened. Defendant Daniel Sullivan specifically asked the complaining witness if he preferred the police to be involved in any attempt by Defendant Mark Acesor to secure personal documents in Mr. Malinowski's possession. Mr. Malinowski asked for the Defendants to come to him and to bring the police. Mr. Sullivan called the police for assistance in retrieving private documents of Mr. Acesor's being held unreasonably by Mr. Malinowski, and the police for reasons not explained arrested Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Acesor (despite the fact there was obviously no threat to Mr. Malinowski because Mr. Sullivan had contacted the police in the first place).
During arrest, Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Acesor were never presented with evidence leading to their arrest. Prior to arrest, police refused to review documents brought by Mr. Acesor proving his tenancy and right to access personal documents being held unreasonably by Mr. Malinowski. Police instead only reviewed evidence offered by Mr. Malinowski, who is White. Mr. Acesor is of Filipino national origin. On information and belief, I therefore allege differential treatment by the police force on the basis of national origin--discrimination of an obvious and insidious variety. When Defendant Sullivan requested that the police review Mr. Acesor's documentation of his right to access his own personal belongings being withheld by Mr. Malinowski, police threatened arrest and subsequently arrested Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Acesor.
Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Acesor were held in prison for several hours without food or water or medical attention. Mr. Sullivan's medication was taken from him by police. Mr. Acesor began to experience severe health problems and both Mr. Acesor and Mr. Sullivan asked to call emergency assistance at 911 for medical attention and protection from being held without charges being made clear. Police refused to allow Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Acesor to make this telephone call and refused to provide or offer medical assistance to Mr. Acesor, who was in a state of obvious medical distress. Police did not read Miranda rights to the Defendants during the arrest process, but only afterwards. Mr. Acesor specifically had to request that his Miranda rights be read to him. Police indicated that the entire affair was filmed, and we therefore will be making a FOIA request for a video of the entire affair from start to finish, and will plan to release this video, or any refusal to provide the video, to the media for public review of the practices of the Cook County Police Department.
According to release papers, a trial date has been set for January 8, 2018, presumably before Judge Calabrese. However, we have not received and never did receive any substantive information regarding the charges or the evidence substantiating the charges. There is absolutely no way to prepare for a fair trial. I have therefore submitted FOIA requests to the Cook County Sheriff's Office to secure (at the very least) police reports.
The US Constitution protects our freedom of speech, and as well protects us from unreasonable seizure, and indeed specifies our rights to be informed of the nature and cause of any accusation and be confronted with witnesses against us. To my mind, Defendants have been arrested for exercising their freedom of speech in an effort to (1) secure property rightly belonging to one Defendant that had been unreasonably withheld by the complaining witness (2) protect one Defendant from acts of apparent identity theft that the complaining witness may have been implicated in depending on the outcome of an ongoing investigation. The freedom of speech is one of our most important rights, and it is the job of the police to protect civilians from identity theft and theft of their personal belongings. It is not the job of police to arrest persons whimsically without evaluating and judging documentation and evidence by a Defendant because he is of Filipino national origin, as I am herein alleging.
Defendants were unreasonable seized, without Miranda rights being read, for cause unspecified, without evaluation of evidence brought by Defendants of wrongs perpetrated by the complaining witness (who was White). Police were deferent to and reviewed documents provided by the White complaining witness but refused to entertain documents provided by the Filipino Defendant. When the Filipino Defendant's companion took issue with this discrimination in the provision of police services, he and the Filipino Defendant were arrested and on information and belief charges were created in the aftermath by the police as justification for arresting two civilians who expressed concern that their process of policing was unfair and biased to a White person and against a Filipino person. In short, the evidence suggests the police arrested the Defendants not for the vague and ambiguous charges stated in the release papers but because the Defendants exercised their right of free speech during the police visit to ask for police service that was equitable rather than biased. This can be demonstrated by video evidence and shall be quite clear.
Finally, there is no indication that the complaining witness will be present at trial so there will be no opportunity for Defendants to confront their accuser. This is simply not acceptable and is clearly a violation of Defendant's constitutional rights.
I therefore request, on Defendant's behalf, that you (1) expedite the FOIA request referenced and (2) permit continuance of trial such that there is time for Defendants to prepare for a fair trial.
If you lack authority to do this, I ask for an appearance before Judge Calabrese to request a continuance and provide evidence that the arrest made was unconstitutional, biased, and grounds for civil action to request damages for pain and suffering.
Very truly yours,
Dan Sullivan
(c) 202-340-6724
www.dansullivanprojects.com
LinkedIn / Facebook / Twitter
