Perjury, Home Invasion and Elder Abuse

Mercy Lakefront SRO and Elder Abuse
by George M. Weinert V
Tuesday, July 15, 2008 Chicago, IL

Though Americans cherish our ban on Cruel and Unusual punishment the
State of Illinois, the Chicago Police Department and the onerous
felons that operate Mercy Lakefront SRO ignore these vital concerns.
Constitutional protections apply only to the favored few. The right of
the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and
no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and  particularly describing the place to be searched,
and the persons or things to be seized. U.S. Const., Amend. IV,
adopted 1791.

Don't ask Mercy Lakefront resident since most of them are illiterate.
The worst part is that applies to many of the 'managers' in these
units as well who would have no jobs at all if they did not have the
good fortune to jump onto the welfare wagon business.

I've been exposing these crimes for over four years and Mercy
Lakefront has tried everything they know of to shut me up. My pursuit
of pedantic supremacy is viewed as a mental illness by goond that
cannot even read and write. Since the victim is 57 years of age the
intent of Mercy Housing is obvious:

A single episode of victimization can "tip over" an otherwise
productive self-sufficient older person's life. In other words,
because older victims usually have fewer support systems and reserves
- physical, psychological, and economic - the impact of abuse and
neglect is magnified, and a single incident of mistreatment is more
likely to trigger a downward spiral leading to loss of independence,
serious complicating illness, and even death. "Elder Mistreatment;
Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation in an Aging America" - Copyright 2003
by the National Academy of Sciences

There are many things that the Racist abusers who operate Chicago's
Mercy Lakefront SRO wants to keep concealed.  Here are some of these
are the facts about Elder Abuse and Neglect in Illinois


Fact Sheet on Elder Abuse and Neglect in Illinois

Reported elderly abuse cases rose 163% from 1990 to 1998

* 24% of elderly victims suffer physical abuse
* 44% of abuse victims experience episodes of emotional abuse
including
verbal assaults, threats, and intimidation 1
* Financial Exploitation accounts for 54% of all reported cases of
elderly
abuse
* 4% of elderly abuse victims suffer sexual abuse
* Defined as passive neglect, caregivers fail to provide the elderly
person with food, clothing, shelter, medical care or other necessities
of one's life in 38% of all cases
* Willful Deprivation, or the withholding of medication, shelter, food
and
physical or medical assistance, occurs in 8% of elderly abuse cases 2
* Confinement accounts for 7% of all reported cases of elderly abuse
* In elderly abuse cases, the victim typically experiences more than
one
type of abuse 3
* 76% of reported elder abuse cases involve Caucasian victims while
21% 4 are African American and 3% are Hispanic 5
* Almost 3/4 of all elderly abuse victims are women
* Elderly people often need others to report cases of abuse or neglect
for them especially regarding instances of neglect or willful
deprivation where elderly persons are incapable of seeking help for
themselves
* 59% of elder abuse perpetrators are male while 41% are female
* 42% of elder abuse offenders are between the ages of 30-49 and 19%
are
70 years or older
* 3/4 of alleged abusers are related to the victim
* Adult children of the victim account for 41% of all reported elderly
abuse cases

If you suspect an older person is being abused please contact (800)
252-8966 during regular office hours and (800) 279-0400 after hours.
Illinois Department on Aging.

The eight day unlawful imprisonment of this 57 year old scholar is
also a violation of the Eight Amendment. Excessive bail shall not be
required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual
punishments inflicted. U.S. Const, Amend. VIII, adopted 1791

These statutes, generally, prohibit the recipients of federal
financial assistance from discriminating on several bases. The
statutes are:

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits the
exclusion,denial of benefits, and discrimination on the grounds of
race, color or national origin in programs or activities receiving
federal funds;

I have worked as hard as I know to make honors grades for I realize
that I will face additional age discrimination in the job market
shortly. Now the miserable criminal pricks that manage Mercy Lakefront
Housing have taken even that from me. 6

The latest atrocity is also a violation of the Illinois Constitution.
SEARCHES, SEIZURES, PRIVACY AND INTERCEPTIONS The people shall have
the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and other
possessions against unreasonable searches, seizures, invasions of
privacy or interceptions of communications by eavesdropping devices or
other means. No warrant shall issue without probable cause, supported
by affidavit particularly describing the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized. Ill. Const., SECTION 6.

Why does Chicago's Mercy Housing allow these abuses to continue and
why must a law suit be instituted to end these heinous abuses? In
order to conceal their failure to provide older residents with our
basic Constitutional Rights. RIGHT TO REMEDY AND JUSTICE Every person
shall find a certain remedy in the laws for all injuries and wrongs
which he receives to his person, privacy, property or reputation. He
shall obtain justice by law, freely, completely, and promptly. Ill.
Const., SECTION 12.

So why do the Good Sisters of Mercy remain silent? Because they are
now protecting the perjury that occurred when Mercy Lakefront "Case
Manager" Walter Rogers attested under oath to the following, pursuant
to the -

Petition for Voluntary/Judicial Admission. 405 Ill. Comp. Stat.
5/3-600. This 'petition' only requires that a 'spouse, parent'
guardian, or substitute decision maker' call the Police, attest that
you are -

1.) 'An individual who is mentally ill and because of his or her
illness is reasonably expected to inflict serious physical harm on
himself of another in the near future which may include threatening
behavior or conduct that places another in reasonable expectation of
being harmed'
2.) 'An individual who is mentally ill and because of his or her
illness is unable to provide for his or her basic physical needs so as
to guard himself or herself from serious harm without the assistance
of family or outside help'
3.) 'In need of immediate hospitalization for the prevention of such
harm.'

Directly below the account of the petitioner is a sworn statement that
states:

a.) I do not have a legal interest in this matter
b.) I do not have a financial interest in this matter
c.) I am not involved in litigation in this matter

1.) The Signer is an employee of Mercy Lakefront SRO the first is
perjury
2.) The Signer derives his laughable income from this employ so the
second is perjury
3.) The Signer, as an employee is an agent of Mercy Lakefront SRO who
is currently involved in an Eviction suit Cook County Circuit Court
2008-M1-701680 with the writer. The third attestation  is also perjury

WALTER ROGERS COMMITTED PERJURY and The Land of Lincoln has a lot to
say on that.

IL ST CH 38  32-2 - § 32-2. Perjury. (a) A person commits perjury
when, under oath or affirmation, in a proceeding or in any other
matter where by law such oath or affirmation is required, he makes a
false statement, material to the issue or point in question, which he
does not believe to be true.
Ill.Rev.Stat.1961, ch. 38, § 473, was designed to insure that
statements made under oath merit trustworthiness which the law
assigned to them. Loraitis v. Kukulka, 1953, 1 Ill.2d 533, 116 N.E.2d
329.
One must willfully, corruptly and falsely testify to a matter material
to the issue or point in question to commit perjury. People v. Drake,
App. 4 Dist.1978, 20 Ill.Dec. 544, 63 Ill.App.3d 633, 380 N.E.2d 522.
Perjury  1
"Perjury" is willfully, corruptly, and falsely testifying in a matter
material to the issue or point in question. In re Obartuch, 1944, 54
N.E.2d 470, 386 Ill. 323. Perjury  1
"Perjury" is willfully, corruptly, and falsely testifying in a matter
material to the issue or point in question. The testimony must be
known to the witness to be false, and must be intended to mislead the
court or jury. People v. Glenn., 1920, 128 N.E. 532, 294 Ill. 333.
To commit perjury, a person must "willfully, corruptly, and falsely"
swear or affirm. The false assertion made by the witness under oath
must be known to such witness to be false, and must be intended by him
or her to mislead the court or jury. Coyne v. People, 1888, 14 N.E.
668, 124 Ill. 17, 7 Am.St.Rep. 324
Knowledge of falsity of statement made at time it was made is
essential element of crime of perjury. People v. Kang, App. 4 Dist.
1995, 206 Ill.Dec. 912, 269 Ill.App.3d 546, 646 N.E.2d 279, appeal
denied 208 Ill.Dec. 365, 161 Ill.2d 534, 649 N.E.2d 421, habeas corpus
denied 1999 WL 412437. Perjury  12
Knowledge of falsity of perjured statement at time of utterance is
essential element of crime of perjury and must be alleged in charging
instrument. People v. Penn, App. 5 Dist.1988, 127 Ill.Dec. 511, 177
Ill.App.3d 179, 533 N.E.2d 383, appeal denied 128 Ill.Dec. 897, 123
Ill.2d 564, 535 N.E.2d 408. Perjury  12; Perjury  19(2)
Alleged false statement which gives rise to charge of perjury must be
a statement of fact and not a conclusion, opinion, or deduction drawn
from given facts; fact that a conclusion or deduction is erroneous or
is not a correct construction or a logical deduction from the facts
cannot constitute false swearing. People v. White, 1974, 59 Ill.2d
416, 322 N.E.2d 1
Test for determining materiality in perjury prosecution is whether
false testimony has natural tendency to influence trier of fact on
issue or point in question. People v. Rutledge, App. 3 Dist.1994, 195
Ill.Dec. 925, 257 Ill.App.3d 769, 629 N.E.2d 233; People v. Olinger,
App. 3 Dist.1993, 185 Ill.Dec. 924, 245 Ill.App.3d 903, 615 N.E.2d
794, appeal denied 190 Ill.Dec. 904, 152 Ill.2d 573, 622 N.E.2d 1221
Any testimony that either aids in proving or disproving the charge
against accused is material and basis for a perjury charge. Greene v.
People, 1899, 182 Ill. 278, 55 N.E. 341; Cronk v. People, 1889, 131
Ill. 56, 22 N.E. 862; Sanders v. People, 1888, 124 Ill. 218, 16 N.E.
81; Mackin v. People, 1886, 115 Ill. 312, 3 N.E. 222, 56 Am.Rep. 167.
For the purpose of establishing perjury, an allegedly perjurious
statement is "material" if it influenced, or could have influenced,
the trier of fact in its deliberations on the issues presented to it.
People v. Baltzer, App. 2 Dist.2002, 261 Ill.Dec. 247, 327 Ill.App.3d
222, 762 N.E.2d 1174, rehearing denied, dismissed 271 Ill.Dec. 930,
201 Ill.2d 577, 786 N.E.2d 188. Perjury  11(2)
Language of perjury statutes does not require that alleged false
statements be before the trier of fact or anyone else; law only
requires that statements be given under oath or affirmation in any
type of matter where the law requires an oath or affirmation, that
they be false, that they be material to the issue of point in
question, and that the person making the statements believes them not
to be true. People v. Davis, 1995, 207 Ill.Dec. 484, 164 Ill.2d 309,
647 N.E.2d 977
An indictment setting forth facts from which materiality may be
inferred is sufficient, without a direct averment in the language of
the statute. Kizer v. People, 1904, 71 N.E. 1035, 211 Ill. 407.
Indictment for perjury charging that defendant "did depose and swear,
in substance, and to the effect following," was sufficient to state
substance of alleged false testimony. People v. Wright, 1926, 154 N.E.
408, 324 Ill. 29.
Evidence of knowledge of the falsity of the statement may be inferred
from proof that the statement was in fact false. People v. Boyd, App.
3 Dist.1980, 36 Ill.Dec. 623, 81 Ill.App.3d 259, 401 N.E.2d 304.
Evidence can be sufficient to support perjury conviction if presented
by direct testimony of only one witness if it is confirmed or
corroborated by other evidence of material circumstances tending to
establish the falsity of alleged perjured statement. People v.
Beaston, App. 2 Dist.1977, 13 Ill.Dec. 436, 55 Ill.App.3d 203, 371 N.E.
2d 131.

Will the States Attorney and/or the Attorney General file charges
against Rogers?
It's even worse since the unlawful entry into my North side apartment
with no provocation while I was studying for a Mid-Term scheduled for
May 18, 2008 made Rogers guilty HOME INVASION.
On the morning of May 15, at around 11:00 AM Walter Rogers knocked on
the door of my single room Mercy Lakefront apartment. Since I was
studying for a mid-term the following Monday and has a Legal Writing
class at 9:00 AM the next day I told him I was busy and asked him to
go away. Walters used his pass key to enter, with five Chicago Police
officers. There was  no legitimate reason for this abuse of authority.
Rogers committed HOME INVASION and the victim suffered considerable
financial, emotional and psychological harm as a result.

720 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/12-11 § 12-11. Home Invasion.

(a) A person who is not a peace officer acting in the line of duty
commits home invasion when without authority he or she knowingly
enters the dwelling place of another when he or she knows or has
reason to know that one or more persons is present or he or she
knowingly enters the dwelling place of another and remains in such
dwelling place until he or she knows or has reason to know that one or
more persons is present and
(1) While armed with a dangerous weapon, other than a firearm, uses
force or threatens the imminent use of force upon any person or
persons within such dwelling place whether or not injury occurs, or
(2) Intentionally causes any injury, except as provided in subsection
(a)(5), to any person or persons within such dwelling place, or
(3) While armed with a firearm uses force or threatens the imminent
use of force upon any person or persons within such dwelling place
whether or not injury occurs, or
(4) Uses force or threatens the imminent use of force upon any person
or persons within such dwelling place whether or not injury occurs and
during the commission of the offense personally discharges a firearm,
or
(5) Personally discharges a firearm that proximately causes great
bodily harm, permanent disability, permanent disfigurement, or death
to another person within such dwelling place, or
(6) Commits, against any person or persons within that dwelling place,
a violation of Section 12-13, 12-14, 12-14.1, 12-15, or 12-16 of the
Criminal Code of 1961. [FN1]

Offense of home invasion makes criminal unauthorized entry of a
dwelling for purpose of threatening or using force. People v. Scott,
App. 1 Dist.1982, 64 Ill.Dec. 201, 108 Ill.App.3d 607, 439 N.E.2d 130.
Offense of home invasion requires proof of an unauthorized entry, and
the use of or threat of force by the invader while armed with a deadly
weapon or intentional injury by the invader upon the occupant. People
v. Gilyard, App. 2 Dist.1992, 177 Ill.Dec. 163, 237 Ill.App.3d 8, 602
N.E.2d 1335, appeal denied 183 Ill.Dec. 25, 148 Ill.2d 647, 610 N.E.2d
1269.
Complete offense of home invasion is comprised of acts and conduct of
defendant both within and without dwelling place sought to be
protected by statute and does not require that unlawful entry of
dwelling place occur first and that there then be threat of force
against person while within dwelling place. People v. Kovacs, App. 2
Dist.1985, 90 Ill.Dec. 271, 135 Ill.App.3d 448, 481 N.E.2d 1071,
appeal denied.
The gravamen of the offense of home invasion is unauthorized entry.
People v. Fox, App. 1 Dist.1983, 70 Ill.Dec. 387, 114 Ill.App.3d 593,
449 N.E.2d 261.
Phrase "without authority" under statute prohibiting the entry
"without authority" of the dwelling place of another by a person not a
peace officer acting in line of duty has same meaning under home
invasion statute as under burglary statute. People v. Racanelli, App.
1 Dist.1985, 87 Ill.Dec. 187, 132 Ill.App.3d 124, 476 N.E.2d 1179,
appeal denied.
Home invasion does not require that person have felonious intent or
intent to steal at time he or she enters dwelling without authority;
intent requirement is "knowledge" or "reason to know" that person is
present. People v. Pavic, App. 1 Dist.1982, 60 Ill.Dec. 175, 104
Ill.App.3d 436, 432 N.E.2d 1074.
With respect to a charge of home invasion, the limited-authority
doctrine requires that a defendant possess the intent to perform a
criminal act at the time of entry. People v. Dryden, App. 2 Dist.2006,
300 Ill.Dec. 458, 363 Ill.App.3d 447, 844 N.E.2d 456.
For purposes of crime of home invasion, if defendant gains access to
victim's residence through trickery or deceit and with intent to
commit criminal act, his entry is unauthorized and consent given is
vitiated because true purpose for entry exceeded limited authorization
granted; however, if defendant enters with innocent intent, his entry
is authorized, and criminal actions thereafter engaged in by defendant
do not change status of entry. People v. Bush, 1993, 191 Ill.Dec. 475,
157 Ill.2d 248, 623 N.E.2d 1361
Where a defendant gains access to a victim's residence through
trickery and deceit and with the intent to commit criminal acts, his
entry is unauthorized and the consent given vitiated because the true
purpose for the entry exceeded the limited authorization granted.
People v. Waldrup, App. 2 Dist.2000, 251 Ill.Dec. 241, 317 Ill.App.3d
288, 740 N.E.2d 71, appeal denied; judgment vacated 255 Ill.Dec. 497,
195 Ill.2d 595, 749 N.E.2d 979, on remand 285 Ill.Dec. 308, 326
Ill.App.3d 1173, 811 N.E.2d 795.
Evidence supported finding that defendant caused injury to victim,
thus supporting conviction for home invasion, where victim suffered
pain for a few days after the defendant applied pressure to her wrist.
People v. Woods, App. 3 Dist.2007, 310 Ill.Dec. 603, 373 Ill.App.3d
171, 866 N.E.2d 1205, appeal denied 314 Ill.Dec. 836, 225 Ill.2d 674,
875 N.E.2d 1123.
Under home invasion statute, requisite injury to person or persons
known to be in dwelling at time of invasion does not have to occur
within the dwelling. People v. Mata, App. 4 Dist.2000, 250 Ill.Dec.
143, 316 Ill.App.3d 849, 737 N.E.2d 1120.
Psychological or emotional trauma constituted "injury" within meaning
of home invasion offense. People v. Ehrich, App. 4 Dist.1988, 116
Ill.Dec. 922, 165 Ill.App.3d 1060, 519 N.E.2d 1137, appeal denied 122
Ill.Dec. 442, 121 Ill.2d 575, 526 N.E.2d 835
Home invasion offense, by making criminal intentional causing of any
injury to "any person or persons within" dwelling into which defendant
makes unauthorized entry, requires that injury be inflicted on person
who was within dwelling when defendant made his unauthorized entry,
but does not require that injury be inflicted within dwelling. People
v. Kolls, App. 2 Dist.1989, 128 Ill.Dec. 491, 179 Ill.App.3d 652, 534
N.E.2d 673, appeal denied 133 Ill.Dec. 674, 126 Ill.2d 564, 541 N.E.2d
1112
Trial court's reading of charges of home invasion at pleading hearing,
using phrases "knowingly entered" and "knowingly entered without
permission" was sufficient to establish that defendant was charged
with acting intentionally and without authority in entering home for
purpose of charging defendant with home invasion. People v. Robinson,
App. 1 Dist.1987, 110 Ill.Dec. 19, 157 Ill.App.3d 622, 510 N.E.2d 1050

Will Walters be charged under Illinois criminal statutes?

Mercy Lakefront adds to the Elder abuse with the Illinois offense of
Interference, coercion, or intimidation.
775 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/3 209;105.1 Sec. 3209;105.
It is a civil rights violation to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or
interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on
account of his or her having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of
his or her having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise
or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by this Article.
(Source: P.A. 94 209;78, eff. 1 209;1 209;06.)

Mercy Lakefront has allowed dangerous criminals to reside in their
units and commits the additional criminal violation of

Criminal housing management.
720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/12-5.1. § 12-5.1. (a) A person commits the
offense of criminal housing management when, having personal
management or control of residential real estate, whether as a legal
or equitable owner or as a managing agent or otherwise, he recklessly
permits the physical condition or facilities of the residential real
estate to become or remain in any condition which endangers the health
or safety of any person.

Since the victim is over 55 additional violations are included under
20 Ill. Comp. Stat.  105/3.05)
"Aged" or "Senior citizen" means a person of 55 years of age or older,
or a person nearing the age of 55 for whom opportunities for
employment and participation in community life are unavailable or
severely limited and who, as a result thereof, has difficulty in
maintaining self-sufficiency and contributing to the life of the
community.
(Source: P. A. 78-242.)

Since this disgraceful affair was an attempt to conceal a.) the
Landlord's failure to properly maintain the property (by simply fixing
an intercomm that had been malfunctioning for nearly two years) and
b.) silence this 57 year old resident who has been reporting on the
Crimes at Mercy Lakefront SRO for four years the above crimes are
additionally heinous since they were motivated by
Retaliation
A complainant may bring a retaliation claim under Title VI or under a
Title VI
regulation that prohibits retaliation. For example, most agency Title
VI regulations
provide that "[n]o recipient or other person shall intimidate,
threaten, coerce, or
discriminate against any individual for the purpose of interfering
with any right or
privilege secured by [Title VI], or because he has made a complaint,
testified, assisted,
or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding or
hearing under this
subpart." 28 C.F.R. § 42.108(e) (Department of Justice Regulation).
To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, the investigating
agency must first
determine if the complainant can show (1) that he or she engaged in a
protected
activity, (2) that the recipient knew of the complainant's protected
activity, (3) that the
recipient took some sort of adverse action against the complainant,
and (4) that there
was a causal connection between the complainant's protected activity
and the
recipient's adverse actions. See Davis v. Halpern, 768 F.Supp. 968,
985 (E.D.N.Y.
1991). (Defendants's summary judgment motion to dismiss Title VI
retaliation claim
was denied because plaintiff established evidence of prima facie
case).
Once a prima facie case of retaliation has been established, the
investigating
agency must then determine if the recipient can articulate a
"legitimate nondiscriminatory
reason" for the action. Id. If the recipient can offer such a reason,
the investigating agency must then show that recipient's proffered
reason is pretextual and that the recipient's actual reason was
retaliation. Id. A showing of pretext is sufficient to support an
inference of retaliation. Id. Illinois Act on Aging  20 Ill. Comp.
Stat. 105/. 7

Mercy Lakefront is also a Plaintiff in the Second attempt to Evict
this 57 year old tenant in two years. 8 Circuit Court of Cook County,
Civil Division, 2008-M1-701680
This violates the Chicago Tenant Landlord Act Title V - S-12-1 50
Prohibition On Retaliatory Conduct By Landlord.

It is declared to be against public policy of the City of Chicago for
a landlord to take retaliatory action against a tenant, except for
violation of a rental agreement or violation of a law or ordinance. A
landlord may not knowingIy terminate a tenancy, increaserent, decrease
services, bring or threaten to bring a lawsuit against a tenant for
possession or refuse to renew a lease or tenancy because the tenant
has in good faith:

[a] complained of code violations applicable to the premises to a
competent governmental agency,   elected representative or public
official charged with responsibility for enforcement of a building,
housing, health or similar code; or

(b) complained of a building, housing, health or similar code
violation or an illegal landlord practice to a community organization
or the news media;   or

(c) sought the assistance of a community organization or the news
media   to remedy a code violation or illegal landlord practice; or

(d) requested the landlord to make repairs to the premises as required
by a building code, health ordinance, other regulation, or the
residential rental agreement; or

(e) becomes a member of a tenant's union or similar organization; or

(f) testified in any court or administrative proceeding concerning the
condition of the premises; or

(g) exercised any right or remedy provided by law.

The malfunctioning Intercomm that has never been repaired (after more
than two years) also puts Mercy Lakefront in Violation of CTLO Title V
5- 12-070 Landlord's Responsibility To Maintain.
The landlord shall maintain the premises in compliance with all
applicable provisions of the municipal code and shall promptly make
any and all repairs necessary to fulfill this obligation. (Prior code
5193-l-7; Added. Council Journal of Proceedings, September 8, 1986,
page 33771)

Since Mercy Lakefront has banned this 57 old scholar from it's
Employment, Training and Education Center for nearly four years it is
also in violation of Civil Rights Violations: Public Accommodations
It is a civil rights violation for any person on the basis of unlawful
discrimination to:
(A) Enjoyment of Facilities. Deny or refuse to another the full and
equal enjoyment of the facilities and services of any public place of
accommodation;
(B) Written Communications. Directly or indirectly, as the operator of
a place of public accommodation, publish, circulate, display or mail
any written communication, except a private communication sent in
response to a specific inquiry, which the operator knows is to the
effect that any of the facilities of the place of public accommodation
will be denied to any person or that any person is unwelcome,
objectionable or unacceptable because of unlawful discrimination;
(C) Public Officials. Deny or refuse to another, as a public official,
the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantage,
facilities or privileges of the official's office or services or of
any property under the official's care because of unlawful
discrimination. 775 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/5209;102) (from Ch. 68, par.
5209;102)
Sec. 5209;102.. (Source: P.A. 81209;1216.)

Since Mercy Lakefront also acts as an (B) Employment Agency. For any
employment agency to fail or refuse to classify properly, accept
applications and register for employment referral or apprenticeship
referral, refer for employment, or refer for apprenticeship on the
basis of unlawful discrimination or citizenship status or to accept
from any person any job order, requisition or request for referral of
applicants for employment or apprenticeship which makes or has the
effect of making unlawful discrimination or discrimination 25 on the
basis of citizenship status a condition of referral.

The above unlawful discrimination is also a violation of Title VI of
the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Title VI prohibits discrimination on the
ground of race in any program or activity receiving federal financial
assistance. 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. The United States Department of
Education administers federal financial assistance to education
programs and activities and is authorized by Congress to effectuate
Title VI in those programs and activities. 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-1. The
Department of Justice, through its Civil Rights Division, coordinates
the implementation and enforcement of Title VI by the Department of
Education and other executive agencies. See Exec. Order No. 12,250, 45
Fed. Reg. 72,995 (1980).

Since all my efforts to enter and complete the four and half month
long Paralegal Certificate Program at Roosevelt University have been
intentionally blocked:
(F) Training and Apprenticeship Programs. For any employer, employment
agency or labor organization to discriminate against a person on the
basis of age in the selection, referral for or conduct of
apprenticeship or training programs. PART 31-NONDISCRIMINATION IN
FEDERALLY ASSISTED PROGRAMS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR- EFFECTUATION
OF TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF
1964

(b) Specific discriminatory actions prohibited.
(1) A recipient under any program to which this regulation applies may
not, directly or through contractual or other arrangements, on the
ground of race, color, or national origin:
(i) Deny an individual any service, financial aid, or other benefit
provided
under the program;
(ii) Provide any service, financial aid, or other benefit to an
individual which is different, or is provided in a different manner,
from that provided to others under the program;
(iii) Subject an individual to segregation or separate treatment in
any matter
related to his receipt of any service, financial aid, or other benefit
under
the program;
(iv) Restrict an individual in any way in the enjoyment of any
advantage or privilege enjoyed by others receiving any service,
financial aid, or other benefit under the program;
(v) Treat an individual differently from others in determining whether
he satisfies any admission, enrollment, quota, eligibility, membership
or other requirement or condition which individuals must meet in order
to be provided any service, financial aid, or other benefit provided
under the program;
(vi) Deny an individual an opportunity to participate in the program
through the provision of services or otherwise or afford him an
opportunity to do so which is different from that afforded others
under the program, or
(vii) Deny an individual an opportunity to participate in a program as
an employee where a primary objective of the Federal financial
assistance is to provide employment.
(viii) Deny a person the opportunity to participate as a member of a
planning or advisory body which is an integral part of the program.

(3) In determining the site or location of facilities, a recipient or
applicant may not make selections with the purpose or effect of
excluding individuals from, denying them the benefits of, or
subjecting them to discrimination under any program to which this
regulation applies, on the ground of race, color or national origin;
or with the purpose or effect of defeating or substantially impairing
the accomplishment of the objectives of the Act or this regulation.
(4) As used in this section the services, financial aid, or other
benefit provided under a program receiving Federal financial
assistance shall be deemed to include any service, financial aid, or
other benefit provided in or through a facility provided with the aid
of Federal financial assistance.

 (1) Employment service programs. (i)
The registration, counseling, testing, recruitment, selection and
referral of individuals for job openings or training opportunities and
all other activities performed by or through employment service
offices financed in whole or in part from Federal funds, including the
establishment and maintenance of physical facilities, shall be
conducted without regard to race, color, or national origin.
(ii) No selection or referral of any individual for employment or
training shall be made on the basis of any job order or request
containing discriminatory specifications with regard to race, color,
or national origin.

Can this discrimination be against Whites? The courts seem to think
so.

The current views of the Supreme Court would seem to best be
summarized as follows:
(1) All racial classifications, whether they involve whites or
minorities, are highly suspect and presumptively unconstitutional.
(2) The standard for judging the constitutionality of such
classifications is strict judicial scrutiny.
(3) Such classifications must satisfy a compelling governmental
interest.
(4) They must be narrowly tailored to fit the precise allegedly
discriminatory evil they seek to rectify.
(5) Courts should apply the same constitutional standards in judging
racial classifications, whether the case was one brought under the
Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause or the Fifth
Amendment's due process clause.
(6) Race may be considered as one of many factors to be used in
developing programs to benefit members of minority groups, but such
programs may not establish numerical quotas that can be filled only by
minorities and they may not result in the total exclusion of members
of the majority from such programs.
note One court has said that reverse discrimination is permissible
under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1981 if its effects are not identifiable, i. e.
concentrated on a relatively small ascertainable group of non-minority
persons. See Hollander v Sears, Roebuck & Co. (1978, DC Conn) 450 F
Supp 496, 17 BNA FEP Cas 1348, 17 CCH EPD ¶8580.
With the preceding comments in mind, federal courts have invalidated,
or generally questioned the constitutionality, of preferential public
school, college, or university admission, scholarship, classification,
and tracking policies which set aside a certain number of places or
awards solely for minority members on the ground that such policies
violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (see §
10[a], infra), although not all school policies have been found to
engender reverse race discrimination (§ 10[b], infra). Using similar
reasoning, courts have also held that the use of a public school
auditorium by members of a private black corporation, which
deliberately discouraged the attendance of white persons in general
and white teachers in particular violated the civil rights of whites
under both 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 and § 2000(a) (see § 8, infra); that
members of a white church were entitled to an injunction against the
disruption of its church services by members of the Black Liberation
Front, the court concluding that the white plaintiffs were unlawfully
deprived of their right to use their property for religious services
in violation of 42 U.S.C.A. § 1982 (see § 9, infra) It has also been
held that landlords who provided services and favors to minority group
tenants but not to white tenants violated federal housing laws (§
5[a], infra), although a plan to select tenants for housing units that
were built with federal assistance was found not to violate federal
housing laws (§ 5[b], infra).
The Supreme Court and other federal courts have been most active in
the area of government contracts, holding that, however well-intended
minority "set-asides" may be, the Constitution forbids the government
from setting aside for minority contractors or subcontractors a
certain portion of the public contracts because such programs violate
the equal protection clause by creating unlawful reverse
discrimination against white contractors or subcontractors. While the
Court has not completely invalidated such programs, it has placed
stringent limitations on such programs by holding that they must be
narrowly tailored to the evil sought to be corrected, must be judged
under the strict scrutiny rule, must satisfy some compelling
governmental interest, must be short in duration, may not impose rigid
quotas, and must not completely disallow majority-owned contractors
from competing for contracts or subcontracts (see § 6[a], infra),
although there are a few, generally earlier, federal cases upholding
such programs (see § 6[b], infra). Another active area for the Supreme
Court and lower federal courts has been in the congressional election
redistricting milieu, the courts generally ruling that any
congressional or other types of redistricting decisions must not be so
irrational that they can be explained only on the basis that they
constitute an effort to segregate voters into separate districts
because of their race. Again, while not completely banning all such
redistricting, the Supreme Court has ruled that the districts must be
narrowly tailored to further a compelling governmental interest, that
they must be judged under strict scrutiny, and that they must overcome
a presumption of constitutional invalidity because any sort of racial
discrimination, whether it be against whites, blacks, or other
minorities, is "odious to a free people" and violates the equal
protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (§ 3[a], infra),
although again some earlier cases held otherwise (§ 3[b], infra).
Several courts have found no reverse discrimination in the application
of certain prison rules and regulations said to discriminate in favor
of blacks and against whites (§ 7, infra).
What constitutes reverse or majority race or national origin
discrimination violative of Federal Constitution or statutes-
nonemployment cases, Donald T. Kramer, J.D., (c) 2007 Thomson/West. No
Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. 152 A.L.R. Fed. 1



When Mercy Lakefront SRO decided to have this 57 year old scholar held
against his will for eight days while he was forced to miss five
classes, four assignments and a mid-term they forgot more Illinois Law
Section   92.  Resident  rights.  No  resident  shall  be deprived of
any rights, benefits, or privileges guaranteed by law, the
Constitution  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  or  the Constitution of
the United States solely on account of his orher  status  as  a
resident of an establishment, nor shall a resident forfeit any of the
following rights:
(1)  the right to retain and use personal   property and  a  place to
store personal items that is  locked and secure;
(2)  the right to refuse services and to be  advised of the
consequences of that refusal;
(3)  the  right  to  respect  for bodily privacy and dignity  at  all
times,  especially  during   care   and treatment;
(4)  the right to the free exercise of religion;
(5)  the right to privacy with regard to mail, phone calls, and
visitors;
(6)  the  right  to  uncensored access to the  State Ombudsman or his
or her designee;
(7)  the  right  to  be  free  of  retaliation   for criticizing  the
establishment  or  making complaints to appropriate agencies;
(8)  the right to be free of chemical  and  physical restraints;
(9) the  right to be free of abuse or neglect or to refuse to perform
labor;
(10)  the right to confidentiality of the resident's medical records;
(11)  the right of access and the right to copy  the resident's
personal    files    maintained    by   the establishment;
(12)  the  right  to  24   hours   access   to   the establishment;
(13)  the right to a minimum of 90-days notice of  a planned
establishment closure;
(14)  the right to a minimum of 30-days notice of an involuntary
residency  termination,  except  where  the resident poses a threat to
himself or others, or in other emergency  situations,  and  the
right  to  appeal  such termination; and
(15) the right to a 30-day  notice  of  delinquency and at least 15
days right to cure delinquency. Older Americans Act of 1965. U.S.C.
1395 et seq., 1396 et seq.)
It has also been held that landlords who provided services and favors
to minority group tenants but not to white tenants violated federal
housing laws (§ 5[a], infra),


Why not ask Walter Rogers who was responsible for my eight day
unlawful imprisonment?

On the two month anniversary of my unlawful imprisonment at the hands
of Mercy Lakefront SRO Housing I was the victim of even more elder
abuse. The malfunctioning intercomm remains unfixed and I was rudely
roused from a sound sleep at 2:00 AM by a loud banging on my apartment
door by a psychotic 'desk clerk' that still feels that I am at fault
but had never asked Mercy Lakefront Management to fix this irksome
problem. I told the intruder to "Go Away". An identical incident
occurred on the early morning of July 14, 2008 at 5:30 AM. The
intercomm is taped up and this resident can no longer be bothered with
it but the unit is apparently still malfunctioning. Mercy Lakefront's
law breaking and elder abuse continues and grows worse daily.

I shall continue to pursue legal actions and trust that the public and
in foro conscientiae shall come to the realization that crimes are
being committed daily and stop them soon.  The Sisters of Mercy have
been advised of these problems for over two years but their
pusillanimous indifference is beyond reproach.

I've detailed the heinous crimes and pitiful Perfidy of Mercy Housing
in Prisoner of Mercy.

There is even more:

a.) As a result of my eight day unlawful imprisonment my grades
suffered, as I feared. Since we were in an accelerated six week term
at Roosevelt (in which we do 12 weeks work) I missed making honors
Grades in Trial and Post Trial Litigation by only five points. I will
have to see how I can make it up though grades are not a fungible
entity.
b.) Despite the criminal conduct and continued abuse of Mercy
Lakefront SRO I was once more forced to make an appearance in Chicago
Eviction Court on June 24, 2008. The case is in discovery and Mercy
Lakefront is intent on concealing their crimes. I hope they understand
E-Discovery.
c.) Though I had paid $2,100.00 for this term I was denied the
opportunity to take full advantage of my substantial investment in
advanced Paralegal Education.

Though I have already taken and completed an on line course (Legal
Ethics) and made Honors the Mercy Lakefront ETE Center continues to
ban me from this internet center in total violation of many state and
federal laws. Red Line Bomber in Training Agnin Mumin continues to use
the facilities of this center to plan additional Jihad attacks and in
fact is a MERCY LAKEFRONT TENANT LEADER! What better way to punish a
Conservative scholar than with Cruel and unusual punishment to begin.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor
cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. U.S. Const., Amend VII
(Amendment adopted 1791.)


Isolation and Hostility of the gangs that control many of these units
continues and Civil Rights violations for whites remain the norm. Now
one of the African prostitutes that sells her services is having sex
in the middle of the afternoon and loudly moaning with the windows
wide open so she can be heard providing her with free advertising. And
you are paying for this with your tax dollars!

The law breakers that manage these units have finally managed to drag
this 57 year old scholar down to their level of moral turpitude. Since
Reed Mental Health is considered next to the County Jail they now have
managed to taint my spotless history and I am now forced to take Legal
steps to repair it. This is very upsetting considering what I still
must do - but theses criminals could care less. As long as the Chicago
Tribune, WBEZ 91.5, WTTW and other provide great publicity the federal
dollars and large charitable contributions keep pouring in so it's
crucial that their heinous crimes be kept hidden. The levels of
corruption here are beyond cavil. YOUR TAX DOLLARS that are paying
these CRIMINALS. Maintaining any level of equipoise is exceedingly
difficult.
EDER ABUSER AND FELON WALTER ROGERS CAN BE REACHED AT:

(312) 446-4664
wrogers@mercyhousing.org

Walters also needs a GOOD LAWYER 9 - he'll need your services soon.


A week later I received two bills for $635.00 and $968.00 from
Sweedish Covenant Hospital for the "Emergency Room Services" they had
provided when I was sent there by Chicago Lakeshore Hospital. I
delivered both to 247 S. State St, Chicago, IL 60604.


Will Walter Rogers be forced to pay for this?

Why not ask  -
Mercy Lakefront Supportive Housing
247 South State St, Suite 810
Chicago, IL 60604-2053
Phone: 312-447-4500
Fax: 312-447-4750

Remember half of Mercy Lakefront SRO is paid for by YOUR TAX DOLLARS
and YOU ARE PAYING THE CRIMINALS THAT MANAGE THESE UNITS! 10

http://mercylakefront.blogspot.com/




1 Statements of Former Case Manger Deon Jackson, calling this resident
a "Dirty Stinking Bastard" and the threat of former Mercy Lakefront
SRO Property Manager Lawrence Floyd to "Beat the s**t" out of me on
the day he and Jackson broke into my apartment are only the most
heinous examples of these crimes. See http://mercylakefront.blogspot.com/
for additional details.
2 This has been skillfully accomplished with the almost total denial
of any transportation assistance, despite the fact that the 57 year
Plaintiff suffers from the remnants of a gun shot wound in his left
leg and a severely mangled ankle on the right that makes walking long
distances extremely painful.
3 Denial of Services is coupled with psychological abuse and isolation
of the victim as has been my case
4 GET WHITEY!!!
5 This racial abuse has been the case here in all instances cited
6 This is common with the ignorant Africans that manage Mercy
Lakefront since their only degrees were earned in the County Jail!
7  Illinois Jurisprudence, Property § 23:36 Retaliatory termination or
refusal to renew
   Illinois Jurisprudence, Property § 23:32 Retaliatory termination or
refusal to renew
8 The first Eviction attempt in 2004 resulted in a year long court
battle which ended in a Jury Trial on November 15,16. The jury found
Against Lakefront SRO and for George Weinert.
9 And a good, swift kick in his dumb black ass
10 Paying for their continued law breaking, discrimination and
terrorism. You're also paying for prostitutes who openly conduct
business in these units and street gang members who deal drugs and are
protected by "Managers" who are sharing in their illicit profits.