The following Report of Proceedings is inconsistent with the facts. The facts were, I was never offered the chance to leave without violence. Ed Rusk had heard the exact lie that Bevelry used on Cheryl to get her to tell me to quit calling her. Beverly told Cheryl that I could cause Bevely to loose her job, when I spoke to her at work. But, Bevelry had told me her boss would understand and at the time, I happened to know the woman that was a sister to her Boss's wife, and she told me, he is not like that.
Before I signed the Report of Proceedings, I complained to Judge Brinn and Richard Coppula about how it made me look and Judge Brinn told me we would have the chance to redo it. Well, that chance never came and I feel like I was outright lied to by Judge Brinn.
Would Judge Brinn support a Report of Proceedings that did not reflect the truth? You bet he would. Especially since he knew I was basing my Appeal on "Statue Held Invalid."
From my readings, at the Law Library, if an Appeal is granted for "Statue Held Invalid", the judge would have been held responsible, regardless of what mistakes were made by any body else. I am sure Judge Brinn did not want that on his record and who was I to say he helped fabricate false evidence.
I was also afraid, that if I got them to change the Report Of Proceedings to represent what really happened, they might remove one of the things I wanted left in it, like my invitation to dinner by Beverly Rusk, so I signed it, even though I didn't want to.
In the second jury trial, where this was used as evidence, I made sure to point out there never has been a split second of reason with either Beverly Rusk or Ed Rusk. I'd hoped the second jury noticed that this Report of Proceedings was tainted by friends of Beverly that worked at the courthouse and it looks like they did, since I won that jury trial 12-0.
But, the issue wasn't really, was I given a chance to leave. The issue was, Cheryl was not there and didn't have anything to do with the letter Beverly had one of her friends send me from the State's Attorneys office and I still had an invitation to Dinner with Beverly Rusk.
In other words, I should have never been charged with "Criminal Trespassing" in the first place. They only got this through because they hid the witnesses that would have shown Ed was well beyond a split second of reason and that I did not stand on the fact that Cheryl had moved away, let alone, I still had not aswered the question, that she had followed me out of a bar, to ask me.
One more point that shows Richard Coppula knew I was found guilty because of the phone call instead of the "Willfully Remained" part is what he did to the Original "Follow-up" investigation. He told Richard Clapp, the Silvis Police Investigator, that he didn't need to interview the witnesses because I was found guilty because of a "Phone call." Then all the "Follow-up" investigation consisted of was Richard Clapp going to Beverly and Ed Rusk and asking them if they felt they committed perjury. Those 3 pages have ended up being lost, but there is still a reference to them, so the question is now, who trashed them?
I complained about that worthless investigation and then about a year later Richard Clapp finally interviewed the missing witnesses. But Richard Clapp missed quite a few facts. Richard Clapp missed the lie that I'd been over there before, when I had not, he missed the lie that I was in the Rusk yard when my nose was broken and the lie that Cheryl was upset, when it was only her mother.