On January 20, 2011, Judge Edward C. Schreiber entered a 64 year Order of Protection against Angela Kadow.  There were two glaring problems: (1) The duration is “not to exceed two years” and; (2) One of the persons to be protected was not a minor, nor an adult household member.

There are exceptions to the two year duration; but these exceptions are tied to other proceedings, none of which apply.  Additionally, the two year limitation and the exceptions are indicated on the court form; and one is required to be checked.  None were checked - most likely because the Order signed was beyond the statutory authority of the judge.

As to the minor/adult issue, one can protect other adults who are household members – notably, those that for some physical or mental reason cannot file the petition.  In this case, the adult that should not have been on the Order of Protection was a very capable adult – a U.S. Marine.  The Marine was listed as a minor on the Order of Protection, and his birth date was not listed despite the form requiring a birth date for minors – most likely because the petitioner knew that the Marine was 19 at the time of the Order of Protection.

On April 26, 2012, there was a hearing to void the Order of Protection, or amend it to remove the Marine.  Judge Robert L. Janes denied voiding or amending the Order of Protection despite the two glaring problems.  He noted that there were exceptions, and then refused to identify the exceptions despite repeated requests as to what exceptions he was relying on – most likely because he knew that none of the exceptions applied.  He also refused to address what appeared to be knowingly misrepresentations and missing information on the form by the petitioner.  And as a last resort he hid behind the Soldier and Sailor Act – which does not apply in this case.  But even if it did apply, the Marine was available to testify at the time of filing of the original petition; but he was not present.

How can this happen?  Because the culture of the court is to accept all allegations without any thought or analysis, or perhaps another reason – Prairie State Legal Services.  Prairie State Legal Services involved themselves in the case.  The relationship between the court and Prairie State is so close that Prairie State has the actual keys to the courtroom where they enter the courtroom and lock it behind themselves prior to any of the public entering the courtroom.  If Prairie State is involved in a case, the parties are required to check in with Prairie State, not the Court.

This is an example of two judges not doing their jobs (or how warped the culture of the domestic division has become) and how easy it is to misuse the courts.