IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
KANE COUNTY, ILLINOIS-AURORA BRANCH COURT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, )
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 19-TR-042043
)
ANDY WILLIAMS JR. )
Accused )
MOTION TO VACATE JUDGEMENT
NOW COMES, Andy Williams Jr. (hereinafter “Mr. Williams”) and moves to vacate the
judgment entered on May 25, 2023 for fraud upon the Court due process violations and lack of
jurisdiction by stating as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. This case presents extraordinary circumstances and undeniably important
questions fundamental to our justice system. Despite the overwhelming evidence showing the
accused rights were violated through a prolonged traffic stop, perjured testimony and
misconduct. This Court must exercise its constitutional authority and determine the accused was
wrongfully convicted on the basis of perjured testimony, constitutional violations, and fraud
upon the court. Fairness and equity require this Court to vacate the judgment entered on May 25,
2023.
2. On May 25, 2023, the Accused was found guilty for failing to signal 100 feet
based on the testimony of Timothy Young and Antonio Piscopo, and not guilty based on the
testimony of Timothy Young and Antonio Piscopo for failing to come to a complete stop.
3. The accused brings this motion to vacate the judgment based upon the perjured
testimony primarily of Timothy Young; violation of due process to a fair trial in that the video
produced in discovery t the accused was shown to the Court, Timothy Young and Antonio
1
Piscopo prior to the trial, the accused was not allowed to recross examine Timothy Young after
the accused evidence to discredit Timothy Young’s testimony; and for fraud upon the court.
4. The accused further would ask the Court to exercise its power and hold that the
State’s Attorney violated its obligation to seek justice, not a conviction1 thereby violating Rule
3.8 in failing to represent the rights of the accused by aiding and abetting Timothy Young,
Antonio Piscopo and the City of Aurora by presenting and allowing perjured testimony in a
judicial proceeding. In 1924, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed a conviction for murder, noting
that: “The state’s attorney in his official capacity is the representative of all the people, including
the defendant, and it was as much his duty to safeguard the constitutional rights of the defendant
as those of any other citizen.” People v. Cochran, 313 Ill. 508, 526 (1924).
5. Because the accused’s constitutionally protected rights were violated, this court
has a duty to vacate the judgment and dismiss the case. “[I]t is axiomatic,” held the court, “that a
conviction imposed in violation of a basic constitutional right may not be used to support guilt or
to enhance punishment,” a precept that emanates from “the principle that unconstitutional
convictions, in addition to being of suspect reliability, abridge the very charter from which the
government draws its authority to prosecute anyone.” See In re N.G., 2018 IL 121939 citing
People v. Germany, 674 P.2d 345, 349 (Colo. 1983) (en banc)
BACKGROUND
6. On May 25, 2023, a trail was held concerning two traffic citations: Disobeying a
Stop Sign 625 ILCS 5/11-1204 (b) and Failure to signal 625 ILCS 5/11-804(b).
1
RULE 3.8: SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF A PROSECUTOR. The duty of a public prosecutor is to seek
justice, not merely to convict. The prosecutor in a criminal case shall: (a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the
prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause; (d) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or
information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in
connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information
known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the
tribunal;
2
7. At the outset of the trial, the accused asked to present evidence to the Court that
was obtained in discovery to enter into evidence because the Court said Timothy Young had
another Court to attend to so the accused was attempting to simplify the matters for trial.
8. The Court did not allow the documents to be entered and the prosecutor, Eric
Walliser called Timothy Young as his first witness.
9. Prosecutor Walliser through direct examination stipulated that he and Timothy
Young saw the video prior to trial and since the video did not show the alleged traffic violations,
it was not shown.
10. Through direct examination Officer Young stated that he was doing an
investigation on August 27, 2019 when what he thought or at least what appeared to him was the
accused allegedly leaving the driveway of a known gang house. He then stated that he somehow
got behind the accused’s vehicle and witnessed him not using his turn signal100 feet before
turning and failing to come to a complete stop at the stop sign. After following the accused for a
half of mile, he was able to pull the accused’s vehicle over. He waited so long because he and his
partner, Antonio Piscopo had to cross the High Street bridge and then travel another three blocks
to get the opportunity to pull the accused over. He then stated it was him, his partner and then
two additional special Operation Group officers who arrived on the scene for back up.
11. Timothy Young stated that the squad video starts recording 30 seconds after the
squad lights are activated. Once the lights are activated, Timothy Young through direct
examination stated he called dispatch and then pulled the accused over.
12. Timothy Young stated the stop lasted about twenty two minutes, the length of the
video that was seen prior to the trial.
13. Through cross examination, the accused asked Timothy Young could he point out
3
what 100 feet was in the court room to which his response was: “A semi-trailer and two
cars.”
14. The accused objected to which the Court overruled and stated’ “he described what
100 feet was.” Timothy Young was dismissed by the prosecutor.
15. Through direct examination prosecutor Walliser asked Antonio Piscopo if he had
witnessed the accused make the alleged traffic citations he was charged with to which he
affirmed. When asked how long the traffic stop was, he stated around twenty minutes.
16. Through cross examination, the accused asked Antonio Piscopo what was he doing
prior to the stop, which he replied “patrolling the area”. The accused asked Antonio Piscopo if he
recalls driving pass the accused on North Union, which he stated “yes”. Piscopo also stated there
was a vehicle in between the accused and their vehicle, when Timothy stated he was directly
behind the accused’s vehicle.
17. At the close of trial, the accused asked to enter exhibits in the record. One being
the CAD Report, Exhibit 1 and then the other being the GPS data in the tracking files for both
squads on August 27, 2019.
18. The Court allowed the CAD report, but not the GPS files.
19. The Court then found the accused not guilty for Disobeying a Stop Sign 625 ILCS
5/11-1204 (b) and guilty for Failure to signal 625 ILCS 5/11-804(b).
DISCUSSION
A. Fraud Upon the Court
20. Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court,
he/she is engaged in “fraud upon the court.” Fraud upon the court” makes void the orders and
judgments of that court. It is also clear and well-settled Illinois law that any attempt to commit
4
“fraud upon the court” vitiates the entire proceeding. The People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E.
Sterling, 357 Ill. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934)
21. On October 30, 2019, the Plaintiff mailed the accused an alleged true and correct
copy of the squad video.2 The video provided shows a duration time of 22.17 minutes, and was
edited from the original footage unless the recording was cut off and back on for the duration of
the stop. At the .37 mark of the video Timothy Young calls dispatch and states we are going to
be at High Street and Gates. The computer-aided dispatch (CAD) that was produced in discovery
states the field event was initiated at 16:52:18 military time or 4:52 Central Standard Time.
(CST) Exhibit 13 At 7:53 of the squad video Timothy Young tells Piscopo to start writing. The
ticket received has a time of 4:58 and per the CAD report show the vehicle search was completed
at 16:52:19 or 4:52 CST. Clearly per the squad video provided to the Plaintiff, the stop lasted
more than six minutes.
22. The States Attorney was put on notice that the video provided did not accurately
show the full version of the August 27, 2019 traffic stop in the amended discovery request.
Instead of correcting it, the States Attorney Office provided the exact same video via e-mail on
February 14, 2023 thus not only committing fraud upon the court, but also engaging in a
conspiracy to deprive the accused of a right to a fair trial and right to due process. See 18 U.S.
Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights and 18 U.S. Code § 242- Deprivation of rights under a
color of law.
23. This knowingly and willful attempt to aid and assist Timothy Young and the City
of Aurora in obstructing justice, amounts to a fraud upon the court. The People of the State of
2
https://youtu.be/_WggEDjXTnk a true and copy of the video provided by Plaintiff.
3
the Court allowed the accused to enter this document in the record at trial.
5
Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934) (any attempt to commit “fraud
upon the court” vitiates the entire proceeding)
24. In this case, the CAD report and the Officers testimony all contradict each other
which is fraud upon the Court and perjury.
A. Due Process Violation
25. Per the CAD report that the court allowed to be entered into evidence, the stop
started at 4:52 and ended at or around 4:58 p.m. when he was handed two tickets from Timothy
Young.
26. After the Court allowed the accused to enter the CAD report into evidence, he
was unable to bring Timothy Young or Antonio Piscopo for recross examination. Fairness
necessitates an opportunity for redirect or recross examination. Here, the accused was not
allowed to impeach Timothy Young or Antonio Piscopo in regards to the alleged twenty minute
stop when the CAD report shows six minutes leaving him without opportunity to have the
Timothy Young or Antonio Piscopo also explain how both of them were in the same vehicle, and
Timothy in a stake out and Antonio was patrolling the area. The accused was denied his the
right to such explanation thus denied him due process to a fair trial.
C. Lack of Jurisdiction/ Standing
27. Traffic court is a court of limited jurisdiction and there is nothing on the record
that shows that this court has jurisdiction over this matter. The accused denies that this court has
jurisdiction. In all courts of limited jurisdiction, the record of the case must support any claim
of subject-matter jurisdiction. If subject-matter jurisdiction does not appear from the record of
the case, the presiding judge is acting without subject-matter jurisdiction and his/her orders are
6
void, of no legal force or effect. State Bank of Lake Zurich v. Thill, 113 Ill.2d 294, 497 N.E.2d
1156 (1986)
28. The court cannot just state it has jurisdiction, it must be proven and established on
the record. A judge's allegation that he has subject-matter jurisdiction is only an allegation Lombard
v. Elmore, 134 Ill.App.3d 898, 480 N.E.2d 1329 (1st Dist. 1985); Hill v. Daily, 28 Ill.App.3d 202,
204, 328 N.E.2d 142 (1975)); inspection of the record of the case has been ruled to be the
controlling factor. If the record of the case does not support subject-matter jurisdiction, then the
judge has acted without subject-matter jurisdiction. The People v. Brewer, 328 Ill. 472, 483 (1928)
29. Under Article III for the existence of standing are that the plaintiff must personally
have: 1) suffered some actual or threatened injury; 2) that injury can fairly be traced to the
challenged action of the defendant; and 3) that the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable
decision.
27. There is no evidence in the record that the Court has jurisdiction or standing.
28. The State Courts are obligated constitutional command. Under the supremacy
clause of the federal constitution (U.S. Const., art. VI, cl. 2) People v. Wagener, 196 Ill. 2d 269,
287 (2001)
29. There is no evidence in the record that the Court has jurisdiction and under Article
III, the judgment must be vacated and the case dismissed.
D. The State Failed to Prove its Case
30. There was no evidence presented that the accused failed to signal 100 feet.
31. In fact, when asked what 100 feet was and if he could point it out in the court
room, Timothy Young stated a semi trailer and two cars. However, that did not establish what
100 feet was by eyesight, it merely supported the fact that Timothy Young knows what to say in
7
court when asked what 100 feet is.
32. In People v. Holiman, 291 Cal. Rptr. 3d 840, 76 Cal.App.5th 825 (Cal. Ct. App.
2022), Holiman argued the traffic stop violated his Fourth Amendment rights because he
did not violate the Vehicle Code, and thus the Officer lacked a reasonable suspicion to believe
that he did and, thus, to stop him. The Appellate court held as this Court should do the same that
the law for more than a decade, since People v. Carmona , supra , 195 Cal.App.4th 1385, 124
Cal.Rptr.3d 819, that the requirement of signaling continuously for 100 feet before a turn is not a
distinct traffic offense; that section applies only if another driver would be affected by the
vehicle's movement within the meaning. The state did not present any evidence that the vehicle
code was violated as no driver’s were affected by this alleged failure. The Illinois vehicle code
states the same.
33. What the facts show is the August 27, 2019 stop was a pretextual stop in violation
of th Illinois and United States Constitution. “There is no grandfather clause that permits States
to enforce punishments the Constitution forbids,” the Court has explained. Montgomery v.
Louisiana, 577 U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 718, 731 (2016)
34. State courts are under a mandatory obligation to adhere to this federal
constitutional command under the supremacy clause of the federal constitution (U.S. Const., art.
VI, cl. 2),
“ ‘[w]e are bound to follow the United States Supreme Court’s
interpretation of the Constitution of the United States.’ People v.
Wagener, 196 Ill. 2d 269, 287 (2001). This means that when the
Supreme Court adopts a particular framework for applying a
federal constitutional provision, we are required to follow that
framework, regardless of how other courts, including this one, may
have approached the issue in other decisions. People v. Hale, 2013
IL 113140, ¶ 20.” People v. Hood, 2016 IL 118581, ¶ 22.
8
35. A pretextual stop violates the Illinois and United States of America constitution and
the state failed to prove the accused’s rights were not violated.
CONCLUSION
The facts show that this was a pretextual arrest. A pretextual arrest occurs when the
police employ an arrest based on probable cause as a device to investigate or search for evidence
for which probable cause is lacking. (United States v. Trigg (7th Cir. 1989), 878 F.2d 1037,
1039.) The traditional response to this police tactic has been to suppress all evidence derived
from the search incident to the pretextual arrest and or dismiss the case or as in this case, dismiss
the case. (People v. Alvarez (1993), 243 Ill. App.3d 933, 937, 613 N.E.2d 290, 293.)
WHEREFORE, Mr. Williams respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter an
Order vacating the May 25, 2023 order for fraud upon the Court, due process violations and lack
of jurisdiction as well as any other relief that this Court deems just and appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
By:__________________
Andy Williams Jr.
Andy Williams Jr.
P.O. Box 681
Westmont, IL 60559
630-479-7330
Paralegal2528@gmail.com
The undersigned hereby certifies under penalties of perjury as provided by law pursuant to
Section 1-109 of the Code of Civil Procedure that the above information is true and accurate
occurrence of the events that took place.
