NOW COMES the defendant, Gale A, by pro se, and still upon her word as a Judaic-Christian and under penalties of perjury as in numerous filings in this case before a notary and asks the court and the state to amend her previous motion and previous amendment for competent prosecution and states:

1. That if the Court finds this second amendment to the motion for Competent Prosecution frivolous, that the defendant respectfully objects to that in advance, asks for the motion to stand for appellate review of its merits and will accept whatever sanction the Court deems necessary to put upon her in her disagreement of this motion's frivolity vs. meritorious factors. "Blessed are those who are persecuted for the sake of justice". St. Matthew.
2. That on February 24, 2000, the defendant was in Court on a motion to get a deadline on receiving discovery and a bill of particulars among other things like to schedule a conference but was not heard because the motion which she had had filed by an alpha male clerk in this system whom the witness has seen works very competently had somehow "disappeared" and so she was not scheduled. See Exhibit J. This "error" supports the substance of defendant's motions to Preserve All Paperwork and for thoroughness in Clerk date-stamping.
3. That on February 17, 2000, the defendant HAND SERVED the motion for discovery et al on attorney for the state, Jeremy Brenman, when she ran into him in the hall. In their brief discussion at that time where he said he couldn't talk to her, he promised her that she would get her discovery soon and that she could withdraw her motion about it if she chose -- she chose NOT to do so, but evidently someone else did decide to do so for her and who might that have been? ... Jeremy?
4. On several days after February 17, 2000, the defendant faxed in numerous documents on other subjects she wanted heard on February 24, 2000 to the State's Attorney and to the Clerk for the Court such as getting a conference with the judge and said in these faxes that she wanted these heard on February 24, 2000.
5. The defendant does not consider a futile trip to court "frivolous" when she is out of work, has little money and resources to waste and has other things to do with her time, just as any of the Court authorities do, and had SHE not shown up for a court date because of disappearing paperwork, she would be subject to arrest and/or other punishments -- the Court has already once rebuked her for simply changing the date of one of her own motions hearing implying that she does not respect the state and Court's time when she had the courtesy, professionalism and commitment to responsibility to notify the Court of a change two full days in advance and she wants this objection to the Court's rebuke on record and also wants it noted that the Court has been unprepared for her scheduled hearings but did not find it necessary to notify her -- to date making two of her six court appearances futile, when she is not in the court as a matter of her daily routine as the state and court personnel are, and therefore she is more harmed than the state and the court when hearings fail to materialize independent of fault and/or error. She also wants it on record that she, as a U.S. citizen and Cook County resident and Christian human being INNOCENT until and unless proven guilty that she is entitled to be given respect the same as she's being ordered and demanded to give it and she considers the ill-treatment she has been given in these courts by the barking dog prosecutors who want to effect her Civil Rights while giving her NO PAPERWORK as undemocratic, lawless, out of line, shape-shifting, growing way out of hand and that these double-standards may not be against any of your own court rules and procedures, although no reasonable person would say that the State has used good faith diligence to provide her with discovery as compelled to do so under Supreme Court Rule 412, but these double-standards definitely are un-Christian and as the defendant has said before that since the Court wraps itself in the mantle of God, this Christian Soldier defendant expects and demands Christian and/or Judaic behavior from everyone representing the State and the Court and admits to being a bit confounded as to why it's lacking in the first place when God is clearly and loudly invoked in the Courtroom in many ways.
6. That on February 24, 2000, the defendant approached the prosecutrix Patti Eshaei in Court during a recess and said, "Patti, I'm supposed to be heard today," in which scenario Prosecutrix Eschaei said, "I'm not Patti," when not even two minutes earlier Ms. Eschaei announced loudly for all in the court room to hear to another person, "I'm Patti Eshaei, E-s-h-a-e-i and my phone number is ...". So the defendant asked Prosecutrix, "Well, then what is your name?" and now we have a Prosecutrix named, "How can I help you?" We're in court on serious business emotionally, mentally and physically harmful to the defendant, but spiritually harmful to the prosecution, yet if the defendant played these sorts of games, she'd have punishments piled up upon her and is already facing more punishments and possible sanctions, for what appears to her to be for the crime of defending herself too well. "But he who does not know, and does what is worthy of punishment will receive less beating. For to whomever more is given, of him more will be required; and to whom more will be required of his hand." St. Luke.
7. This defendant will not accept being blatantly and contemptuously lied to by a prosecutor for the State, for if Eshaei lies about her name what else will she lie about, neither will the defendant accept being constantly refused the common courtesy of being told prosecutors' names when asked, among other things, and does not consider it frivolous but tremendously substantial that a prosecutor representing the state, which does include the defendant, would loudly lie to her in a court room even on recess, "I'm not Patti." Lying and torturing the truth may be perfectly all right according to all your self-imposed broad but not quite total immunities and strategies in your own rules but it is un-Christian and this defendant does not accept it, will not stand for it and by various legal rights, and by the word of God, is entitled to competent representation by the state which works for her too, doesn't have to stand for it.
8. That two different attorneys representing Branch 46 on separate occasions told the defendant proper procedure for her to get enforcement of violations of 820 ILCS 115/1 et al is for her to file a police report when no less than five different police officers including Sergeants and Detectives told her it is against police procedure for them to take this type of report, she has seen a Police Procedures Handboook and does indeed find no reference to any 820 statutes in it. One of the attorneys representing the State the defendant talked to on Monday, February 28, 2000 about this is named Cheryl Ronqhuist (not sure of spelling)and the defendant is unsure of the name of the other state's attorney but does know it was a woman and was not Patti Eshaei and that she spoke with her on Friday, February 25, 2000. While defendant was trying to explain to Ronqhuist what the police had told her, Ronqhusit hung up the phone on the defendant. The defendant has reason to believe the police in this matter, seeing a handbook, and if they are indeed correct, this is further evidence of incompetence, investigative breakdown and/or malicious lying on the part of the State's Attorney office. On Tuesday, February 29, 2000, an article about five policemen being sued in a federal case on Civil Rights violations for stealing from a grocery store mentions that the State's Attorney stepped into the case -- would this be on the basis of a police report then?
9. There is something very UNRIGHT about these prosecutors' fear of the defendant when she has committed no crime and that the crimes she is accused of committing by a depraved complainant is one of telephone harassment and one of harassment by electronic media -- not assault, not battery, not destruction of anything -- so what is going on here? What detestable works have these prosecutors been up to that they fear the light? "Yet men have loved darkness more than light, because their works were evil. For every one who does detestable things hates the light and he does not come to the light, because his works cannot be covered but he who does truthful things comes to the light." St. Matthew. Their behavior is suspicious and it looks like they need to be the ones on trial here, after all, they are in some of the world's most responsible and powerful positions, and their actions can be harming many innocent people, as they have already harmed this innocent defendant in her ability to get a fair and speedy trial -- five months to get discovery is unacceptable -- while they have also put her under state sanctions so that she cannot exercise her free speech rights to obtain her rightful properties protected under the Employment Contract Act of 820 ILCS 115/1 et seq. which they are refusing to enforce and protect for her and are thereby in collusion with a criminal complainant on top of abusing her Civil Rights by the color of law and improper applications of the law. They've tied the defendant's hands to get her property since on or about September 24, 1999 with their charges and interference upon her, winked at the real criminals in this case who now can and do daily continue to harm and cheat other workers, yet this defendant has seen no movement on the prosecutors' parts to pursue her complaints of theft of wages and wage supplements and get it for her as they are obligated to do under law, and this goes way beyond unfair and unjust and into areas of true criminality and true thugery, by Biblical and man's laws. "Prosecutors, you don't want to go after white-collar criminal Adam Maclean with all of your power like you want to come after me, fine, then untie my hands please free and clear and let me get on with it -- and then you have at least done something right, just, fair and Judaic-Christian in this case at last."
10. Through the prosecutors' behavior towards the defendant and responses to her motions in open court, the defendant has reason to believe that they did not expect her to defend herself against them which is still more evidence of their incompetence since the defendant is up on false charges of harassment when she was truly defending herself against Adam Maclean's thefts -- wouldn't anyone with competent intelligence figure she'd defend herself in Court or anywhere else she found herself being attacked and/or unfairly dealt with?
11. Whereas the defendant states again emphatically and with just cause increasing by the moment that she wants the prosecutrix Ms. Eschaei and the prosecutor Mr. Brenman removed from this case and she states that incompetence, partial treatment and hiding from the light are not frivolous matters. The United States Supreme Court has upheld laws that allow policemen to arrest someone from running from them because the act of running is suspicious. Well, the act of these powerful prosecutors running from this outmanned and outgunned pro se defendant is just as suspicious. They need to be removed or the defendant is deserving of an explanation as to why not. They should also be investigated to find out what they are hiding. Bribes? Quid pro quo? Exculpatory evidence? Bad application of the law against the defendant? Selective prosecution and cover ups of Maclean's crimes? Incompetence? Nonfeasance? Some kind of trickery and deceits under color of the law? Laws need to be applied fairly to everyone, including and especially against the powerful -- or a State is corrupt and lawless, government is harmed and various U.S. Attorneys and other government authorities are on record as having said so. Now the defendant is saying, these prosecutors are running, they are hiding -- so consider this a citizen's arrest -- for God's laws do apply to everyone where man's laws have failed here, the Court is under God, and the defendant is a Christian Soldier with her rights and freedom on the line and has the right to ask that this prosecution train be stopped as long as necessary to uncover what is really going on here.

Whereas the defendant does hereby fortify her demand of prosecutors Eshaei's and Brenman's immediate removal herein and forthwith from this case, a proper investigation be made as to their suspicious behavior and also would like the Court to require mug shots, finger prints and I-bonds of these prosecutors while they are under investigation and have special conditions of bond apply to them including but not limited to psychiatric treatment for their authority/sadist complexes since the rules apply to all equally according to both state and federal statutes. She also asks that since it is blatantly obvious that these prosecutors have let their power positions go to their heads that the court and the state are obligated to step in here and develop some sort of plan to correct this proven power complex psychological problem through implementing plans such as regular and mandated pschyo therapy sessions, regular mock prosecutions against the prosecutors and/or things of this nature in order to protect and safeguard future innocent defendants from prosecutors such as these. As Jesus has taught us, there is nothing wrong with correct and righteously applied authority but there is a lot wrong with authority abusiveness -- the kind of authority abusiveness that He himself was subjected to -- and this Christian Solider defendant in her duty to God demands a stop to it right now, not to authority correctly applied, but to the abusive and misused authority that has been and is continuing to be applied upon her in numerous instances since this case has begun of "fry the little guy and let the big guy walk," which Jesus warned us against doing for the very sake of our souls. "Woe to you ... for you take tithes ... and have overlooked the more important matters of the law, such as justice, mercy, and trustworthiness. These were necessary for you to have done, and these very things by no means to have left undone. O blind guides who strain at gnats and swallow camels!" St. Matthew.