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 enforce this law against Adam Maclean and Robert Greenman and states:

1. That if the Court finds this motion for equal protection under the law 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 Adam Maclean and now Robert Greenman as current President of Wrox Press Inc. are in violation of the Illinois statute, 820 ILCS 115/1 et seq., a class C misdemeanor with one count accruing daily since their initial non-payment of defendant's wages and wage supplements on June 23, 1999 and their continuing willful refusal to pay.
3. That the defendant filed a formal complaint against Maclean and Greenman with the State's Attorney, Branch 46, Exhibit K, and though she has not had any notification from them per her request to get notification in writing, she called to inquire about this complaint's status two times and both times was told that the State's Attorney would refuse to accept any complaint or take any action on any complaint unless it came to them through a police report.
4. That the State's Attorney had plenty of opportunity to discover this violation of the law by Adam Maclean as was their duty to do when they took Adam Maclean's complaint of telephone harassment against this defendant in August and September of 1999, where in his Police Report against the defendant he mentioned that the defendant claimed unfair termination, see Exhibit L.
5. That the defendant prepared an affidavit report to give to the police, Exhibit M, but no less than five police officers, including sergeants and detectives, have told her that they do not have jurisdiction in this matter and will not file a report and that Police Sergeant McCarthy of 937 N. Wood, District 13, literally threw her out of that Precinct on February 28, 2000, rather than discuss with her how she can get a report filed and her complaint followed up on. After discussing this issue with several other police officers, she went back to talk with McCarthy on Tuesday, February 29, 2000 to get the procedure and he repeated that it is not in Police procedure to enforce laws related to employment.
6. That the defendant has seen a Police Procedures Handbook and found within it no mention of chapter 820 statutes.
7. Since the prosecuting and law enforcement professionals can't seem to figure out how to follow through on enforcing this Class C misdemeanor violation now up to 252 offenses as of February 29, 2000, why is this layman affiant supposed to know and why is the burden on her to get what belongs to her already under law: her right to her property in exchange for her labor and her right to equal protection under the law when the statute 820 ILCS 115/1 et seq. clearly states that the State's Attorney has the authority to enforce it? Or is there a purposeful legal loophole in place here to protect white-collar criminals, in which case this needs to be brought to light in an investigation of the investigative processes of police and State's attorney for the protection of the people. It is to the defendant's best knowledge and belief that Maclean and Greenman still have their, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, as it was upon her termination, in clear violation of this Employment Statute. The command to "get a lawyer and file a civil suit" is not worthy in this defendant's mind and personal experience.

WHEREFORE, the affiant requests that the court step in and give a Writ of Mandamus or other type of order to the State's Attorney and/or the police to get their act together on how to accept the affiant's complaint, investigate it and upon discovery that her allegations have merit, charge Maclean and Greenman under 820 ILCS 115/1 et seq., whom as of today of February 29, 2000 have 252 offenses against them.