Mack vs. First Security Bank of Chicago

If you look at the principles of law in the following legal precedent you will see two similarities concerning a Malicious Prosecution lawsuit I was in.   Transcripts at:
http://BrokenSixthAmendment.com/Transcripts.

1.  I should have been allowed to use a single word from a transcript of a jury trial I won to prove "Malice" but I was not.  To clarify what I should have been allowed to use in court and that it would have proven "Malice" click or tap here.

2.  I should have been allowed to use the exact same exhibits I used to completely impeach all three of the State's witnesses with prior inconsistent statements because that evidence proves a "Total Lack of Good Faith" of Judge Brinn that goes back to what Judge Brinn did in an earlier trial.  In other words I had proof of two malicious prosecutions not just one.
http://SlimeFest.com/Exhibits

To make a long story short Wittekind vs. Rusk 253 Ill.App.3d 577, 192 Ill.Dec. 467, 625 N.E.2d 427 is based entirely on Duane Thompson claiming the following legal precedent gives him the right to use objections to conceal evidence of malice and gives him the right to conceal evidence of a "Total Lack of Good Faith" with deceptions when you can see for yourself that the Mack case was reversed and remanded because Judges at the Appellate Court did not support Duane Thompson's misrepresentation of the facts and Judges at the Appellate Court did not support his misrepresentation of the law.

But the funniest part is the method that Judges in the Appellate Court used to prevent me from using the same argument in the Mack case.  Their method involved fabricating evidence and manipulating testimony from witnesses that had been completely impeached with prior inconsistent statements by the very evidence that proves a "Total Lack of Good Faith."  In other words, when judges refused to let me prove a "Total Lack of Good Faith" of Judge Brinn they themselves gave me a way to prove a "Total Lack of Good Faith" of themselves.  More at:
http://NoLegalAuthority.com

As a quick reminder, my argument never was over a probable cause or not it had always been that the probable cause demonstrated a total lack of good faith because I used the statement of facts on the mind of Judge Brinn to completely impeach all three of the State's witnesses with prior inconsistent statements in a jury trial that I won 12 to 0 without an attorney.