Is the Illinois Court System Hopelessly Riddled with Fraudulence?
Published on April 12, 2006 By trueandfree In Politics
Is It Possible The Illinois Supreme Court Is Covering Up A Crime?

By: Nell Kinzer Smith

Amy Joan Schneider claims that Macon County Illinois Judge Albert (AG) Webber IV and Illinois Supreme Court Justice Rita Garman are currently engaged in a statutory crime.

The pertinent law is the Illinois Probate Act of 1975, Sec. 11-5.3 (. “Appointment of guardian”, which states verbatim:

( The court lacks jurisdiction to proceed on a petition for the appointment of a guardian of a minor if (i) the minor has a living parent, adoptive parent or adjudicated parent, whose parental rights have not been terminated, whose whereabouts are known, and who is willing and able to make and carry out day to day child care decisions concerning the minor, unless the parent or parents consent to the appointment or, after receiving notice of the hearing under Section 11 10.1, fail to object to the appointment at the hearing on the petition or (ii) there is a guardian for the minor appointed by a court of competent jurisdiction. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that a parent of a minor is willing and able to make and carry out day to day child care decisions concerning the minor, but the presumption may be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence.

Schneider, a 39 year old Illinois Mother of five claims that Probate Judge Albert G. Webber appointed a non-parent as guardian in 2004 which seems to be a direct violation of the Illinois Probate law.

The court record shows that Schneider filed a petition to be named guardian of her children on October 6, 2003. And the record shows that the natural parent has never had a hearing on her guardianship petition or to determine if she is willing and able.

Is this a crime?

Link755 ILCS 5/11-5.3 (

on Apr 12, 2006
Forum Bump! Is This a Crime?
on Apr 17, 2006
Why did they change your name? Thank you.
on May 08, 2006
Of course, it is a crime. Children always are best with their parents unless proven otherwise. The court has not even addressed the issue of her fitness as a Mother, after all she still has other children. If she is safe as a Mother for those children, why not the others?