Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Censke v. United States

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

July 29, 2014

THOMAS CENSKE, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AND RULING ON POST TRIAL MOTIONS AND GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF

JEFFREY COLE, Magistrate Judge.

INTRODUCTION

On April 3, 2014, Mr. Censke filed a motion for "Reconsideration" of the Memorandum Opinion and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law entered after a two-day bench trial on July 15-16, 2013. [Dkt. 216]. See Censke v. United States, 2014 WL 1066247 (N.D.Ill.2014) [Dkt. 215]. Mr. Censke's motion asserted that "too many [errors] exist to review, " and asked that the Memorandum Opinion be stricken in its entirety. [Dkt. 216 at 1].

Mr. Censke's motion for reconsideration insisted that the veritable profusion of errors proves rather conclusively that the judge is a fool or worse. Mr. Censke said he:

"laughed so hard upon receipt of the Apocrophyla [sic] opinion, entered on 3-19-14, he had to check the calendar to make sure it wasn't April Fools, because this Bullshit' is a Joke. As an Artist in Residence, ' it's Good material For my Book About Police State: CRAZY AS HELL!'"

Dkt. 216 at 1. (Double underlining and capitalization in original).[1]

Warming to the task, Mr. Censke goes on to say that "[s]o many Clerical, Factual and LEGAL ERRORS EXIST IN this COURTS Opinion, I'd be AFRAID to WIPE my ASS WITH IT." Id. He concludes:

"II. IF the Court is not HOSTILE, something is WRONG? Judges Have been known to Play with Penis Pumps under their GOWNS, etc. IT MAKES A CITIZEN WONDER WHAT MAGISTRATE COLE WAS DOING, to up to [sic] these CONCLUSIONS?

The allusion to hostility contrasts with Mr. Censke's repeated statements about the court's fairness, Censke, 2014 WL 1066247, *10, how "very understanding and gracious" I had been to him (Tr. 343) how I had accorded him every latitude, and how I would be a "good person to go out to dinner with or to a party...." (Tr. 376-77).

Following this paragraph is "# N.1", which reads:

"Note 1 When it says WE THE PEOPLE', it means ME the people, not you; as you work for me; NO DEVINE RIGHT OF KINDS EXIST IN USA!'

[Dkt. #216 at 2].

Mr. Censke ends with a "P.S."

Q) What kind of lawyer doesn't know the law?
A) A Judge
Q) What is black and brown and looks good on a lawyer?
A) A German Shepard.
Hahaha. April Fools.:)"

[Dkt. 216 at 2].

The government's responsive memorandum [Dkt. 218] was followed by the plaintiff's 12-page reply brief, filed on July 14th. [Dkt. 219]. That document, unlike the motion, itself, now sought a new trial as "the proper remedy" for the mistakes that the motion for reconsideration claimed pervaded the Memorandum Opinion and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.[2]

The Reply, unlike the Motion, was filled with citations to cases, none of which supported the various claims of error. But, like the Motion, the Reply simply ignored the exhaustive analysis of the evidence in Censke v. United States, 2014 WL 1066247 (N.D.Ill. 1014) and refused to come to grips with the inescapable fact that the outcome of this case was unfavorable to him because he was not a believable witness, and the defendants' witnesses were; his testimony was vacillating, inconsistent, and implausible; his demeanor could not have been more indicative of his mendacity; and he had been convicted of four serious felonies within the past ten years, which bore on his credibility. Censke, 2014 WL 1066247, *11.

He insists his version of events is right even though his testimony was utterly implausible, filled with inconsistencies and persistent refusals to respond in a straightforward way to the simplest of questions when it suited his purpose to be evasive - which was almost always. At one point Mr. Censke claimed he had never been involved in a civil case even though he had represented himself in any number of civil cases arising from claimed incidents in prison. Things that were beyond debate he would not admit. And, he had four felony convictions, admissible under Rule 609, Federal Rules of Evidence. [Dkt. 200, Tr. 275]. By contrast, the testimony of the defense witnesses was consistent and believable. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.