Key links:	* GordonWatts.com  *	* GordonWayneWatts.com  *	* Cook County, IL trial courts Front Page: for eFile, case lookup, & paying traffic tickets *		* IL Judicial Branch: Various helpful links *	* IL Appeals Courts: Landing page *	* IL Supreme Court and IL Appeals & Circuit courts *	* Court Humour *
UPDATE: New 'SSL' security added to this page: (GordonWatts.com hosted by GoDaddy and GordonWayneWatts.com hosted by HostGator) * GoDaddy mirror SSL seal of security: HostGator's SSL certificate provider does not have a seal, but to see if a website is secure, mouse over the icon to the left of the URL, and if it's a green SSL padlock, then it's secure. Othersise, you should browse only, but not enter sensitive data like a Credit Card number. CAVEAT: All files on this site (*.PDF and otherwise) are safe, as far as known, but caveat is issued: Readers are asked to scan all downloaded files with updated Security software just as a safeguard. Webmaster assumes no liability for any issues.~Editor							PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) is an electronic public access service that allows users to obtain case and docket information online from federal appellate, district, and bankruptcy courts, and the PACER Case Locator. PACER is provided by the Federal Judiciary in keeping with its commitment to providing public access to court information via a centralized service.
	UPDATES: on eFiling:	e-Filing Service Providers * CHART	"Petition for Leave to Appeal" * TEMPLATE	IL Supreme Court * "Standards and Requirements for Electronic Filing the Record on Appeal" * (Revised June, 2017)		IL Supreme Court * "ELECTRONIC FILING PROCEDURES AND USER MANUAL" * Approved: June 7, 2017, eff. July 1, 2017; revised November 13, 2017
Cook County, IL Circuit Court		Odyssey page for Appeals Court eFile	Odyssey help desk (800)297-5377 Mon-Fri, 7am-9pm(CST) or 8am-10pm(EST)		General info for IL court eFiling.	22 June 2017 ORDER	30 MAY 2017 ORDER	22 JAN 2016 ORDER	Sept. 2014 Appraisal

NOTE: This case relates the court action involving an elderly man who became homeless and had his life placed in peril due to mortgage fraud, in response to his responding to some lawyers who claimed to be willing to help him refinance his property & seek investors to save it from foreclosure. For those who remember, this is almost exactly like the 2009 'Mortgage Rescue' Scam case in which Lessie Towns became temporarily famous, and had a personal visit from former Gov. Pat Quinn (D-Ill.) to address her problem. (Google 'Paul Shelton' (who lost his license over this) and/or 'Lessie Towns' and/or 'Pat Quinn' and/or 'Mortgage Rescue Scam' to verify/clarify.) However, unlike Ms. Towns, Mr. Daniggelis did not actually sign away his house and was even more of an innocent victim (albeit with much less news coverage). For those of you unfamiliar with Mr. Daniggelis' case, you need only look at the initial filings by Gordon Watts in the LAW Division case below - denoted by this blinking dot; they are the most updated 'primary' filings. The 11/30/2015 Motion for Rehearing in CHANCERY, below, is also a very good read - and quite funny in parts! Tip: To quickly find your search term on this page, press Ctrl+F and use the find bar.

That not enough? Selected public records requests: Deutch Bank v. Daniggelis (2004-CH-10851) * GMAC v. Daniggelis (part 1) * GMAC v. Daniggelis (part 2) * GMAC v. Daniggelis (part 3) * $104.68 total ($102.50 sub) receipt for records * Younes v. Daniggelis * (Note: this composite docket of key items includes appellate court action, as appropriate.) * GordonWayneWatts-Chancery-and-Law-Divisions-PublicRecordsRequest.pdf and MiscReturnedMail-to-GordonWayneWatts-re-Daniggelis-mortgage-fraud-case.pdf and returned-mail-shelton.jpg and MORE-Shelton-returned-mail-2018.jpg and still-MORE-returned-mail-SHELTON.jpg and MERS-returned-mail-2018.jpg and returned-mail-RHONE.jpg and returned-mail.LaRocque.jpg and MORE-Shelton-and-MERS-returned-mail-2018.jpg and Returned-Postal-Mail_2018_G-W-Watts.pdf and PicsOfService-IMG_2018-01-08_18-49-26pm.JPG and RETURNEDmail-UnkOwners_1720-Sedgwick.jpg and appeal-email-landscape-GMAIL_Portrait.pdf and appeal-email-landscape-AOL-inbox.pdf, and even this online docket, all of which shows that I was diligent in serving the parties their 'service copies,' as I averred in my 'Certificate of Service.' ** Here's Helpful “mortgage foreclosure-rescue fraud” case law re physical possession of property in both *.html Web-Page and PDF formats.

Note to self: One of my readers, Mr. Robert J. More, a party to some of these cases, contacted me about possible fraud, and asked The Register to investigate. This relates to More v. Yellow Cab (case #2006-M1-301847 in the Cook County, IL Circuit Court's Civil Division) ((direct link ** docket search ** cached archive)). -- Looking at the docket, we see a "JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF" order entered on "Activity Date: 07/16/2008," and a "DEPOSIT MONIES OR FUNDS - ALLOWED" order entered on "Activity Date: 08/19/2008," complete with a redundant "JUDGMENT TO STAND - ALLOWED" on that same date (8-19-2008). No subsequent orders reversing this were entered, and then, on 12/12/2008, "ORDER CASE DISPOSED" was entered. However, Mr. More informs this writer that he never got paid any judgment. The entire case-file is archived here, with all the filings: 06m1301847.pdf. This writer personally knows Mr. More, and while many (including this writer) feel that he is difficult to communicate with, his allegations seem genuine & true. Moreover, if The Court did in fact pay him from monies apparently put into esgrow for this purpose (and are not corrupt, as many feel), then a simple Public Records Request can show that he was paid, check was cashed, etc. Otherewise, we have more serious problems on hand than Mr. More's difficult personality--which might require investigative reporting of alleged court corruption.~Editor, Gordon Wayne Watts.

|| Last Updated: Wednesday, 25 March 2020, 02:14 A.M. EST (01:14am CST) || To see prior coverage of this - and other - news, see the front-page news of The Register, linked above.

Date Docketed aka: "Activity Date:"	Description (Click to view/download) (Colour-coded case number & style)	Filed By (Participant & Attorney whereof)	Notes
** Click HERE to get to Top of Page **
Chancery Case: 2007-CH-29738, CHANCERY DIVISION, GMAC v. Daniggelis
** Click HERE to get to Top of Page **
10/17/2007	Complaint to Foreclose Mortgage 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, Plaintiff, filed by Pierce & Associates	See pp. 1-4 of this 96-page PDF Public Records request. This filing is called the "NON OWNER OCCUPIED SINGLE FAMILY HOME OR CONDOMINIUM - FILED" on the Court's Chancery docket, but a document, titled "CONTRACT COMPLAINT FILED" was filed on the same date in the Law Division (same case number). This appears to be the self-same document. NOTE: GMAC v. Daniggelis, 2007-CH-29738, is currently in both the Chancery Division (which was appealed to the First Appellate Court) and in the Law Division. That this same case number is in 2 divisions is a constant source of confusion to the clerks in both divisions, as I personally recall, based on numerous phone conversations with many clerks, who often reply along the line of: "No, that is a Chancery case, since it has 'CH' in its title." -- Me: "Yes, it is a Law Division case; it's in both divisions: look at the dockets, if you don't believe me" ~Editor, Gordon W. Watts
4/8/2011	APPEARANCE FILED - NO FEE PAID 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	RICHARD DANIGGELIS, Defendant, filed by ANDJELKO GALIC, Esq.	Image not available here; see official court for this: This is just an appearance filed, showing that Atty. Galic is representing Mr. Daniggelis, included as a "landmark" on the timeline of the docket. This item was filed on the same date in the Law Division (same case number).
7/13/2012	CONTINUANCE - ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: DELORT MATHIAS WILLIAM Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE LC	Comments: Date: 07/20/2012 Court Time: 03:00pm(CST) Court Room: 2804. Page 23 of this 88-page PDF file: The continuance is point "4" of this hand-written order.
7/13/2012	FILE AMENDMENT OR ADDITIONAL OR AMENDED PLEADINGS - ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: DELORT MATHIAS WILLIAM Participant: YOUNES JOSEPH	Comments: Court Room: 2804. Page 23 of this 88-page PDF file: Point "3" of this hand-written order: "Richard Daniggelis is granted to 7-19-12 to file a reply in support of his motion to Extend Discovery."
7/13/2012	MOTION TO - ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: DELORT MATHIAS WILLIAM Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE LC	Comments: Court Room: 2804. Page 23 of this 88-page PDF file: Point "2" of this hand-written order: "The plaintiff's motion to dismiss [which is image number] (2615) [on the court's docket] Richard Daniggelis' Amended Counterclaim - Affirmative Defense Count I is granted without leave to amend."
7/13/2012	MISCELLANEOUS MOTION - ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: DELORT MATHIAS WILLIAM Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE LC	Comments: Court Room: 2804. Page 23 of this 88-page PDF file: Point "1" of this hand-written order: "The 216 request produced by Richard Daniggelis upon Plaintiff is stricken.* *In the exercise of the court's supervisory authority over discovery, and because the court disfavors the use of RFAF in foreclosure fraud cases." Editor's Note: This refers to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 216: "Admission of Fact or of Genuineness of Documents," in which a party may serve on any other party a written request for the admission by the latter of the truth of any specified relevant fact set forth in the request --and/or for admission of the genuineness of any relevant documents described in the request.
7/13/2012	STRIKE FROM THE CALL - ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: DELORT MATHIAS WILLIAM Participant: YOUNES JOSEPH	Comments: Court Room: 2804. Page 23 of this 88-page PDF file: However, on the actual order, I don't see the order to strike "from the call" this case. Perhaps, it was a verbal (oral) motion in open court?
7/24/2012	CONTINUANCE - ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: DELORT MATHIAS WILLIAM Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE LC	Date: 8/15/2012 Court Time: 03:00pm(CST) Court Room: 2804 ** Pp. 85-88 of this 88-page PDF file, with page 88 being a blank page with a Court time-stamp showing it was entered as part of the exhibits of the 01-18-2013 filing, by Atty. Indyke, below. Comments: Continuance to that date, and the court expects, at that time, to set briefing schedules on the dispositive motions. This judge means business! Good job, except that the title-theft mortgage fraud was allowed to stand. ~Editor
7/24/2012	EXECUTE OR PERFORM - ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: DELORT MATHIAS WILLIAM Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE LC	Court Room: 2804 ** Pp. 85-88 of this 88-page PDF file, with page 88 being a blank page with a Court time-stamp showing it was entered as part of the exhibits of the 01-18-2013 filing, by Atty. Indyke, below. Comments: Not sure what this title means, but it probably refers to the last page of the order allowing (mandating) dispositive motions to be filed by August 10, 2012. ~Editor
7/24/2012	MEMORANDUM OF OPINION 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: DELORT MATHIAS WILLIAM Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE LC	Court Room: 2804 ** Pp. 85-88 of this 88-page PDF file, with page 88 being a blank page with a Court time-stamp showing it was entered as part of the exhibits of the 01-18-2013 filing, by Atty. Indyke, below. Comments: Associate Judge, Mathias William DeLort (who was later promoted to the 6th Division of the ILLINOIS First District Appellate Court) royally chews out Richard B. Daniggelis' attorney, Andjelko Galic (who, by the way, is working pro bono, i.e., for free) for focusing too much on invalidating the actual underlying foreclosure suit through, as I read it, a supposed lack of standing by questioning ownership based on a spotty record of written transfer documents (including, of course, the infamous "Linda Green" assignment fraud issues) --instead of focusing on the actual mortgage fraud in question, which, of course, was the illegal transfer of title from Daniggelis to Younes, without any payment to Daniggelis, and by clear & obvious used of a "photocopy forgery-fraud" signature, and for purposes other than the mere refinancing for which Daniggelis initial sought help. I agree with Judge DeLort: Galic, however well-meaning, focused on the wrong thing. ~Editor
10/5/2012	JURY DEMAND FILED - FEE PAID, Court Fee: $230.00 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	RICHARD DANIGGELIS, Defendant, filed by ANDJELKO GALIC, Esq.	Image not available here; see official court for this: This is just a 'Trial by Jury' demand, showing that Atty. Galic is asking for a trial by jury - something which might actually get justice for Mr. Daniggelis, whose house was stolen from him via forgery fraud - a key "landmark" on the timeline of the docket. This item, like those above, was also filed on the same date in the Law Division (same case number).
11/9/20122	VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL, NON-SUIT OR DISMISSED BY AGREEMENT 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: DELORT MATHIAS WILLIAM Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE LC	Court Room: 2804 (Editor: Official court docket may have a typo - kind of light print, but could be Judge Otto, not Judge DeLort - see order, to make up your own mind) Stewart Title was dismissed by stipulation (agreement), as they apparently had settled the claims, complaints, controversies against them. It looks, to me, like a 'sealed' out-of-court settlement, which appears to be a payment of an undisclosed and private amount, due to their major screw-up with regard to making sure the title was either clean, and transferred, or unclean, and didn't transfer. That is my take.~Editor.
1/18/2013	AFFIDAVIT FILED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: INDYKE RICHARD Participant: US BANK	Comments: This 88-page PDF file has several affidavits, so it's not clear which is/are the one(s) to which this docket entry refers. But, "AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN KNOPIC" is pp.14-12, which includes an exhibit; also: "AFFIDAVIT OF RASHAD BLANCHARD" is pp.24-84, which includes a lot of exhibits.
1/18/2013	EXHIBITS FILED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: INDYKE RICHARD Participant: US BANK	See entry, right above, for comments regarding the exhibits.
1/18/2013	NOTICE OF FILING FILED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: INDYKE RICHARD Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE LLC	Comments: The notice of filing and proof (certificate or affidavit) of service.
1/18/2013	MOTION FILED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: INDYKE RICHARD Participant: US BANK	Comments: The motion, proper, is on pp.1-13 of this 88-page PDF file.
1/18/2013	MOTION TO - DENIED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: DELORT MATHIAS WILLIAM Participant: YOUNES JOSEPH	** Court Room: 2804 Comments: The defendant's motions motions are denied, but without prejudice, and will be considered on the merits of brought on the court's regular motion call. NOTE: The court's docket has a typo: The judge who entered the order is Associate Judge, Michael F. Otto, not Judge DeLort: see the image here to verify. ~Editor
2/15/2013	ANSWER FILED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: GALIC ANDJELKO Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD	Comments: Defendant's reply in support of his prior motion for summary judgment, in which he discusses case law surrounding admission of fact. Here, Atty. Galic argues that the "Corrective Mortgage Assignment" (from GMAC to LaSalle) can not retroactively give the latter standing to sue if it was executed several years after the lawsuit was filed. However, Judge DeLort, in his 07/24/2012 order, had already warned Galic that the chain of custody in the written transfer documents was not a problem for standing to prosecute a mortgage foreclosure suit. One can only wonder why Galic, in his 02/15/2013 motion here, did not heed the Judge's warnings, the year before (read: Free Legal Advice from a judge!) on which tact to take! ~Editor
2/15/2013	JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: OTTO, MICHAEL F. Participant: YOUNES JOSEPH	** Court Room: 2804 Comments: Point "4" of this order: "Judgment is entered in favor of [Cross-Defendant] Joseph Younes and against [Counter-claimant and cross-claimant] Richard Daniggelis for Counts I, II and III of Daniggelis' Third Amended Counterclaim."
2/15/2013	SUMMARY JUDGMENT - ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: OTTO, MICHAEL F. Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE LC	** Court Room: 2804 Comments: Point "1" of this order: Plaintiff's [LaSalle Bank Natl. Assn.] motion for partial summary judgment fir foreclosure is granted, etc.
2/15/2013	SUMMARY JUDGMENT - ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: OTTO, MICHAEL F. Participant: YOUNES JOSEPH	** Court Room: 2804 Comments: Point "1" of this order: "[Joseph] Younes' motion for Summary Judgment against Defendant Richard Daniggelis is Granted for reasons stated on the record in open court." Comments:Oh, and what would those 'reasons' be? I see none that exist. Would someone like to enlighten me? ~Editor
2/15/2013	MISCELLANEOUS MOTION - ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: OTTO, MICHAEL F. Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE LC	** Court Room: 2804 Comments: Daniggelis' motion to strike the "735 ILCS 5/1-109, Section 1-109" Verification by Certification affidavits by Howard Handville and Rashad Blanchard is granted, etc.
2/15/2013	MISCELLANEOUS MOTION - ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: OTTO, MICHAEL F. Participant: YOUNES JOSEPH	** Court Room: 2804 Comments: Point "7" of this order: "Richard Daniggelis is granted leave to file a Reply to each motion to strike by February 20, 2013." (And other misc. orders. ~Editor)
2/15/2013	STRIKE FROM THE CALL - ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: OTTO, MICHAEL F. Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE LC	Date: 3/20/2013 Court Time: 03:00pm(CST) Court Room: 2804 Comments: Point "3" of this order: "The Presentment Date of March 20, 2013 at 3:00 pm for Younes' pending motions is stricken."
2/15/2013	MOTION TO - DENIED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: OTTO, MICHAEL F. Participant: YOUNES JOSEPH	** Court Room: 2804 Comments: Point "2" of this order: "Younes' "Motion for leave to File Additional Affirmative Defense and a Motion for Summary Judgment" is Denied for reasons stated on the record in open court." (I'm guessing that Younes' lawyer prepared this proposed order with the thought that they would get their way and these other motions would be unnecessary, and thus denied as moot. In any case, the judge signed off on this. ~Editor)
2/20/2013	NOTICE OF FILING FILED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: GALIC ANDJELKO Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD	Comments: This is merely the Notice of Filing of Atty. Galic that he filed his motion for additional time to reply to Plaintiff's response to strike some affidavits/certifications in support of their motion for summary judgment. (Boring stuff, trust me; I still don't know why Cook County, IL courts require a "notice of motion." While I'm not a lawyer -- and don't play one on T.V. -- nonetheless, I don't recall this protocol being used anywhere else. ~Editor)
2/20/2013	MOTION FILED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: GALIC ANDJELKO Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD	Comments: Atty. Galic points out that the 02/15/2013 order giving him until 02/20/2013 gave him only five (5) days to file a response, a very short period of time; that the motions & exhibits were voluminous, along with loads of case law, both local and foreign, as well as the fact that Atty. Galic had prior work commitments. He asks for fourteen (14) more days.
2/26/2013	CERTIFICATE FILED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: GALIC ANDJELKO Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD	Comments: The "certificate filed," not to be confused with the Certificate of Service, appears to refer to the service list, on page 2 of this 2-page document. ~Editor
2/26/2013	NOTICE OF FILING FILED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: GALIC ANDJELKO Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD	Comments: Here (on page 1 of this 2-page document), Atty. Galic certifies that he a partial reply to the Plaintiff's response to his motion to strike the Affidavit of Rashad Blanchard and the Certification of Richard Handville. For some reason, however, I didn't get a copy of Galic's actual reply & exhibits that he filed on 02/26/2013, in my public records request. I'm guessing this was a clerical error: The clerks in all three (3) divisions [Chancery, Civil, & Law Divisions] with which I've done business have been nothing short of excellent in granting timely Public Records requests, and complying with the Illinois State law in this regard. One only wishes "cops & courts" (policemen & judges) were even half as honest. See the court's records for any further official documents that might be missing here. ~Editor
3/8/2013	MOTION TO - DENIED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: OTTO, MICHAEL F. Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE LC	**** Comments: For some reason, this "3/8/2013" entry, of Judge Otto's order, appears on the court's docket twice (duplicate or identical entries LOL), so I'm listing it twice. However, besides that, this order is exceptionally lengthy & long for a typical trial court order, at nine (9) pages. Moreover, as I discuss below, this order is probably the most unusual order I've ever seen, (which is why I'm using red font, yellow background, & generous use of boldface, underline, & italics, -and even the infamous "loud blinking dot" *.gif image -for this docket entry) insofar as the judge, citing the facts and relevant case law, proves *conclusively* that there is indeed mortgage fraud -- and then turns right around and says that there isn't mortgage fraud! Odd, yes! So, this entry bears repeating, and I shall do so: see below... ~Editor
3/8/2013	MOTION TO - DENIED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: OTTO, MICHAEL F. Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE LC	** Court Room: 2804 ** Comments: To begin with, the trial court judge (Associate Judge, Hon. Michael F. Otto, #2065, Chancery Division) pins his hopes of making his case by citing LaSalle Bank v Ferone, 384 Ill. App.3d 239, 892 NE2d 585, 322 Ill. Dec 948 (2nd Dist. Ill. App. Ct. 2008), a 2008 case arising out of the Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District. Judge Otto also rightly states that the elderly victim, Mr. Richard B. Daniggelis, claimed that he was a victim of a mortgage rescue fraud scheme, and LaSalle Bank, cited in the "Background" section of Judge Otto's order, here, indeed deals with that issue; here is the court's key finding: "In this mortgage foreclosure action, defendant, Catherine Ferone, appeals the judgment of the circuit court of Du Page County, granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff, LaSalle Bank, as to her affirmative defense. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in finding that (1) plaintiff was a bona fide mortgagee for value because plaintiff did not have actual or constructive notice of defendant's interest in the subject property or of the fraud that defendant Marc J. Biagini perpetrated on defendant; and (2) Biagini's fraud was fraud in the inducement rather than fraud in the execution. We reverse and remand." * First, let's look at Judge Otto's findings, and then let's compare them to the relevant case-law, above, shall we? Otto's order (p.2) admits that Daniggelis, who fell behind on his mortgage payments, signed a limited POA (Power of Attorney) and signed a warranty deed for help (see Oder, p.4) "to pay the arrearages" (i.e., to get help refinancing). Otto also admits (Order, p.1) that Daniggelis "asserts that in 2006," Shelton, Rhone, & Younes duped him into signing over the deed under the guise of foreclosure rescue. Interestingly enough, here is a direct quote from the bottom of p.1 of Otto's 03-08-2014 order, here: "They then subsequently misused that deed, along with a power of attorney Daniggelis had executed to Rhone, to effectuate a sale to Younes without Daniggelis's consent." Otto does not say, here, that Daniggelis "claims" or "asserts" that they misused the POA and deed; rather, Otto's order states that: "They then subsequently misused that deed..." (Whether this is a mere typo, or, instead, a "Freudian slip," where Otto admits that Daniggelis' claim of fraud is correct, it is unknown, but an interesting 'typo,' if, indeed, that's what it is.) Addressing Daniggelis' complaints, however, Otto finds as follows: On pp.4-5, Otto admits that Daniggelis made complaints for Invalid Deed (count I), Invalid POA (count II), rescission based on unjust enrichment (count III), and [skipping a 'count IV'], that Daniggelis seeks to quiet title in himself (count V) based on Rhone's and Shelton's fraud against LaSalle. Otto acknowledges other motions, which (for the purposes of discussion here) are not relevant. So, what is odd, here? In the 02-15-2013 order, linked here, Judge Otto granted summary judgment to Younes for Counts I, II, & V of Daniggelis' claim (see above). So, let's see if Otto's Order on 02-15-2013 holds water: * Invalid Deed (count I) -- Otto admit (Order, p.4) that the July 9, 2006 warranty deed "is in most respects identical" to the May 9, 2006 warranty deed that Daniggelis signed (except, of course, for the word 'July' being hand-written in), which supports the claims that there was a photocopy forgery. This is plain on its face: Since no mere mortal can sign his/her name exactly the same, then photocopy forgery is obvious to all but the blind, deaf, & dumb -- and the dishonest who refuse to admit. * Invalid Deed (count I) -- Moreover, Otto admits (Order, p.4) that: "In April 2007, Daniggelis filed a Notice of Forgery with the Recorder of Deeds, stating that the deed filed in August 2006 [i.e., the one dated "July 9, 2006"] was a forgery." Otto further admits that: "Daniggelis contends that the deed he signed in May 2006 was intended to take effect only if the property was sold on or before May 31, 2006. He claims that the July 2006 closing took place without his awareness or consent." * Invalid POA (count II) -- Next, Otto admits (Order, p.4) that 'Exhibit L' exists in one filing, which is a handwritten note, and Otto admits that Daniggelis takes credit for this allegedly unsigned note, in which Daniggelis clearly states that he signed papers **only** to pay arrearages (i.e., to help with his refinancing difficulties). [Even if it was unsigned at the time, Daniggelis takes credit for it, and, by virtue of his attorney entering it into the record as an exhibit, he signs it, which is further support of his claims of fraudulent misuse of a POA.] NOTE: Apparently, Otto did not see the exhibits filed in Daniggelis' July 30, 2008 answer (see pages 38 and 40 of the 96-page PDF file of a public records request at this link, where both Shelton and Rhone sign on to such statements, and Daniggelis also signs them: these contracts place limits on both the time and purpose of the POA). So, this conclusively proves the POA to be fraudulently used. * rescission based on unjust enrichment (count III) -- The record is clear that both the co-conspirators (Rhone, Shelton, & Younes), as well as the bank, eventually had notice of the fraud. While the 'enrichment' (fees for extending a loan) were most likely ordinary (and not probably neither exorbitant nor usurious interest & fees), nonetheless, they became 'unjust' enrichment the moment the bank had notice that the underlying transaction was fraudulent. * Quiet Title (count V) -- Whether the bank knew immediately -- or not -- nonetheless, the fact remains: Rhone, Shelton, & Younes fraudulently used both the POA and the forged warranty deed. (The POA was used for a purpose outside it's "limited POA" scope, and outside the allowed time-frame; and, the 2nd warranty deed, which was outside the legal time-frame of the POA, was clearly forged via a photocopy and a whiteout & alteration of the date.) Thus, Daniggelis is entitled, as a matter of law, to have the title quieted in himself -- i.e., to have his house & land, which was taken without any payment to him, whatsoever -- returned to him. The bank's motion for summary judgment was a "Cleotex-type" Motion, that is, the bank merely alleged that Daniggelis lacked sufficient evidence to prove his claim, rather than use the "traditional test" of affirmatively disproving Daniggelis' claim by introducing damning evidence that, if uncontroverted, would prove the banks is entitled to Summary judgment. I.e., the bank used a "weak" argument to make its case. Since Daniggelis was (is) entitled to Summary Judgment against Rhone, Shelton, & Younes (and possibly also Stewart Title, who I'm told payed out a claim), this would "moot" the bank's motion here, and they would only be able to make a claim against Rhone, Shelton, & Younes (and possibly Stewart Title) for losses. Moreover, we've learned in subsequent filings (see, e.g., page 11 of 27 of my 09/11/2017 Court-stamped filing, linked here) that Younes both admitted that there was a conspiracy, and -- as we've all seen -- participated in -- and BEFEFITTED FROM -- said conspiracy! There was also a lack of payment to Daniggelis (payment to-or-from the bank doesn't count, hello? --as Daniggelis, the original, owner wasn't paid), so, this alone should void any such "sale," thus Daniggelis is still the genuine and true owner: Stilk v. Myrick, 170 Eng. Rep. 1168, 1168 (1809) (L.R.C.P) (Ellenborough, L) (holding a renegotiated contract void due to lack of consideration). (Besides, since Daniggelis didn't seek - or receive - any payment, this is further proof that his intention was not to sell the house, but rather to seek a refi mortgage rescue assistance for his underwater mortgage -- as he has claimed all along.) Of course, the forgery, for which there is no statutes of limitations, is a felony, and Younes and crew are culpable for engaging in -- and gaining unjust enrichment from -- said forgery, in their acts of furtherance, here. (The acts of furtherance, probably, also would toll the statutes of limitations, and reset the clock, on the other fraud offenses, for which there is a statute of limitation, but that is for courts and states attorney to decide.) All said and done, Judge Otto's 03/08/2013 order here, very convincingly provided damning evidence of mortgage fraud, but what says the relevant case law? LaSalle Bank V. Ferone, cited above, states that Ms. Ferone actually signed the document in question: "When defendant signed the deed in trust, she did not understand that the effect of the document was to quitclaim her interest in the subject property. Rather, defendant trusted Biagini because he was her lawyer and her friend, and she believed Biagini's representation that she was signing a power of attorney that would be valid only for 24 hours." (Normally, if you sign it, you're bound by law, but there was fraud & misrepresentation, here.) By contrast, Daniggelis did not sign the document in question, because it was, as even Otto admitted, a forgery. So, if Ferone is entitled to relief, how much more, Daniggelis? And of the case law in question? First off, eventually, *everyone* had: "actual or constructive notice of defendant's interest in the subject property or of the fraud" both alleged, and then later documented and proved. Secondly, the appeals court held that: "Defendant concludes that, because the deed in trust was void, Biagini's mortgage based on the deed in trust was likewise void ab initio. We agree with defendant's first contention. Her claim to the appraiser that she owned the subject property and that it was her home arguably should have triggered further inquiry by plaintiff." So, it makes no difference if there was "fraud in execution" or not, since any transaction based on a false inducement (fraud) is, itself, fraud. Therefore, the bank should have further inquired into Daniggelis' claim once it was notified, even if that was as late as the court date of the lawsuits that flew back & forth. That is why the appeals court concluded that: "Because of our resolution of this issue, we need not consider whether Biagini's fraud constituted fraud in the execution or fraud in the inducement." It really made no difference: Fraud is fraud, and any fraud would be sufficient to void the entire transaction. *** VERY IMPORTANT *** -- I failed to address one KEY issue (objection) raised by Judge Otto in my last edit of this section, but I will respond to Otto's sole concern here: He says (viz: paragraph 2, page 7-of-9 of his order) that: 'The difficulty for Daniggelis is that he provides no factual or legal support for his assertion that, assuming the signature date to have been altered, the Bank therefore "knew or should have known that the deed ... was no longer valid when the closing occurred.".' Oh, really? Let's look closer at Otto's logic, shall we? First off, yes, I admit that if the Bank did not, initially, know of fraud, no one in their right mind could reasonably expect them to act upon it right then; however, both by virtue of the Affidavit of Forgery (that Daniggelis placed in the Recorder of Deeds' office), as well as by voluminous court filings, vociferously protesting the 'sale' (and alleging forgery), both the bank and the other parties clearly knew of the claims of fraud. To put things in perspective, let's say that Judge Otto, Judge Diane Shelley (presently hearing this case), and a few of their friends broke into the Police Chief's house, stole his car, and assaulted his wife and children, and then took off where they could not be found for a few months -- or years -- shall we? Let's say that, during that time, they sold the car to some unsuspecting victim, while they were on the lam (fugitives from justice), and also forged his signature on a title-deed, and 'sold' his house, too. When the police eventually catch up to these criminals, a few months -- or years -- later, they seize the stolen vehicle and the paperwork used to for the 'sale' (in quotes) of the house that did not belong to them. So, my question to you is this: When the Police finally locate the stolen property, and inform the 'purchaser' that he's bought hot (stolen) property, do you really think that the police and State's Attorney (and the court overseeing this) will all be 'OK' with this person *keeping* all that he got? Oh, really!? Judge's Otto's "logic" would have us believe that the Bank, simply because it may bot have been notified "right away" of the forgery and other fraud, should be able to *keep* the ill-gotten gains. However, the poor chap who 'bought' the stuff from the criminals, in the example above will NOT be able to keep the hot items. Indeed, they will be **SEIZED** and returned to the Police Chief, who was the victim of the theft, and not only will he get his vehicle back, but moreover, his house will NOT be handed over to the poor chap who 'bought' it from some thieves who had NO legal right to sell it in the first place. (However, this fellow will probably have a good fraud case against those who schemed him out of his money, paying for both a house and car that weren't theirs to sell, in the 1st place. In this parable or example, the Bank would be the potential victim, and Shelton, Rhone, Younes, and crew would be the schemers.) So, even if the Bank didn't have notice (and I think it did, via the affidavit of forgery and the subsequent court action), no one in their right mind would suggest that Otto's logic is valid, and that the fraud could be overlooked. (Since Otto admits that the 2nd signature was basically identical -- a photocopy forgery fraud, a felony, a crime which has NO statutes of limitations, and since Daniggelis didn't ever get paid, and in fact refused payment -- this is damning proof of very deep, and thoroughly-documentable fraud.) Also, next paragraph, Otto claims that: "In the instant matter, Daniggelis has offered no factual or legal support why the alteration of the signature date would have had any effect on the validity of the document..." *** This is total nonsense: Since Otto acknowledges and admits the existence of the side agreements (which he meticulously references from the record), then this places time-restrictions on the use of the warranty deed. Moreover, there were "use" restrictions, as well, restricting the deed to be used for refi purposes, NO MORE, and certainly, not for 'sale' or the like (which was illegal as well, since there was no 'consideration,' e.g., payment, as the record shows). Thus, Otto's citation of LaSalle Band V. Ferone, here, offers conclusive proof that the facts in this case support summary judgment in favour of the elderly Mr. Daniggelis, and it is exceptionally inexplicably odd that Otto rules against Daniggelis in his 2-15-2013 order, even after laying out facts that give damning evidence that much, easily-documentable, fraud existed -- which resulted in his house being stolen and him not getting paid a dime for it: Judge Otto's order is clearly the most unusual order I've ever seen. ~Editor
5/15/2014	MEMORANDUM OF judgment ENTERED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: OTTO, MICHAEL F.	For reasons that are unclear to this writer, The Court entered an order finding Atty. Joseph Younes, Esq., who is said to be a former law partner of Atty. Paul L. Shelton, Esq., the owner of the property in question.
8/7/2014	TRANSFER TO PRESIDING JUDGE FOR TRANS TO OUT OF THE DIVISION 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: OTTO, MICHAEL F.	For reasons which are unclear to this writer, Hon. Judge Otto transferred this case to Hon. Judge Jacobius, to transfer it from Chancery out to Law. *** PDF format *** *.PNG image *** *tif image ***
8/12/2014	ORDER CASE TRANSFERRED FOR TRIAL TO LAW DIVISION 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: JACOBIUS, MOSHE	For reasons which are unclear to this writer, Hon. Judge Jacobius transferred this case from Chancery out to Law. *** PDF format *** *.PNG image *** *tif image ***
8/12/2014	TRANSFER FILE INTO DIVISION - ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: FLANNERY, JAMES P.	For reasons which are unclear to this writer, Hon. Judge Flannery transferred this case from Chancery into Law. (Image not available here: The Register did not see fit to purchase public records for the entire files; see court and/or docket for further info.)
3/25/2015	NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	RICHARD DANIGGELIS, Defendant, filed by ANDJELKO GALIC, Esq.	Atty. Galic filed an appeal of this Chancery case, and the First Appellate Court is hearing this case, in case #: 1-14-2751. (Again: Image not available, since this is a mere notice of appeal: see court or docket for further info.)
5/6/2015	ORDER -directed to: the First Appellate Court: NO. 1-14-2751-appeal of: 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT	“In the exercise of this Court's supervisory authority, the Appellate Court, First District, is directed to vacate its order in GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. Daniggelis, case No. 1-14-2751 (09/24/14), denying Richard Daniggelis leave to file a late notice of appeal. The appellate court is instructed to allow Richard Daniggelis to file a late notice of appeal and hear the case.” (27 N.E.3d 610 (2015))
5/29/2015	REVIEWING COURT ORDER RECEIVED, Court Room: 2403 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: APPELLATE COURT	Appeals court denies bond, since no stay was entered, but (and this is very scary!) appellee (e.g., plaintiff, GMAC, the bank) is free to pursue removal of elderly victim of mortgage fraud. Why is this scary? Well: The plaintiff, GMAC, is excused (see point #3 of this order finding there are no pending claims against GMAC, which - of course - would be impossible had they kicked Daniggelis out of his home). Even more frightening: The trial court apparently used this order as an excuse to simply steal Daniggelis' house and give it to Atty. Younes, even tho no one in their right mind would accept their implied claim that Daniggelis just "gave it away" for free - and lost several hundred thousands of dollars of equity. Worse yet: My pleadings showed the court duplicate signatures --something that both of Daniggelis' attorneys overlooked -- which, of course, can only happen via photocopy (you CAN NOT sign your name exactly the same twice in a row), translation: Photocopy, thus felony forgery fraud. ~~Editor
7/14/2015	REQUEST FOR PREPARATION OF RECORD 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	RICHARD DANIGGELIS, Defendant, filed by ANDJELKO GALIC, Esq.	Self-explanatory: Atty. Galic is asking the Chancery Division to prepare the record for the appellate court review. No image necessary to make the point here.
8/10/2015	AFFIDAVIT FILED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	NON RECORD CLAIMANTS	Filed on Aug. 03, 2015 by Gordon Wayne Watts, but the court's docket reflects 8/10/15. This sworn & notarised affidavit basically serves as a statement of the case and facts, but puts Mr. Watts' signature on it backing its authenticity.
8/10/2015	EXHIBITS FILED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	NON RECORD CLAIMANTS	Filed on Aug. 03, 2015 by Gordon Wayne Watts, but the court's docket reflects 8/10/15. The motion for an amicus, the proposed amicus brief, and the exhibits, all three (3), are filed as one document, here.
8/10/2015	NOTICE OF MOTION FILED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	NON RECORD CLAIMANTS	(Filed on Aug. 03, 2015 by Gordon Wayne Watts, but the court's docket reflects 8/10/15.) Chicago courts, unlike most I've seen, require a "notice of motion," giving the court & parties 'notice' of the motion & its particulars. ~Editor, Gordon W. Watts
8/10/2015	MOTION FILED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	NON RECORD CLAIMANTS	Filed on Aug. 03, 2015 by Gordon Wayne Watts, but the court's docket reflects 8/10/15. The motion for an amicus, the proposed amicus brief, and the exhibits, all three (3), are filed as one document, here.
08/17/2015	Various Motions before the First Appellate Court: NO. 1-14-2751; Trial Court No.: 2007 CH 29738; appeal of: 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Gordon Wayne Watts, PRO SE Judge: APPELLATE COURT	Motions for waiver of court fees; leave for Amicus; and Motion to Supplement Record Instanter ~~ Supporting Record ~~ Proposed Orders. Note: filed on 8/16, but docketed on 8/17. The court entered this ruling on Sept. 11, 2015: /s/ Justice Mary Anne Mason /s/ Justice James G. Fitzgerald Smith /s/ Justice Terrence J. Lavin
8/21/2015	NOTICE OF MOTION FILED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Court docket reflects: "Attorney: GALIC ANDJELKO," even tho this was filed by Mr. Watts.	The court's date (8/21) is slightly later than the actual filing (8/16), as with other filings. The court did not follow the rules and allow Mr. Watts to appear telephonically (as the rules of the IL Supreme court allow) either this time or any other time: See Art. II, Rule 185 (Telephone Conferences), R.Civ. Proceedings in the Trial Court, Rule 206(h)(Remote Electronic Means Depositions), etc. ~ Moreover, the online docket, for reasons unknown to myself, do not reflect the “Motion for leave to file Supplemental Record,” or the proposed order, just the Notice of Motion. However, since I did not know if my items were received or not (due to the docketing error, listing Atty. Galic as the filer), I refiled on 9/10/2015: see below. ~Editor, Gordon W. Watts
9/10/2015	Court's Docket does not have an entry on this date 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	N/A	I re-sent copies of the "8/21/2016" filings above, noting that they were being resent because the court had lost most stuff! In addition, I included a Time-Sensitive Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts – in semi-Emergency Fashion by OVERNIGHT FedEx and a Proposed Order for this case. -- NOTE: Looking above at the 8/21 entry (Notice of Motion) I gave the court timely notice of my intent to appear telephonically as the rules permit, but the court saw fit to disobey the rules. FedEx certified that my overnight deliveries to Craig in the Motions Department, who asked me to put it to his attention to that it didn't get lost again. (But it did!)
10/29/2015	EXHIBITS FILED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	UNKNOWN/WATTS GORDON	Since the docket reflected Atty. Andjelko Galic as the filer for the 08/21/2015 items (above), I thought that my filings were lost, and I resent them to the court (as described in my 10/29/2015 'correspondence' below). The "8/21/2015" entry and the "9/10/2015" entries were either lost or docketed incorrectly (or both!), but "the 3rd time will be a charm," and I think that these items were finally received and reviewed by the court. To see the items filed, please refer to the 08/10/2015, 08/21/2015, and 09/10/2015 docket entries above. PS: All 3 divisions are without excuse, as I communicated directly with all of them, as I was asked by multiple employees of the court: letter-to-judges.CHANCERY.pdf ** letter-to-judges.CIVIL.pdf ** letter-to-judges.LAW.pdf ** NOTE: The letters look similar, but they are not identical. ~Editor
10/29/2015	MOTION FILED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	UNKNOWN/WATTS GORDON	Since the docket reflected Atty. Andjelko Galic as the filer for the 08/21/2015 items (above), I thought that my filings were lost, and I resent them to the court (as described in my 10/29/2015 'correspondence' below). The "8/21/2015" entry and the "9/10/2015" entries were either lost or docketed incorrectly (or both!), but "the 3rd time will be a charm," and I think that these items were finally received and reviewed by the court. To see the items filed, please refer to the 08/10/2015, 08/21/2015, and 09/10/2015 docket entries above. PS: All 3 divisions are without excuse, as I communicated directly with all of them, as I was asked by multiple employees of the court: letter-to-judges.CHANCERY.pdf ** letter-to-judges.CIVIL.pdf ** letter-to-judges.LAW.pdf ** NOTE: The letters look similar, but they are not identical. ~Editor
10/29/2015	INCOMING CORRESPONDENCE FILED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	UNKNOWN/WATTS GORDON	Since the docket reflected Atty. Andjelko Galic as the filer for the 08/21/2015 items (above), I thought that my filings were lost, and I resent them to the court (as reflected below). The "8/21/2015" entry and the "9/10/2015" entry were either lost or docketed incorrectly (or both!), but "the 3rd time will be a charm," and I think that these items were finally received and reviewed by the court. This entry is a letter to the judge: It's self-explanatory - he had overlooked my filings, and multiple employees of the court said to write the judge. So, I did. PS: All 3 divisions are without excuse, as I communicated directly with all of them, as I was asked by multiple employees of the court: letter-to-judges.CHANCERY.pdf ** letter-to-judges.CIVIL.pdf ** letter-to-judges.LAW.pdf ** NOTE: The letters look similar, but they are not identical. ~Editor
10/29/2015	MOTION TO - DENIED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: OTTO, MICHAEL F.	This is the order of the judge: it took him over two (2) months to rule on this time-sensitive matter, in which a elderly man became homeless due to mortgage fraud! PS: All 3 divisions are without excuse, as I communicated directly with all of them, as I was asked by multiple employees of the court: letter-to-judges.CHANCERY.pdf ** letter-to-judges.CIVIL.pdf ** letter-to-judges.LAW.pdf ** NOTE: The letters look similar, but they are not identical. ~Editor
11/23/2015	MEMORANDUM OF LAW FILED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: GALIC ANDJELKO	Docket says: "Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD," but the image is not available without a laborious, costly, and lengthy public records request. UPDATE: I just purchased public records from the court. Holy cow!? Did you read that!? Atty. Galic admits, in so many words, that - basically - NO ONE has any earthly idea why the case was transferred (see point 3.) from the Chancery Division to the Law Division -- and that many records have been lost (see point 2.). My legal analyses: The cross-claims of Atty. Younes, basically claiming that the elderly, 76-year-old defendant, Mr. Daniggelis, signed over his house, and just gave it to him - and gave up the hundreds of thousands of dollars in equity that others admit was lost, should not have been addressed in Chancery. The Chancery Division is a court of equities, and should have addressed the GMAC foreclosure complaint - and nothing else. The 'Contract Law' case, which is now in the Law division, was probably a more appropriate forum for such a complaint. Caveat: I'm not a lawyer. ~~Editor, Gordon W. Watts
11/30/2015	MOTION FOR REHEARING (Note: the Notice of Motion is included, with both filed as one document.) 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Gordon Wayne Watts, Pro Se	I just mailed this off to the court and all parties and got signature confirmation and tracking for both the filing to Judge OTTO as well as the filing to the Clerk of the CHANCERY DIVISION of the Cook County, IL trial court. Not on docket as yet... (but should appear on docket soon - if the court/clerks don't lose my mail/filings once again!..) -- Oops - speak of the devil! Another screw-up: in that entire court, isn't there even one person to sign for what I mailed Priority Overnight to the Chancery Division or the Judge's chambers!? ~ Editor, Gordon W. Watts UPDATE: I just spoke with Gerald Jones, Assistant Chief Deputy Clerk in CHANCERY, and he confirms my pleadings arrived safely. Gerald and his team are good guys who try to serve the public, even with the heavy workload they have. (I only wish the judges took their jobs as seriously.) Additionally, the U.S. Post Office confirms that both the service copy to Judge Otto (signed for by: 'J OBELHEIDE') and the service copy to the CHANCERY clerks (signed for by: 'G JONES') were received and signed for, and arrived safely. PS: There is one small typo in my filing: I erroneously claim, on p.3, that I was finally able to file on August 10, 2005, but this is a clear typo: The case didn't even start until 2007, and I clearly meant that I was able to procure public records & file on Aug.10, 2015, not 2005. Sorry about that; however, this is the only 'major' typo (that changes the meaning) that I find after proof-reading. Should you lose the link to this page, it's front-page news on The Register, my namesake blogs. I hope you all have a Merry Christmas and happy holiday season. Best, ~ Editor, Gordon W. Watts
12/07/2015	MISCELLANEOUS MOTION - ALLOWED Court Room: 2804 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: OTTO, MICHAEL F.	Oddly-enough, while the actual order appears to deny my motion, above, the official court docket lists only one entry for '12/7/2015' and has 'MISCELLANEOUS MOTION - ALLOWED -' as its title with 'Court Room: 2804' and 'Judge: OTTO, MICHAEL F.' in the notes section. ~~Editor ** Official Court Docket ** Cache: courtesy The Register ** Screen shot (PDF format) ** Screen shot (Portable Network Gaphics *.png image format) ** Screen shot ("Jay Peg" *jpg image format) **
01/06/2016 (listed as: '1/14/2016' on court docket, and time-stamped as '2016 JAN 15 PM 4:07,' but it's truly dated 01/06/2015, since the U.S. Post Office stamp is what officially dates the filing, according to the rules of the court on timeliness: Rule 373. Date of Filing Papers in Reviewing Court; Certificate or Affidavit of Mailing)	NOTICE OF APPEAL 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis UPDATE: received by Court: As filed: this link (original PDF), and, as docketed: this link (pp.1-9 of this 26-page PDF)	Gordon Wayne Watts, Pro Se	Notice of Appeal. NOTE: This notice contains several items, which are procedural and statutory requirements, but they're bundled together for the sake of simplicity: NOTICE OF APPEAL; NOTICE OF FILING; REQUEST FOR PREPARATION OF RECORD ON APPEAL; Rule 321 MOTION (SUGGESTION) TO BOTH COURTS to “Order Less”; and, "Rule 298. Application for Waiver of Court Fees," and, of course, the "CERTIFICATE AND AFFIDAVIT OF DELIVERY (aka: Certificate of Service)." ALSO: Since the courts keep losing my filings, and/or docketing them at a time different than the legal postal stamp (which is the standard for the timing issue), I'm including this scanned image to verify that I filed these using 2-day priority mail from the U.S. Postal Service: receipt-2007-CH-29738-Wednesday06January2016-NOTICE-of-APPEAL-GordonWayneWatts.jpg. PS: Here's helpful “mortgage foreclosure-rescue fraud” case law re physical possession of property in both *.html Web-Page and PDF format, which suggests that the continued open and visible possession of the home by the scammed homeowner (Mr. Daniggelis') after being duped by the foreclosure rescue operator(s) may be sufficient to charge those subsequently acquiring title and security interests in the home with notice of the fraud, and thereby disqualifying them from bona fide purchaser status. DELIVERY NOTES: As of today, Wednesday, 13 January 2016, I note that I mailed all items on Jan.06, 2016, and got them postmarked. Both the Appeals Court and Judge Michael Otto got their copies, but there was a problem with the Civil Appeals Division copy, even though it was indeed addressed correctly. After some calls to the Post Office, I was finally able to convince them to both deliver it and get it signed for by a 'George Aridas,' who works in the mail room. So, my appeal, since it was time-stamped on time, is timely, and not late, according to Court Rules: Illinois Supreme Court Rule 373 says that they're ontime if they're postmarked on the due date, and, if they were "received after the due date, the time of mailing, or the time of delivery to a third-party commercial carrier for delivery to the clerk within three business days, shall be deemed the time of filing." (Rule 373. Date of Filing Papers in Reviewing Court; Certificate or Affidavit of Mailing) -- Since I used 2-Day Priority Mail, this qualifies, as "for delivery to the clerk within three business days," even if it actually took longer. UPDATE -- Received by Court -- As filed: this link (original PDF),and, as docketed: this link (pp.1-9 of this 26-page PDF)
01/15/2016	CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FILED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis UPDATE: received by Court: As filed: this link (original PDF), and, as docketed: this link (pp.1-9 of this 26-page PDF)	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: UNKNOWN/WATTS	The 'Notice of Appeal.' (Included the cert. of mailing) -- See comments above. NOTE: "The delivery record shows that this item was delivered on January 13, 2016 at 11:58 am in CHICAGO, IL 60602 to G ARIDAS," but court stamp reflects the 15th, oddly-enough. (See "01/06/2016" entry.) ~GW
01/15/2016	NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis UPDATE: received by Court: As filed: this link (original PDF), and, as docketed: this link (pp.1-9 of this 26-page PDF)	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: UNKNOWN/WATTS	The 'Notice of Appeal' proper. -- See comments above. NOTE: "The delivery record shows that this item was delivered on January 13, 2016 at 11:58 am in CHICAGO, IL 60602 to G ARIDAS," but court stamp reflects the 15th, oddly-enough. (See "01/06/2016" entry.) ~GW
01/15/2016	NOTICE OF FILING FILED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis UPDATE: received by Court: As filed: this link (original PDF), and, as docketed: this link (pp.1-9 of this 26-page PDF)	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: UNKNOWN/WATTS	The 'Notice of Appeal.' (Included the notice of filing) -- See comments above. NOTE: "The delivery record shows that this item was delivered on January 13, 2016 at 11:58 am in CHICAGO, IL 60602 to G ARIDAS," but court stamp reflects the 15th, oddly-enough. (See "01/06/2016" entry.) ~GW
01/15/2016	Letter from Appellate Court Steven M. Ravid, Clerk Appellate Court, First District SMR/pal cc: Executive Clerk for Court Operations & Administration 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis UPDATE: received by Court: As filed: this link (original PDF), and, as docketed: this link (pp.1-9 of this 26-page PDF)	Clerk: APPELLATE COURT	Letter tells me I have to file Notice of Appeal with Circuit Court (Civil Appeals Division, Hon. Patricia O'Brien, Chief Deputy Clerk, presiding; PH: 312-603-5406). I know that, hello!? However, pursuant to Rule 303(c)Service of Notice of Appeal: “The party filing the notice of appeal or an amendment as of right, shall, within 7 days, file a notice of filing with the reviewing court...," that is, the appeals court, here which is what I did. So, why the concern? Note to self: I just got a call from Robt. J. More, another litigant in this case, alleging that the Chancery Court has incurred Felony Criminal liability for helping steal Mr. Daniggelis' home, and, in support of this, has cited Fayerweather v. Ritch, 195 U.S. 276; 25 S.Ct. 58; 49 L.Ed. 193, which holds that Daniggelis was deprived of Substantive Due Process because "we held that a judgment of a state court might be here reviewed if it operated to deprive a party of his property without due process of law, and that the fact that the parties were properly brought into court and admitted to make defense was not absolutely conclusive upon the question of due process...'The mere form of the proceeding instituted against the owner, even if he be admitted to defend, cannot convert the process used into due process of law, if the necessary result be to deprive him of his property without compensation.' If a judgment of a state court can be reviewed by this court on error upon the ground that, although the forms of law were observed, it necessarily operated to wrongfully deprive a party of his property (as indicated by the decision just referred to), a judgment of the circuit court of the United States, claimed to give such unwarranted effect to a decision of a state court as to accomplish the same result, may also be considered as presenting the question how far it can be sustained in the view of the prohibitory language of the 5th Amendment, and thus involve the application of the Constitution." Note: "the forms of law were observed" refers to Procedural Due Process (PDP), whilst the obvious theft of Daniggelis' house refers to a lack of Substantive Due Process (SDP). So, the Supreme Court, above, apparently is saying that it's possible for a court to give PDP while, at the same time, depriving someone of SDP. The Court went on to say: "Upon what is this contention based? First, the silence of the judgment, which contains no findings to indicate upon what it is based...," which suggests that the Illinois Courts' lack of explaining its ruling was a violation of PDP, strengthening the claim the end result was a violation of SDP. Note: The Court's comment about "testimony of the trial judge, given on the hearing in this case some six years after his decision in the state court" suggests that state court judges may, indeed, be compelled to testify in Federal Court. Hmm...? My thoughts: This pits Judicial Immunity against 42 U.S. 1983 violations for deprivations of Daniggelis under colour of law. This would be a hard thing to litigate, given the current political environment, but given the fact that the various courts did not offer any legal justification for snatching away Daniggelis' property (with hundreds of thousands of dollars of equity in it) and giving it away to one of their colleagues (fellow-attorney, Joseph Younes), this is suspicious at the least-and smacks of cronyism and "Chicago-style" backroom deals, even if no actual Quid Pro Quo bribe was given: If the courts thought they were justified in doing so, one would think that they would offer some sort of explanation, even if it was a bad one, but, so far as I can tell from the court record, they offered no explanation. Odd... Maybe some friendly "legal reporter" for local Chicago press can explain it to me? ~~Editor
02/02/2016	***MISC.MOTION(SET FOR MOTION HEARING) 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: MOORE ROBERT	The docket lists Mr. Robert J. More like this, misspelling his last name. Why would judge Otto set this for a hearing if he didn't set my more serious and applicable motions for a hearing? (This is within the court's discretion.) Also, since More admitted that he's trespassed, banned, & barred from the courthouse (read his motion carefully), why would the court even entertain such a motion? (Do the court or judge even read this stuff?) More-importantly, however, why did the court outright steal Mr. Daniggelis' home and give it to Mr. Younes without any compensation?? ~Editor
02/11/2016	298 Petition 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: UNKNOWN/WATTS	After many screw-ups, not the least of which includes the court stealing Daniggelis' home and property, and giving it to a local rich lawyer for no legal reason (and not compensating Daniggelis for it), the court then ignored my Rule 298 poverty declaration. (See the bottom of page 2, of the 01/14/2016 Notice of Appeal - scroll up just a few notches - where I clearly stated, in the header "Rule 298. Application for Waiver of Court Fees," a statement that I qualify for Waiver of Court fees.) However, Patricia O'Brien, the Chief Deputy Clerk of the CIVIL APPEALS DIVISION said I needed specific paperwork filled out. When I asked her what it was, she did not know, and said each division is different, and to check with Chancery. After many calls, I finally got a hold of Chief Deputy Clerk, Cynthia M. Eddington, who sent me this court form, which I promptly filled out and then mailed back to Chancery, as I was asked to do. Ms. Eddington promises to forward this promptly to Judge Otto, who we expect will rule on it, one way or the other. After all the screw-ups and lost paperwork (not to mention theft of my friend's house for no legal reason - and without compensation), you can bet that we will be tracking this package more-so than NORAD track's Santa's sleigh as it flies on Christmas night! (Maybe, this time, we will get justice. We will see.) ~Editor UPDATE: As of today, Wed. 02-17-2016, FedEx reports that my poverty declaration was received & signed for late yesterday - apparently by Ms. Eddington. ~Editor
02/22/2016	SUE OR DEFEND AS A INDIGENT PERSON - DENIED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: FLANNERY, JAMES P. Microfilm: LD000000000 Participant: WATTS GORDON WAYNE	Order from Law Division judge on the 02/11/2016 poverty application in this Chancery case. Order reads: "PETITIONER LACKS STANDING TO BRING SUIT ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER." Two things wrong with this: First, why is a Law Division judge ruling on this matter. I know that this case was transferred to the law division, but the appeal is from the underlying Chancery Division. However, what is even more troubling is the clear obvious fact: The judge is either unwilling or unable to read: I did not bring suit on behalf of ANYONE, but rather filed a friend of the court brief with the appropriate motion to supplement the record on appeal. #BigDifference - #LearnToRead - #HonestyPlease - #LiberalActivistJudges One last thing: Since there was probably only a small chance that the appeals court (who also was unfriendly regarding supplementing the record) would likely have upheld the unjust rulings in question, I don't see why this judge did not simply follow State Law regarding 298 Poverty applications, and simply forward on the appeal. He must have been really paranoid: It's not like it would have used that much judicial resources to address what, clearly, was/is a grave injustice in the theft of Mr. Daniggelis' house, without any compensation to him, whatsoever.~Editor
02/26/2016	RECORD ON APPEAL 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: GALIC ANDJELKO Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD	Apparently, the entire record. Of course, we're not going to post the entire record online. ~Editor
03/08/2016	***RULE TO SHOW CAUSE(SET FOR MOTION HEARING) (as filed - upside-down, but with key service data) -- (right-side up) 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: GALIC ANDJELKO Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD	Note: This filing is an e-filing, supplied to The Register courtesy of Mr. Robert J. More, one of the litigants who was on the e-filing service list, a service that The Court, for some (unexplained) reason, did not afford to Register editor, and legal writer/investigator, Gordon W. Watts, even though Mr. Watts is also a litigant in this case.~Editor Title proper: "Petition for Rule to Show Cause against John LaRocque" (e.g., for failure to appear at a deposition after having been properly served)
03/08/2016	***RULE TO SHOW CAUSE(SET FOR MOTION HEARING) 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: GALIC ANDJELKO Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD	Oddly enough, the court's docket lists this entry twice, therefore, so am I. ~Editor
03/23/2016	PLACITA AND CERTIFICATION OF TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD FOR APPEAL FILED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: GALIC ANDJELKO Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD	Apparently, the entire audio-to-paper verbal court transcript. Of course, we're not going to post the entire court conversation transcript online. ~Editor
07/19/2016	CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE-ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T. Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE LC	Date: Friday, 07/29/2016 ; Court Time: 09:30am(CST) *** PDF file *** *.tif image *** "This matter is continued to July 29 [2016] at 920 [am] for:..." [Editor's note: Order does not specify, but title says for Case Management Conference.]
9/12/2016	APPELLATE COURT MANDATE - APPEAL DISMISSED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: JACOBIUS, MOSHE Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE LC	Court Room: 2403 (Image not available; check with court.~Editor)
1/10/2017	APPELLATE COURT MANDATE - APPEAL DISMISSED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: JACOBIUS, MOSHE Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE LC	Court Room: 2403 (Image not available; check with court.~Editor)
1/11/2018	CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FILED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: UNKNOWN OWNERS	(Apparently, my appeal case transferred from this Chancery Division to the Law Division; See Law Division docket, below, but it's dated "01/08/2018" on the Court's official Law Division's docket -- and mine, below.)
1/11/2018	NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: UNKNOWN OWNERS	(Apparently, my appeal case transferred from this Chancery Division to the Law Division; See Law Division docket, below, but it's dated "01/08/2018" on the Court's official Law Division's docket -- and mine, below.)
1/11/2018	NOTICE OF FILING FILED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: UNKNOWN OWNERS	(Apparently, my appeal case transferred from this Chancery Division to the Law Division; See Law Division docket, below, but it's dated "01/08/2018" on the Court's official Law Division's docket -- and mine, below.)
12/4/2018	APPELLATE COURT MANDATE - APPEAL DISMISSED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: JACOBIUS, MOSHE Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE LC	Court Room: 2403 (Court's docket says 12/4, but this was really the 12/3/18 mandate, since there was another one reissued on 12/4/18; see below.~Editor)
12/4/2018	APPELLATE COURT MANDATE - RECALLED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: JACOBIUS, MOSHE Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE LC	Court Room: 2403 (Recalled because the mandate above had a typo: The lower court case number was missing.~Editor)
12/4/2018	APPELLATE COURT MANDATE - APPEAL DISMISSED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: JACOBIUS, MOSHE Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE LC	Court Room: 2403 (Mandate was reissued once the typo was corrected. Official court docket omits this entry, but it happened, so, here it is on my more-updated docket.~Editor)
** Click HERE to get to Top of Page **
LAW DIVISION Case: 2007-CH-29738, LAW DIVISION, GMAC v. Daniggelis, Watts, LaRocque, Younes, et al.
** Click HERE to get to Top of Page **
10/17/2007	Complaint to Foreclose Mortgage 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, Plaintiff, filed by Pierce & Associates	See pp. 1-4 of this 96-page PDF Public Records request. This filing is called the "NON OWNER OCCUPIED SINGLE FAMILY HOME OR CONDOMINIUM - FILED" on the Court's Chancery docket, but a document, titled "CONTRACT COMPLAINT FILED" was filed on the same date in the Law Division (same case number). This appears to be the self-same document. NOTE: GMAC v. Daniggelis, 2007-CH-29738, is currently in both the Chancery Division (which was appealed to the First Appellate Court) and in the Law Division. That this same case number is in 2 divisions is a constant source of confusion to the clerks in both divisions, as I personally recall, based on numerous phone conversations with many clerks, who often reply along the line of: "No, that is a Chancery case, since it has 'CH' in its title." -- Me: "Yes, it is a Law Division case; it's in both divisions: look at the dockets, if you don't believe me" ~Editor, Gordon W. Watts
12/26/2007	APPEARANCE FILED - FEE PAID 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD	Court Fee: $163.00. APPEARANCE FILED - FEE PAID - (image not available at this time; check back)
7/16/2008	APPEARANCE FILED - NO FEE PAID 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: Chicago VOLUNTEER LEGAL S Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD	APPEARANCE FILED - NO FEE PAID - (see page 18 of 19)
9/26/2008	APPEARANCE FILED - FEE PAID 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: MALONEY EUGENE WILLIAM Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD	Court Fee: $188.00. APPEARANCE FILED - FEE PAID - (see page 17 of 19 - same filing, but listed twice on court's docket: see below)
9/26/2008	APPEARANCE FILED - NO FEE PAID 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: MALONEY EUGENE WILLIAM Participant: YOUNES JOSEPH	APPEARANCE FILED - NO FEE PAID - (see page 17 of 19 - same filing, but listed twice on court's docket: see above)
3/5/2009	APPEARANCE FILED - FEE PAID 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: KROPIK PAPUGA AND SHAW Participant: MORTGAGE ELECTRONICS	Court Fee: $198.00. APPEARANCE FILED - FEE PAID - (see page 16 of 19)
9/10/2009	APPEARANCE FILED - NO FEE PAID 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: KALLMAN JOHN K Participant: LASALLE	APPEARANCE FILED - NO FEE PAID - (see page 14 of 19)
9/10/2009	APPEARANCE FILED - NO FEE PAID 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: INDYKE RICHARD Participant: LASALLE	APPEARANCE FILED - NO FEE PAID - (see page 15 of 19)
9/18/2009	APPEARANCE FILED - NO FEE PAID 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: KROPIK PAPUGA AND SHAW Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE	APPEARANCE FILED - NO FEE PAID - (see page 13 of 19)
12/29/2009	APPEARANCE FILED - FEE PAID 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: COHON RAIZES®AL LLP Participant: STEWART TITLE ILLINOIS	Court Fee: $198.00. APPEARANCE FILED - FEE PAID - (see page 12 of 19)
1/12/2010	APPEARANCE FILED - FEE PAID 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: STONE MCGUIRE SIRGEL Participants: DANIGGELIS RICHARD and LAROCQUE JOHN	Court Fee: $198.00. APPEARANCE FILED - FEE PAID - (see page 11 of 19)
1/19/2010	APPEARANCE FILED - FEE PAID 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: SHELTON AND YOUNES Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD	Court Fee: $198.00. APPEARANCE FILED - FEE PAID - (see pages 8-9 of 19)
2/26/2010	APPEARANCE FILED - NO FEE PAID 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: DAVID COOPER LAW OFFICE Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD	APPEARANCE FILED - NO FEE PAID - (see pages 7 and 10 of 19)
3/26/2010	APPEARANCE FILED - NO FEE PAID 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: DAVID COOPER LAW OFFICE Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD	APPEARANCE FILED - NO FEE PAID - (see page 6 of 19, which is undated, in contrast to the "FEB 26 2010" page 7, above)
8/19/2010	APPEARANCE FILED - NO FEE PAID 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD	APPEARANCE FILED - NO FEE PAID - (see page 5 of 19, and also page 19 of 19, where this image is duplicated for some unknown reason in this Public Records request) --**NOTE: Daniggelis made a JURY DEMAND, way back in 2010, regarding the theft of his house by mortgage fraud, clearly using a forged signature, which Due Process has YET to be honoured or granted by The Court, even as late as 2017, more specifically, today (Sunday, 13 August 2017).
4/8/2011	APPEARANCE FILED - NO FEE PAID 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: GALIC ANDJELKO Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD	(No image available on this docket; see court's official docket or the clerk for this filing. ~Editor)
10/5/2012	JURY DEMAND FILED - FEE PAID 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: GALIC ANDJELKO Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD	Court Fee: $230.oo. *** (No image available on this docket; see court's official docket or the clerk for this filing. ~Editor) *** NOTE: A jury trial was requested, way back in 2012, as it's a legal right, and yet, even as late as 2017, still no jury trial, and still no justice. (Please note that the house was stolen with the assistance of an illegal ruling by Judge Otto, and this judge did not require a 'jury trial' to illegally steal the house and land from Mr. Daniggelis and give it to Atty. Younes. So, I ask: Why should Mr. Daniggelis be required to "jump through the hoops" for a jury trial to get justice here?? ~Editor)
8/12/2014	TRANSFER FILE INTO DIVISION - ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: FLANNERY, JAMES P. Participant: US BANK NA	For reasons which are unclear to this writer, Hon. Judge Jacobius transferred this case from Chancery out to Law. (Order states: "Foreclosure Counts Dismissed," but why could Chancery not handle the other issues? *** PDF format *** *.PNG image *** *tif image *** Additionally, why does the court's own docket list Judge Flannery for this, when the image names Judge Otto and Judge Jacobius? (Perhaps is was because Judge Flannery was the chief judge in the Law Division.) Lastly, why are two time-stamp dates on this order, one for Aug.7 and one for Aug.12? Perhaps each judge "signed off" on this order at different times.
8/7/2015	POSTCARD GENERATED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorneys: various (see below for details) Participants: various (see PDF for details)	Microfilm: LD000000000 *** See, generally, pp.41-51 of the 135-page PDF file, linked here, and compare with the official court docket. Images available on pp.41-51 of this PDF document but referenced in a group, here, for brevity.
8/7/2015	ELECTRONIC NOTICE SENT 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorneys: various (see below for details) Participants: various (see PDF for details)	Microfilm: LD000000000 *** See, generally, pp.41-51 of the 135-page PDF file, linked here, and compare with the official court docket. Images available on pp.41-51 of this PDF document but referenced in a group, here, for brevity.
8/7/2015	CASE SET ON ASSIGNMENT CALL 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: FLANNERY, JAMES P. Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE LLC	Date: 08/26/2015 Court Time: 10:30am (CST) Court Room: 2005 Judge: FLANNERY, JAMES P. Microfilm: LD999999997 *** (No image available on this docket; see court's official docket or the clerk for this filing. ~Editor)
8/26/2015	CASE SET ON INDIVIDUAL CALENDAR 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: FLANNERY, JAMES P. Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE LLC	Case set on "Individual Commercial" calendar 'W'. *** PDF file *** *.PNG image *** *.tif image *** --**COMMENTS: Wow, did you see that? This case was transferred in from the Chancery Division way back on 08/12/2014, slightly over a year before -- almost twelve and a half (12.5) months to be exact. (Look at the images of the filings to verify.) Justice sure is slow when you're a poor common person who's had your house stolen via a forged signature Mortgage Rescue Scheme/Scam fraud.
8/26/2015	CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: FLANNERY, JAMES P. Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE LLC	Hearing Date: 9/2/2015. Court Time: 09:30am (CST)
8/26/2015	ASSIGN TO JUDGE WITHIN DIVISION 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T. Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE LLC	Microfilm: LD999999999
8/26/2015	ASSIGN TO JUDGE WITHIN DIVISION 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: FLANNERY, JAMES P. Microfilm: LD999999999	LAW Division presiding judge, Judge James P. Flannery, assigned this to associate Law Division judge, Judge Sanjay T. Tailor.
9/2/2015	CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T.	Date: 9/14/2015, Court Time: 09:20am (CST) *** Now, this is VERY odd: Both sides failed to show up for the court date!! The judge was merciful and continued the case: PDF format *** *.PNG image *** *.tif image *** The court, Sua Sponte (on its own motion) continued the court date to a hearing on 09-14-2015, at 09:20am (CST).
9/14/2015	AFFIDAVIT FILED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: PRO SE	See pages 1-9 of this 60-page PDF obtained obtained from The Court, and with Filing Stamp. *** House copy; text-searchable and in colour with scanned images of notarisation. *** Sept. 08, 2015 Affidavit of Gordon Wayne Watts, shown on docket as "9/14/2015." *** As filed: pp.1-9 of 60-pg PDF. *** As filed: pp.1-9 of 60-pg *.tif image.
9/14/2015	EXHIBITS FILED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: PRO SE	I'm not sure what "Exhibits" the court's referring to here. Maybe referring to my Sept. 09, 2015 Proposed Order of Gordon Wayne Watts, shown on docket as "9/14/2015." However, I don't find this in the Public Records requests I've made. Possibly referring to the Exhibits in the motion (see p.35 of 60 of this filing) or the notice (see p.53 of 60 of this filing) docketed by The Court on 09/14/2015.
9/14/2015	NOTICE OF MOTION FILED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: PRO SE	See pages 10-13 of this 60-page PDF obtained obtained from The Court, and with Filing Stamp. *** House copy; text-searchable and in colour with scanned images of signature. *** Sept. 09, 2015 Notice of Motion, shown on docket as "9/14/2015." *** As filed: pp.10-13 of 60-pg PDF. *** As filed: pp.10-13 of 60-pg *.tif image: Sept. 09, 2015 Notice of Motion (for leave to file an Amicus Curiae brief) of Gordon Wayne Watts, shown on docket as "9/14/2015." -- NOTE: I gave the court timely notice of my intent to appear telephonically as the rules permit, but the court saw fit to disregard the rules which permit (tho do not require) telephonic appearance. FedEx certified that my overnight deliveries to both the Law Division and the appeals court were both received and signed for. Note that the circuit court received this on "Sept. 10, 2015," leaving them no excuse to deny my "moral" (if not legal) right to appear in court by remote electronic means, as the rules permit.
9/14/2015	NOTICE FILED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: PRO SE	See pages 43-60 of this 60-page PDF obtained obtained from The Court, and with Filing Stamp. *** House copy; text-searchable and in colour with scanned images of signature. *** As filed: pp.43-60 of 60-pg PDF. *** As filed: pp.43-60 of 60-pg *.tif image: Sept. 09, 2015 Time-Sensitive Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts – in semi-Emergency Fashion by OVERNIGHT FedEx, shown on docket as "9/14/2015."
9/14/2015	MOTION FILED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: PRO SE	See pages 14-42 of this 60-page PDF obtained obtained from The Court, and with Filing Stamp. *** House copy; text-searchable and in colour with scanned images of signature. *** As filed: pp.14-42 of 60-pg PDF. *** As filed: pp.14-42 of 60-pg *.tif image: Sept. 09, 2015 "Motion for leave to file Amicus Curiae brief" and proposed "AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF GORDON WAYNE WATTS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT / APPELLANT, RICHARD B. DANIGGELIS," shown on docket as "9/14/2015."
9/14/2015	CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T. Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHAR (sic)	Date: 10/7/2015, Court Time: 09:20am (CST) *** PDF format *** *.tif image format *** Court docket misspells Richard's name, leaving off 'd' in 'Richard'.
9/23/2015	Court's Docket does not have an entry on this date 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: PRO SE	On 09/23/2015, I filed another copy of the Proposed Order along with a Notice of Motion of my intent to appear in the upcoming Case Management Conference scheduled for Wednesday, 10/7/2015, at 09:20am CST (10:20am EST), in Courtroom 1912, as is my "moral" right (even if not my legal right) under the law: See Art. II, Rule 185 (Telephone Conferences), R.Civ. Proceedings in the Trial Court, Rule 206(h)(Remote Electronic Means Depositions), etc.; However, not only did the court not follow the law and permit me to appear, it did not even docket my filings! See e.g., Law Division Case #: 2007-CH-29738 (GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, et al. v. RICHARD DANIGGELIS, et al.) * Official Court Docket ** Cached copy}}} This is without excuse because I mailed the court these filings by the US Postal Service's "Priority Mail Express®," item number EK979754662US, and the court received my filings: I serves all parties, and the court received my filings, and they were signed for by a 'G ARIDAS' on September 24, 2015 at 11:40 am in CHICAGO, IL 60602.
10/7/2015	CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T. Participant: GMAC	Date: 10/14/2015, Court Time: 09:20am (CST) *** PDF format *** *.tif image format *** Plaintiff (apparently, GMAC -- or possibly Andjelko Galic, attorney for cross-plaintiff, Richard B. Daniggelis) having failed to appear, case is continued to 10-14-2015 at 9:20am for status hearing.
10/13/2015	NOTICE OF MOTION FILED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: PRO SE; Participant: MOORE ROBERT (sic)	"Notice of Motion" -- Court docket misspells Robert More's last name, adding an extra 'o'. *** Text-searchable service copy from Movant/Intervenor *** PDF format - as filed with court stamp *** *tif image - as filed with court stamp ***
10/13/2015	MOTION FILED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: PRO SE; Participant: MOORE ROBERT (sic)	Notice of Intervention by right, and, in the alternative, Petition for Intervention by Non-attorney, Robert J. More. -- Court docket misspells Robert More's last name, adding an extra 'o'. *** Text-searchable service copy from Movant/Intervenor *** PDF format - as filed with court stamp *** *.tif image - as filed with court stamp *** --NOTE: As Mr. More was already a named defendant, court should have denied his motion as moot, but to deny his participation and ignore his filings denied him Due Process, Equal Protection, Redress, etc.
10/14/2015	ORDER PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANT OR WITNESS TO APPEAR - ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T. Participants: GMAC and YOUNES	Date: 11/4/2015, Court Time: 09:10am (CST) *** "All parties of record are ordered to appear on 11-4-2015, at 9:10A.M." *** PDF format *** *.tif image ***
10/14/2015	CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T. Participant: GMAC	Date: 11/4/2015, Court Time: 09:10am (CST) *** Case continued for status hearing. *** PDF format *** *.tif image ***
11/4/2015	FILE AMENDMENT OR ADDITIONAL OR AMENDED PLEADINGS - ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T. Participant: DANIGGELIS	Date: 11/16/2015 Court Time: 09:30am (CST) *** "Richard Daniggelis is granted 10 days to file a report regarding the status of the pleadings and regarding the parties (All) in this case." *** PDF format *** *.tif image ***
11/4/2015	CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T. Participant: DANIGGELIS	Date: 11/16/2015 Court Time: 09:30am (CST) *** Case continued for subsequent pleading status. *** PDF format *** *.tif image ***
11/16/2015	MOTION FILED with Court's Official Electronic-upload Time Stamp 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: PRO SE; Participant: MOORE ROBERT (sic)	Court docket misspells Robert More's last name, adding an extra 'o'. *** As filed (PDF) *** As filed (*.tif) *** As served from litigant (text-searchable PDF) *** Electronic-upload Time Stamp (*.PNG) *** Amended Notice of Intervention by right, and, in the alternative, Petition for Intervention by Non-attorney, Robert J. More. This call on Nov. 13, 2015 to the voice-mail of Judge Tailor's chambers clarifies one aspect of misunderstanding: Mr. Daniggelis told me that Judge Tailor referred to 'Robert More from Florida,' as if to imply that Mr. More and myself are the same person, but I'm the guy from Florida, and he's the guy from Chicago. Therefore, this voicemail clears up the confusion that Judge Tailor obviously had -and verifies & proves that claim. ~Editor, Gordon W. Watts
11/16/2015	FILE AMENDMENT OR ADDITIONAL OR AMENDED PLEADINGS - ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T. Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE	Date: 11/23/2015 *** PNG image format * PDF format * *.tif image format Point #1: Atty. Galic is ordered to file a status report within 7 days.
11/16/2015	CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T. Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE	Date: 11/25/201, Court Time: 09:30am (CST) *** PNG image format * PDF format * *.tif image format Point #4: On motion of Atty. Andjelko Galic: his request for a continuance was granted.
11/16/2015	FILE AMENDMENT OR ADDITIONAL OR AMENDED PLEADINGS - DENIED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T. Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE	PNG image format * PDF format * *.tif image format Point #2: On motion of Atty. Andjelko Galic: his request for a Judge Tailor to strike Gordon W. Watts' pleadings were granted: this is counter-intuitive: While Mr. Watts is not named "by name" as a party, he is named as a defendant by GMAC, and thus has rights to participate, an argument that Mr. More makes here - and argument which gives More and Watts full and plenary legal right to defend as 'named' Defendants. Additionally, he has plenary rights as an Amicus Curiae, as Watts, himself argues here. So, the court is without excuse in denying Watts and More participation. Lastly, Watts - like Mr. More - is attempting to help Daniggelis get his house back, and is on the same side as Atty. Galic.
11/16/2015	INTERVENE - PLAINTIFF - DENIED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T. Participant: YOUNES JOSEPH	Point #2: On motion of Atty. Andjelko Galic: his requests for Judge Tailor to strike Gordon W. Watts' and Robert J. More's pleadings were granted: this also is counter-intuitive: While Mr. More has claims against Mr. Daniggelis, More is attempting to help Daniggelis get his house back, and is on the same side as Atty. Galic.
11/25/2015	CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T. Participant: DANIGGELIS	Date: 12/21/2015 Court Time: 09:10am (CST) ROOM 1912, Daley Center *** *.PNG image *** PDF file *** *.tif image *** CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED - Date: Monday, 12/21/2015, Court Time: 0910am, ROOM 1912, Daley Center See e.g., https://www.CookCountyCourt.org/JudgesPages/TailorSanjayT.aspx to verify that Room 1912 of the Daley Center, 50 W. Washington St., Chicago, Illinois 60602 is the current location of chambers. ~~Editor
12/16/2015 (listed as: '12/21/2015' on court docket, but it's truly dated 12/16/2015, since the U.S. Post Office stamp is what officially dates the filing, according to the rules of the court on timeliness: Rule 373. Date of Filing Papers in Reviewing Court; Certificate or Affidavit of Mailing)	Motion for Rehearing 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis UPDATE: received by Court: As filed: this link (original PDF), and, as docketed: this link (pp.10-26 of this 26-page PDF)	Attorney: PRO SE; Participant: WATTS, Gordon Wayne	This is my motion for rehearing. It's on its way to the court, as I speak. ~~Editor UPDATE: My motion for rehearing was signed for and received on Monday, December 21, 2015 at 3:54 pm (CST) in CHICAGO, IL 60602 by a "J DUK" (or: 'KUK' - see handwriting) in Judge Tailor's chambers, in suite #1912, and it was also signed for and received on Tuesday, on December 22, 2015 at 11:42 am in CHICAGO, IL 60602 by a "G (George) ARIDAS" in the Law Division at the Circuit Court in 50 W. Washington Street. Tho they were received after the Wednesday, 12/16/2015 deadline, they were not late: Illinois Supreme Court Rule 373 says that they're ontime if they're postmarked on the due date, and, if they were "received after the due date, the time of mailing, or the time of delivery to a third-party commercial carrier for delivery to the clerk within three business days, shall be deemed the time of filing." (Rule 373. Date of Filing Papers in Reviewing Court; Certificate or Affidavit of Mailing) -- Since I used 2-Day Priority Mail, this qualifies, as "for delivery to the clerk within three business days," even if it actually took longer. Even if they actually get their after their intended date, then, since, of course, both Judge Tailor's copy and the Law Division's copy were sent via "Priority Mail 2-Day," then they are timely, and not late. (The rule only demands that they were sent "for delivery to the clerk within three business days," not necessarily 'actually' delivered within that time, and 2-day priority easily meets that standard. (But since the clerk's office keeps losing stuff, and then, even when it arrives, judges hand down "bone-headed" rulings, reminiscent of the infamous 'Dred Scot' ruling, I don't know how much I can trust them to deem my filings as timely!) Actually, since you don't count the day of the act (or weekends), then Thursday was day-1, Friday was day-2, and Monday was day-3, and thus the judge (and thus, the court) got my motion for rehearing ontime, and not late. Actually, I waited until the "last minute" to file it because neither the court, clerk, nor lawyer who proposed this ruling (who actually had the legal duty of service) served me a copy of the court's ruling. Can you say 'comedy of errors!' UPDATE: As of today, Friday, 08 January 2016, my motion for rehearing is still Lost & Missing: not on docket. However, while I think they're normally not supposed to do this, Pam Sumpter, in the Law Division, was good enough to ask me to email her the stuff that they lost three (3) other times: I sent the judge's chambers a copy of my Rehearing Motion, as well as the Law Division, and I even emailed them a courtesy copy. I hope that this time (the 4th time) they get it right, docket it, and that the judge doesn't enter another bone-headed ruling in this time-sensitive, life-or-death case! ~Gordon W. Watts UPDATE: As of yesterday, Tuesday, 12 January 2016, the Law Division finally docketed my motion for rehearing, here, but dates it as '12/21/2016,' and the entry is below. Editor, ~Gordon W. Watts UPDATE -- Received by Court -- As filed: this link (original PDF), and, as docketed: this link (pp.10-26 of this 26-page PDF)
12/21/2015	EXHIBITS FILED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: PRO SE; Participant: GORDAN WAYNE WATTS (sic: misspelling of my 1st name)	I wasn't planning on filing 'exhibits,' but when emailing my filing in to replace that which they lost, I included the various US Postal Service tracking proofs of delivery (screenshot of tracking page, and also signed receipt). W. Pam Sumpter, the Law Division clerk, asked me if I wanted to file them. At first, I said to myself 'no,' but after pondering that I needed proof of delivery when "fighting the 'Chicago Machine'," I had a change of heart, and told her 'yes.' -- I am awaiting official receipt of this public records request, which is on docket now, but not yet scanned, imaged, and processed by their data entry crew. Thus, if you click the link at the left, you'll see nothing. But, trust me, it's on docket now. UPDATE -- Received by Court -- As filed: this link (original PDF), and, as docketed: this link (pp.10-26 of this 26-page PDF)
12/21/2015	MOTION FILED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: PRO SE; Participant: GORDAN WAYNE WATTS (sic: misspelling of my 1st name)	This is the 12/16/2015 Motion for Rehearing, which is on docket now, but dated 12/21/2016, for some reason, even tho it got signed for by a "G (George) ARIDAS" in the Law Division at the Circuit Court in 50 W. Washington Street, and then delivered to the Law Division via "Priority Mail 2-Day," and postmarked as mailed on the 16th, and thus timely & not late, per the rules. As above, I'm awaiting a copy of what was filed and on docket now. UPDATE -- Received by Court -- As filed: this link (original PDF), and, as docketed: this link (pp.10-26 of this 26-page PDF)
12/21/2015	TAKING OF DEPOSITION - ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T. Participant: DANIGELLIS (sic)	Date: 02/05/2016 "It is further ordered: ... (2) These depositions to be completed by February 5, 2016." (Court's Docket has a misspelling of Richard's last name: It has two g's and one small letter 'L'.) *** PDF file *** *.PNG image *** *.tif image ***
12/21/2015	ISSUE WRIT - ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T. Participant: DANIGELLIS (sic)	Date: 01/04/2016 "(1) It is further ordered: Richard Daniggelis is granted 14 days by 1/4/16 to issue subpoenas for deposition of Karen Shaner, Lisa Vitek and John LaRocque." (Editor's note: spelling uncertain on some words due to handwriting; click here to see image. Court's Docket has a misspelling of Richard's last name: It has two g's and one small letter 'L'.) *** PDF file *** *.PNG image *** *.tif image ***
12/21/2015	CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T. Participant: DANIGELLIS (sic)	Date: 02/22/2016, Court Time: 09:10am "The matter is continued to 2-22-16 at 9:10 A.M. for: Deposition Matters." (Court's Docket has a misspelling of Richard's last name: It has two g's and one small letter 'L'.) *** PDF file *** *.PNG image *** *.tif image ***
02/22/2016	CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T. Participant: DANIGGELIS	Date: 03/8/2016, Court Time: 09:20am (CST) *** PDF file *** *.tif image *** "This matter is continued to March 8, 2016 at 9:20 AM for: Petitions for Rule to Show Cause."
02/22/2016	SUE OR DEFEND AS A INDIGENT PERSON - DENIED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: FLANNERY, JAMES P. Microfilm: LD000000000 Participant: WATTS GORDON WAYNE	*** PDF file *** *.tif image *** *.jpg image (only 1-page order) *** Order from Law Division judge on the 02/11/2016 poverty application in this Chancery case. Order reads: "PETITIONER LACKS STANDING TO BRING SUIT ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER." Two things wrong with this: First, why is a Law Division judge ruling on this matter. I know that this case was transferred to the law division, but the appeal is from the underlying Chancery Division. However, what is even more troubling is the clear obvious fact: The judge is either unwilling or unable to read: I did not bring suit on behalf of ANYONE, but rather filed a friend of the court brief with the appropriate motion to supplement the record on appeal. #BigDifference - #LearnToRead - #HonestyPlease - #LiberalActivistJudges One last thing: Since there was probably only a small chance that the appeals court (who also was unfriendly regarding supplementing the record) would likely have upheld the unjust rulings in question, I don't see why this judge did not simply follow State Law regarding 298 Poverty applications, and simply forward on the appeal. He must have been really paranoid: It's not like it would have used that much judicial resources to address what, clearly, was/is a grave injustice in the theft of Mr. Daniggelis' house, without any compensation to him, whatsoever.~Editor
03/8/2016	RULE TO SHOW CAUSE BE ISSUED AND RETURNABLE ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T. Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHAR (sic)	"It is further ordered: Richard Daniggelis' Petition for Rule [to Show Cause] is granted and Rule [to Show Cause] is issued against LISA VITEK and JOHN LAROCQUE to show [cause] why they should not be held in contempt of court. The Rule to Show Cause against both Respondents is returnable on 4-12-16 at 9:20 AM in Room 1912 of the [Richard J.] Daley Center in CHICAGO, IL 60601." *** PDF file *** *.tif image *** (Note: Court docket misspells Richard's 1st name.) Date: 04/12/2016, Court Time: 09:20am (CST)
03/8/2016	CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T. Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHAR (sic)	"This matter is continued 4-12-16 at 9:20 AM for Service Status." *** PDF file *** *.tif image *** (Note: Court docket misspells Richard's 1st name.) Date: 04/12/2016, Court Time: 09:20am (CST)
03/10/2016	CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FILED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: WATTS GORDON WAYNE	*** PDF file *** *.tif image *** This shows that my father, R.F. Watts, signed for mail sent to me by The Court: The court, on Monday, 02/22/2016, issued an order, my father got and signed for the mail (with a copy of the order) on Monday, 02/29/2016, and the court got the return receipt back on Thursday, 03/10/2016. -Editor, Gordon W. Watts
04/12/2016	CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T. Participant: DANEGGLIS (sic)	Date: 05/04/2016, Court Time: 09:10am (CST) *** "This matter is continued to 5-4-16 at 9:10 AM for Service Status. It is further ordered: Rule to Show cause - status on service." *** PDF file *** *.tif image *** Misspelling!! It's 'DANIggelis, not DANEgglis! LOL. Court is sloppy here in its own docket.~Editor]
5/4/2016	CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T. Participant: DANIGGELIS	*** PDF file *** *.tif image *** Date: 5/27/2016 Court Time: 09:10am (CST) *** "This matter is continued to 5-27-16 at 9:10 AM for Rule to Show Cause."
5/27/2016	EXECUTE OR PERFORM - ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T. Participant: DANIGGELIS RICH	*** PDF file *** *.tif image ***
5/27/2016	CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T. Participant: DANIGGELIS RICH	*** PDF file *** *.tif image *** "This matter is continued to 6-29-16 at 9:20 AM for Service Statue re Rule to Show Cause."
5/27/2016	RULE TO SHOW CAUSE BE ISSUED - CONTINUED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T. Participant: DANIGGELIS RICH	*** PDF file *** *.tif image *** "It is further ordered: Rule to show [is] issued against LISA VITEK and John LaRocque on March 8, [20]16, is returnable on 6-29-16 at 9:20 AM. MARK SKRZYPCZAK from United Processing [apparently: IllinoisProcesSserver.com -Editor] is approved to serve LISA VITEK and John LaRocque with Rule to Show Cause."
6/29/2016	FILE AMENDMENT OR ADDITIONAL OR AMENDED PLEADINGS - ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T. Participant: DANIGGELIS	Date: 7/19/2016 *** "It is further ordered: Attorney Andjelko Galic representing that John LaRocque was served with Rule to Show Cause and that Lisa Vitek was not served, Andjelko Galic is Granted until 7-9-16 to file PROOF OF SERVICE."
6/29/2016	CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T. Participant: DANIGGELIS	Date: 7/19/2016 Court Time: 09:10am (CST) *** "This matter is continued to 7-19-16 at 9:10 AM for: Service Status"
6/29/2016	RULE TO SHOW CAUSE BE ISSUED - CONTINUED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T. Participant: DANIGGELIS	Court Time: 09:10am (CST) *** "Rules to Show Cause previously entered are continuing to 7-19-16 at 9:10 AM."
7/19/2016	CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T. Participant: DANIGGELIS	Date: 7/29/2016 Court Time: 09:20am (CST) *** PDF file *** *.tif image *** "This matter is continued to July 29 [2016] at 920 [am] for:..." [Editor's note: Order does not specify, but title says for Case Management Conference.]
7/29/2016	SET BOND OR BAIL AMOUNT - ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T. Participant: LAROCQUE JOHN P.	*** PDF file *** *.tif image *** Amount: $20,000.00 with an order to the Sheriff of COOK COUNTY, IL to take custody of John P. LaRocque, and turn him over to the custody of the court for the hearing date in question.
7/29/2016	CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T. Participant: DANIGGELIS	*** PDF file *** *.tif image *** "This matter is continued to 8-30-16 at 9:20 AM for Service Status. It is further ordered: Body Attachment."
7/29/2016	ATTACHMENT TO ISSUE AND RETURNABLE 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T. Participant: LAROCQUE JOHN P.	*** PDF file *** *.tif image ***
8/30/2016	CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T. Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE LLC	*** PDF file *** *.tif image *** Date: 10/17/2016 Court Time: 09:20am (CST) *** "The matter is continued to 10-17-16 at 920 AM for Status regarding body attachment." *** Microfilm: LD000000000
10/17/2016	CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T. Participant: DANIGGELIS	*** PDF file *** *.tif image *** Date: 12/5/2016 Court Time: 09:20am (CST) *** "This matter is continued to 12-5-16 at 9:20 AM for: Status regarding body attachment."
12/5/2016	CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T. Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD	*** PDF file *** *.tif image *** Date: 1/17/2017 Court Time: 09:10am (CST) *** "This matter is continued to 1-17-2017 at 9:10 AM for status regarding body attachment issued against John LaRocque."
01/17/2017	CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T. Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE LLC	Date: 3/14/2017 Court Time: 09:10am (CST) *** PDF file *** *.tif image *** Final status hearing regarding body attachment (subpoena). "It is further ordered: This matter is continued to 3-14-2017 at 9:10 AM for final status regarding service of body attachment issued against John LaRocque. If he is not served by 3-14-2017, this case will be dismissed."
*03/14/2017	CASE CONTINUED FOR TRIAL - JOINT MOTION - ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: SHELLEY DIANE M. Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD	Date: 04/17/2017, Court Time: 09:00am (CST) *** "It is further ordered: This matter is continued for the final status regarding [the] body attachment order entered against John LaRocque on 4-17-2017 at 9:00 AM." *** PDF file *** *.tif image *** Not really a trial, but rather a status conference, according to law division clerks; not sure why they have it docketed as a trial.
04/17/2017	PRODUCE EXHIBITS OR OTHER RECORDS OR DOCUMENTS OR PERSON - ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: SHELLEY DIANE M. Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE LLC	Date: 4/20/2017 *** PDF file *** *.tif image *** ORDER: "This matter comes before the court on status call and the court being advised on this matter IT IS HEREBY ORDERED 1. Attorney Andjelko Galic will provide the Court with a copy of pleading counterclaims and other dispositive orders within 3 days." [Editor: I.e., by 04/20/2017, 3 days hence from 4-17-2017.]
04/17/2017	CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: SHELLEY DIANE M. Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD	Date: 5/1/2017 Court Time: 09:20am (CST) *** PDF file *** *.tif image *** "2. This matter is set on status by 5-1-17 at 9:20 AM in Room 1912 for status regarding pleadings and regarding service of body attachment on John LaRocque."
*04/21/2017	Second AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF GORDON WAYNE WATTS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT / APPELLANT, RICHARD B. DANIGGELIS 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: WATTS Gordon Wayne	Along with "Motion for leave to file Amicus Curiae brief" and Exhibits, as follows: ** Exhibit-A ** Exhibit-B ** Exhibit-C ** Exhibit-D ** Exhibit-E ** Exhibit-F ** Exhibit-G ** TRACKING DATA - this was timely received by the following recipients: *The Law Division (sent to Room 801; delivered to Room 1920) *Hon. Diane M. Shelley, Circuit Judge, Law Division *Atty. Andjelko Galic, Esq. (atty for Defendant, Daniggelis) (Atty No.: 33013) *Atty. Richard Indyke, Esq. (312-332-2828 Atty for LaSalle Bank Natl. Assn.) *Atty. Peter King, Esq. (Attorney for Joseph Younes) (Atty. No.: 48761) *Atty. Joseph Younes, Esq. Law Offices (Package Refused) **
4/21/2017	EXHIBITS FILED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD	First "4/21/2017" entry, above, is what was filed. This entry & 3rd one, below, are official Court Records showing that it was properly docketed. The filing was so large as to require the Public Records department of the Law Division to split the file up into four 60-page PDF files: ** Part 1 ** Part 2 ** Part 3 ** Part 4 **
4/21/2017	MOTION FILED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD	First "4/21/2017" entry, above, is what was filed. This entry & 2nd one, above, are official Court Records showing that it was properly docketed. The filing was so large as to require the Public Records department of the Law Division to split the file up into four 60-page PDF files: ** Part 1 ** Part 2 ** Part 3 ** Part 4 ** (Note: 'Motion Filed' appears on court's docket twice. Perhaps this was because I filed everything in duplicate, just to be on the safe side, in case Post Office or FedEx or some clerk ripped one paper by accident.
5/1/2017	CASE SET ON TRIAL CALL 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: SHELLEY DIANE M. Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD	*** PDF file *** *.tif image *** "Jury/Bench trial is set to begin on July 10, 2017 at 10:30 A.M."
*07/06/2017 *This is docketed as "07/07/2017" by the court, but was actually filed by mail on 07/06/2016. See below for 7-7-2016 court-stamped image scan filings, which are not text-searchable as are these PDF files.	MOTION TO INTERVENE BY INTERVENOR, GORDON WAYNE WATTS 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: WATTS Gordon Wayne	The law clearly allows me to Intervene, so I was stupid to ignore this option early-on, but I was simply hoping that an Amicus Curiae ("Friend of the Court" brief) would be less invasive and more acceptable. Not sure why Illinois courts seem to hate Amici briefs, but it is what it is. FILED: Along with a Notice of Motion, a [ Sworn, Witnessed, and Notarised ] AFFIDAVIT OF GORDON WAYNE WATTS, as well as the three (3) exhibits included with the Affidavit, as follows: *"Infamous-POA-reply-Shelton.pdf" (Interesting email exchange with disbarred IL Attorney, Paul L. Shelton, dated 05/16/2017) *"MiscEXCHANGE-Shelton-Watts.pdf" (Another 5/16 email and my 5/17 reply to Shelton) *"POA-Law.pdf"(My 5/18 reply where I school the attorney on POA limitations, but, hopefully in a respectful tone, as he was quite helpful on a number of points) TRACKING DATA - this was timely received by the following recipients: *The Law Division (which is indeed in Room 801, and was signed for by a "B.MOORE" on Delivery date: July 07, 2017, @ 10:47am CST) *Hon. Diane M. Shelley, Circuit Judge, Law Division Received & signed for by: "L.PIECHUTA" on Delivery date: July 10, 2017, @ 11:05am CST, in the "DALEY CENTER COURTROOM 2202," for delivery to Judge Shelley's chambers. (Probably, this is Lou Piechuta, who has worked in the chambers of Chief Judge, Timothy Evans.) *Atty. Andjelko Galic, Esq. (atty for Defendant, Daniggelis) (Atty No.: 33013) (by 1st Class U.S. Postal Mail) * Atty. Andjelko Galic, Esq. (atty for Defendant, Daniggelis) (Atty No.: 33013) (Returned Mail!) Whoops! I did my part; don't worry: we resent this package in a subsequent filing, so it's on its way to the attorney at his new address: See e.g., the Saturday, 08/26/2017 filing in the sister-case (Housing Case: 2017-M1-400775, City of Chicago v. 1720 N. Sedgwick, Younes, et al.), below. Note: Sent on 7/6/17, but Postmarked on 7/7/17, as it got in after the Post Office closed, & rolled over to next business day. ~Editor *Atty. Richard Indyke, Esq. (312-332-2828 Atty for LaSalle Bank Natl. Assn.) (by 1st Class U.S. Postal Mail) *Atty. Peter King, Esq. (Attorney for Joseph Younes) (Atty. No.: 48761) (by 1st Class U.S. Postal Mail) *Atty. Joseph Younes, Esq. Law Offices (by 1st Class U.S. Postal Mail) **
07/7/2017	AFFIDAVIT FILED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	(As filed and court-stamped. For text-searchable PDF service copies, see above in the "07/06/2017" entry.) *** PDF file *** *.tif image *** Sworn / Notarised / Witnessed AFFIDAVIT of Gordon Wayne Watts: see pp. 15-19 of this 77-page PDF -- or pp. 15-33, if including Gmail exchange exhibits.
07/7/2017	EXHIBITS FILED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	(As filed and court-stamped. For text-searchable PDF service copies, see above in the "07/06/2017" entry.) *** PDF file *** *.tif image *** E.g., the exhibits at the end of each of the Affidavit, Notice of Motion, and Motion proper in this 77-page PDF document.
07/7/2017	NOTICE OF MOTION FILED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	(As filed and court-stamped. For text-searchable PDF service copies, see above in the "07/06/2017" entry.) *** PDF file *** *.tif image *** Notice of Motion - I filed 2 signed copies with court, which they dutifully docketed. See e.g., pp. 1-14 and pp. 34-47 of this 77-page PDF document.
07/7/2017	MOTION FILED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	(As filed and court-stamped. For text-searchable PDF service copies, see above in the "07/06/2017" entry.) *** PDF file *** *.tif image *** Motion to Intervene. See e.g., pp. 48-77 of this 77-page PDF document.
07/10/2017	NOTICE OF FILING FILED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: GALIC ANDJELKO Participant: GMAC	*** PDF file *** *.tif image *** Notice of filing with clerk to 2 parties of record.
07/10/2017	PROOF OF SERVICE FILED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: GALIC ANDJELKO Participant: GMAC	*** PDF file *** *.tif image *** Proof (affirmation) of service by U.S. Postal Mail.
07/10/2017	MOTION FILED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: GALIC ANDJELKO Participant: GMAC	*** PDF file *** *.tif image *** Motion for continuance.
07/10/2017	DISMISS BY STIPULATION OR AGREEMENT 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: SHELLEY DIANE M. Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD	*** PDF file *** *.tif image *** As I read the Order, there was not stipulation or agreement by any of the parties for dismissal. The only 2 reasons given were #1: Body Attachment to issue subpoena to John LaRocque could not be completed (allegedly, due to a combination bad police and/or flee-and-elude absconder who hides), and #2: Attorney for Counter-Plaintiff, Richard B. Daniggelis, misrepresented his client's ability to show up for court. Neither of these 2 reasons are legally sufficient to dismiss: Punishing the litigant for bad attorney, when litigant (victim) clearly (repeatedly) asked for trial denies Due Process. Secondly, punishing victim for bad behaviour on the part of flee-and-elude absconder and scammer "bad guy" and/or bad police is a clear and present egregious violation of Due Process, and makes a mockery of justice. BONUS #3: Even assuming Daniggelis or his attorney were bad guys, my own Intervention is of right, and, like the case-law cited by the judge, trial court is also without discretion to grant Intervention and subsequent review of my complaint. But, looking at docket, since I'm finally a named defendant, it seems that the judge did (in name, at least) grant me Intervention. I hope to have substance, not name only, to my complaint, since the frauds committed were no small laughing matter, the theft of a home and land, all without ANY payment, and thru a forged signature. It would be odd if Daniggelis won his case because I intervened, when he might have otherwise lost due to a combination of bad counsel and bad prior rulings (unjust judges). For the record, even with all Atty. Galic's oversights, and with all due respect to Judge Otto, nonetheless, I can not see how Judge Otto legally transferred title to Joseph Younes: No legal basis for transfer existed, and this was a clear egregious example of an exercise of judicial brute force, no more.
07/10/2017	VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL W/LEAVE TO REFILE-DENIED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: SHELLEY DIANE M. Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD	*** PDF file *** *.tif image *** While I must take the word of the trial judge, here, regarding the facts, her case law seems sound, if, in fact, Atty. Galic neither paid required court filing costs for defendant, nor given notice to the parties of record. Thus, he would not be permitted to voluntarily dismiss & refile. (And, I don't know why he would want to do so!? As it stands, he has a solid case to make a motion for summary judgment in favour of Daniggelis for both return of his stolen house, as well as a judgment to compensate for damages & loss that he's incurred.)
07/10/2017	CONTINUANCE - DENIED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: SHELLEY DIANE M. Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD	*** PDF file *** *.tif image *** If Daniggelis was, in fact, in court, as the trial judge admits, why not have a trial right then and there? To both deny trial AND deny continuance (e.g., to dismiss) is a denial of Daniggelis' Due Process rights of Redress and also implicates Equal Protection, assuming arguendo that we can accept that a richer litigant would have gotten a better attorney and thus better, more fair, treatment by The Court.
07/10/2017	JUDGMENT FOR A SPECIFIC LITIGANT 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: SHELLEY DIANE M. Participant: SHELTON PAUL	*** PDF file *** *.tif image *** Shelton is famous (infamous) for having lost both his mortgage broker's license and, subsequently, his law license, by administrative agency action by the IDFPR and the IARDC, respectively. So, he's suffered enough, even assuming there was some guilt on his part. But, if he was more guilty than Joseph Younes, he would be legally liable to repay damages incurred by Daniggelis. I don't know all the facts, and I do think Shelton may have lied about his wife witnessing and notarising Daniggelis' signature (based on testimony both Shelton and Daniggelis gave to me on that head), but even assuming arguendo Shelton to be guilty, here, my gut feeling says he was a bit player, who did not benefit from the theft of Daniggelis' house -- or at least not to the same magnitude as Younes, so I think Younes is the key scammer, as I read it.
8/8/2017	CERTIFICATE FILED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: GALIC ANDJELKO Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD	The "Certificate" referred to, here, is the VERIFICATION statement on page 6 of this 6-page PDF file.
8/8/2017	NOTICE OF FILING FILED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: GALIC ANDJELKO Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD	Top of page 1 of this 6-page PDF file.
8/8/2017	PROOF OF SERVICE FILED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: GALIC ANDJELKO Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD	Bottom of page 1 of this 6-page PDF file.
8/8/2017	MOTION FILED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: GALIC ANDJELKO Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD	The motion, proper, is in pp.2-5 of this 6-page PDF file: A motion to reconsider the piping-hot, scorched-earth order that Hon. Diane M. Shelley, Circuit Judge, entered right above, and directed against Atty. Galic and Mr. Daniggelis. Even tho Galic has made major missteps, his motion is not bad, if I say so myself. Galic has, in fact, made numerous good points which are worth review. But, sometimes, fraud is simply fraud, and you don't need all the bells & whistles to make a sound legal argument, and, probably, summary judgment (or a "bench" trial) is in order (with NO need for a "Jury Trial") as most (if not all) of the facts are not in question: Mr. Daniggelis simply got his house & land stolen via a forged signature (mortgage rescue scam), did NOT get paid for it, and was so unlucky enough to have a judge sign off onto the Grand Theft of house. It is no more complex than that.~Editor
09/11/2017	ANSWER/RESPONSE/REPLY 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	This is the court's "Stamped" copy, showing proof that I filed it electronically: "Motion in Opposition to Richard Daniggelis' 8-8-17 Motion to Reconsider 7-10-17 Order," which is opposing Daniggelis' attorney's motion for non-suit (voluntary dismissal), even though that (usually) is his absolute right. Now, why would I file a motion in 'opposition' to the attorney for my friend, whose claim I support and defend?? ANSWER: Because, allowing Galic's motion for Daniggelis would prolong the headache of the court, I must oppose it. The judge, however, entered a ruling in violation of loads of case-law, statutory law, etc., and allowing that to stand would *also* guarantee a "Black Eye" reputation for the court, as it is harmful, immoral, etc. -- So, what do I propose to get the court (and the other litigants) out of the bind into-the-which they find themselves? Well, normally, the "Law Division" does not vacate or reverse title-transfer orders from the "Chancery Division," but it does have jurisdiction, as I show the judge. NOTE: I made the Chief Judge (Hon. Timothy C. Evans) a party, in the rare, but non-zero, chance that the Law Division judge does not believe me, so he can assure her that my reading of the local rules is correct: If I had allowed the trial judge, here, Hon. Diane M. Shelley, to proceed without having notified her of this 3rd option, which would allow her to deny Atty. Galic's motion on mootness grounds, she would probably have entered a decision that would, eventually, have brought shame and disrepute upon the court system. She seems to be a good judge, but this legal maneuver was above her pay grade: She did not catch it before I did; if she is, indeed, and honest jurist, she will at least admit that while she didn't think of this idea, it is both a 'good' idea, and, really, the *only* 'good' option available. ~Editor
09/19/2017	AFFIDAVIT FOR MAILING FILED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	* "AFFIDAVIT FOR MAILING FILED" -- in other words, my "Verification by Certification" 735 ILCS 5/1-109, Section 1-109 affidavit, which is page 14 of 27 of this PDF file. * The linked immediately above (dated: "09/19/2017," a 27-page PDF file) is what I filed (both electronically and by U.S. Postal Mail). However, here (dated: "09/11/2017," by The Court) is the link to the 28-page PDF, which was sent to me via the Cook County, ILLINOIS Electronic Filing System: The 'extra' page is a "cover page" showing receipt by the court -- and, this version has the official court-stamp on each page.
09/19/2017	CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FILED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	* "CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FILED" -- in other words, my "SERVICE LIST," which is page 2 of 27 of this PDF file. * The linked immediately above (dated: "09/19/2017," a 27-page PDF file) is what I filed (both electronically and by U.S. Postal Mail). However, here (dated: "09/11/2017," by The Court) is the link to the 28-page PDF, which was sent to me via the Cook County, ILLINOIS Electronic Filing System: The 'extra' page is a "cover page" showing receipt by the court -- and, this version has the official court-stamp on each page.
09/19/2017	CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE FILED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	* "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE FILED" -- in other words, my "CERTIFICATE AND AFFIDAVIT OF DELIVERY (aka: Certificate of Service)," which is on the bottom of page 1 of 27 of this PDF file. * The linked immediately above (dated: "09/19/2017," a 27-page PDF file) is what I filed (both electronically and by U.S. Postal Mail). However, here (dated: "09/11/2017," by The Court) is the link to the 28-page PDF, which was sent to me via the Cook County, ILLINOIS Electronic Filing System: The 'extra' page is a "cover page" showing receipt by the court -- and, this version has the official court-stamp on each page.
09/19/2017	EXHIBITS FILED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	* "EXHIBITS FILED" -- in other words, my "INDEX TO THE EXHIBITS" (page 15 of 27) and the exhibits, proper (pp.16-27), of this PDF file. * The linked immediately above (dated: "09/19/2017," a 27-page PDF file) is what I filed (both electronically and by U.S. Postal Mail). However, here (dated: "09/11/2017," by The Court) is the link to the 28-page PDF, which was sent to me via the Cook County, ILLINOIS Electronic Filing System: The 'extra' page is a "cover page" showing receipt by the court -- and, this version has the official court-stamp on each page.
09/19/2017	NOTICE OF FILING FILED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	* "NOTICE OF FILING FILED" -- in other words, my "NOTICE OF FILING," which is on the top of page 1 of 27 of this PDF file. * The linked immediately above (dated: "09/19/2017," a 27-page PDF file) is what I filed (both electronically and by U.S. Postal Mail). However, here (dated: "09/11/2017," by The Court) is the link to the 28-page PDF, which was sent to me via the Cook County, ILLINOIS Electronic Filing System: The 'extra' page is a "cover page" showing receipt by the court -- and, this version has the official court-stamp on each page.
09/19/2017	MOTION FILED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	* "MOTION FILED" -- in other words, my "Motion in Opposition to Richard Daniggelis' 8-8-17 Motion to Reconsider 7-10-17 Order" (the motion, proper), which is just eleven (11) pages long, as it is pp.3-13, inclusive of this PDF file. * The linked immediately above (dated: "09/19/2017," a 27-page PDF file) is what I filed (both electronically and by U.S. Postal Mail). However, here (dated: "09/11/2017," by The Court) is the link to the 28-page PDF, which was sent to me via the Cook County, ILLINOIS Electronic Filing System: The 'extra' page is a "cover page" showing receipt by the court -- and, this version has the official court-stamp on each page.
11/30/2017	NOTICE OF MOTION FILED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: GALIC ANDJELKO Participant: YOUNES JOSEPH	Date: 12/07/2017 ; Court Time: 09:00am(CST) - Image in 4 common formats: 11-30-2017-AttyGalic_FILINGS.png ** 11-30-2017-AttyGalic_FILINGS.tif ** 11-30-2017-AttyGalic_FILINGS.jpg ** 11-30-2017-AttyGalic_FILINGS.gif
11/30/2017	PROOF OF SERVICE FILED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: GALIC ANDJELKO Participant: YOUNES JOSEPH	Image in 4 common formats: 11-30-2017-AttyGalic_FILINGS.png ** 11-30-2017-AttyGalic_FILINGS.tif ** 11-30-2017-AttyGalic_FILINGS.jpg ** 11-30-2017-AttyGalic_FILINGS.gif
11/30/2017	MOTION SCHEDULED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: GALIC ANDJELKO Participant: YOUNES JOSEPH	Date: 12/07/2017 ; Court Time: 09:00am(CST) - Image in 4 common formats: 11-30-2017-AttyGalic_FILINGS.png ** 11-30-2017-AttyGalic_FILINGS.tif ** 11-30-2017-AttyGalic_FILINGS.jpg ** 11-30-2017-AttyGalic_FILINGS.gif
12/06/2017	MOTION TO COMPLY 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: MOORE ROBERT	"DaniggelisDemandForService120617.pdf" was described, in the court's e-service notice, as a "Motion to compel A.Galic to comply, and misc. other motions." This was filed by the court's e-filing service, but also contemporaneously served by email: RJM-email-Thr-07Dec2017-filing-email_PDF.pdf The email filing included the following two audio files: DisclaimerVoice_20171205_180350.m4a and DisclaimerVoice_20171205_180350.mp3, disclaimers by Robert J. More (whose last name is misspelled on the court's docket), conditionally supporting some key points I raised in an email to him and Attorney Galic. The PDF as filed (by email) was as-filed-DaniggelisDemandForService120617.pdf (I changed the file name), but DaniggelisDemandForService120617.pdf as filed and court-stamped by the court's e-filing service. Robert complains publicly (as I had privately) to Attorney Andjelko Galic for FAILING to serve me copies of his recent 11/30/2017 filings, and Robert also points out some flaws in logic that I had raised regarding Judge Otto's ORDER, dated March 08, 2013, which (surprisingly) supports Daniggelis' fraud claims as well as anybody, even though he (somehow?) ruled against Daniggelis.
12/07/2017	VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL W/LEAVE TO REFILE-ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: SHELLEY DIANE M. Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD	Image in 4 common formats: 12-7-2017-ORDER-reinstate-etc.png ** 12-7-2017-ORDER-reinstate-etc.tif ** 12-7-2017-ORDER-reinstate-etc.jpg ** 12-7-2017-ORDER-reinstate-etc.gif ** Unnamed (but trusted) sources tell The Register that it went down like this: The very 1st thing out of Galic's mouth were complaints to the Judge about "More" and "Watts." (Apparently, Galic was referring to their filings -above- and their emails to him, which are referenced in More's filing: More cites Watts' email in one of his Exhibits, and More, in his certificate of service, certifies that he served all parties by regular email, not just e-service, the court's system. Watts, when serving parties, used e-service when it became available to him as a named defendant, and, in all cases, served hard copies by Postal Mail and/or FedEx AND all parties by e-mail, in cases where they had known emails.) The judge reportedly ignored Galic's manic rant, and, surprisingly treated him pretty well, in spite of his rant: Judge Shelley granted Galic's motion for non-suit aka “voluntary dismissal,” of the case with the option to refile within (I think) a year, and, apparently, my unnamed sources were correct: Note the official docket entry (replicated here) is: "VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL W/LEAVE TO REFILE-ALLOWED." Several theories were floated as to why Shelley reversed herself in Daniggelis' favour: Perhaps Galic, Watts, and More made solid, legal, arguments that Daniggelis had a right to have non-suit. Also, some sources have suggested that the surprise appearance by Mr. Daniggelis, himself, in court, and his impassioned plea for justice (assuring the judge that his brother, John Daniggelis, really was on his death-bed, when he claimed he could not attend the trial date, at the last hearing) was a deciding factor. Lastly, a review of unnamed sources suggests that Judge Shelley is an honest Christian woman, who honours and respects integrity and justice. But, even assuming all of these things to be true, above, it is puzzling why the judge doesn't enter a summary judgment in Daniggelis' favour, as he has a solid case.
12/07/2017	STRIKE OR VACATE AN ORDER - ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: SHELLEY DIANE M. Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD	Date: 07/10/2017 ** This entry, to "strike or vacate an order," apparently refers to Judge Shelley grant of Galic's motion for rehearing/reconsideration on behalf of Mr. Daniggelis, reinstated the case, striking & vacating her 07/10/2017 order.
12/07/2017	VACATE JUDGMENT/DISMISSAL - ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: SHELLEY DIANE M. Participant: SHELTON PAUL	Date: 07/10/2017 ** Judge Shelley also vacated her order dismissing and/or removing Paul Shelton as a defendant from the case (and, possibly, this also refers to her vacating her order dismissing the case) in her 07/10/2017 ORDER, above. So, while summary Judgment in favour of either side did not happen (keeping both sides off balance -- was that the court's intent?), nonetheless, the case is still 'alive' (in the technical sense), and there is a (theoretical) hope/possibility of justice: Justice delayed is justice denied, so we hope for justice, as Robert More might say in his "Thirst For Justice" website.
01/08/2018	EXHIBITS FILED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	* Trial Court got my notice of appeal, printed/signed copy: USPS-tracking-Notice-of-Appeal.pdf * Appeals Court got my notice of appeal, printed/signed copy, but say they're returning it, and that they now only accept filings electronically by eFile: USPS-tracking-DocketingStatement_APPEARANCE.pdf * Photographs for any doubters: PicsOfService-IMG_2018-01-08_18-49-26pm * Service by e-mail: eService-NoticeOfAppeal_STANDARDgmail_PORTRAIT_PDF.pdf The 'exhibits' are merely my Docketing Statement & Notice of Appearance, a 12-page doc on the bottom half of this combined PDF filing. "COURT-STAMPED" Notice of Appeal (which included the Notice of Appeal, Notice of Filing, an Updated and Corrected “Service List” of parties, my Request for Preparation of the Record on Appeal, my “Application for Waiver of Court Fees,” and attached Exhibits), which was 15-pages long. My "Docketing Statement and Notice of Appearance of Counsel for Appellant" was 12-pages long. The list of parties, aka litigants, at the end, provided by the court, was 2-pages long. The "cover sheet," with the Court's official stamp, was 1-page long. That was 15+12+2+1 = thirty (30) pages, total. The court was good enough to compile all this into one official court-stamped PDF file: CourtSTAMPED-NoticeOfAppeal_WATTS-and-Exhibits_2007-CH-29738-LAW-Division.pdf As it was both mailed via US Postal Service, as well as served electronically, on the Monday following the 30th day (which fell on a Saturday), the weekend rule rolls it over to Monday, and the postbox rule makes my Notice of Appeal timely. It's a good read, trust me. NOTE: If you want to cross-appeal, you have only about ten (10) days, and this train leaves the station. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED: Rule 303. Appeals from Final Judgments of the Circuit Court in Civil Cases (a) Time; Filing; Transmission of Notice of Appeal (3) If a timely notice of appeal is filed and served by a party, any other party, within 10 days after service upon him or her, or within 30 days from the entry of the judgment or order being appealed, or within 30 days of the entry of the order disposing of the last pending postjudgment motion, whichever is later, may join in the appeal, appeal separately, or cross-appeal by filing a notice of appeal, indicating which type of appeal is being taken. https://www.IllinoisCourts.gov/SupremeCourt/Rules/Art_III/ArtIII.htm
01/08/2018	NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	* Trial Court got my notice of appeal, printed/signed copy: USPS-tracking-Notice-of-Appeal.pdf * Appeals Court got my notice of appeal, printed/signed copy, but say they're returning it, and that they now only accept filings electronically by eFile: USPS-tracking-DocketingStatement_APPEARANCE.pdf * Photographs for any doubters: PicsOfService-IMG_2018-01-08_18-49-26pm * Service by e-mail: eService-NoticeOfAppeal_STANDARDgmail_PORTRAIT_PDF.pdf The Notice of Appeal is merely the 15-page doc on the top half of this combined PDF filing. "COURT-STAMPED" Notice of Appeal (which included the Notice of Appeal, Notice of Filing, an Updated and Corrected “Service List” of parties, my Request for Preparation of the Record on Appeal, my “Application for Waiver of Court Fees,” and attached Exhibits), which was 15-pages long. My "Docketing Statement and Notice of Appearance of Counsel for Appellant" was 12-pages long. The list of parties, aka litigants, at the end, provided by the court, was 2-pages long. The "cover sheet," with the Court's official stamp, was 1-page long. That was 15+12+2+1 = thirty (30) pages, total. The court was good enough to compile all this into one official court-stamped PDF file: CourtSTAMPED-NoticeOfAppeal_WATTS-and-Exhibits_2007-CH-29738-LAW-Division.pdf As it was both mailed via US Postal Service, as well as served electronically, on the Monday following the 30th day (which fell on a Saturday), the weekend rule rolls it over to Monday, and the postbox rule makes my Notice of Appeal timely. It's a good read, trust me. NOTE: If you want to cross-appeal, you have only about ten (10) days, and this train leaves the station. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED: Rule 303. Appeals from Final Judgments of the Circuit Court in Civil Cases (a) Time; Filing; Transmission of Notice of Appeal (3) If a timely notice of appeal is filed and served by a party, any other party, within 10 days after service upon him or her, or within 30 days from the entry of the judgment or order being appealed, or within 30 days of the entry of the order disposing of the last pending postjudgment motion, whichever is later, may join in the appeal, appeal separately, or cross-appeal by filing a notice of appeal, indicating which type of appeal is being taken. https://www.IllinoisCourts.gov/SupremeCourt/Rules/Art_III/ArtIII.htm
01/11/2018	Appellate Court dockets case General No.: 1-18-0091 Trial Court No.: 07CH29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Judge: APPELLATE COURT Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	Appellate court letter: "The notice of appeal has been filed and docketed as General No. 1-18-0091." * 1-18-0091_WATTS_NoticeOfAppealReceivedLetter-1st.pdf Letter * email-AppellateCourt-1stDistrictCaseNo.pdf Cover Letter Administrative Note: This appeals court no longer accepts physical copies: Returned-Postal-Mail_2018_G-W-Watts.pdf You may only eFile pleadings. Also, one of Paul Shelton's addresses is outdated, and I got two (2) returned mails here too: returned-mail-shelton.jpg and MORE-Shelton-returned-mail-2018.jpg There may be other outdated name/address information in my Service List, such as MERS-returned-mail-2018.jpg, but I am using the most current information available. ~Editor, Gordon W. Watts
01/19/2018	Fee Waiver Application General No.: 1-18-0091 Trial Court No.: 07CH29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Watts, et. al.	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	Fee Waiver App -Resent, at the request of the appeals court, once I got case number. My previous Fee Waiver (included in this docketing statement/appearance, as an exhibit) was received by the court (web-page receipt or: email receipt), but they returned it because I had not yet gotten an appellate court case number. So, I refiled it as asked: Fee Waiver Application My fee waiver app was received, and thus on time: 1-18-0091-FeeWaiver-and-DocStatment-Appearance-receipt-Email.pdf -- "Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 11:04 PM" EST, but that was really 10:04pm(CST), in Illinois Courts. ** PS: All parties were served via email too: appeal-email-landscape-GMAIL_Portrait.pdf ** appeal-email-landscape-AOL-inbox.pdf (Note to self: check with news-media-list-CHICAGO.pdf to see what, if anything, they think can be done to coerce the courts into executing justice for the weak: "Free Press Doctrine" vs. "Open Press Doctrine") * Cancel the 'Red Alert': Appeals Court finally granted my 'Rule 298' in forma pauperis (indigent) "Application for Waiver of Court Fees": * Jay Peg image: ORDER-31Jan2018_FeeWaivApp-GRANTED.jpg or: * PDF file: ORDER-31Jan2018_FeeWaivApp-GRANTED.pdf The appeal is back 'on track,' but far from finished. * What!? Today, Saturday, 10 February 2018, I got still-MORE-returned-mail-SHELTON.jpg from Paul Shelton's old postal address. However, when I was filing this (see the date: 01/19/2018), I had not yet gotten MORE-Shelton-returned-mail-2018.jpg until Tuesday, 01/30/2018, way later than the date of the 19th when I was filing this. To be fair and honest, I must admit that I had gotten MiscReturnedMail-to-GordonWayneWatts-re-Daniggelis-mortgage-fraud-case.pdf as returned mail, suggesting that the "1010 Jorie Blvd" address for Shelton was bad, but that was back in 2015, like 3 years ago, and when I saw 11-30-2017-AttyGalic_FILINGS.png, which Atty. Galic filed on 11-30-2017, I trusted that he knew something updated, but alas, my trust was misplaced. Galic, probably with good intentions, nonetheless was wrong. (But I've done the same thing, e.g., sent service copies to the wrong address just to be "on the safe side," so I won't criticise Galic, here.) ** See also: returned-mail-RHONE.jpg and: returned-mail.LaRocque.jpg and: MORE-Shelton-and-MERS-returned-mail-2018.jpg and: RETURNEDmail-UnkOwners_1720-Sedgwick.jpg
01/19/2018	Docketing Statement / Appearance General No.: 1-18-0091 Trial Court No.: 07CH29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Watts, et. al.	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	Docketing Statement/Appearance -Resent, at the request of the appeals court, once I got case number. My previous Docketing Statement/Appearance, here, was received by the court (web-page receipt or: email receipt), but they returned it because I had not yet gotten an appellate court case number. So, I refiled it as asked: Docketing Statement / Appearance My Docketing Statement/Appearance was received, and thus on time: 1-18-0091-FeeWaiver-and-DocStatment-Appearance-receipt-Email.pdf -- "Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 11:04 PM" EST, but that was really 10:04pm(CST), in Illinois Courts. ** PS: All parties were served via email too: appeal-email-landscape-GMAIL_Portrait.pdf ** appeal-email-landscape-AOL-inbox.pdf (Note to self: check with news-media-list-CHICAGO.pdf to see what, if anything, they think can be done to coerce the courts into executing justice for the weak: "Free Press Doctrine" vs. "Open Press Doctrine") * Cancel the 'Red Alert': Appeals Court finally granted my 'Rule 298' in forma pauperis (indigent) "Application for Waiver of Court Fees": * Jay Peg image: ORDER-31Jan2018_FeeWaivApp-GRANTED.jpg or: * PDF file: ORDER-31Jan2018_FeeWaivApp-GRANTED.pdf The appeal is back 'on track,' but far from finished. * What!? Today, Saturday, 10 February 2018, I got still-MORE-returned-mail-SHELTON.jpg from Paul Shelton's old postal address. However, when I was filing this (see the date: 01/19/2018), I had not yet gotten MORE-Shelton-returned-mail-2018.jpg until Tuesday, 01/30/2018, way later than the date of the 19th when I was filing this. To be fair and honest, I must admit that I had gotten MiscReturnedMail-to-GordonWayneWatts-re-Daniggelis-mortgage-fraud-case.pdf as returned mail, suggesting that the "1010 Jorie Blvd" address for Shelton was bad, but that was back in 2015, like 3 years ago, and when I saw 11-30-2017-AttyGalic_FILINGS.png, which Atty. Galic filed on 11-30-2017, I trusted that he knew something updated, but alas, my trust was misplaced. Galic, probably with good intentions, nonetheless was wrong. (But I've done the same thing, e.g., sent service copies to the wrong address just to be "on the safe side," so I won't criticise Galic, here.) ** See also: returned-mail-RHONE.jpg and: returned-mail.LaRocque.jpg and: MORE-Shelton-and-MERS-returned-mail-2018.jpg and: RETURNEDmail-UnkOwners_1720-Sedgwick.jpg
01/19/2018	Court-Stamped Fee Waiver App w/ Exhibits General No.: 1-18-0091 Trial Court No.: 07CH29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Watts, et. al.	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	This is merely a Court-Stamped copy of my Fee Waiver Application, with exhibits (Docketing Statement and Notice of Appearance of Counsel for Appellant), in one PDF document. Significance: It shows the appeals court accepted my filing & docketed it with a time-stamp bearing the court's seal. CourtStamped-1-18-0091-APPELLATE-FeeWaiverApp.pdf
01/22/2018	Fee Waiver Application Trial Court No.: 07CH29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Watts, et. al.	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	Fee Waiver App -Resent, at the request of the trial court: Dep. Chief, Patricia O'Brien, of the Civil Appeals Division, told me that I had to resubmit it because it had to be a separate filing, not a mere exhibit, as I had previously done. My Fee Waiver app for the trial court was received, and this timely: 07CH29737-LawDivision-FeeWaiver-receipt-Email.pdf -- "Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 12:36 AM" EST, but that was really "Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 11:36 PM" (CST), in Illinois Courts. What!? It was returned again, meaning this is the third (3rd) time I'm having to file my Fee Waiver Application. (Do they hate poor people, LOL?) They returned it with a 'Returned Reason' of: "Incorrect Venue," and 'Returned Comments' of: "You must file in Chancery." (Why couldn't they just forward it to the right department, as courts often do for paperwork sent to the wrong court or department?) But, as you can see, here, Odyssey eFileIL does **NOT** have 'Chancery' as an option. So, even though it's well-known that Illinois Courts can NOT legally charge a person to file an application for Fee Waiver (they're poor, hello? And THAT'S why Illinois State Law prohibits them from being charged), nonetheless, see here where I filed my application with another eFile provider. Scroll to the bottom for their temporary links to verify what I filed, and to see the $3.95 fee I was charged. ** PS: All parties were served via email too: appeal-email-landscape-GMAIL_Portrait.pdf ** appeal-email-landscape-AOL-inbox.pdf (Note to self: check with news-media-list-CHICAGO.pdf to see what, if anything, they think can be done to coerce the courts into executing justice for the weak: "Free Press Doctrine" vs. "Open Press Doctrine") Cancel the 'Red Alert': Trial Court finally accepted my filing: The 4th time was a charm: * As originally filed Friday the 19th: Fri19Jan2018-FeeWaiverApp-07CH29738-LAW-Division.pdf * As accepted and court-stamped on Monday the 22nd: STAMPED-Fri19Jan2018-FeeWaiverApp-07CH29738-LAW-Division.pdf RECAP: Yes, it took FOUR (4) times for my filing even to be accepted for review (and still not ruled upon as of now). Let's count them: (#1) I filed my 298 poverty application (for waiver of court fees) as an attachment, but Pat O'Brien said that was not the correct protocol. Then, (#2), I filed it through Odyssey eFileIL, and they said "Incorrect Venue" error. (What!? Can't they simply forward it on to the right department!?) Next, (#3), I tried filing it in the venue they requested through Odyssey eFileIL, and Odyssey eFileIL does **NOT** have 'Chancery' as an option. (Actually, I needed to file it in Law, not chancery, as the case is an appeal from Law, but they didn't even have that option.) Lastly, (#4), I used https://efile.cookcountyuscourts.com, but they charged me (which we know is illegal, since the Supreme Court rules mandate that poverty applications must not charge applicants to file. However, Odyssey, the official state eFile provider, is the only one mandated to be free. Case is back 'on track,' but far from finished.
01/22/2018	EXHIBITS FILED Trial Court No.: 07CH29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Watts, et. al.	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	Some of the exhibits in my 01/22/2018 filing above, e.g., my Fee Waiver Application.
01/22/2018	EXHIBITS FILED Trial Court No.: 07CH29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Watts, et. al.	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	More exhibits in my 01/22/2018 filing above, e.g., my Fee Waiver Application.
01/22/2018	MOTION FILED Trial Court No.: 07CH29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Watts, et. al.	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	My Fee Waiver Application, listed above, but I'm posting it in this format to be consistent with the Official Court Docket * Cached copy.
01/31/2018	REVIEWING COURT ORDER: SUE OR DEFEND AS A INDIGENT PERSON - ALLOWED General No.: 1-18-0091 Trial Court No.: 07CH29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Watts, et. al.	Judge: APPELLATE COURT Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	"IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: Application for Waiver of Court Fees is GRANTED. The applicant may participate in this appeal without payment of fees, costs, or charges." ORDER ENTERED [] JAN 31 2018 [] APPELLATE COURT, FIRST DISTRICT * Jay Peg image: ORDER-31Jan2018_FeeWaivApp-GRANTED.jpg * PDF file: ORDER-31Jan2018_FeeWaivApp-GRANTED.pdf
02/06/2018	SUE OR DEFEND AS A INDIGENT PERSON - "ALLOWED/or/DENIED" Trial Court No.: 07CH29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Watts, et. al.	Judge: FLANNERY, JAMES P. Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	The Register's editor, Gordon W. Watts, was instructed by the appeals court to check into the status of the Record on Appeal, and spoke with Civil Appeals Division Deputy Chief, Patricia A. O'Brien, and she said the holdup was lack of payment (e.g., in this case, a Fee Waiver, since appellant can't pay for the costs of preparation of the record on appeal). She instructed Mr. Watts to call Judge Flannery's office to ask them if they had received the Application for Fee Waiver, and Watts spoke with L'Chia (spelling uncertain), one of Judge Flannery's clerks, early Tuesday morning, 06 February 2018 (after she asked him to call back when the snowstorm, the previous day, caused delays). She informed him that, after a diligent search, they had finally located and received this electronically-filed motion, and that she was going to forward it on to the judge, who was going to review and rule on it that day, and mail out an order on this head. While it is not known what, if anything, happened, we are including this "ALLOWED/or/DENIED" docket entry to be ready for the receipt of the judge's order, when it arrives. Since the standards are the same for both courts, it would be contrary to "the law of the case" for the trial court to rule any differently, but we have all learned that courts are anything but predictable, with even the 9 smartest lawyers on the planet (U.S. Supreme Court Justices) often disagreeing in 5-4 split decisions, and if they disagree, what hope is there for us, mere mortals (litigants, lawyers, judges, etc.)? Time will tell... ~Editor
03/01/2018	SUE OR DEFEND AS A INDIGENT PERSON - DENIED Trial Court No.: 07CH29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Watts, et. al.	Judge: FLANNERY, JAMES P. Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	** PDF format: 2007-CH-29738-Thursday01March2018-ORDER-Rule_298-poverty-GordonWayneWatts.pdf ** TIF image format: 2007-CH-29738-Thursday01March2018-ORDER-Rule_298-poverty-GordonWayneWatts.tif ** Above file was procured through Public Records request, but the judge's chambers also mailed a copy to movant, along with a few other documents: Order-mailed-from-JudgeFlannery.jpg No legal analysis available at this time. ~~Editor
03/16/2018	NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED Trial Court No.: 07CH29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Watts, et. al.	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	Court-stamped filing, which is an appeal of the 03/01/2018 Order by Judge Flannery, denying application for fee waiver, not to be confused with the 01/08/2018 appeal of the 12/07/2017 Order by Judge Shelley, which is presently being reviewed, in case number 1-18-0091, by the ILLINOIS First Appellate Court. LEGAL ANALYSIS: Judge Flannery's order denied fee waiver on basis that Watts wasn't permitted to intervene. If true, this violates Intervention case law. If false, then Watts was a party, entitled to fee waiver. Either way, the trial court violated statutory and case law, and is subject to review on appeal and/or mandamus action. ~Editor. Tracking receipts for all three "03-16-2018" filings, filed this Friday (this one and the 2 others). Additionally, per Gmail-service-re-GMAC-v-Watts.pdf, all parties with known email addresses were served in this action.
03/16/2018	Motion for Extension of Time to file Record on Appeal General No.: 1-18-0091 Trial Court No.: 07CH29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Watts, et. al.	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	This is a court-stamped copy of the filing. Full caption: "Motion for Extension of Time to file Record on Appeal concurrent with: Judicial Notice of Address changes –and: Motion to Expedite, and Motion for Mandamus Writ compelling compliance with the law" The clerk notified appellant that: "Filing Accepted for Case: 1-18-0091; GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. Watts, Gordon Wayne; Envelope Number: 725387" NOTES: Mot Ext ext time & current motions for brevity & judicial economy, and mandamus petition placed in motion (instead of separate case), for simplicity, as this is an ongoing case. Exhibits, as follows: ** Exhibit-A1 ** Exhibit-A2 ** Exhibit-B ** Exhibit-C ** Exhibit-D ** Exhibit-E ** Exhibit-F ** Exhibit-G ** Exhibit-H ** Tracking receipts for all three "03-16-2018" filings, filed this Friday (this one and the 2 others). Additionally, per Gmail-service-re-GMAC-v-Watts.pdf, all parties with known email addresses were served in this action.
03/16/2018	Petition for Writ of Mandamus General No.: 1-18-____ (n/a as yet) Trial Court No.: 07CH29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Watts, et. al.	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	This is a not a court-stamped copy of the filing, as the filing was not accepted by the clerk. The clerk notified appellant that: " Returned Reason   |   Incorrect Venue Returned Comments   |   The Illinois Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over mandamus petitions" LEGAL ANALYSIS: The clerk apparently didn't read the filing comments made by appellant that: "Petition for a Writ of Mandamus. Yes, appellate courts have original jurisdiction under Art. VI, sec. 6, Illinois Constitution." Exhibits, as follows: ** Exhibit-A1 ** Exhibit-A2 ** Exhibit-B ** Exhibit-C ** Exhibit-D ** Exhibit-E ** Exhibit-F ** Exhibit-G ** Exhibit-H ** Tracking receipts for all three "03-16-2018" filings, filed this Friday (this one and the 2 others). Additionally, per Gmail-service-re-GMAC-v-Watts.pdf, all parties with known email addresses were served in this action.
03/19/2018	Petition for Writ of Mandamus General No.: 1-18-0538 Trial Court No.: 07CH29738 LAW DIVISION Gordon Wayne Watts, Plaintiff vs. Hon. James P. Flannery, in his capacity as presiding judge, Law Division, Cook County, IL circuit court and Hon. Diane M. Shelley, in her capacity as circuit judge, Law Division, Cook County, IL circuit court, Defendants.	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	This is a court-stamped copy of the filing, as the filing was finally accepted by the clerk. The clerk notified appellant that: "Filing Accepted The filing below was reviewed and has been accepted by the clerk's office. You may access the file stamped copy of the document filed by clicking on the below link." Exhibits, as follows: ** Exhibit-A1 ** Exhibit-A2 ** Exhibit-B ** Exhibit-C ** Exhibit-D ** Exhibit-E ** Exhibit-F ** Exhibit-G ** Exhibit-H ** Exhibit-I ** Exhibit-J ** Additionally, per Gmail-service-re-GMAC-v-Watts.pdf, all parties with known email addresses were served in this action.
03/22/2018	Appellate Court dockets case General No.: 1-18-0572 Trial Court No.: 07CR29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC MORTGAGE v. GORDON WAYNE WATTS	Judge: APPELLATE COURT Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	Appellate court letter: "The notice of appeal has been filed and docketed as General No. 1-18-0572." * 1-18-0572_WATTS_NoticeOfAppealReceivedLetter-1st.pdf Letter This is the notice of appeal of the ORDER by presiding Judge, James P. Flannery, a denial of Intervention, Fee Waiver, and Preparation of the Record on Appeal. The appeals court appears to have made a Scrivener's (typo) error, in citing to trial number: "07CR29738" This is the 1st of 3 actions (Notice of appeal, coming up vertically to the appeals court), in addition to the "collateral" attack of a Mandamus petition, and a "frontal" attack on the bad judgment by the separate and distinct mandamus motion,, bundled concurrently with the motion to extend time above. Big Headache: The trial judges should have simply obeyed the LAW, as their name ("LAW" Division) implies, and that would have reduced legal paperwork headache by several Orders of Magnitude.
03/28/2018	REVIEWING COURT ORDER: Motion to Extend Time to file Record on Appeal - ALLOWED General No.: 1-18-0091 Trial Court No.: 07CH29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Watts, et. al.	Judge: APPELLATE COURT Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	"IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the time for filing the Record on Appeal is extended to June 12, 2018. Appellant must direct inquiries on the content of [the] record on appeal to [the] Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County." ORDER ENTERED [] MAR 28 2018 [] APPELLATE COURT, FIRST DISTRICT * Microsoft Word document: ORDER-1-18-0091-MotExtTime_GRANTED.doc * PDF file: ORDER-1-18-0091-MotExtTime_GRANTED.pdf
03/28/2018	Fee Waiver Application General No.: 1-18-0572 Trial Court No.: 07CR29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC MORTGAGE v. GORDON WAYNE WATTS	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	"Lead" document: Fee Waiver Application Exhibits, as follows: ** Docketing Statement / Appearance ** Exhibit-A1 ** Exhibit-A2 ** Exhibit-B ** Exhibit-C ** Exhibit-D ** Exhibit-E ** Exhibit-F ** Exhibit-G ** Exhibit-H ** Exhibit-I ** Exhibit-J ** Exhibit-K (see Page 27 of 27 of Docketing Statement for inline image of Exhibit-K) ** ** 1-18-0572-GMAC-v-WATTS_USPS-receipts.pdf (USPS service receipts) ** Additionally, per Gmail-service-re-GMAC-v-Watts.pdf, all parties with known email addresses were served in this action. NOTE TO SELF: Update last-known "Service List" with Atty. Richard Indyke's (Atty No.: 20584) current service address, as he just now requested me via email. While he apparently doesn't represent anyone in the appellate case, they still remain parties unless excused by the court and/or unless he is excused as their lawyer. Just to be safe, I will keep him in the service list (unless excused by the court), and hope that it is not an inconvenience if some of the filings are not relevant to his current situation. ~Editor
04/04/2018	REVIEWING COURT ORDER: SUE OR DEFEND AS A INDIGENT PERSON - ALLOWED General No.: 1-18-0572 Trial Court No.: 07CR29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC MORTGAGE v. GORDON WAYNE WATTS	Judge: APPELLATE COURT Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	"IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: Application for Waiver of Court Fees is GRANTED. The applicant may participate in this appeal without payment of fees, costs, or charges." ORDER ENTERED [] APR 04 2018 [] APPELLATE COURT, FIRST DISTRICT * Jay Peg image: ORDER-04Apr2018_FeeWaivApp-GRANTED.jpg * PDF file: ORDER-04Apr2018_FeeWaivApp-GRANTED.pdf
04/20/2018	NOTICE OF REPORT OF RECORDS OF PROCEEDINGS FILED Trial Court No.: 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC MORTGAGE v. GORDON WAYNE WATTS	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	* E.g., Motion for Clarification concurrent with Rule 321 motion to limit Contents of the Record on Appeal: In the exercise of the reviewing Court's appellate authority, the Appellate Court, First District, has entered an order, in GMAC v. Watts, 1-18-0091, that: “Appellant must direct inquiries on the content of the record on appeal to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County.” * ORDER ENTERED MAR 28 2018, Appellate Court, First District. * So be it: On remand, this motion is filed to comply with said order. All parties were served by U.S. Postal Mail -and, also served by e-mail if possible, pursuant to to Rule 11(c): "If service is made by e-mail, the documents may be transmitted via attachment or by providing a link within the body of the e-mail that will allow the party to download the document through a reliable service provider." They were also served via electronic filing --if e-registered: See e.g., the court-stamp on the filings. Lastly, they are being served via this online docket, with free downloads of the key filings. "NOTICE OF REPORT OF RECORDS OF PROCEEDINGS FILED": I.e., I gave the circuit court notice of the report of the proceedings in the appeals court, namely the order that came down on this point.
04/20/2018	Motion for Summary Judgment General No.: 1-18-0572 Trial Court No.: 07CR29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC MORTGAGE v. GORDON WAYNE WATTS	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	* Motion for summary judgment; self-explanatory. All parties were served by U.S. Postal Mail -and, also served by e-mail if possible, pursuant to to Rule 11(c): "If service is made by e-mail, the documents may be transmitted via attachment or by providing a link within the body of the e-mail that will allow the party to download the document through a reliable service provider." They were also served via electronic filing --if e-registered: See e.g., the court-stamp on the filings. Lastly, they are being served via this online docket, with free downloads of the key filings.
04/20/2018	Affidavit of Assets & Liabilities No.: 123481 ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	* COURT-STAMPED copy: Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities -- with the required: "Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis" All parties were served by U.S. Postal Mail -and, also served by e-mail if possible, pursuant to to Rule 11(c): "If service is made by e-mail, the documents may be transmitted via attachment or by providing a link within the body of the e-mail that will allow the party to download the document through a reliable service provider." They were also served via electronic filing --if e-registered: See e.g., the court-stamp on the filings. Lastly, they are being served via this online docket, with free downloads of the key filings.
04/20/2018	Motion for Supervisory Orders, Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 383 No.: 123481 ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	* COURT-STAMPED copy: Motion for Supervisory Orders, Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 383 -- with exhibits. *** CAVEAT: This is a large PDF file (20.5 MB), as the Supreme Court rules require all exhibits to be filed as one PDF file. All parties were served by U.S. Postal Mail -and, also served by e-mail if possible, pursuant to to Rule 11(c): "If service is made by e-mail, the documents may be transmitted via attachment or by providing a link within the body of the e-mail that will allow the party to download the document through a reliable service provider." They were also served via electronic filing --if e-registered: See e.g., the court-stamp on the filings. Lastly, they are being served via this online docket, with free downloads of the key filings.
05/01/2018	SUPREME COURT ORDER: Motion to proceed in forma pauperis - ALLOWED No.: 123481 ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT	Judge: SUPREME COURT Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	"In re: Watts v. Flannery 123481 Today the following order was entered in the captioned case: Motion by Movant, pro se, for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Allowed. Order entered by Justice Theis."
05/02/2018	APPEARANCE E-FILED General No.: 1-18-0091 Trial Court No.: 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC v. GORDON WAYNE WATTS, ET. AL.	Attorney: Rosa M. Tumialán, Esq. Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC	*** Court-stamped Notice of Appearance, of GMAC, which was e-filed by Atty. Rosa M. Tumialán, giving notice that she, and Atty. Dawn Williams, of the DYKEMA GOSSETT, PLLC law firm, have entered an appearance for Plaintiff/Appellee, GMAC. Editor's Note: There are three (3) typographical errors in their filing: * (1.) While Judge Flannery is the presiding judge of the Law Division, Judge Shelley is, technically, still the presiding judge of this case, 1-18-0091, since it is her order that is being appealed. (By contrast, Judge Flannery's order is the one under appeal in 1-18-0572, the sister case.) * (2.) The notice of filing lists my zip code as '3380' ; however, it is actually '33801'. * (3.) They only served me, even tho they admit, in their case style that many other parties of record exist! This is an egregious error, which many attorney commonly do, and --no disrespect meant to this law firm or these lawyers --but, this is a dereliction and abdication of the most basic of duties to serve all the parties of record! See e.g., Rules 11, 12, 381, and 383, particularly the following: Rule 11. Manner of Serving Documents Other Than Process and Complaint on Parties Not in Default in the Trial and Reviewing Courts (a) On Whom Made. If a party is represented by an attorney of record, service shall be made upon the attorney. Otherwise service shall be made upon the party. Editor's Note - UPDATE: I now have available images to show that, while DYKEMA flaunted the rules in re service to all parties, nonetheless, I credit them for serving me both via e-filing and via U.S. Postal Mail: Wed02AMay2018_1-18-0091_GMAC_NoticeOfAppearance.pdf (17 KB file size, e-filed, and text-searchable *.PDF file) DYKEMA-HardCopy_Wed02AMay2018_1-18-0091_GMAC_NoticeOfAppearance.doc (355 KB file size, hard copy, "image-type" Microsoft Word *.doc document) DYKEMA-HardCopy_Wed02AMay2018_1-18-0091_GMAC_NoticeOfAppearance.pdf(1.833 MB file size, hard copy, "image-type" *.PDF file)
05/03/2018	REVIEWING COURT ORDER: Appellate Ct. lacks appellate jurisdiction over circuit court General No.: 1-18-0572 Trial Court No.: 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC v. GORDON WAYNE WATTS, ET. AL.	Judge: APPELLATE COURT Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	"IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT This court has no jurisdiction to order the Cir. Ct. to allow Watts leave to intervene, grant a fee waiver, or to prepare the record on appeal & transmit to App. Ct. in this matter (1-18-0572). Motion denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Justice Daniel J. Pierce"
05/09/2018	SUPREME COURT ORDER: Motion for supervisory order - DENIED No.: 123481 ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT	Judge: SUPREME COURT Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	"In re: Watts v. Flannery 123481 Today the following order was entered in the captioned case: Motion by Movant, pro se, for a supervisory order. Denied. Order entered by the Court."
07/18/2018	Motion for Clarification General No.: 1-18-0091 Trial Court No.: 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC v. GORDON WAYNE WATTS, ET. AL.	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	* E-FILED with court-stamp. * Resubmitted by request of clerk-time, and received on time, nunc pro tunc, on 7-17-2018: Exhibit-P. * Editor's Note: Very embarrassing and serious documented allegations are made about many (if not all) of the attorneys in this case refusing to comply with or obey the most basic Rule 11(a) service requirements. If you are a party or attorney, you might want to take a look. ** Also, one judge is taken to task -- politely, but firmly -- about the craziest ruling to ever have issued from an ILLINOIS state court. *** PROOF of SERVICE -- All parties were served this filing in these ways: * 1. e-Filing * 2. U.S. Postal Mail * 3. via this online docket * 4. by e-mail pursuant to to Rule 11(c): "If service is made by e-mail, the documents may be transmitted via attachment or by providing a link within the body of the e-mail that will allow the party to download the document through a reliable service provider." Editor's Note: Hey, at least I comply with the Rule 11(a) service requirements, even if nobody else does.
07/18/2018	Motion for Extension of Time to file Record on Appeal General No.: 1-18-0091 Trial Court No.: 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC v. GORDON WAYNE WATTS, ET. AL.	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	* E-FILED with court-stamp. * Resubmitted by request of clerk-time, and received on time, nunc pro tunc, on 7-17-2018: Exhibit-P. *** PROOF of SERVICE -- All parties were served this filing in these ways: * 1. e-Filing * 2. U.S. Postal Mail * 3. via this online docket * 4. by e-mail pursuant to to Rule 11(c): "If service is made by e-mail, the documents may be transmitted via attachment or by providing a link within the body of the e-mail that will allow the party to download the document through a reliable service provider." Editor's Note: Hey, at least I comply with the Rule 11(a) service requirements, even if nobody else does.
07/19/2018	Motion to reconsider denial of Motion by Movant, pro se, for a Supervisory Order, Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 383 No.: 123481 ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	* E-FILED with court-stamp. * Editor's Note: Very embarrassing and serious documented allegations are made about many (if not all) of the attorneys in this case refusing to comply with or obey the most basic Rule 11(a) service requirements. If you are a party or attorney, you might want to take a look. ** Also, one judge is taken to task -- politely, but firmly -- about the craziest ruling to ever have issued from an ILLINOIS state court. *** PROOF of SERVICE -- All parties were served this filing in these ways: * 1. e-Filing * 2. U.S. Postal Mail * 3. via this online docket * 4. by e-mail pursuant to to Rule 11(c): "If service is made by e-mail, the documents may be transmitted via attachment or by providing a link within the body of the e-mail that will allow the party to download the document through a reliable service provider." Editor's Note: Hey, at least I comply with the Rule 11(a) service requirements, even if nobody else does.
07/20/2018	Judicial Notice of request of clerk for corrections – and corrections as requested No.: 123481 ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	* The Court requested an Amended Cert. of Service, and R.328 Affidavit. Done! * E-FILED with court-stamp. *** PROOF of SERVICE -- All parties were served this filing in these ways: * 1. e-Filing * 2. U.S. Postal Mail * 3. via this online docket * 4. by e-mail pursuant to to Rule 11(c): "If service is made by e-mail, the documents may be transmitted via attachment or by providing a link within the body of the e-mail that will allow the party to download the document through a reliable service provider." Editor's Note: Hey, at least I comply with the Rule 11(a) service requirements, even if nobody else does.
07/25/2018	REVIEWING COURT ORDER: Motion to Extend Time to file Record on Appeal - ALLOWED General No.: 1-18-0091 Trial Court No.: 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC v. GORDON WAYNE WATTS, ET. AL.	Judge: APPELLATE COURT Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	"IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the time for filing the Record on Appeal is extended to October 17, 2018." ORDER ENTERED [] JUL 25 2018 [] APPELLATE COURT, FIRST DISTRICT
08/02/2018	SUPREME COURT ORDER: Motion for reconsideration - DENIED No.: 123481 ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT	Judge: SUPREME COURT Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	"In re: Watts v. Flannery 123481 Today the following order was entered in the captioned case: Motion by Movant, pro se, for reconsideration of denial of motion for a supervisory order. Denied. Order entered by the Court."
08/28/2018	REVIEWING COURT ORDER: Dismissed for want of prosecution General No.: 1-18-0572 Trial Court No.: 07CH29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC v. GORDON WAYNE WATTS, ET. AL.	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	"This cause having come before the Court on the Court's own motion, the Court finding that the appellant has failed to file the Record on Appeal with the time prescribed by Supreme Court Rule 326: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. ORDER ENTERED [] AUG 28 2018 [] APPELLATE COURT, FIRST DISTRICT Enter: /s/ Justice Daniel J. Pierce /s/ Justice Mary L. Mikva /s/ Justice John C. Griffin
09/28/2018	REVIEWING COURT ORDER: Appellate Ct. lacks appellate jurisdiction over circuit court General No.: 1-18-0538 Trial Court No.: 07CH29738 LAW DIVISION Gordon Wayne Watts, Plaintiff vs. Hon. James P. Flannery, in his capacity as presiding judge, Law Division, Cook County, IL circuit court and Hon. Diane M. Shelley, in her capacity as circuit judge, Law Division, Cook County, IL circuit court, Defendants.	Judge: APPELLATE COURT Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	"This cause coming on to be heard on the Court's Own Motion, and the Court being advised in the premises; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this Cause is DISMISSED for lack of this Court's jurisdiction. ORDER ENTERED [] SEP 28 2018 [] APPELLATE COURT, FIRST DISTRICT Enter: /s/ Justice Mary Anne Mason /s/ Justice Terrence J. Lavin /s/ Justice Michael B. Hyman
10/17/2018	Motion – En Banc – for Extension of Time to file Record on Appeal General No.: 1-18-0091 Trial Court No.: 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC v. GORDON WAYNE WATTS, ET. AL.	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	(This matter comes before the Court on motion of Movant for extension of time to file the Record on Appeal.) This motion, to extend time, unlike the others, is actually not late, that is, it did not bleed over into the 35-day grace period. While that does not guarantee any outcome (the courts are doing some very weird stuff, as these filings shockingly document), it is best to be on time, and show courtesy, honour, and respect to the court, especially when you are asking them for more time, and then turn around and accuse them of being the major cause for the delay in preparation of the record on appeal (by refusing to, for example, grant Fee Waiver & Intervention to qualified parties and/or issue a R.321 Order, limiting the record's size to an affordable record, not many thousands of dollars that "price out" poor litigants). P.S.: I "drop a big name" to grab the court's attention, the fellow who almost won the Terri Schiavo case **all by himself**... Who could that be?..~Editor *** PROOF of SERVICE -- All parties were served this filing in these ways: * 1. e-Filing * 2. U.S. Postal Mail (Not. -- Not this time. See e.g., the Cert. of Service for details and Rule 11 to confirm.) * 3. via this online docket * 4. by e-mail pursuant to to Rule 11(c): "If service is made by e-mail, the documents may be transmitted via attachment or by providing a link within the body of the e-mail that will allow the party to download the document through a reliable service provider." Editor's Note: Hey, at least I comply with the Rule 11(a) service requirements, even if nobody else does.
10/17/2018	Motion – En Banc – for Reconsideration of Dismissal for Want of Prosecution General No.: 1-18-0572 Trial Court No.: 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC v. GORDON WAYNE WATTS, ET. AL.	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	[[This matter comes before the Court on motion of Movant for Reconsideration of Dismissal for Want of Prosecution of the 08/28/2018 Order entered by This Court (Hon. Daniel J. Pierce, Hon. Mary L. Mikva, Hon. John C. Griffin, JUSTICES, for The Court).]] This case was dismissed for lack of prosecution, but as this brief informs the Court, it's a "catch-22" Gotch!... Can't do the Record without winning said appeal, but can't even get review of appeal without Record, hello? But, on page 3, I "drop a big name" to grab the court's attention, the fellow who almost won the Terri Schiavo case **all by himself**... Who could that be?..~Editor *** PROOF of SERVICE -- All parties were served this filing in these ways: * 1. e-Filing * 2. U.S. Postal Mail (Not. -- Not this time. See e.g., the Cert. of Service for details and Rule 11 to confirm.) * 3. via this online docket * 4. by e-mail pursuant to to Rule 11(c): "If service is made by e-mail, the documents may be transmitted via attachment or by providing a link within the body of the e-mail that will allow the party to download the document through a reliable service provider." Editor's Note: Hey, at least I comply with the Rule 11(a) service requirements, even if nobody else does.
10/17/2018	Motion – En Banc – for Reconsideration of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction General No.: 1-18-0538 Trial Court No.: 07CH29738 LAW DIVISION Gordon Wayne Watts, Plaintiff vs. Hon. James P. Flannery, in his capacity as presiding judge, Law Division, Cook County, IL circuit court and Hon. Diane M. Shelley, in her capacity as circuit judge, Law Division, Cook County, IL circuit court, Defendants.	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	This matter comes before the Court on motion of Movant for Reconsideration of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction of the 09/28/2018 Order entered by This Court (Hon. Mary Anne Mason, Hon. Terrence J. Lavin, and Hon. Michael B. Hyman, JUSTICES, for The Court). Summary of Argument: This Court committed Gross Error in this holding, which is obvious when compared with Gassman v. THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY (1-15-1738) and Midwest Medical v. Dorothy Brown (1-16-3230), both of which are examples of This Court having the authority to issue Mandamus Writs, as Art.6, Sec. 6 of the ILLINOIS CONSTITUTION (sentence 3) clearly says: “The Appellate Court may exercise original jurisdiction when necessary to the complete determination of any case on review,” which, of course, includes Mandamus actions. The Gross Error justifies En Banc treatment of this motion, so as to offer a check & balance against legal discord. P.S.: On page 2 -- and just for fun -- I "drop a big name" to grab the court's attention, the fellow who almost won the Terri Schiavo case **all by himself**... Who could that be?..~Editor *** PROOF of SERVICE -- All parties were served this filing in these ways: * 1. e-Filing * 2. U.S. Postal Mail (Not. -- Not this time. See e.g., the Cert. of Service for details and Rule 11 to confirm.) * 3. via this online docket * 4. by e-mail pursuant to to Rule 11(c): "If service is made by e-mail, the documents may be transmitted via attachment or by providing a link within the body of the e-mail that will allow the party to download the document through a reliable service provider." Editor's Note: Hey, at least I comply with the Rule 11(a) service requirements, even if nobody else does.
10/19/2018	Motion – En Banc – for Leave to file a Motion for Reconsideration “Out of Time” General No.: 1-18-0572 Trial Court No.: 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC v. GORDON WAYNE WATTS, ET. AL.	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	[[This matter comes before the Court on motion of Movant for leave to file out of time his 10/17/2018 motion for reconsideration of the Dismissal for Want of Prosecution of the 08/28/2018 Order entered by This Court (Hon. Daniel J. Pierce, Hon. Mary L. Mikva, Hon. John C. Griffin, JUSTICES, for The Court).]] This case was dismissed for lack of prosecution, but as the 10/17/2018 brief informs the Court, it's a "catch-22" Gotcha!... Can't do the Record without winning said appeal, but can't even get review of appeal without Record, hello? But, on page 3, I "drop a big name" to grab the court's attention, the fellow who almost won the Terri Schiavo case **all by himself**... Who could that be?..~Editor *** PROOF of SERVICE -- All parties were served this filing in these ways: * 1. e-Filing * 2. U.S. Postal Mail (Not. -- Not this time. See e.g., the Cert. of Service for details and Rule 11 to confirm.) * 3. via this online docket * 4. by e-mail pursuant to to Rule 11(c): "If service is made by e-mail, the documents may be transmitted via attachment or by providing a link within the body of the e-mail that will allow the party to download the document through a reliable service provider." Editor's Note: Hey, at least I comply with the Rule 11(a) service requirements, even if nobody else does.
10/25/2018	REVIEWING COURT ORDER: Motion to Extend Time to file Record on Appeal - ALLOWED General No.: 1-18-0091 Trial Court No.: 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC v. GORDON WAYNE WATTS, ET. AL.	Judge: APPELLATE COURT Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	"This matter coming on to be heard on the motion of defendant-appellant Gordon Wayne Watts for extension of time to file the record on appeal, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: The motion for extension of time is GRANTED, with the record to be filed on or before February 28, 2019. Any further request for extension must be supported by affidavit showing that Appellant complied with prior orders of this court, including the order of March 28, 2018, that "Appellant must direct inquiries on the content of [the] record on appeal to [the] clerk of the circuit court of Cook County." ORDER ENTERED [] OCT 25 2018 [] APPELLATE COURT, FIRST DISTRICT Enter: /s/ Justice Mary L. Mikva /s/ Justice Daniel J. Pierce /s/ Justice John C. Griffin
11/05/2018	REVIEWING COURT ORDER: Motion for reconsideration - DENIED General No.: 1-18-0572 Trial Court No.: 07CH29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC v. GORDON WAYNE WATTS, ET. AL.	Judge: APPELLATE COURT Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	"This matter coming on to be heard on the motion of Movant, Gordon Wayne Watts, for extension of time, and, notice having been given, and the Court being fully advised in the premises: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: appellant's motion for leave to file an untimely Motion for Reconsideration of this Court's 08/28/2018 Order is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. ORDER ENTERED [] NOV 05 2018 [] APPELLATE COURT, FIRST DISTRICT Enter: /s/ Justice Mary L. Mikva /s/ Justice Daniel J. Pierce /s/ Justice John C. Griffin
11/28/2018	APPELLATE COURT MANDATE - APPEAL DISMISSED General No.: 1-18-0572 Trial Court No.: 07CH29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC v. GORDON WAYNE WATTS, ET. AL.	Judge: APPELLATE COURT Participant: DANIGGELIS, RICHARD B., et. al.	History: This was an appeal of the denial of Fee Waiver. The appeals court initially required me to file the ENTIRE "Record on Appeal," a clear violation of my Federal (Procedural) Due Process rights to have access to an appeals court, as this was insanely unreasonable a cost for a simple fee waiver issue. Then, the court, in its 08/28/2018 order, dismissed for want (lack) of prosecution. No, I did not lack in this area, but rather, the court was the one who chose not to hear the appeal of my indigent fee waiver denial. Somewhere along the way, I was late in filing my notice of appeal, as I think Illinois courts may have a slightly different time-table, but, in any event, my Federal Due Process was denied me, as I document in my Rule 321 Motion to the Law Division to compile a limited Record on Appeal, and as alluded to in my motion for an extension of time to do so, to the appeals court. Then, of course, based on the bad ruling falsely claiming I failed to prosecute the case, the court issued a mandate, dismissing it. Note to self: If this is seen by a Federal Court: The mandate was not on solid legal grounds, so it, itself, is suspect for Due Process violations.~Editor
11/29/2018	REVIEWING COURT ORDER: Appellate Ct. stands by its decision that it lacks jurisdiction General No.: 1-18-0538 Trial Court No.: 07CH29738 LAW DIVISION Gordon Wayne Watts, Plaintiff vs. Hon. James P. Flannery, in his capacity as presiding judge, Law Division, Cook County, IL circuit court and Hon. Diane M. Shelley, in her capacity as circuit judge, Law Division, Cook County, IL circuit court, Defendants.	Judge: APPELLATE COURT Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	"ORDER This matter coming on to be heard on the motions of Petition-Intervenor, Gordon Wayne Watts, (i) for reconsideration of this court's order dismissing this appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and (ii) for an extension of time to file the record on appeal, the court being advised in the premises, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration is DENIED and the motion for extension of time is moot. ORDER ENTERED [] NOV 29 2018 [] APPELLATE COURT, FIRST DISTRICT Enter: /s/ Justice Mary Anne Mason /s/ Justice Terrence J. Lavin /s/ Justice Michael B. Hyman
02/27/2019	MOTION FILED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: WATTS GORDON	Rule 321 motion to limit Contents of the Record on Appeal The appeals court asked me to direct inquiries on the content of the record on appeal to the circuit court, and so I did. However, look closely: I raise FEDERAL issues, so the reader is encouraged to brush up on "Long Arm" Jurisdiction, the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, and related issues, like comity and Younger Abstention, with an emphasis on State vs. Federal Procedural Due Process Civil Rights violations: The state court wasn't doing their job, and as a favour to the hard-working Justices on the appellate court, I gave the circuit court "a little more" incentive to prepare them the record on appeal. HERE is but one excerpt: “In refusing to rule on the 4/20/18 motion, supra, This Court, effectively disobeyed the appeals court, since the appeals court clearly did not ask defendant, Watts, to file a motion with the intent that it get ignored, violating Federal Procedural Due Process, as well (not to mention something that gives This Court a bad name) ... In preventing appellant an opportunity to appeal the actions of the circuit court, both the Illinois circuit and appellate State judges are not protected by Federal Judicial Immunity under the highest FEDERAL standards: “A judge thus remains unquestionably immune as long as he does not take actions that intentionally and plainly prevent further review. The duty imposed on a state-court judge, then, is only to recognize that his own decisions may sometimes be in error and to ensure that orders affecting important constitutional rights can be reviewed in another court.” ["JUDICIAL IMMUNITY VS. DUE PROCESS: WHEN SHOULD A JUDGE BE SUBJECT TO SUIT?," by Robert Craig Waters, page 473, par.3, cl.4—5, Cato Journal, Vol.7, No.2 (Fall 1987). Copyright © Cato Institute. All rights reserved. The author is Judicial Clerk to Justice Rosemary Barkett of the Florida Supreme Court. Emphasis added in bold, underline, italics, for clarity; not in original.] NOTE: This filing had a lot of 'exhibits,' but they are all included in the main motion, here, as they were all pretty small in file size. *** PROOF of SERVICE -- All parties were served this filing in these ways: * 1. e-Filing (note court-stamp) * 2. U.S. Postal Mail (Not. -- Not this time. See e.g., the Cert. of Service for details and Rule 11 to confirm.) * 3. via this online docket * 4. by e-mail pursuant to to Rule 11(c): "If service is made by e-mail, the documents may be transmitted via attachment or by providing a link within the body of the e-mail that will allow the party to download the document through a reliable service provider." Editor's Note: Hey, at least I comply with the Rule 11(a) service requirements, even if nobody else does. *** UPDATE: I got three (3) responses, two of whom asked me to remove them from my service list, one news media/blogger and one lawyer of record; and, one defendant had commentary. Here is my reply, along with an email attachment, giving updated information on which service emails were outdated or otherwise bad: GMAIL_Redux_GMAC-v-Watts_PDF.pdf ** Returned_emails_scratched-off_PDF.pdf
02/27/2019	MOTION FILED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	Rule 321 motion to limit Contents of the Record on Appeal Duplicate filing LOL... I got confused on which division (Law or Chancery?) needed to review my R.321 motion to limit (and prepare) the record on appeal. The filing date is the same, but the time stamp (and comments in the upper-left corner, regarding hearing date) is different. As this is a duplicate of the filing above, you need only read one or the other, but not both. Normally, duplicate filings are a bureaucratic red-tape headache, which we discourage, but as there were VERY serious State AND Federal Civil Rights violations documented within the "4 corners" of these briefs, it bears repeating, so I'll let it slide this one time (and hopes the court does too). NOTE: This filing had a lot of 'exhibits,' but they are all included in the main motion, here, as they were all pretty small in file size. *** PROOF of SERVICE -- All parties were served this filing in these ways: * 1. e-Filing (note court-stamp) * 2. U.S. Postal Mail (Not. -- Not this time. See e.g., the Cert. of Service for details and Rule 11 to confirm.) * 3. via this online docket * 4. by e-mail pursuant to to Rule 11(c): "If service is made by e-mail, the documents may be transmitted via attachment or by providing a link within the body of the e-mail that will allow the party to download the document through a reliable service provider." Editor's Note: Hey, at least I comply with the Rule 11(a) service requirements, even if nobody else does. *** UPDATE: I got three (3) responses, two of whom asked me to remove them from my service list, one news media/blogger and one lawyer of record; and, one defendant had commentary. Here is my reply, along with an email attachment, giving updated information on which service emails were outdated or otherwise bad: GMAIL_Redux_GMAC-v-Watts_PDF.pdf ** Returned_emails_scratched-off_PDF.pdf
02/28/2019	Motion – En Banc – for Extension of Time to file Record on Appeal General No.: 1-18-0091 Trial Court No.: 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC v. GORDON WAYNE WATTS, ET. AL.	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	There were exhibits filed with this motion, which I don't think I can fit into an email attachment, so, per Rule 11, I am posting a link to them, here: ** Envelope Number 4091689 Filing SUBMITTED ** Ex-A ** ** Envelope Number 4091689 Filing Accepted ** Ex-B ** ** Envelope Number 4091689 FILING PROPER ** Ex-C ** ** Envelope Number 4092052 Filing SUBMITTED ** Ex-D ** ** Envelope Number 4092052 Filing Accepted ** Ex-E ** ** Envelope Number 4092052 FILING PROPER ** Ex-F ** ** Service by e-mail 10-19-2018 ** Ex-G ** ** GMAC v WATTS Fri. 20 July 2018 Proof of Service (U.S. Postal Mail) ** Ex-H ** *** PROOF of SERVICE -- All parties were served this filing in these ways: * 1. e-Filing (note court-stamp) * 2. U.S. Postal Mail (Not. -- Not this time. See e.g., the Cert. of Service for details and Rule 11 to confirm.) * 3. via this online docket * 4. by e-mail pursuant to to Rule 11(c): "If service is made by e-mail, the documents may be transmitted via attachment or by providing a link within the body of the e-mail that will allow the party to download the document through a reliable service provider." Editor's Note: Hey, at least I comply with the Rule 11(a) service requirements, even if nobody else does. *** UPDATE: I got three (3) responses, two of whom asked me to remove them from my service list, one news media/blogger and one lawyer of record; and, one defendant had commentary. Here is my reply, along with an email attachment, giving updated information on which service emails were outdated or otherwise bad: GMAIL_Redux_GMAC-v-Watts_PDF.pdf ** Returned_emails_scratched-off_PDF.pdf
03/08/2019	REVIEWING COURT ORDER: Motion to Extend Time to file Record on Appeal - ALLOWED General No.: 1-18-0091 Trial Court No.: 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC v. GORDON WAYNE WATTS, ET. AL.	Judge: APPELLATE COURT Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	ORDER This cause coming to be heard on defendant-appellant Gordon Wayne Watts's fourth motion to extend time to file the record on appeal; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: the motion for extension of time is GRANTED, with the record to be filed on or before May 28, 2019. Appellant's request that this case be placed on accelerated docket is DENIED. Appellant is advised that this court cannot issue an order determining the contents of the record to be provided by the circuit court. All issues regarding the record must be addressed with the circuit court. This is the FINAL EXTENSION that will be allowed for filing the record. If the record is not filed by May 28, 2019, this appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution. ORDER ENTERED [] MAR 08 2019 [] APPELLATE COURT, FIRST DISTRICT Enter: /s/ Justice Mary L. Mikva /s/ Justice John C. Griffin /s/ Justice Carl Anthony Walker [Editor's Note: ?Uncertain handwriting? See e.g., http://www.IllinoisCourts.gov/AppellateCourt/Judges/Bio_1st.asp for your own review. UPDATE: I got a 2nd copy of this order, actually, the 1st copy (sent on Fri 08 Mar 2019), and the 1st one to arrive was the 2nd one sent (mailed on Tue 12 Mar 2019). As you can see, the copy mailed on the 12th arrived to me on Fri. 15 Mar 2019, three (3) days later, but the 1st copy (sent on Fri 08 Mar 2019) arrived on Tue 26 Mar 2019, eighteen (18) days later. The slow mail was probably due to two (2) factors: First, they misspelled my old address, "Alicia" as "ALICE," and secondly, I moved, and had to endure mail-forwarding delays.]
03/12/2019	NOTICE of change of ADDRESS 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	NOTICE of change of ADDRESS *** PROOF of SERVICE -- All parties were served this filing in these ways: * 1. e-Filing (note court-stamp) * 2. U.S. Postal Mail (Not. -- Not this time. See e.g., the Cert. of Service for details and Rule 11 to confirm.) * 3. via this online docket * 4. by e-mail pursuant to to Rule 11(c): "If service is made by e-mail, the documents may be transmitted via attachment or by providing a link within the body of the e-mail that will allow the party to download the document through a reliable service provider." Editor's Note: Hey, at least I comply with the Rule 11(a) service requirements, even if nobody else does. Receipt showing I filed this: Gmail_receipt_Tue12Mar2019NoticeCHGaddress_2007CH29738_PDF.pdf
03/12/2019	NOTICE of change of ADDRESS General No.: 1-18-0091 Trial Court No.: 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC v. GORDON WAYNE WATTS, ET. AL.	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	NOTICE of change of ADDRESS *** PROOF of SERVICE -- All parties were served this filing in these ways: * 1. e-Filing (note court-stamp) * 2. U.S. Postal Mail (Not. -- Not this time. See e.g., the Cert. of Service for details and Rule 11 to confirm.) * 3. via this online docket * 4. by e-mail pursuant to to Rule 11(c): "If service is made by e-mail, the documents may be transmitted via attachment or by providing a link within the body of the e-mail that will allow the party to download the document through a reliable service provider." Editor's Note: Hey, at least I comply with the Rule 11(a) service requirements, even if nobody else does. Receipt showing I filed this: Gmail_receipt_Tue12Mar2019NoticeCHGaddress_1-18-0091_PDF.pdf
08/08/2019	REVIEWING COURT ORDER: Court Sua Sponte Dismisses case for [alleged] want of Prosecution General No.: 1-18-0091 Trial Court No.: 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC v. GORDON WAYNE WATTS, ET. AL.	Judge: APPELLATE COURT Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	ORDER This cause having come before the Court on the Court's own motion, the Court finding that the appellant has failed to file the Record on Appeal within the time prescribed by Supreme Court Rule 326; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. ORDER ENTERED [] AUG 08 2019 [] APPELLATE COURT, FIRST DISTRICT Enter: /s/ Justice Mary L. Mikva /s/ Justice John C. Griffin /s/ Justice Carl Anthony Walker EDITOR'S NOTE: This entry is from the law division case, under appeal, in which there were egregious Federal Civil Rights violations (prompting this civil suit), but it is repeated below (in the federal suit) to keep chronological context. TRANSLATION: If the Federal Court is fair in application of Federal case and statutory law, this state court's decision will be vacated, and these judges will be like that other state court judge described in my federal brief: She made another unconstitutional ruling, got vacated via injunctive relief, and then she (the state court judge) had to pay attorney's fees (proof that "judicial immunity" has hardline limits).
08/13/2019	Motion for Reconsideration General No.: 1-18-0091 Trial Court No.: 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC v. GORDON WAYNE WATTS, ET. AL.	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	Motion En Banc for Reconsideration of Dismissal for alleged Want of Lack of Prosecution Concurrent with Motion for Summary Judgment This motion *without* exhibits (206 KB, small file) This motion *with* exhibits (11.9 MB, big file) Yes, I made a little redundancy typo above; anyone else catch it? Yes: "alleged Want of Lack of Prosecution."
08/28/2019	REVIEWING COURT ORDER: Motion to Vacate Dismissal for [Alleged] Want of Prosecution - DENIED General No.: 1-18-0091 Trial Court No.: 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC v. GORDON WAYNE WATTS, ET. AL.	Judge: APPELLATE COURT Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	ORDER This cause coming to be heard on Defendant-Appellant Gordon Watts' pro se motion titled "Motion En Banc for Reconsideration of Dismissal for Alleged Want of Lack of Prosecution Concurrent with Motion for Summary Judgment," which this Court takes as a Motion to Vacate the Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, this cause having been dismissed for want of prosecution on August 8, 2019, and the Court having been advised in the premises; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant-Appellant's Motion to Vacate the Dismissal is GRANTED / DENIED. ORDER ENTERED [] AUG 28 2019 [] APPELLATE COURT, FIRST DISTRICT Enter: /s/ Justice Mary L. Mikva /s/ Justice John C. Griffin /s/ Justice Carl Anthony Walker EDITOR'S NOTE: Oh, really? Care to clarify how the court's actions don't violate well-settled Federal case-law on Civil Rights violations? I didn't think so: When courts knowingly enter illegal orders, they are not likely to give an explanation, and so the civil rights struggles continue on various battlefields, whether regarding race, class, or some other metric.
Doc. No. Dates Docs 1-6 04/08/2019	(Click to view/download) Description (Doc 1) VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR Declaratory and Injunctive relief Case No.: 8:19-cv-829-T-36CPT U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida Gordon Wayne Watts, et. al.[[**]] v. Circuit Court of Cook County, ILLINOIS, et. al.	Filed By Attorney: Gordon Wayne Watts, Pro Se (non-lawyer)	Notes 1:19-cv-03473 ** Watts v. Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois et. al. Hon. Robert M. Dow, Jr., presiding *** Click HERE to get to Top of Page *** "VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR Declaratory and Inductive relief; For unspecified monetary damages ; Request for Certification as a Class (Class Action); For R.I.C.O. Certification; AND, INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW" (Note the typo in the title: "Inductive" vs. "Injunctive" -- this is a typical de minimus matter. Or: Spell-check and Auto-correct gone wild!) [[** Editor's Note: The "et. al." portion depends, currently, on an order from The Court clarifying whether a "class" can be certified for a class action lawsuit.]] *Doc.1* Complaint (all pages: 1-40) *Doc.1a* Complaint (Part-1, pages: 1-20) *Doc.1b* Complaint (Part-2, pages: 21-40) *Doc.1-Ex* Index to the Exhibits, & Exhibits: A-H *Doc.1-Ex* Exhibit-I *Doc.1-Ex* Exhibit-J *Doc.1-Ex* Exhibit-K *Doc.1-Ex* Exhibit-L, part-1 *Doc.1-Ex* Exhibit-L, part-2 *Doc.1-Ex* Exhibit-M. *Doc.1-Civ* Civil Cover Sheet *Doc.2* Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis *Doc.3* Motion for preliminary injunction *Doc.4* Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages *Doc.5* Motion to Appoint Counsel *Doc.6* Motion for Miscellaneous Relief (leave to file CM/ECF) This suit names ten (10) judges, as defendants, both in their official capacities and their individual capacity, and also two (2) courts, but, per the 11th Amendment and Sovereign Immunity, the courts are only named in their official capacity, and unable to be sued for monetary damages. Nonetheless, we are suing them for Injunctive relief. The judges, named in their individual capacities, however, are being sued from both sides, both injunctively, and for monetary damages. [Transferred from Florida Middle on 5/23/2019.]
Doc 7 04/09/2019	(Doc 7) Related case order and track 2 notice Case No.: 8:19-cv-829-T-36CPT U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida Gordon Wayne Watts, et. al.[[**]] v. Circuit Court of Cook County, ILLINOIS, et. al.	Judge: Hon. Charlene Edwards Honeywell, United States District Judge	"It is hereby ORDERED that, no later than fourteen days from the date of this Order, counsel and any pro se party shall comply with Local Rule 1.04(d) and shall file and serve a certification as to whether the instant action should be designated as a similar or successive case pursuant to Local Rule 1.04(a) or (b). The parties shall utilize the attached form NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF OTHER ACTIONS. It is FURTHER ORDERED that, in accordance with Local Rule 3.05, this action is designated a Track Two case..." [[** Editor's Note: The "et. al." portion depends, currently, on an order from The Court clarifying whether a "class" can be certified for a class action lawsuit.]] [Transferred from Florida Middle on 5/23/2019.]
Doc 8 04/09/2019	(Doc 8) Interested persons order Case No.: 8:19-cv-829-T-36CPT U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida Gordon Wayne Watts, et. al.[[**]] v. Circuit Court of Cook County, ILLINOIS, et. al.	Judge: Hon. Charlene Edwards Honeywell, United States District Judge	"This Court makes an active effort to screen every case in order to identify parties and interested corporations in which any assigned judge may be a shareholder, as well as for other matters that might require consideration of recusal. It is therefore ORDERED that, within fourteen days from the date of this order (or from the date of subsequent first appearance1 in this action), each party, pro se party, governmental party, intervenor, non-party movant, and Rule 69 garnishee shall file and serve a CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT in the following form:" _______________________ 1 Every pleading or paper filed constitutes a general appearance of the party unless otherwise specified. Local Rule 2.03 (a)...." [[** Editor's Note: The "et. al." portion depends, currently, on an order from The Court clarifying whether a "class" can be certified for a class action lawsuit.]] [Transferred from Florida Middle on 5/23/2019.]
Doc 9 04/10/2019	(Doc 9) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Case No.: 8:19-cv-829-T-36CPT U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida Gordon Wayne Watts, et. al.[[**]] v. Circuit Court of Cook County, ILLINOIS, et. al.	Judge: Hon. Charlene Edwards Honeywell, United States District Judge	"This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiff alleges that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over his claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3) because he sues under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 for violations of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 7-8. Plaintiff contends that Defendants denied his due process rights when they refused to enter an order to limit the record on an appeal. This Court questions whether it has subject matter jurisdiction and whether it is the proper venue for this action...Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: Plaintiff is directed to SHOW CAUSE as to why this case should not be dismissed pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or transferred to the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division." [[** Editor's Note: The "et. al." portion depends, currently, on an order from The Court clarifying whether a "class" can be certified for a class action lawsuit.]] [Transferred from Florida Middle on 5/23/2019.]
Docs 10-13 04/15/2019	(Doc 13) AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR Declaratory and Injunctive relief Case No.: 8:19-cv-829-T-36CPT U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida Gordon Wayne Watts, et. al.[[**]] v. Circuit Court of Cook County, ILLINOIS, et. al.	Attorney: Gordon Wayne Watts, Pro Se (non-lawyer)	"AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR Declaratory and Injunctive relief; For unspecified monetary damages ; Request for Certification as a Class (Class Action); For R.I.C.O. Certification; AND, INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW" [[** Editor's Note: The "et. al." portion depends, currently, on an order from The Court clarifying whether a "class" can be certified for a class action lawsuit.]] *Doc.10* CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT *Doc.11* NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF OTHER ACTIONS aka: “Notice of Pendency of Related Actions” *Doc.12* Reply to the Order of This Court, dated April 10, 2019, to Show Cause *Doc.13* Amended Complaint (all pages: 1-40) *Doc.13-Ex* Amended INDEX to the Exhibits (and also new exhibits: N-Q) This suit names ten (10) judges, as defendants, both in their official capacities and their individual capacity, and also two (2) courts, but, per the 11th Amendment and Sovereign Immunity, the courts are only named in their official capacity, and unable to be sued for monetary damages. Nonetheless, we are suing them for Injunctive relief. The judges, named in their individual capacities, however, are being sued from both sides, both injunctively, and for monetary damages. [Transferred from Florida Middle on 5/23/2019.] [[** Editor's Note: The "et. al." portion depends, currently, on an order from The Court clarifying whether a "class" can be certified for a class action lawsuit.]]
Doc 14 05/22/2019	(Doc 14) ORDER: Transfer Venue Case No.: 8:19-cv-829-T-36CPT U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida Gordon Wayne Watts, et. al.[[**]] v. Circuit Court of Cook County, ILLINOIS, et. al.	Judge: Hon. Charlene Edwards Honeywell, United States District Judge	Docket Text: ORDER: This case is hereby TRANSFERRED to the Northern District of Illinois for all further proceedings. The Clerk is hereby directed to immediately transfer this case to the Northern District of Illinois. Signed by Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell on 5/22/2019. (JJH) [Transferred from Florida Middle on 5/23/2019.] Editor's Note: A very interesting read, as the judge as much admits to having a court history of abuse of discretion regarding Rooker-Feldman jurisdiction rulings. Moreover, while still expressing "doubts regarding subject matter jurisdiction," The Court does not refute plaintiff's reply on that point, and, The Court goes on to candidly admit that: "The Eleventh Circuit recently admonished district courts to be mindful that not all cases related to a state court action automatically invoke Rooker-Feldman." The 7th circuit's GASH standards for overcoming Rooker-Feldman are widely viewed as the most lenient in the nation for plaintiffs, but, given Illinois' history of corruption, that factor will put the Federal Courts to a stiff test, and, I, for one, hope the Federal judges are up to the task of policing rogue state actors, acting under the colour of law. [[** Editor's Note: The "et. al." portion depends, currently, on an order from The Court clarifying whether a "class" can be certified for a class action lawsuit.]]
Doc 15 05/23/2019	(Doc 15) ACKNOWLEDGMENT: Case transferred in - district transfer Case No.: 1:19-cv-03473 U.S. District Court Northern District of Illinois Gordon Wayne Watts, et. al.[[**]] v. Circuit Court of Cook County, ILLINOIS, et. al.	Clerk: U.S. Dist. Court, N.D., ILLINOIS	Docket Text: RECEIVED from Florida Middle; Case Number 8:19-cv-00829 (nsf) [[** Editor's Note: The "et. al." portion depends, currently, on an order from The Court clarifying whether a "class" can be certified for a class action lawsuit.]]
Doc 16 05/23/2019	(Doc 16) Letter to all counsel of record Case No.: 1:19-cv-03473 U.S. District Court Northern District of Illinois Gordon Wayne Watts, et. al.[[**]] v. Circuit Court of Cook County, ILLINOIS, et. al.	Clerk: /s/ N. Finley, Deputy Clerk, U.S. Dist. Court, N.D., ILLINOIS	Docket Text: MAILED Rule 83.15 Letter to all counsel of record. (nsf, ) Excerpt, informing litigants that this: "letter is to inform you that the Local Rule 83.15 of this Court requires that an appearance form be filed by an attorney who intends to represent a party in any proceeding before this Court." [[** Editor's Note: The "et. al." portion depends, currently, on an order from The Court clarifying whether a "class" can be certified for a class action lawsuit.]]
Doc 17 05/23/2019	(Doc 17) Notice re Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot(MIDP) Case No.: 1:19-cv-03473 U.S. District Court Northern District of Illinois Gordon Wayne Watts, et. al.[[**]] v. Circuit Court of Cook County, ILLINOIS, et. al.	Clerk: U.S. Dist. Court, N.D., ILLINOIS	Docket Text: NOTICE TO THE PARTIES - The Court is participating in the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot (MIDP). The key features and deadlines are set forth in this Notice which includes a link to the (MIDP) Standing Order and a Checklist for use by the parties. In cases subject to the pilot, all parties must respond to the mandatory initial discovery requests set forth in the Standing Order before initiating any further discovery in this case. Please note: The discovery obligations in the Standing Order supersede the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1). Any party seeking affirmative relief must serve a copy of the following documents (Notice of Mandatory Initial Discovery and the Standing Order) on each new party when the Complaint, Counterclaim, Crossclaim, or Third-Party Complaint is served. (nsf, ) [[** Editor's Note: The "et. al." portion depends, currently, on an order from The Court clarifying whether a "class" can be certified for a class action lawsuit.]]
Doc 18 05/31/2019	(Doc 18) ORDER Entered Case No.: 1:19-cv-03473 U.S. District Court Northern District of Illinois Gordon Wayne Watts[[**]] v. Circuit Court of Cook County, ILLINOIS, et. al.	Judge: Hon. Robert M. Dow, Jr., United States District Judge	Docket Text: ORDER: Plaintiff's financial affidavit indicates that his income and resources are below the federal poverty line as set out in the Guidelines promulgated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Therefore, his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [2] is granted. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an oversized document [4] also is granted. However, as explained below, Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with prejudice as (1) all of the named individual Defendants have absolute judicial immunity from suits complaining about their judicial actions, and (2) the Illinois Circuit and Appellate Courts are not suable entities. And given that disposition on the merits, Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction [3], Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel[5], and Plaintiff's motion for leave to file via CM/ECF [6] are all denied as moot. A final judgment will be entered and this case will be closed. Civil case terminated. Signed by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr on 5/31/2019. Mailed notice(las, ) [[** Editor's Note: The "et. al." portion has been dropped, pursuant to a lawful finding of law that I don't have the right to represent other pro se parties in a class-action lawsuit.]]
Doc 19 05/31/2019	(Doc 19) JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE Case No.: 1:19-cv-03473 U.S. District Court Northern District of Illinois Gordon Wayne Watts[[**]] v. Circuit Court of Cook County, ILLINOIS, et. al.	Clerk: /s/ Carol Wing, Deputy Clerk, U.S. Dist. Court, N.D., ILLINOIS	Docket Text: ENTERED JUDGMENT. Mailed notice(las, ) [[** Editor's Note: The "et. al." portion has been dropped, pursuant to a lawful finding of law that I don't have the right to represent other pro se parties in a class-action lawsuit.]]
Doc 16 06/19/2019	(Doc 16) MOTION to Alter/Amend Judgment Case No.: 8:19-cv-829-T-36CPT U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida Gordon Wayne Watts[[**]] v. Circuit Court of Cook County, ILLINOIS, et. al.	Attorney: Gordon Wayne Watts, Pro Se (non-lawyer) * (MD FL Docket without comments) * (MD FL Docket expanded)	Docket Text: MOTION to Alter/Amend Judgment concurrent with Rule 60 Motion for Relief from a Judgment or Order by Gordon Wayne Watts. (CTR) [[** Editor's Note: The "et. al." portion has been dropped, pursuant to a lawful finding of law that I don't have the right to represent other pro se parties in a class-action lawsuit.]]
Doc 20 06/27/2019	(Doc 20) Motion to Alter Judgment Case No.: 1:19-cv-03473 U.S. District Court Northern District of Illinois Gordon Wayne Watts v. Circuit Court of Cook County, ILLINOIS, et. al.	Attorney: Gordon Wayne Watts, Pro Se (non-lawyer)	"Rule 59 motion to alter / amend judgment concurrent with Rule 60 motion for Relief from Judgment / Order" Docket Text: MOTION by Plaintiff Gordon Wayne Watts to alter judgment Actually, both a R.59 and R.60 motion (alter / amend / correct clerical etc.), but I could only pick one (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit Exhibits R, S, and T, combined for efficiency)(Watts, Gordon) ** Motion to Alter Judgment ** Exhibits R, S, and T
Doc 21 06/27/2019	(Doc 21) Notice of Motion Case No.: 1:19-cv-03473 U.S. District Court Northern District of Illinois Gordon Wayne Watts v. Circuit Court of Cook County, ILLINOIS, et. al.	Attorney: Gordon Wayne Watts, Pro Se (non-lawyer)	Docket Text: Please contact me if this date is, for some reason, unavailable, and the court desires my presence in a hearing to present my combined Rule59/Rule60 motion. NOTICE of Motion by Gordon Wayne Watts for presentment of motion to alter judgment, [20] before Honorable Robert M. Dow Jr. on 7/9/2019 at 09:15 AM. (Watts, Gordon)
Doc 17 07/08/2019	(Doc 17) Order on Motion to Alter Judgment Case No.: 8:19-cv-829-T-36CPT U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida Gordon Wayne Watts, et. al.[[**]] v. Circuit Court of Cook County, ILLINOIS, et. al.	Judge: Hon. Charlene Edwards Honeywell, United States District Judge * (MD FL Docket without comments) * (MD FL Docket expanded)	Docket Text: ORDER: Plaintiff's Rule 59 Motion to Alter/Amend Judgment Concurrent with Rule 60 Motion for Relief from a Judgment or Order [16] is DENIED. See Order for further details. Signed by Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell on 7/8/2019. (GLP) Editor's Note: I'll translate: The judge says that: "the Court may revise the Transfer Order only prior to “the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)." However, foresight is not 20-20 like hindsight, and so we can't make an informed decision before the entry of (an apparently) bad judgment. Thus, either way, we've got a "Catch-22": We can't surmount said obstacle, either way. (I say 'apparently' because Judge Dow mildly surprised me and didn't dismiss the case outright, which he could have done, in his reply to my similar Rule 59 motion. Thus, while there's an inherent distrust -- and justly-earned -- of ILLINOIS courts, we mustn't pass judgment on Judge Dow's judicial rulings prematurely: Even in the "court of public opinion," one deserves due process -- including Illinois judges.)
Doc 22 07/08/2019	(Doc 22) Order on Motion to Alter Judgment Case No.: 1:19-cv-03473 U.S. District Court Northern District of Illinois Gordon Wayne Watts v. Circuit Court of Cook County, ILLINOIS, et. al.	Clerk: U.S. Dist. Court, N.D., ILLINOIS	Docket Text: MINUTE entry before the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr: Plaintiff's motion to alter or amend judgment [20] is taken under advisement. The Court will issue a ruling by mail. Notice of motion date of 7/9/2019 is stricken and no appearances are necessary on that date. Mailed notice (cdh, )
08/08/2019	REVIEWING COURT ORDER: Court Sua Sponte Dismisses case for [alleged] want of Prosecution General No.: 1-18-0091 Trial Court No.: 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC v. GORDON WAYNE WATTS, ET. AL.	Judge: APPELLATE COURT Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	ORDER This cause having come before the Court on the Court's own motion, the Court finding that the appellant has failed to file the Record on Appeal within the time prescribed by Supreme Court Rule 326; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. ORDER ENTERED [] AUG 08 2019 [] APPELLATE COURT, FIRST DISTRICT Enter: /s/ Justice Mary L. Mikva /s/ Justice John C. Griffin /s/ Justice Carl Anthony Walker EDITOR'S NOTE: This entry is from the law division case, under appeal, in which there were egregious Federal Civil Rights violations (prompting this civil suit), but it is repeated here to keep chronological context. TRANSLATION: If the Federal Court is fair in application of Federal case and statutory law, this state court's decision will be vacated, and these judges will be like that other state court judge described in my federal brief: She made another unconstitutional ruling, got vacated via injunctive relief, and then she (the state court judge) had to pay attorney's fees (proof that "judicial immunity" has hardline limits).
Doc 23 08/13/2019	(Doc 23) Motion to Expedite Case No.: 1:19-cv-03473 U.S. District Court Northern District of Illinois Gordon Wayne Watts v. Circuit Court of Cook County, ILLINOIS, et. al.	Attorney: Gordon Wayne Watts, Pro Se (non-lawyer)	Docket Text: MOTION by Plaintiff Gordon Wayne Watts to expedite Rule 7 Motion to Waive PACER fees, concurrent with Motion to expedite summons, and issue Summary Judgment and/or Show Cause order. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit Exhibits U, V, and W)(Watts, Gordon) Editor's Note: This PDF file has both the motion and the Exhibits in one file.
Doc 24 08/13/2019	(Doc 24) Notice of Motion Case No.: 1:19-cv-03473 U.S. District Court Northern District of Illinois Gordon Wayne Watts v. Circuit Court of Cook County, ILLINOIS, et. al.	Attorney: Gordon Wayne Watts, Pro Se (non-lawyer)	Docket Text: NOTICE OF MOTION for Fri. 16 Aug. 2019, 9:30am(CST) for Doc.23, my concurrent motions to Waive my PACER.gov research fees, expedite summons, and issue either summary judgment and/or a show cause order to defendants. NOTICE of Motion by Gordon Wayne Watts for presentment of motion to expedite, [23] before Honorable Robert M. Dow Jr. on 8/16/2019 at 09:30 AM.(Watts, Gordon)
08/13/2019	Motion for Reconsideration General No.: 1-18-0091 Trial Court No.: 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC v. GORDON WAYNE WATTS, ET. AL.	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	Motion En Banc for Reconsideration of Dismissal for alleged Want of Lack of Prosecution Concurrent with Motion for Summary Judgment This motion *without* exhibits (206 KB, small file) This motion *with* exhibits (11.9 MB, big file) Yes, I made a little redundancy typo above; anyone else catch it? Yes: "alleged Want of Lack of Prosecution."
Doc 25 08/13/2019	(Doc 25) Corrected Motion to Expedite Case No.: 1:19-cv-03473 U.S. District Court Northern District of Illinois Gordon Wayne Watts v. Circuit Court of Cook County, ILLINOIS, et. al.	Attorney: Gordon Wayne Watts, Pro Se (non-lawyer)	Docket Text: This is a corrected notice of motion because I inadvertently picked an unavailable date. I now pick Tue 20 Aug 2019 to tentatively be available to phone in from out-of-state for a telephone hearing/ NOTICE of Motion by Gordon Wayne Watts for presentment of motion to expedite, [23] before Honorable Robert M. Dow Jr. on 8/20/2019 at 09:15 AM. (Watts, Gordon)
Doc 26 08/19/2019	(Doc 26) Order on Motion to Expedite Case No.: 1:19-cv-03473 U.S. District Court Northern District of Illinois Gordon Wayne Watts v. Circuit Court of Cook County, ILLINOIS, et. al.	Clerk: U.S. Dist. Court, N.D., ILLINOIS	Docket Text: MINUTE entry before the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr: Plaintiff's motion to expedite Rule 7 Motion to Waive PACER fees, concurrent with Motion to expedite summons, and issue Summary Judgment and/or Show Cause order [23] is taken under advisement. Before the Court can rule on the motion, it must determine whether to grant Plaintiff's motion to alter or amend judgment [20], which raises a threshold question regarding the scope of judicial immunity. Once that motion is resolved, the Court will address the motion set for presentment on August 20. Accordingly, the notice of motion date of 8/20/2019 is stricken and no appearances are necessary on that date. Mailed notice (ags, ) Editor's Note: The judge is being generous to say that I moved the court to expedite my Rule 7 motion for an order allowing waiver of PACER.gov research fees. I didn't explicitly ask the court to expedite that order (but I did silently wish it, & implied it in my motion), so the court was correct to infer as much. I wish, however, the court will continue to give fair review & execution of justice to the sordid matter, so-as-to put an abrupt halt to (or at least slowing down of) the numerous & chronic violations of our Federal Civil Rights by bad state actors, who (in some cases) happen to be judges & justices.
08/28/2019	REVIEWING COURT ORDER: Motion to Vacate Dismissal for [Alleged] Want of Prosecution - DENIED General No.: 1-18-0091 Trial Court No.: 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC v. GORDON WAYNE WATTS, ET. AL.	Judge: APPELLATE COURT Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS	ORDER This cause coming to be heard on Defendant-Appellant Gordon Watts' pro se motion titled "Motion En Banc for Reconsideration of Dismissal for Alleged Want of Lack of Prosecution Concurrent with Motion for Summary Judgment," which this Court takes as a Motion to Vacate the Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, this cause having been dismissed for want of prosecution on August 8, 2019, and the Court having been advised in the premises; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant-Appellant's Motion to Vacate the Dismissal is GRANTED / DENIED. ORDER ENTERED [] AUG 28 2019 [] APPELLATE COURT, FIRST DISTRICT Enter: /s/ Justice Mary L. Mikva /s/ Justice John C. Griffin /s/ Justice Carl Anthony Walker EDITOR'S NOTE: Oh, really? Care to clarify how the court's actions don't violate well-settled Federal case-law on Civil Rights violations? I didn't think so: When courts knowingly enter illegal orders, they are not likely to give an explanation, and so the civil rights struggles continue on various battlefields, whether regarding race, class, or some other metric.
Doc 27 02/20/20	(Doc 27) ORDER entered (Summary) Case No.: 1:19-cv-03473 U.S. District Court Northern District of Illinois Gordon Wayne Watts v. Circuit Court of Cook County, ILLINOIS, et. al.	Judge: Hon. Robert M. Dow, Jr., United States District Judge	Docket Text: ORDER: Plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment and for other relief from judgment [20] is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff's claims for prospective declaratory relief against the individual Defendants-all state judges-are reinstated to the extent permissible under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Ex parte Young doctrine. The caption of the complaint will be deemed to be corrected in two respects: (1) Plaintiff will be listed individually and not on behalf of a prospective class and (2) all seven Justices of the Illinois Appellate Court named in the body of the complaint will be included as Defendants. However, summons shall not issue at this time. Plaintiff is directed to file a supplemental brief no later than March 20, 2020 explaining why he should be permitted to proceed with his complaint given that (1) declaratory judgments "are meant to define the legal rights and obligations to the parties in the anticipation of some future conduct," and "are not meant simply to proclaim that one party is liable to another." Johnson v. McCuskey, 72 Fed. Appx. 475, 477-78 (7th Cir. Aug. 5, 2003); (2) "a plaintiff may not seek reversal of a state court judgment simply by casting his complaint in the form of a civil rights action." Ritter v. Ross, 992 F.2d 750, 754 (7th Cir. 1993); and (3) "[l]itigants who believe that a state proceeding has violated their constitutional rights must appeal that decision through their state courts and ultimately to the United States Supreme Court." Cichowski v. Hollenbeck, 397 F. Supp. 2d 1082, 1086 (W.D. Wis. 2005) (citing Garry v. Veils, 82 F.3d 1362, 1368 (7th Cir. 1996), and Wright v. Tackett, 39 F.3d 155, 157-58 (7th Cir. 1994). Plaintiff's motion for a waiver of PACER fees [23] is denied without prejudice to refiling before the Executive Committee of the Northern District of Illinois, which is the entity responsible for ruling on such motions as the waiver would apply to all cases in this district, not just this one. Plaintiff's request in that same motion [23] for expedited summons, summary judgment, and/or show cause order is denied without prejudice to renewal if Plaintiff's supplemental brief overcomes the potential hurdles to proceeding in this Court identified above. Signed by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr on 2/20/2020. Mailed notice(pk, )
Doc 28 02/20/20	(Doc 28) ORDER: Motion to alter/amend, denied in part, granted in part: CIVIL RIGHTS suit against ten (10) ILLINOIS state judges is REINSTATED Case No.: 1:19-cv-03473 U.S. District Court Northern District of Illinois Gordon Wayne Watts v. Circuit Court of Cook County, ILLINOIS, et. al.	Judge: Hon. Robert M. Dow, Jr., United States District Judge	Docket Text: ORDER: For the reasons explained below, Plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment and for other relief from judgment [20] is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff's claims for prospective declaratory relief against the individual Defendants-all state judges-are reinstated to the extent permissible under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Ex parte Young doctrine. The caption of the complaint will be deemed to be corrected in two respects: (1) Plaintiff will be listed individually and not on behalf of a prospective class and (2) all seven Justices of the Illinois Appellate Court named in the body of the complaint will be included as Defendants. However, summons shall not issue at this time. Plaintiff is directed to file a supplemental brief no later than March 20, 2020 explaining why he should be permitted to proceed with his complaint given that (1) declaratory judgments "are meant to define the legal rights and obligations to the parties in the anticipation of some future conduct," and "are not meant simply to proclaim that one party is liable to another." Johnson v. McCuskey, 72 Fed. Appx. 475, 477-78 (7th Cir. Aug. 5, 2003); (2) "a plaintiff may not seek reversal of a state court judgment simply by casting his complaint in the form of a civil rights action." Ritter v. Ross, 992 F.2d 750, 754 (7th Cir. 1993); and (3) "[l]itigants who believe that a state proceeding has violated their constitutional rights must appeal that decision through their state courts and ultimately to the United States Supreme Court." Cichowski v. Hollenbeck, 397 F. Supp. 2d 1082, 1086 (W.D. Wis. 2005) (citing Garry v. Veils, 82 F.3d 1362, 1368 (7th Cir. 1996), and Wright v. Tackett, 39 F.3d 155, 157-58 (7th Cir. 1994). Plaintiff's motion for a waiver of PACER fees [23] is denied without prejudice to refiling before the Executive Committee of the Northern District of Illinois, which is the entity responsible for ruling on such motions as the waiver would apply to all cases in this district, not just this one. Plaintiff's request in that same motion [23] for expedited summons, summary judgment, and/or show cause order is denied without prejudice to renewal if Plaintiff's supplemental brief overcomes the potential hurdles to proceeding in this Court identified above. Signed by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr on 2/20/2020. Mailed notice(pk, )
Doc 29 03/19/20	(Doc 29) (Court-ordered) SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF - due no later than Friday, March 20, 2020 Case No.: 1:19-cv-03473 U.S. District Court Northern District of Illinois Gordon Wayne Watts v. Circuit Court of Cook County, ILLINOIS, et. al.	Attorney: Gordon Wayne Watts, Pro Se (non-lawyer)	Docket Text: MOTION by Plaintiff Gordon Wayne Watts to supplement Court-ordered SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF - due no later than Friday, March 20, 2020, with an inline/attached EXHIBIT-X (Watts, Gordon)
Doc 30 03/19/20	(Doc 30) NOTICE OF MOTION Case No.: 1:19-cv-03473 U.S. District Court Northern District of Illinois Gordon Wayne Watts v. Circuit Court of Cook County, ILLINOIS, et. al.	Attorney: Gordon Wayne Watts, Pro Se (non-lawyer)	Docket Text: NOTICE of Motion by Gordon Wayne Watts for presentment of motion to supplement[29] before Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr. on Thursday, 03/26/2020, at 09:15 AM(CST) aka 10:15AM(EST). (Watts, Gordon Wayne) NOTICE of Motion by Gordon Wayne Watts for presentment of motion to supplement[29] before Honorable Robert M. Dow Jr. on 3/26/2020 at 09:15 AM. (Watts, Gordon)
Doc 31 03/20/20	(Doc 31) ORDER on motion for leave to file supplemental brief: GRANTED Case No.: 1:19-cv-03473 U.S. District Court Northern District of Illinois Gordon Wayne Watts v. Circuit Court of Cook County, ILLINOIS, et. al.	Clerk: U.S. Dist. Court, N.D., ILLINOIS	Docket Text: MINUTE entry before the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr: Plaintiff's motion for leave to file supplemental brief with attached Exhibit X [29] is granted. Notice of motion date of 3/26/2020 is stricken and no appearance, including by telephone, is necessary on that date. Mailed notice(cdh, )
Doc 32 03/21/20	(Doc 32) Motion to enter Exhibit “Y” – which Plaintiff inadvertently overlooked -and for misc. relief Case No.: 1:19-cv-03473 U.S. District Court Northern District of Illinois Gordon Wayne Watts v. Circuit Court of Cook County, ILLINOIS, et. al.	Attorney: Gordon Wayne Watts, Pro Se (non-lawyer)	Docket Text: MOTION by Plaintiff Gordon Wayne Watts to supplement Motion to enter Exhibit "Y" which Plaintiff inadvertently overlooked -and for misc. relief (Watts, Gordon)
Doc 33 03/21/20	(Doc 33) NOTICE OF MOTION Case No.: 1:19-cv-03473 U.S. District Court Northern District of Illinois Gordon Wayne Watts v. Circuit Court of Cook County, ILLINOIS, et. al.	Attorney: Gordon Wayne Watts, Pro Se (non-lawyer)	Docket Text: Note: Judge Dow's official court website calender was empty just now, but proceeding, as per protocol. NOTICE of Motion by Gordon Wayne Watts for presentment of motion to supplement[32] before Honorable Robert M. Dow Jr. on 3/26/2020 at 09:15 AM. (Watts, Gordon)
Doc 34 03/24/20	(Doc 34) ORDER on motion for leave to file supplemental brief with attached Exhibit Y [32] is GRANTED Case No.: 1:19-cv-03473 U.S. District Court Northern District of Illinois Gordon Wayne Watts v. Circuit Court of Cook County, ILLINOIS, et. al.	Clerk: U.S. Dist. Court, N.D., ILLINOIS	Docket Text: MINUTE entry before the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr: Plaintiff's motion for leave to file supplemental brief with attached Exhibit Y [32] is granted. Notice of motion date of 3/26/2020 is stricken and no appearance, including by telephone, is necessary on that date. Mailed notice(cdh, )
** Click HERE to get to Top of Page **
Civil Case: 2014-M1-701473, CIVIL DIVISION, Younes v. Daniggelis
** Click HERE to get to Top of Page **
1/22/2014	FORCIBLE ENTRY AND DETAINER COMPLAINT FILED 2014-M1-701473 CIVIL DIVISION Younes v. Daniggelis	JOSEPH YOUNES, Plaintiff, filed by PERELMAN DORF LLC	See e.g., pages 4-6 of this 90-page PDF file I obtained under a Public Records request. ~Editor
1/27/2015	ORDER FOR POSSESSION 2014-M1-701473 CIVIL DIVISION Younes v. Daniggelis	Judge: SCULLY, GEORGE F., JR.
2/26/2015	NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED 2014-M1-701473 CIVIL DIVISION Younes v. Daniggelis	RICHARD DANIGGELIS, Defendant, filed by ANDJELKO GALIC, Esq.
8/10/2015	MOTION FILED 2014-M1-701473 CIVIL DIVISION Younes v. Daniggelis	Attorney: PRO SE	The court's docket only has this one entry, but it refers to all 3 documents: The Affidavit, the Notice of Motion, and the "3-in-1" above, namely the Motion, proposed Amicus, & Exhibits. As with other entries, the court's date is off a little bit: This item was filed on 8/3/15, but the court's docket reflects 8/10/15. ~Editor
8/16/2015	Court's Docket does not have an entry on this date 2014-M1-701473 CIVIL DIVISION Younes v. Daniggelis	Attorney: PRO SE	On 08/16/2015, I filed a 'Notice of Motion,' a 'Motion to Supplement Record,' and a 'Proposed Order,' and sent these items by certified FedEx to document delivery. In fact, I served ALL parties, both in my Monday, August 03, 2015 filings and my Sunday, August 16, 2015 filings. However, the court lost these items filed on the 16th! {{{See e.g., Civil Division Case #: 2014-M1-701473 (JOSEPH YOUNES v. RICHARD DANIGGELIS) * Official Court Docket * Cached copy}}} Nonetheless, I was permitted to refile them, and the court docketed them with a date of '9/11/2015,' as reflected below.
08/17/2015	Various Motions before the First Appellate Court: NO. 1-15-0662; Trial Court No.: 2014-M1-701474; appeal of: 2014-M1-701473 CIVIL DIVISION Younes v. Daniggelis	Gordon Wayne Watts, PRO SE Judge: APPELLATE COURT	Motions for waiver of court fees; leave for Amicus; and Motion to Supplement Record Instanter ~~ Supporting Record ~~ Proposed Orders. Note: filed on 8/16, but docketed on 8/17. The court entered this ruling on Sept. 09, 2015: /s/ Justice Mary Anne Mason /s/ Justice James G. Fitzgerald Smith /s/ Justice Terrence J. Lavin
9/11/2015	EXHIBITS FILED 2014-M1-701473 CIVIL DIVISION Younes v. Daniggelis	Attorney: PRO SE	Here's the "Time-Sensitive Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts – in semi-Emergency Fashion by OVERNIGHT FedEx."
9/11/2015	EXHIBITS FILED 2014-M1-701473 CIVIL DIVISION Younes v. Daniggelis	Attorney: PRO SE	Here's the proposed order I filed that day.
9/11/2015	NOTICE FILED 2014-M1-701473 CIVIL DIVISION Younes v. Daniggelis	Attorney: PRO SE	This is the 'Notice of Motion' to Supplement the Record, originally filed 8/16, but lost by the court; here it finally appears on docket.
9/11/2015	MOTION FILED 2014-M1-701473 CIVIL DIVISION Younes v. Daniggelis	Attorney: PRO SE	This is the 'Motion to Supplement the Record,' originally filed 8/16, but lost by the court; here it finally appears on docket. (Here's the proposed order that I included that day.)
10/02/2015	Letter to 3 Civil Division judges, dated: Friday, 02 October 2015 2014-M1-701473 CIVIL DIVISION Younes v. Daniggelis	Attorney: Gordon W. Watts, PRO SE	As you can see, this Letter to 3 Civil Division judges, dated Friday, 02 October 2015 is listed here on my online docket. However, the court's docket (links at top of page: CIVIL DIVISION) do not have this. AGAIN: The Court loses stuff. But, I did file it: All the judges as well as the clerk & all the other parties were served via USPS, including, of course, Hon. Judge Diana Rosario, the Civil Division judge assigned to hear this case. The court is in a sad state of affairs, continually losing and/or refusing to process & file life-of-death pleadings, such as this, which deal with the elderly, 76-year-old friend of mine whose house was stolen in a "mortgage rescue scheme," making him homeless, which is not good for an elderly person.
11/17/2015	PLACITA AND CERTIFICATION OF TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD FOR APPEAL FILED 2014-M1-701473 CIVIL DIVISION Younes v. Daniggelis	RICHARD DANIGGELIS, Defendant, filed by ANDJELKO GALIC, Esq.
11/17/2015	RECORD ON APPEAL 2014-M1-701473 CIVIL DIVISION Younes v. Daniggelis	RICHARD DANIGGELIS, Defendant, filed by ANDJELKO GALIC, Esq.
** Click HERE to get to Top of Page **
Housing Case: 2017-M1-400775, 1st MUNICIPAL Division, City of CHICAGO v. 1720 N. Sedgwick St., ASSOCIATED BANK NA, Atty. Joseph Younes, et al.
** Click HERE to get to Top of Page **
03/22/2017	HOUSING COMPLAINT FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	CITY OF CHICAGO, Plaintiff, filed by Attorney: CORPORATION COUNSEL	Date: 03/30/2017; Court Time: 09:30am(CST), Court Room: 1105; Court Fee: $368.00; Ad Damnum Amount: $15,000.01. Pages 1-14 (of the 101-page PDF file, linked above).
03/30/2017	APPEARANCE FILED - FEE PAID 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Atty. JOSEPH YOUNES, Esq., Defendant	Court Room: 1105 Page 18 (of the 101-page PDF file, linked above).
03/30/2017	APPEARANCE FILED AT THE REGISTER 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Atty. JOSEPH YOUNES, Esq., Defendant	Court Fee: $237.00. Page 19 (of the 101-page PDF file, linked above).
03/30/2017	PETITION FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	CITY OF CHICAGO, Plaintiff Judge: BALL-REED, PATRICE MUNZEL	Page 17 (of the 101-page PDF file, linked above).
03/30/2017	APPOINT GUARDIAN AD LITEM, TRUSTEE, ADMINISTRATOR OR EXECUTOR - ALLOWED - 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	CITY OF CHICAGO, Plaintiff Judge: BALL-REED, PATRICE MUNZEL	Pages 15-16, top of both pages (of the 101-page PDF file, linked above).
03/30/2017	CASE SET ON CASE MANAGEMENT CALL 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	CITY OF CHICAGO, Plaintiff Judge: BALL-REED, PATRICE MUNZEL	Date: 04/27/2017; Court Time: 11:00am(CST), Court Room: 1105. Pages 15-16, bottom of both pages (of the 101-page PDF file, linked above).
04/22/2017	Time-Sensitive Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS (As filed; for docketed copy, with court-stamp, see 4/25/17 entries, below.)	You may click the name of the filing, to the left, to view it in PDF format. * USPS TRACKING DATA - this was timely received by the following recipients: *The filing to the Clerk of the CIVIL Division was delivered and signed for by a 'G ARRIDAS'. *The filing to the Hon. Judge Patrice Munzel Ball-Reed (Associate Judge, LAW Division) was delivered and signed for by a 'V BROWN'. *The filing to CORPORATION COUNSEL for the City of Chicago, IL was delivered and signed for by a 'D DOSS'. *The filing to Atty. Joseph Younes, Esq. was sent by standard First Class U.S. Postal Mail (in duplicate: note the 2x$0.49 = $0.98), but not by expensive 'Signature Confirmation' because he was insubordinate & rebellious regarding receiving service the last time, as evidenced by this documentation, showing "Shipment Refused by Recipient," from FedEx TRACKING.
04/25/2017	CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: NON-RECORD CLAIMANT	Page 22 (of the 101-page PDF file, linked above). (Docketed copy, with court-stamp; for the text-searchable PDF copy, filed, see 4/22/17 entry, above.)
04/25/2017	NOTICE FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: NON-RECORD CLAIMANT	Pages 20-25 (of the 101-page PDF file, linked above). (Docketed copy, with court-stamp; for the text-searchable PDF copy, filed, see 4/22/17 entry, above.)
04/26/2017	APPEARANCE FILED - FEE PAID 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: HEAVNER BEYERS MIHLAR LLC Participant: ASSOCIATED BANK NA	** Court Room: 1105 ** Page 26 (of the 101-page PDF file, linked above). **
04/26/2017	APPEARANCE FILED AT THE REGISTER 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: HEAVNER BEYERS MIHLAR LLC Participant: ASSOCIATED BANK NA	** Court Fee: $237.oo ** Page 27 (of the 101-page PDF file, linked above). **
04/26/2017	NOTICE FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: HEAVNER BEYERS MIHLAR LLC Participant: CITY OF CHICAGO	** Page 28 (of the 101-page PDF file, linked above). ** Notice, with Certificate of Service. **
04/27/2017	COMPLY - ALLOWED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Judge: BALL-REED, PATRICE MUNZEL Participant: 1720 N SEDGWICK ST	** Page 29 (of the 101-page PDF file, linked above). ** Order mandating that Younes & Receiver schedule & be present for a joint inspection, interior & exterior. (See order for details.) **
04/27/2017	CASE SET ON CASE MANAGEMENT CALL 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Judge: BALL-REED, PATRICE MUNZEL Participant: 1720 N SEDGWICK ST	** Date: 05/18/2017 Court Time: 11:00am(CST) Court Room: 1105 ** Page 29 (of the 101-page PDF file, linked above). ** (See bottom of the Order for this.) **
05/17/2017	MOTION TO INTERVENE BY INTERVENOR, GORDON WAYNE WATTS 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS (As filed; for docketed copy, with court-stamp, see 5/18/17 entry, below.)	Self-explanatory - Motion to Intervention as of right. (Exhibits are included in the self-same document, unlike as is sometimes done.) You may click the name of the filing, to the left, to view it in PDF format. * FedEx and USPS TRACKING DATA - this was timely received by the following recipients: * Emma J. Burse, Mail Room Manager (to deliver filings to both the LAW Division clerk and the judge's chambers) signed for by an 'S.REED' * CORPORATION COUNSEL for the City of Chicago, IL with confirmed Delivery date: May 22, 2017, @ 14:22 * The rebellious Mr. Younes, who refused delivery of my prior FedEx service-see above (which I'm required to serve, per court rules), nonetheless, didn't evade service this time: * proof of mailing via USPS * and: * proof of DELIVERY via USPS * * Heavner Beyers Mihlar LLC (who apparently represent a bank holding mortgage on this house & property) signed for by 'SWEAVER' * CR Realty Advisors, LLC (which has been appointed by the court as a temporary receiver on the property) with confirmed Delivery date: May 23, 2017 15:21 (a little later than usual because Suite 230 is outdated, and Suite 708 is the correct address)
05/18/2017	MOTION FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: 1720 N SEDGWICK ST	** Motion to Intervene. ** Pages 30-57 (of the 101-page PDF file, linked above). Note: Exhibit "C-2" is missing, but it is included in both what the court docketed in both Exhibit "E-2" of my "July 10, 2017" filing (page 62 of *this* 101-page PDF), as well as in the original 'text-searchable' PDF filed, in the "05/17/2017" entry, above. ** Also, some of the pages are IN REVERSE ORDER, but you can still make out what I was trying to file; don't get down on the clerks for scanning it in "out of order": They, like we, ourselves, are only human, after all: For the most part, I think, the clerks have done an excellent job scanning in & docketing my filings. ~GW// ** (Docketed copy, with court-stamp; for the text-searchable PDF copy, filed, see 5/17/17 entry, above.)
05/18/2017	COMPLY - ALLOWED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Judge: BALL-REED, PATRICE MUNZEL Participant: 1720 N SEDGWICK ST	** Page 58 (of the 101-page PDF file, linked above). ** Court, again, orders that Younes & Receiver schedule & be present for a joint inspection, with the City of Chicago, Department of Buildings (interior & exterior inspection) before the next court date. (See order for details.) **
05/18/2017	CASE SET ON CASE MANAGEMENT CALL 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Judge: BALL-REED, PATRICE MUNZEL Participant: CITY OF CHICAGO	** Date: 07/13/2017 Court Time: 11:00am(CST) Court Room: 1105 ** Page 58 (of the 101-page PDF file, linked above). ** (See bottom of the Order for this.) **
07/06/2017	Notice of Motion (Giving notice of the 05-17-2017 WATTS motion to intervene, above) 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS (As filed; for docketed copy, with court-stamp, see 7/10/17 entries, below.)	Whoops!.. What was that? I heard unconfirmed rumours that my Motion to Intervene was denied because Mr. Daniggelis (allegedly) didn't want me to intervene. [That is false, as he's said that he doesn't mind, so long as I don't rock the boat or otherwise cause trouble.] Moreover, it matters not what he thinks, as both statutory and case law says my rights to intervene are absolute, so long as I meet certain criteria: It doesn't depend on his views, but simply a matter of fact, as he admits he owes me for certain research; and, like any other lien placed against a property, it matters not what the owner thinks. Another (more believable) rumour has it that my motion was struck because I failed to appear "in person" to present my motion. While "in person" presentation is the norm, not all motions are heard in person, as I argue in my notice, here. Lastly, since I demonstrate in my notice, here, that the court didn't even **receive** my motion until after the hearing time (FedEx had a late delivery), it seems quite impossible that I could have been denied a motion that hadn't yet been received by the court. What seems more likely is they were probably discussing my 04/22/2017 legal memo, and since others seem to have gotten my email service of my 05/17/2017 filing, they might have been discussing that, and the judge may have commented on that--even tho she had not gotten her service copy, due to FedEx being late. * FedEx and USPS TRACKING DATA - this was timely received by the following recipients: * Emma J. Burse, Mail Room Manager (to deliver filings to both the LAW Division clerk and the judge's chambers) signed for by: "S.FRIEDER" on Delivery date: July 10, 2017, @ 11:00am CST, at the Receptionist/Front Desk of 50 West Washington Street of the courthouse, and for delivery to Judge Shelley's chambers. (Probably, however, it was signed for by M.Salome, looking at the signature, and probably the other signature was one on file with FedEx.) * CORPORATION COUNSEL for the City of Chicago, IL by First Class U.S. Postal Mail * The rebellious Mr. Younes was served by First Class U.S. Postal Service mail: * 100 dpi * 200 dpi * 300 dpi * * Heavner Beyers Mihlar LLC (who apparently represent a banks holding mortgage on this house & property) by First Class U.S. Postal Mail * CR Realty Advisors, LLC (which has been appointed by the court as a temporary receiver on the property) by First Class U.S. Postal Mail
07/10/2017	CERTIFICATE FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: 1720 N SEDGWICK ST	** See, generally, pages 59-101 (of the 101-page PDF file, linked above). ** NOTE: Please note that the court-stamped copy (here) is GROSSLY out of order -- and includes another copy of my original motion. (I only filed the notice, proper, on 7/6/17.) You can probably "get the gist" of what I filed by looking at this court-stamped copy, but to see the pages "in the proper order" (and in 'text-searchable' PDF form), I refer you to the "07/06/2017" entry (Notice proper) and the "05/17/2017" entry (Motion proper to Intervene), linked above. HOWEVER, don't get down on the clerks for scanning it in "out of order": They, like we, ourselves, are only human, after all: For the most part, I think, the clerks have, otherwise, done an excellent job scanning in & docketing my filings. ~Editor
07/10/2017	EXHIBITS FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: 1720 N SEDGWICK ST	** See, generally, pages 59-101 (of the 101-page PDF file, linked above). ** NOTE: Please note that the court-stamped copy (here) is GROSSLY out of order -- and includes another copy of my original motion. (I only filed the notice, proper, on 7/6/17.) You can probably "get the gist" of what I filed by looking at this court-stamped copy, but to see the pages "in the proper order" (and in 'text-searchable' PDF form), I refer you to the "07/06/2017" entry (Notice proper) and the "05/17/2017" entry (Motion proper to Intervene), linked above. HOWEVER, don't get down on the clerks for scanning it in "out of order": They, like we, ourselves, are only human, after all: For the most part, I think, the clerks have, otherwise, done an excellent job scanning in & docketing my filings. ~Editor
07/10/2017	NOTICE OF MOTION FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: 1720 N SEDGWICK ST	** See, generally, pages 59-101 (of the 101-page PDF file, linked above). ** NOTE: Please note that the court-stamped copy (here) is GROSSLY out of order -- and includes another copy of my original motion. (I only filed the notice, proper, on 7/6/17.) You can probably "get the gist" of what I filed by looking at this court-stamped copy, but to see the pages "in the proper order" (and in 'text-searchable' PDF form), I refer you to the "07/06/2017" entry (Notice proper) and the "05/17/2017" entry (Motion proper to Intervene), linked above. HOWEVER, don't get down on the clerks for scanning it in "out of order": They, like we, ourselves, are only human, after all: For the most part, I think, the clerks have, otherwise, done an excellent job scanning in & docketing my filings. ~Editor
07/10/2017	MOTION FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: 1720 N SEDGWICK ST	** See, generally, pages 59-101 (of the 101-page PDF file, linked above). ** NOTE: Please note that the court-stamped copy (here) is GROSSLY out of order -- and includes another copy of my original motion. (I only filed the notice, proper, on 7/6/17.) You can probably "get the gist" of what I filed by looking at this court-stamped copy, but to see the pages "in the proper order" (and in 'text-searchable' PDF form), I refer you to the "07/06/2017" entry (Notice proper) and the "05/17/2017" entry (Motion proper to Intervene), linked above. HOWEVER, don't get down on the clerks for scanning it in "out of order": They, like we, ourselves, are only human, after all: For the most part, I think, the clerks have, otherwise, done an excellent job scanning in & docketing my filings. ~Editor
07/13/2017	TRIAL LAWYER APPEARANCE FILED - NO FEE PAID 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: HOWARD HUGH D. Participant: YOUNES JOSEPH	** Page 1 (of the 18-page PDF file, linked above).
07/13/2017	COMPLY - ALLOWED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Judge: BALL-REED, PATRICE MUNZEL Participant: 1720 N SEDGWICK ST	** Pages 2-3 (of the 18-page PDF file, linked above). Duplicate copies of Order reaffirming prior orders which compel Younes, Receiver, & Building Department (City of Chicago) to comply with prior orders. NOTE: Judge strikes my motion for intervention due to not being able to appear in court. (I live in Florida, hello!?) However, as the 3-prong test for Intervention does NOT make "In Propria Persona" physical appearance necessary for Intervention, she rightly scratches out that order. (I hope to God that an honest judge, like this, does NOT get in trouble for doing the right thing.)
07/13/2017	CASE SET ON CASE MANAGEMENT CALL 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Judge: BALL-REED, PATRICE MUNZEL Participant: 1720 N SEDGWICK ST	** Pages 2-3 (of the 18-page PDF file, linked above). Duplicate copies of Order setting the next hearing date: see bottom of Order. ** Date: 07/20/2017 Court Time: 11:00am(CST) Court Room: 1105 ** NOTE: Judge strikes my motion for intervention due to not being able to appear in court. (I live in Florida, hello!? However, as the 3-prong test for Intervention does NOT make "In Propria Persona" physical appearance necessary for Intervention, she rightly scratches out that order. (I hope to God that an honest judge, like this, does NOT get in trouble for doing the right thing.)
07/20/2017	COMPLY - ALLOWED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Judge: BALL-REED, PATRICE MUNZEL Participant: 1720 N SEDGWICK ST	** Pages 4-5 (of the 18-page PDF file, linked above). Duplicate copies of Order, ordering Receiver to monitor the construction (e.g., the repair of the huge damage done) and submit reports to the City "LANDMARKS" commission, weekly, during the repair process.
07/20/2017	CASE SET ON CASE MANAGEMENT CALL 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Judge: BALL-REED, PATRICE MUNZEL Participant: 1720 N SEDGWICK ST	** Date: 08/31/2017 Court Time: 11:00am(CST) Court Room: 1105 ** Pages 4-5 (of the 18-page PDF file, linked above). Duplicate copies of Order, setting the next hearing date.
07/21/2017	ANSWER FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: HOWARD HUGH D. Participant: YOUNES JOSEPH	** Pages 6-17 (of the 18-page PDF file, linked above). Duplicate copies Atty. Hugh Howard's answer brief, on behalf of Atty. Joseph Younes, the lead defendant in this case.
07/21/2017	NOTICE FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: HOWARD HUGH D. Participant: YOUNES JOSEPH	** Page 18 (of the 18-page PDF file, linked above). Atty. Hugh Howard's "Notice of Filing," "Notice of Mailing," and "Certificate of Service," on behalf of Atty. Joseph Younes, the lead defendant in this case.
08/23/2017	NOTICE FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: 1720 N SEDGWICK ST	Apparently referring to my supplement, filed (by mail) on Sat. 08-26-2017, and appearing on the docket over the weekend, after having the FedEx Priority Overnight (PDF format) Delivered on: Tue. 29 Aug 2017, 2:54pm(CST). Unknown as to why it was pre-dated to the 23rd. Also, unknown as to why the court's official docket lists this one filing five (5) times, with different participants. For the record, I filed in duplicate (e.g., 2 copies), as a courtesy to The Court, in case the hard copy, sent in by FedEx 3rd-party commercial carrier and/or a scan clerk tears the paper hard-copy. CAVEAT: Image not available at this time; please check back -- and/or check with the clerk -- for details. ~~Editor UPDATE: Image is available now. Note, also, that time-stamp on image (click on entry to the left) reads: "[20]17 AUG 30," even though the docket (click **here** for screenshot) shows "08/23/2017." ~~Editor
08/23/2017	NOTICE FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: YOUNES JOSEPH	Apparently referring to my supplement, filed (by mail) on Sat. 08-26-2017, and appearing on the docket over the weekend, after having the FedEx Priority Overnight (PDF format) Delivered on: Tue. 29 Aug 2017, 2:54pm(CST). Unknown as to why it was pre-dated to the 23rd. Also, unknown as to why the court's official docket lists this one filing five (5) times, with different participants. For the record, I filed in duplicate (e.g., 2 copies), as a courtesy to The Court, in case the hard copy, sent in by FedEx 3rd-party commercial carrier and/or a scan clerk tears the paper hard-copy. CAVEAT: Image not available at this time; please check back -- and/or check with the clerk -- for details. ~~Editor UPDATE: Image is available now. Note, also, that time-stamp on image (click on entry to the left) reads: "[20]17 AUG 30," even though the docket (click **here** for screenshot) shows "08/23/2017." ~~Editor
08/23/2017	NOTICE FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: ASSOCIATED BANK NA	Apparently referring to my supplement, filed (by mail) on Sat. 08-26-2017, and appearing on the docket over the weekend, after having the FedEx Priority Overnight (PDF format) Delivered on: Tue. 29 Aug 2017, 2:54pm(CST). Unknown as to why it was pre-dated to the 23rd. Also, unknown as to why the court's official docket lists this one filing five (5) times, with different participants. For the record, I filed in duplicate (e.g., 2 copies), as a courtesy to The Court, in case the hard copy, sent in by FedEx 3rd-party commercial carrier and/or a scan clerk tears the paper hard-copy. CAVEAT: Image not available at this time; please check back -- and/or check with the clerk -- for details. ~~Editor UPDATE: Image is available now. Note, also, that time-stamp on image (click on entry to the left) reads: "[20]17 AUG 30," even though the docket (click **here** for screenshot) shows "08/23/2017." ~~Editor
08/23/2017	NOTICE FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: NON-RECORD CLAIMANT(S)	Apparently referring to my supplement, filed (by mail) on Sat. 08-26-2017, and appearing on the docket over the weekend, after having the FedEx Priority Overnight (PDF format) Delivered on: Tue. 29 Aug 2017, 2:54pm(CST). Unknown as to why it was pre-dated to the 23rd. Also, unknown as to why the court's official docket lists this one filing five (5) times, with different participants. For the record, I filed in duplicate (e.g., 2 copies), as a courtesy to The Court, in case the hard copy, sent in by FedEx 3rd-party commercial carrier and/or a scan clerk tears the paper hard-copy. CAVEAT: Image not available at this time; please check back -- and/or check with the clerk -- for details. ~~Editor UPDATE: Image is available now. Note, also, that time-stamp on image (click on entry to the left) reads: "[20]17 AUG 30," even though the docket (click **here** for screenshot) shows "08/23/2017." ~~Editor
08/23/2017	NOTICE FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: UNKNOWN OWNERS	Apparently referring to my supplement, filed (by mail) on Sat. 08-26-2017, and appearing on the docket over the weekend, after having the FedEx Priority Overnight (PDF format) Delivered on: Tue. 29 Aug 2017, 2:54pm(CST). Unknown as to why it was pre-dated to the 23rd. Also, unknown as to why the court's official docket lists this one filing five (5) times, with different participants. For the record, I filed in duplicate (e.g., 2 copies), as a courtesy to The Court, in case the hard copy, sent in by FedEx 3rd-party commercial carrier and/or a scan clerk tears the paper hard-copy. CAVEAT: Image not available at this time; please check back -- and/or check with the clerk -- for details. ~~Editor UPDATE: Image is available now. Note, also, that time-stamp on image (click on entry to the left) reads: "[20]17 AUG 30," even though the docket (click **here** for screenshot) shows "08/23/2017." ~~Editor
08/23/2017	MOTION FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: 1720 N SEDGWICK ST	Apparently (like the 5 entries, immediately above this set of 5), referring to my supplement, filed (by mail) on Sat. 08-26-2017, and appearing on the docket over the weekend, after having the FedEx Priority Overnight (PDF format) Delivered on: Tue. 29 Aug 2017, 2:54pm(CST). Unknown as to why it was pre-dated to the 23rd. Also, unknown as to why the court's official docket lists this one filing five (5) times, with different participants. For the record, I filed in duplicate (e.g., 2 copies), as a courtesy to The Court, in case the hard copy, sent in by FedEx 3rd-party commercial carrier and/or a scan clerk tears the paper hard-copy. CAVEAT: Image not available at this time; please check back -- and/or check with the clerk -- for details. ~~Editor UPDATE: Image is available now. Note, also, that time-stamp on image (click on entry to the left) reads: "[20]17 AUG 30," even though the docket (click **here** for screenshot) shows "08/23/2017." ~~Editor
08/23/2017	MOTION FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: YOUNES JOSEPH	Apparently (like the 5 entries, immediately above this set of 5), referring to my supplement, filed (by mail) on Sat. 08-26-2017, and appearing on the docket over the weekend, after having the FedEx Priority Overnight (PDF format) Delivered on: Tue. 29 Aug 2017, 2:54pm(CST). Unknown as to why it was pre-dated to the 23rd. Also, unknown as to why the court's official docket lists this one filing five (5) times, with different participants. For the record, I filed in duplicate (e.g., 2 copies), as a courtesy to The Court, in case the hard copy, sent in by FedEx 3rd-party commercial carrier and/or a scan clerk tears the paper hard-copy. CAVEAT: Image not available at this time; please check back -- and/or check with the clerk -- for details. ~~Editor UPDATE: Image is available now. Note, also, that time-stamp on image (click on entry to the left) reads: "[20]17 AUG 30," even though the docket (click **here** for screenshot) shows "08/23/2017." ~~Editor
08/23/2017	MOTION FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: ASSOCIATED BANK NA	Apparently (like the 5 entries, immediately above this set of 5), referring to my supplement, filed (by mail) on Sat. 08-26-2017, and appearing on the docket over the weekend, after having the FedEx Priority Overnight (PDF format) Delivered on: Tue. 29 Aug 2017, 2:54pm(CST). Unknown as to why it was pre-dated to the 23rd. Also, unknown as to why the court's official docket lists this one filing five (5) times, with different participants. For the record, I filed in duplicate (e.g., 2 copies), as a courtesy to The Court, in case the hard copy, sent in by FedEx 3rd-party commercial carrier and/or a scan clerk tears the paper hard-copy. CAVEAT: Image not available at this time; please check back -- and/or check with the clerk -- for details. ~~Editor UPDATE: Image is available now. Note, also, that time-stamp on image (click on entry to the left) reads: "[20]17 AUG 30," even though the docket (click **here** for screenshot) shows "08/23/2017." ~~Editor
08/23/2017	MOTION FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: NON-RECORD CLAIMANT(S)	Apparently (like the 5 entries, immediately above this set of 5), referring to my supplement, filed (by mail) on Sat. 08-26-2017, and appearing on the docket over the weekend, after having the FedEx Priority Overnight (PDF format) Delivered on: Tue. 29 Aug 2017, 2:54pm(CST). Unknown as to why it was pre-dated to the 23rd. Also, unknown as to why the court's official docket lists this one filing five (5) times, with different participants. For the record, I filed in duplicate (e.g., 2 copies), as a courtesy to The Court, in case the hard copy, sent in by FedEx 3rd-party commercial carrier and/or a scan clerk tears the paper hard-copy. CAVEAT: Image not available at this time; please check back -- and/or check with the clerk -- for details. ~~Editor UPDATE: Image is available now. Note, also, that time-stamp on image (click on entry to the left) reads: "[20]17 AUG 30," even though the docket (click **here** for screenshot) shows "08/23/2017." ~~Editor
08/23/2017	MOTION FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: UNKNOWN OWNERS	Apparently (like the 5 entries, immediately above this set of 5), referring to my supplement, filed (by mail) on Sat. 08-26-2017, and appearing on the docket over the weekend, after having the FedEx Priority Overnight (PDF format) Delivered on: Tue. 29 Aug 2017, 2:54pm(CST). Unknown as to why it was pre-dated to the 23rd. Also, unknown as to why the court's official docket lists this one filing five (5) times, with different participants. For the record, I filed in duplicate (e.g., 2 copies), as a courtesy to The Court, in case the hard copy, sent in by FedEx 3rd-party commercial carrier and/or a scan clerk tears the paper hard-copy. CAVEAT: Image not available at this time; please check back -- and/or check with the clerk -- for details. ~~Editor UPDATE: Image is available now. Note, also, that time-stamp on image (click on entry to the left) reads: "[20]17 AUG 30," even though the docket (click **here** for screenshot) shows "08/23/2017." ~~Editor
08/23/2017	MOTION FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: WACHTEL SHANE RYAN Participant: 1720 N SEDGWICK ST	An unknown motion filed, apparently by Atty. Shane Ryan Wachtel. (Appearing in quintuplicate on the court's official docket - e.g., 5 copies, like my motion & notice, shown above.) CAVEAT: Image not available at this time; please check back -- and/or check with the clerk -- for details. ~~Editor UPDATE: Image is available now. Note, also, that the docket (click **here** for screenshot) clearly shows "Attorney: WACHTEL SHANE RYAN" as the filer, even though the filing in question (click on entry to the left) is clearly another copy of my filing, from above - which I filed in duplicate, as a redundancy measure, in case, say, a paper got torn or ripped in their scanner machines. Also, my filing is docketed with a time stamp of: "[20]17 AUG 30," even though the docket shows "08/23/2017." (This time-stamp was a little harder to read than the one above, but it appears the same date.) ~~Editor
08/23/2017	MOTION FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: WACHTEL SHANE RYAN Participant: YOUNES JOSEPH	An unknown motion filed, apparently by Atty. Shane Ryan Wachtel. (Appearing in quintuplicate on the court's official docket - e.g., 5 copies, like my motion & notice, shown above.) CAVEAT: Image not available at this time; please check back -- and/or check with the clerk -- for details. ~~Editor UPDATE: Image is available now. Note, also, that the docket (click **here** for screenshot) clearly shows "Attorney: WACHTEL SHANE RYAN" as the filer, even though the filing in question (click on entry to the left) is clearly another copy of my filing, from above - which I filed in duplicate, as a redundancy measure, in case, say, a paper got torn or ripped in their scanner machines. Also, my filing is docketed with a time stamp of: "[20]17 AUG 30," even though the docket shows "08/23/2017." (This time-stamp was a little harder to read than the one above, but it appears the same date.) ~~Editor
08/23/2017	MOTION FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: WACHTEL SHANE RYAN Participant: ASSOCIATED BANK NA	An unknown motion filed, apparently by Atty. Shane Ryan Wachtel. (Appearing in quintuplicate on the court's official docket - e.g., 5 copies, like my motion & notice, shown above.) CAVEAT: Image not available at this time; please check back -- and/or check with the clerk -- for details. ~~Editor UPDATE: Image is available now. Note, also, that the docket (click **here** for screenshot) clearly shows "Attorney: WACHTEL SHANE RYAN" as the filer, even though the filing in question (click on entry to the left) is clearly another copy of my filing, from above - which I filed in duplicate, as a redundancy measure, in case, say, a paper got torn or ripped in their scanner machines. Also, my filing is docketed with a time stamp of: "[20]17 AUG 30," even though the docket shows "08/23/2017." (This time-stamp was a little harder to read than the one above, but it appears the same date.) ~~Editor
08/23/2017	MOTION FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: WACHTEL SHANE RYAN Participant: NON-RECORD CLAIMANT(S)	An unknown motion filed, apparently by Atty. Shane Ryan Wachtel. (Appearing in quintuplicate on the court's official docket - e.g., 5 copies, like my motion & notice, shown above.) CAVEAT: Image not available at this time; please check back -- and/or check with the clerk -- for details. ~~Editor UPDATE: Image is available now. Note, also, that the docket (click **here** for screenshot) clearly shows "Attorney: WACHTEL SHANE RYAN" as the filer, even though the filing in question (click on entry to the left) is clearly another copy of my filing, from above - which I filed in duplicate, as a redundancy measure, in case, say, a paper got torn or ripped in their scanner machines. Also, my filing is docketed with a time stamp of: "[20]17 AUG 30," even though the docket shows "08/23/2017." (This time-stamp was a little harder to read than the one above, but it appears the same date.) ~~Editor
08/23/2017	MOTION FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: WACHTEL SHANE RYAN Participant: UNKNOWN OWNERS	An unknown motion filed, apparently by Atty. Shane Ryan Wachtel. (Appearing in quintuplicate on the court's official docket - e.g., 5 copies, like my motion & notice, shown above.) CAVEAT: Image not available at this time; please check back -- and/or check with the clerk -- for details. ~~Editor UPDATE: Image is available now. Note, also, that the docket (click **here** for screenshot) clearly shows "Attorney: WACHTEL SHANE RYAN" as the filer, even though the filing in question (click on entry to the left) is clearly another copy of my filing, from above - which I filed in duplicate, as a redundancy measure, in case, say, a paper got torn or ripped in their scanner machines. Also, my filing is docketed with a time stamp of: "[20]17 AUG 30," even though the docket shows "08/23/2017." (This time-stamp was a little harder to read than the one above, but it appears the same date.) ~~Editor
08/26/2017	Supplement to Motion for Limited Intervention by Intervenor, Gordon Wayne Watts concurrent with Responsive pleadings regarding Scrivener's Errors, etc. 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: 1720 North SEDGWICK Street	"Supplement to Motion for Limited Intervention by Intervenor, Gordon Wayne Watts concurrent with Responsive pleadings regarding Scrivener's Errors, etc.," which is pretty self-explanatory: Short, 11-page text-searchable PDF document, filed by mail, as indicated, below. The supplement, here, reflects several major new developments: First, I was granted Intervention in the sister case, which is legally persuasive, even if not binding Collateral Estoppel; Secondly, I found numerous Scrivener's Errors, mostly from others; Lastly, I notice I had to address some orphaned legal issues, not the least of which was how Mr. Daniggelis was not getting his fair day in court, even in spite of the benevolent generosity of the Housing (Code Violations) judge, assigned to this case, so I had to offer an alternative solution for him. Oh, and, as I was claiming my interests weren't being represented, I owed The Court a solution, which was to reverse the order of the fines and the repairs, so-as-to avoid running off Mr. Younes before he could complete the necessary repairs on the mess he created! * Notice of Filing & Certificate of Service (Page 1 of 11) * Service List (Page 2 of 11) * Motion, proper, for Limited Intervention, etc. (Pages 3-7 of 11) * Verification by Certification (Page 8 of 11) * Exhibits (Page 9-11 of 11) Proof of Service: * FedEx Priority Overnight (PDF format) Delivered on: Tue. 29 Aug 2017, 2:54pm(CST) * First Class U.S. Postal Mail postage (with FedEx receipt too) ** *.jpg image ** PDF file ** *.doc Word doc **
08/31/2017	COMPLY - ALLOWED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Judge: BALL-REED, PATRICE MUNZEL Participant: 1720 N SEDGWICK ST	Probably an Order allowing (or more like: ORDERING) that the court-appointed receiver, the City of Chicago, and Atty. Joseph Younes, all 3, cooperate and COMPLY with the prior court orders regarding fixing what Mr. Younes damaged after he stole the house from Daniggelis thru a forged (and obviously identically-photocopied) signature on a Warranty Deed when Daniggelis attempted to get refinancing. CAVEAT #1: Daniggelis NEVER got paid a DIME, and lost (as documented in my court filings) HUNDREDS of thousands of dollars in equity, as well, which lack of payment, all by itself, invalidates any transfer of title - not even counting the proof of photocopy forgery that I provided the court, using the court's own record. ** CAVEAT #2: Image not available at this time; please check back -- and/or check with the clerk -- for details. ~~Editor *** UPDATE: Image now available; you may click on link to the left, in the docket. ~~Editor
08/31/2017	CASE SET ON CASE MANAGEMENT CALL 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Judge: BALL-REED, PATRICE MUNZEL Participant: 1720 N SEDGWICK ST	Date: 10/19/2017 Court Time: 09:30am(CST) Court Room: 1105 ** Apparently an Order setting the next court date. CAVEAT: Image not available at this time; please check back -- and/or check with the clerk -- for details. ~~Editor *** UPDATE: Image now available; you may click on link to the left, in the docket. The court's docket showed a 9:30am(CST) time, inapposite to the 11:00am(CST) time shown on the actual order, and for reasons unknown to this writer. See below for further discussion/documentation on this phenomenon. ~~Editor
10/19/2017	MOTION FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: 1720 N. SEDGWICK ST.	Self-explanatory - Motion to Intervention as of right, but this motion is from Richard B. Daniggelis, the genuine and actual, true owner of 1720 N. Sedgwick Street (house & property). Note the similarities in his filing as compared with mine: someone was paying attention in class. However, his rights to intervene are several orders of magnitude greater than mine, as he's the true owner, and I'm merely a person who is owed monies by the true owner, and would stand to be affected were he ruled against, here (thus giving rise to my rights to intervene). What seems very odd, however, is that the court did **NOT** grant his (valid) request to proceed in forma pauperis, for which he qualified. Why!?..., I would like to ask the court (but am afraid to do, lest they execute wrath against me in some way). Moreover, it is even more odd that Mr. Shelton (see "Exhibit-C" of **this** filing (click here to open in new window) was permitted and allowed to make a motion in open court (verbally, orally, that is, without filing anything), but Mr. Daniggelis (see his filing, here) was not permitted to do the same, when he asked to speak in court on a prior occasion. (Is there "ANTI-non-attorney" bias by the court here? Is this not a violation of State & Federal Equal Protection in this regard?) So, even when Mr. Daniggelis filed his request in written form (something that the court did not require of Shelton in a similar situation, hello?), the judge would not entertain his motion, and told him to set a court date, refile it, and this time, serve all the parties (whom he did not -- and could not -- serve because of his genuine, and documented financial hardship, which qualified him to proceed as a "chapter 298 indigent" filer, e.g., in forma pauperis: It is on record, and the court is without excuse on this head: see e.g., Exhibit-B-i and Exhibit-B-ii of **this** filing (click here to open in new window), and note that, on 3/12/2014, Hon. George F. Scully, Jr., in Younes v. Daniggelis (2014-M1-701473) entered an order of: “SUE OR DEFEND AS A INDIGENT PERSON – ALLOWED,” according to the docket [See also Exhibit-B]. Secondly, the gentleman is elderly and was made homeless, hello? If that's not prima facie evidence of 298 Indigent status, I don't know what is. Lastly, since the left hand should know what the right hand is doing, Mr. Daniggelis' status, in the Civil Division case, as 298 Indigent should have been apparent to The Court in this Law Division case—in the same manner that dockets in ALL the divisions are UPDATED with an attorney's new address, even when he updates said info with ONE division. *** SUMMARY *** -- #1 -- Court denied him rights to proceed in forma pauperis (Denied Due Process, here, and, as it was unequal to other litigants, violated State/Federal Equal Protection.) -- #2 -- Denied him the right to make a motion verbally as with other litigants (possibly Due Process issue, but not so much as he could file in writing; VERY egregious Equal Protection violation, as his treatment was anything but equal or fair.) -- #3 -- Did not grant him intervention (nor did the court grant me intervention), which flies in the face of clear / plain language of the case law surrounding this issue. (Court initially ordered I be denied for not showing up in court -- bad reason, not supported by case law -- but, later, wisely scribbled out said order. (See the 2nd page of **this** order, here.) Nonetheless, the court still hasn't *granted* either of our motions to intervene. Can you say "unjust judge" or "liberal activist bias," hello? The Conservative Rule of Law was certainly not followed, favouring only the rich and powerful. (Exhibits are included in the self-same document, unlike as is sometimes done.) You may click the name of the filing, to the left, to view it in PDF format.
10/19/2017	MOTION FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: YOUNES JOSEPH	Ibid. (Motion to Intervention as of right, from Mr. Richard B. Daniggelis, the genuine and actual, true owner of 1720 N. Sedgwick Street- house & property.)
10/19/2017	MOTION FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: ASSOCIATED BANK NA	Ibid. (Motion to Intervention as of right, from Mr. Richard B. Daniggelis, the genuine and actual, true owner of 1720 N. Sedgwick Street- house & property.)
10/19/2017	MOTION FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: NON-RECORD CLAIMANT(S)	Ibid. (Motion to Intervention as of right, from Mr. Richard B. Daniggelis, the genuine and actual, true owner of 1720 N. Sedgwick Street- house & property.)
10/19/2017	MOTION FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: UNKNOWN OWNERS	Ibid. (Motion to Intervention as of right, from Mr. Richard B. Daniggelis, the genuine and actual, true owner of 1720 N. Sedgwick Street- house & property.)
10/19/2017	COMPLY - ALLOWED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Judge: BALL-REED, PATRICE MUNZEL Participant: 1720 N. SEDGWICK ST.	Mr. Younes is allowed (read: ORDERED!) to comply with the scheduling of an interior and exterior inspection of the premises, apparently, with both the court-appointed receiver (C.R. Realty) as well as the Plaintiff (The City of Chicago, IL).
10/19/2017	CASE SET ON CASE MANAGEMENT CALL 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Judge: BALL-REED, PATRICE MUNZEL Participant: 1720 N. SEDGWICK ST.	Date: 11/09/2017 ; Court Time: 09:30am(CST) ; Court Room: 1105 *** NOTE: Sources tell The Register that court did not being until 11:00am(CST) that day, for reasons unknown to this writer: the written order, as you can see, reflects the correct 11:00am(CST) time, but a screenshot of the court's docket (even to this day -- click **here** for screenshot) reflects the incorrect 09:30am(CST) time. ~~Editor.
11/9/2017	COMPLY - ALLOWED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Judge: BALL-REED, PATRICE MUNZEL Participant: 1720 N. SEDGWICK ST.	This hearing (on Thr. 11/9/2017) commenced at 11:00am(CST) as reflected in the "10/19/2017" order (above), but at variance with the online docket click **here** for screenshot), and for reasons unknown to this writer. The document (the "11/9/2017" court order, here) is not yet available, as of press time, but unnamed (but trusted) sources tell The Register that there is a court date set for Thursday, 25 January 2018, before Associate Judge, Patrice Munzell Ball-Reed, for a status hearing on how work is progressing -- and with explicit and unambiguous orders to restore the house to its original condition, once a building permit is issued -- or else face steep & heavy-duty fines. Sources close to The Register tell us that the court-appointed receiver (CR Realty) will continue to monitor work on the 1720 N. Sedgwick St. house/property, as will the City of Chicago (IL) Department of Buildings -as well as the Landmarks Commission, a city agency overseeing historic district & landmark issues.
11/9/2017	CASE SET ON CASE MANAGEMENT CALL 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Judge: BALL-REED, PATRICE MUNZEL Participant: 1720 N. SEDGWICK ST.	Date: 01/25/2018 ; Court Time: 11:00am (CST) ; Court Room: 1105. The court's online docket has confirmed that the unnamed sources were correct, and is reflected in this updated. Image not yet available; refer to court for official info. ~Editor
12/20/2017	EXHIBITS FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: 1720 N SEDGWICK ST	This writer called the clerk's office and asked what this entry was and was told it was a receipt (for my payment via Credit Card) for the Public Records request that I had made way back on 11/09/2017. No kidding. This entry (dated over a month later) didn't appear on my end until very recently, as I recall. So, no need for me to get an image & post it; boring stuff. ~Editor
12/20/2017	EXHIBITS FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: YOUNES JOSEPH	Ibid. Court's docket has this listed five (5) times-but with different 'participants'; see above.
12/20/2017	EXHIBITS FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: ASSOCIATED BANK NA	Ibid. Court's docket has this listed five (5) times-but with different 'participants'; see above.
12/20/2017	EXHIBITS FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: NON-RECORD CLAIMAN	Ibid. Court's docket has this listed five (5) times-but with different 'participants'; see above.
12/20/2017	EXHIBITS FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: UNKNOWN OWNERS	Ibid. Court's docket has this listed five (5) times-but with different 'participants'; see above.
01/25/2018	COMPLY - ALLOWED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Judge: BALL-REED, PATRICE MUNZEL Participant: 1720 N SEDGWICK ST.	Mr. Younes is allowed (read: 'ordered') to comply with court orders to repair the damages he did; see below for further detail.
01/25/2018	CASE SET ON CASE MANAGEMENT CALL 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Judge: BALL-REED, PATRICE MUNZEL Participant: 1720 N. SEDGWICK ST.	Date: 04/05/2018 ; Court Time: 11:00am (CST) ; Court Room: 1105. ** The court ordered that defendant, Atty. Joseph Younes, must schedule & be present for an interior and exterior inspection with the City of Chicago's Building Department; that all prior court orders (such as, for example, having C.R. Realty, as a receiver, to oversee things) are still in full force & effect; and, lastly, that the case is continued until Thursday, 05 April 2018, 11:00am(CST) in courtroom 1105 of the Daley Center. We have finally gotten images for this entry, and some sources tell us that the City of Chicago was very picky with Mr. Younes, and that this very greatly slowed down any attempts he might have made to repair the house. Other sources, however, tell us that the court was real lenient on Mr. Younes, giving him plenty of time, from late January, until early April, to comply. The source file had shadows in it, and it was corrected for, as shown in this time-lapse "*.gif" GIF image with fade effects: 2017-M1-400775-Jan25-2018-ORDER-continuance.gif PDF format: 2017-M1-400775-Jan25-2018-ORDER-continuance.pdf Source files: * as-taken-photo-recentORDER.JPG * brightness-corrected-recentORDER.JPG * ORDER-mid-brightness.JPG ** UPDATE: fromCourt_2017-M1-400775-Jan25-2018-ORDER-continuance.pdf (a clearer copy was obtained from the court, as the above was from unnamed sources) ~Editor
04/05/2018	COMPLY - ALLOWED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Judge: BALL-REED, PATRICE MUNZEL Participant: 1720 N SEDGWICK ST.	"Comply" by cooperating with Court's order of continuance.
04/05/2018	FILE APPEARANCE OR JURY DEMAND, ANSWER OR PLEAD - ALLOWED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Judge: BALL-REED, PATRICE MUNZEL Participant: 1720 N SEDGWICK ST.	"Receiver's first interim accounting is filed instanter. All parties have 28 days to respond and 21 days to reply."
04/05/2018	CASE SET ON CASE MANAGEMENT CALL 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Judge: BALL-REED, PATRICE MUNZEL Participant: CITY OF CHICAGO	** Date: 05/31/2018 ; Court Time: 11:00am(CST) ; Court Room: 1105.
05/02/2018	EXHIBITS FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: HOWARD, HUGH D. Participant: 1720 N. SEDGWICK ST.	** RESPONSE AND OBJECTIONS TO RECEIVER'S FIRST INTERIM ACCOUNTING REPORT
05/02/2018	EXHIBITS FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: HOWARD, HUGH D. Participant: YOUNES JOSEPH	** RESPONSE AND OBJECTIONS TO RECEIVER'S FIRST INTERIM ACCOUNTING REPORT
05/02/2018	EXHIBITS FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: HOWARD, HUGH D. Participant: ASSOCIATED BANK, N.A.	** RESPONSE AND OBJECTIONS TO RECEIVER'S FIRST INTERIM ACCOUNTING REPORT
05/02/2018	EXHIBITS FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: HOWARD, HUGH D. Participant: NON-RECORD CLAIMANTS	** COMMENT: I, the editor-in-chief, am a "non-record claimant" according to my official filings, which, as one may see, are on docket, but this attorney did NOT serve me, either by email, hard copy, or otherwise. What is his problem insofar as he does not comply with Supreme Court RULE 11?? ~Editor Rule 11. Manner of Serving Documents Other Than Process and Complaint on Parties Not in Default in the Trial and Reviewing Courts (a) On Whom Made. If a party is represented by an attorney of record, service shall be made upon the attorney. Otherwise service shall be made upon the party. ** RESPONSE AND OBJECTIONS TO RECEIVER'S FIRST INTERIM ACCOUNTING REPORT
05/02/2018	EXHIBITS FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: HOWARD, HUGH D. Participant: UNKNOWN OWNERS	** RESPONSE AND OBJECTIONS TO RECEIVER'S FIRST INTERIM ACCOUNTING REPORT
05/02/2018	RESPONSE / REPLY - FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: HOWARD, HUGH D. Participant: 1720 N. SEDGWICK ST.	RESPONSE AND OBJECTIONS TO RECEIVER'S FIRST INTERIM ACCOUNTING REPORT
05/02/2018	RESPONSE / REPLY - FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: HOWARD, HUGH D. Participant: YOUNES JOSEPH	RESPONSE AND OBJECTIONS TO RECEIVER'S FIRST INTERIM ACCOUNTING REPORT
05/02/2018	RESPONSE / REPLY - FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: HOWARD, HUGH D. Participant: ASSOCIATED BANK, N.A.	RESPONSE AND OBJECTIONS TO RECEIVER'S FIRST INTERIM ACCOUNTING REPORT
05/02/2018	RESPONSE / REPLY - FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: HOWARD, HUGH D. Participant: NON-RECORD CLAIMANTS	** See my comments above I was not served properly, as Supreme Court RULE 11(a) requires.RESPONSE AND OBJECTIONS TO RECEIVER'S FIRST INTERIM ACCOUNTING REPORT
05/02/2018	RESPONSE / REPLY - FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: HOWARD, HUGH D. Participant: UNKNOWN OWNERS	RESPONSE AND OBJECTIONS TO RECEIVER'S FIRST INTERIM ACCOUNTING REPORT
05/31/2018	TRIAL LAWYER APPEARANCE FILED - NO FEE PAID 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: GREIMAN ROME GRIESMEYER, LLC Participant: UNKNOWN OWNERS	** Court Room: 1105 ** ** Editor's Note: This entry appears in duplicate on docket, so it shall appear in duplicate in our docket, as well, to reflect reality. ~Editor
05/31/2018	TRIAL LAWYER APPEARANCE FILED - NO FEE PAID 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: GREIMAN ROME GRIESMEYER, LLC Participant: UNKNOWN OWNERS	** Court Room: 1105 **** Editor's Note: This entry appears in duplicate on docket, so it shall appear in duplicate in our docket, as well, to reflect reality. ~Editor
05/31/2018	NOTICE OF FILING FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: GREIMAN ROME GRIESMEYER, LLC Participant: 1720 N. SEDGWICK ST.	* on page 1 * Filings which included this: 2017-M1-400775-May31-2018-Substitution_Greiman.pdf
05/31/2018	NOTICE OF FILING FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: GREIMAN ROME GRIESMEYER, LLC Participant: YOUNES JOSEPH	* on page 1 * Filings which included this: 2017-M1-400775-May31-2018-Substitution_Greiman.pdf
05/31/2018	NOTICE OF FILING FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: GREIMAN ROME GRIESMEYER, LLC Participant: ASSOCIATED BANK, N.A.	* on page 1 * Filings which included this: 2017-M1-400775-May31-2018-Substitution_Greiman.pdf
05/31/2018	NOTICE OF FILING FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: GREIMAN ROME GRIESMEYER, LLC Participant: NON-RECORD CLAIMANTS	* on page 1 * Filings which included this: 2017-M1-400775-May31-2018-Substitution_Greiman.pdf *Editor's Note: I am a non-record claimant, and yet was NOT served as the court rules clearly require. What gives?? ~Editor
05/31/2018	NOTICE OF FILING FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: GREIMAN ROME GRIESMEYER, LLC Participant: UNKNOWN OWNERS	* on page 1 * Filings which included this: 2017-M1-400775-May31-2018-Substitution_Greiman.pdf
05/31/2018	PROOF OF SERVICE FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: GREIMAN ROME GRIESMEYER, LLC Participant: 1720 N. SEDGWICK ST.	** on page 2 **
05/31/2018	PROOF OF SERVICE FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: GREIMAN ROME GRIESMEYER, LLC Participant: YOUNES JOSEPH	** on page 2 **
05/31/2018	PROOF OF SERVICE FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: GREIMAN ROME GRIESMEYER, LLC Participant: ASSOCIATED BANK, N.A.	** on page 2 **
05/31/2018	PROOF OF SERVICE FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: GREIMAN ROME GRIESMEYER, LLC Participant: NON-RECORD CLAIMANTS	** on page 2 **Editor's Note: I am a non-record claimant, and yet was NOT served as the court rules clearly require. What gives?? ~Editor
05/31/2018	PROOF OF SERVICE FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: GREIMAN ROME GRIESMEYER, LLC Participant: UNKNOWN OWNERS	** on page 2 **
05/31/2018	FILE APPEARANCE OR JURY DEMAND, ANSWER OR PLEAD - ALLOWED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Judge: BALL-REED, PATRICE MUNZEL Participant: 1720 N. SEDGWICK ST.	** Appearance allowed. **
05/31/2018	SUBSTITUTE OR ADD ATTORNEY - ALLOWED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Judge: BALL-REED, PATRICE MUNZEL Attorney: GREIMAN ROME GRIESMEYER, LLC Participant: 1720 N. SEDGWICK ST.	** Substitution of attorneys allowed. **
05/31/2018	WITHDRAWAL OF ATTORNEY FROM CASE - ALLOWED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Judge: BALL-REED, PATRICE MUNZEL Attorney: Attorney: KARE, DEMETRIS A. Participant: 1720 N. SEDGWICK ST.	** Withdrawal of attorneys allowed leave (permission) of court to withdraw. **
05/31/2018	CASE SET ON CASE MANAGEMENT CALL 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Judge: BALL-REED, PATRICE MUNZEL Participant: CITY OF CHICAGO	** Date: Thursday, 07/12/2018 ** Court Time: 11:00am(CST) ** Court Room: 1105 **
06/07/2018	RESPONSE / REPLY - FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: GREIMAN ROME GRIESMEYER, LLC 1720 N. SEDGWICK ST.	** CR Realty's reply. **
06/07/2018	RESPONSE / REPLY - FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: GREIMAN ROME GRIESMEYER, LLC Participant: YOUNES JOSEPH	** CR Realty's reply. **
06/07/2018	RESPONSE / REPLY - FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: GREIMAN ROME GRIESMEYER, LLC Participant: ASSOCIATED BANK, N.A.	** CR Realty's reply. **
06/07/2018	RESPONSE / REPLY - FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: GREIMAN ROME GRIESMEYER, LLC Participant: NON-RECORD CLAIMANTS	** CR Realty's reply. ** Editor's Note: I am a non-record claimant, and yet was NOT served as the court rules clearly require. What gives?? ~Editor
06/07/2018	RESPONSE / REPLY - FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: GREIMAN ROME GRIESMEYER, LLC Participant: UNKNOWN OWNERS	** CR Realty's reply. **
06/07/2018	RESPONSE / REPLY - FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: GREIMAN ROME GRIESMEYER, LLC 1720 N. SEDGWICK ST.	** CR Realty's reply. **
06/07/2018	RESPONSE / REPLY - FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: GREIMAN ROME GRIESMEYER, LLC Participant: YOUNES JOSEPH	** CR Realty's reply. **
06/07/2018	RESPONSE / REPLY - FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: GREIMAN ROME GRIESMEYER, LLC Participant: ASSOCIATED BANK, N.A.	** CR Realty's reply. **
06/07/2018	RESPONSE / REPLY - FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: GREIMAN ROME GRIESMEYER, LLC Participant: NON-RECORD CLAIMANTS	** CR Realty's reply. ** Editor's Note: I am a non-record claimant, and yet was NOT served as the court rules clearly require. What gives?? ~Editor
06/07/2018	RESPONSE / REPLY - FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: GREIMAN ROME GRIESMEYER, LLC Participant: UNKNOWN OWNERS	** CR Realty's reply. **
06/07/2018	NOTICE FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: GREIMAN ROME GRIESMEYER, LLC 1720 N. SEDGWICK ST.	** CR Realty's Notice of Filing. **
06/07/2018	NOTICE FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: GREIMAN ROME GRIESMEYER, LLC Participant: YOUNES JOSEPH	** CR Realty's Notice of Filing. **
06/07/2018	NOTICE FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: GREIMAN ROME GRIESMEYER, LLC Participant: ASSOCIATED BANK, N.A.	** CR Realty's Notice of Filing. **
06/07/2018	NOTICE FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: GREIMAN ROME GRIESMEYER, LLC Participant: NON-RECORD CLAIMANTS	** CR Realty's Notice of Filing. ** Editor's Note: I am a non-record claimant, and yet was NOT served as the court rules clearly require. What gives?? ~Editor
06/07/2018	NOTICE FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: GREIMAN ROME GRIESMEYER, LLC Participant: UNKNOWN OWNERS	** CR Realty's Notice of Filing. **
07/12/2018	COMPLY - ALLOWED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Judge: BALL-REED, PATRICE MUNZEL Participant: 1720 N. SEDGWICK ST.	Defendant, Joseph Younes, is allowed (read: 'ordered') to comply.
07/12/2018	CASE SET ON CASE MANAGEMENT CALL 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Judge: BALL-REED, PATRICE MUNZEL Participant: 1720 N. SEDGWICK ST.	Date: Thursday, 07/19/2018 ; Court Time: 01:30pm(CST) ; Court Room: 1105
07/19/2018	CASE SET ON CASE MANAGEMENT CALL 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Judge: BALL-REED, PATRICE MUNZEL Participant: 1720 N. SEDGWICK ST.	Date: Thursday, 08/23/2018 ; Court Time: 11:00am(CST) ; Court Room: 1105
07/19/2018	MOTION TO - DENIED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Judge: BALL-REED, PATRICE MUNZEL Participant: YOUNES JOSEPH	"1. Defendant's Motion to Strike Receiver's Affidavit is denied 2. Receiver's interim accounting is continued. Receiver is granted leave (permission) to file additional information to supplement its accounting on or before August 2, 2018."
08/13/2018	APPEARANCE FILED - FEE PAID 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: RAINES THOMAS R. Participant: 1720 N. SEDGWICK ST.	Court Fee: $237.00 ** Image not available yet. ** Check with court for the most updated docket filing images and/or for official information.~Editor
08/13/2018	EXHIBITS FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: PRO SE Participant: YOUNES JOSEPH	** Image not available yet. ** Check with court for the most updated docket filing images and/or for official information.~Editor
08/13/2018	CASE ELECTRONICALLY FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: RAINES THOMAS R. Participant: 1720 N. SEDGWICK ST.	** Image not available yet. ** Check with court for the most updated docket filing images and/or for official information.~Editor
08/23/2018	COMPLY - ALLOWED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Judge: BALL-REED, PATRICE MUNZEL Participant: 1720 N. SEDGWICK ST.	** Image not available yet. ** Check with court for the most updated docket filing images and/or for official information.~Editor
08/23/2018	DISBURSE MONIES OR FUNDS - ALLOWED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Judge: BALL-REED, PATRICE MUNZEL Participant: 1720 N. SEDGWICK ST.	** Image not available yet. ** Check with court for the most updated docket filing images and/or for official information.~Editor
08/23/2018	CASE SET ON CASE MANAGEMENT CALL 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Judge: BALL-REED, PATRICE MUNZEL Participant: 1720 N. SEDGWICK ST.	Date: Thursday, 09/20/2018 ; Court Time: 11:00am(CST) ; Court Room: 1105 ** Image not available yet. ** Check with court for the most updated docket filing images and/or for official information.~Editor
09/20/2018	CASE SET ON CASE MANAGEMENT CALL 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Judge: BALL-REED, PATRICE MUNZEL Participant: 1720 N. SEDGWICK ST.	Date: Thursday, 10/18/2018 ; Court Time: 09:30am(CST) ; Court Room: 1105 ** Image not available yet. ** Check with court for the most updated docket filing images and/or for official information.~Editor
10/18/2018	COMPLY - ALLOWED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Judge: BALL-REED, PATRICE MUNZEL Participant: 1720 N. SEDGWICK ST.	** Image not available yet. ** Check with court for the most updated docket filing images and/or for official information.~Editor
10/18/2018	DISCHARGE GUARDIAN AD LITEM, TRUSTEE, ADMINISTRATOR OR EXECUTOR - ALW - 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Judge: BALL-REED, PATRICE MUNZEL Participant: 1720 N. SEDGWICK ST.	** Image not available yet. ** Check with court for the most updated docket filing images and/or for official information.~Editor
10/18/2018	CASE SET ON CASE MANAGEMENT CALL 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Judge: BALL-REED, PATRICE MUNZEL Participant: 1720 N. SEDGWICK ST.	Date: Thursday, 11/15/2018 ; Court Time: 09:30am(CST) ; Court Room: 1105 ** Image not available yet. ** Check with court for the most updated docket filing images and/or for official information.~Editor
11/14/2018	NOTICE OF FILING FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: GREIMAN ROME GRIESMEYER, LLC Participant: CR REALTY ADVISORS	** Image not available yet. ** Check with court for the most updated docket filing images and/or for official information.~Editor
11/14/2018	REPORT OF TRUSTEE FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: GREIMAN ROME GRIESMEYER, LLC Participant: CR REALTY ADVISORS	** Image not available yet. ** Check with court for the most updated docket filing images and/or for official information.~Editor.
11/15/2018	COMPLY - ALLOWED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Judge: BALL-REED, PATRICE MUNZEL Participant: 1720 N. SEDGWICK ST.	** Image not available yet. ** Check with court for the most updated docket filing images and/or for official information.~Editor
11/15/2018	CASE SET ON CASE MANAGEMENT CALL 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Judge: BALL-REED, PATRICE MUNZEL Participant: 1720 N. SEDGWICK ST.	Date: Thursday, 02/07/2019 ; Court Time: 11:00am(CST) ; Court Room: 1105 ** Image not available yet. ** Check with court for the most updated docket filing images and/or for official information.~Editor
12/13/2018	RESPONSE / REPLY - FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: HOWARD, HUGH D. Participant: YOUNES, JOSEPH	** Image not available yet. ** Check with court for the most updated docket filing images and/or for official information.~Editor
12/17/2018	RESPONSE / REPLY - FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: HOWARD, HUGH D. Participant: YOUNES, JOSEPH	** Image not available yet. ** Check with court for the most updated docket filing images and/or for official information.~Editor.
01/17/2019	RESPONSE / REPLY - FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: GREIMAN ROME GRIESMEYER, LLC Participant: CR REALTY ADVISORS.	** Image not available yet. ** Check with court for the most updated docket filing images and/or for official information.~Editor
01/17/2019	NOTICE OF FILING FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Attorney: GREIMAN ROME GRIESMEYER, LLC Participant: CR REALTY ADVISORS	** Image not available yet. ** Check with court for the most updated docket filing images and/or for official information.~Editor
02/07/2019	COMPLY - ALLOWED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Judge: BALL-REED, PATRICE MUNZEL Participant: 1720 N. SEDGWICK ST.	** Image not available yet. ** Check with court for the most updated docket filing images and/or for official information.~Editor
02/07/2019	CASE SET ON CASE MANAGEMENT CALL 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Judge: BALL-REED, PATRICE MUNZEL Participant: 1720 N. SEDGWICK ST.	Date: Thursday, 02/21/2019 ; Court Time: 11:00am(CST) ; Court Room: 1105 ** Image not available yet. ** Check with court for the most updated docket filing images and/or for official information.~Editor
02/21/2019	COMPLY - ALLOWED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Judge: BALL-REED, PATRICE MUNZEL Participant: 1720 N. SEDGWICK ST.	** Image not available yet. ** Check with court for the most updated docket filing images and/or for official information.~Editor
02/21/2019	WITHDRAWAL OF ATTORNEY FROM CASE - ALLOWED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Judge: BALL-REED, PATRICE MUNZEL Attorney: HOWARD, HUGH D. Participant: 1720 N. SEDGWICK ST.	** Image not available yet. ** Check with court for the most updated docket filing images and/or for official information.~Editor
02/21/2019	CASE SET ON CASE MANAGEMENT CALL 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHICAGO v. Younes, et al.	Judge: BALL-REED, PATRICE MUNZEL Participant: CITY OF CHICAGO	Date: Thursday, 04/25/2019 ; Court Time: 09:30am(CST) ; Court Room: 1105 ** Image not available yet. ** Check with court for the most updated docket filing images and/or for official information.~Editor
** Click HERE to get to Top of Page **