Atty. Albert S. Krawczyk, Esq., Senior
Counsel
Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary
Commission
130 E. Randolph Dr., STE 1500, Chicago, IL
60601-6209
PH:312-565-2600 (Switchboard), PH:
312-540-5277
(Mr. Krawczyk), PH: 312-540-5278 (Ms.
Golden)
Subject: "Re: Joseph Younes, in
relation to Gordon Wayne Watts, case #: 2015-IN-03387"
DATE: Monday, 02 May 2016, 11:40pm,
CST (Tuesday, 03 May 2016, 12:40am, EST )
Dear Mr. Krawczyk:
I am in receipt of your postal mail dated Feb. 19, 2016 (a copy of which
is in the attachments in this email, here). Thank you for the excellent
attention to detail that you gave, some of which uncovered surprising
admissions by Mr. Younes, at least three of which can easily be proved false.
While your conclusion was legally-speaking incorrect, I think you made an
excellent "good faith" effort.
Additionally, as I stated in my reply (attached) to your legal findings,
I would like to apologize, Big Time – Major League: As you know, you replied
to me over 2 months ago, but many things came up, and I tender my deep
apologies for my negligence: If anything happens to my friend, Mr. Daniggelis,
as a result of my delay, his blood will be on my hands, and I will be 100% and
fully at fault. –Therefore: I am including you this electronic copy of my
reply (which my records show was signed for and received by an "L.MEDINA" this
morning).
After I proof-read your response and my reply, I noticed several typos
that I had overlooked before sending, and so I would like to offer a brief
"addendum" to my crossreply:
1) First off, you reference "1725" N. Sedgewick St. (in
Old Towne) as Mr. Daniggelis' home. Actually it is
1720, not 1725, and it's
"Sedgwick," without the 2nd letter 'e' (a misspelling), not
"Sedgewick,". However, I myself made numerous
small typographical errors in my own reply (attached as a PDF in my email
here), so I'm not going to be "finger pointing" in this regard. (I don't think
my typos changed the meaning of anything, and so I trust they are "harmless
error" mistakes, as the legal saying goes.)
2) I referenced Mr. Younes' mailing address as "120 W
Madison St Ste 1405, Chicago, IL 60602-4128," but it may be 166 W. Washington
St. STE 600," and his number might be "312-802-1122," and not "312-372-1122,"
as I indicated in my reply, here. (You might check with him for official
updated contact information.)
3) You take issue with the fact that Mr. Andjelko Galic did not
file a complaint with the IARDC, and there were two points that
I seemed to have forgotten to mention in my reply. I do vividly recall Mr.
Daniggelis saying something about wanting to contact the IARDC, as well as the
other regulatory agencies, including but not limited to, the Atty. General's
Office. In that regard, my complaint does probably represent the wished of Mr.
Daniggelis, tho he might have to review my specific assertions to verify
exactly what happened. Secondly, I do recall hearing that Mr. Galic has been
under a very heavy workload, and this might partly explain why he did not file
a complaint to the IARDC, as Mr. Daniggelis would have liked. I can not
speak for Mr. Galic, but this is a possible explanation. You might speak with
Daniggelis and Galic to get more exact details, as they are the principles,
and I am merely a Good Samaritan, trying to be a "catalyst for change"
-positive change, that is.
4) When speaking with Robert J. More the other day, he
informed me that he wishes to join my complaint, as he feels that he has some
stake or interest in this matter. You might also contact him, and you
might also expect a visit or phone call from him. I am copying him in my
reply, here, and he may be contacted at
anselm45@gmail.com and (708)
495-1027. He was a 'tenant' of Daniggelis, but, so far as I know, not a
"paying" tenant. (Daniggelis lost loads of rent monies because no sane tenant
would rent from him with a dark cloud hanging over the title & related
pending litigation.)
5) Also, you said that Mr. Shelton was disbarred for an
'unrelated' matter. NOT. First off, he lost his broker's license
after the IBFPR found he did a reverse mortgage scam on Ms. Lessie Towns, just
as I allege that he and Younes are presently doing against
Daniggelis. Secondly, the loss of his law licence by your agency, the IARDC,
was for similar and related misconduct - even if not exactly the same. Yo
umay confirm that by either reviewing your own records, or if it's more
convenient, here's a comparison chart between Towns and Daniggelis, showing
the similarities:
or:
This link can be found at the top of my Open Source download docket of
the related court cases:
or:
That, in turn, is still front-page news at
The Register (e.g.,
www.GordonWatts.com /
www.GordonWayneWatts.com), and is
the Tue. 01 Dec. 2015, news item: "from Staff Reports) Courts * Chicago Courts
refuse to help elderly 'Mortgage Rescue Scam' victim; make him
homeless."
It is NOT without moment, Mr. Krawczyk, that Mr. Shelton is a repeat
offender, having done various types of mortgage scams, on at least two
occasions, resulting in disciplinary action (and disbarment) by both the IDFPR
and then later the IARDC. (Where there's smoke, there's fire.) But,
respectfully, Younes is (in my opinion) even more guilty, since he is the one
benefiting (or trying to benefit) from this conversion.
6) After sitting and meditating, I discovered that I
appear to have overlooked mentioning three (3) VERY BIG problems, so
I wish to amend for my oversight here: ((#1)) First off, Daniggelis has
previously told me that Shelton had alleged, in open court, that he
(Daniggelis) signed something that he didn't. ((#2)) Secondly, Daniggelis
has previously told me that Lisa Vitek, Shelton's wife, supported this alleged
false testimony. ((#3)) Thirdly, Daniggelis also told me that Younes
made a false statement (either in court or deposition - I rightly don't
recall), in which Younes claimed that Daniggelis had an injured
back & said that he'd chosen to skip show up for the
closing (as I recall). Daniggelis said that he was never able to properly
inform the court of these three (3) perjury-type statements, since (of course)
Daniggelis does not know how to file court pleadings as do I. (And, I'm
guessing that Galic was too busy to file said affidavits, but that is only a
guess: I can not speak for Galic.)
This point here is key: Coming from me, as you
know, this is mere "hearsay," and the fact that my Affidavit in the 3 pending
cases (Civil, Chancery, and Law Divisions) was witnessed & notarised by an
actual notary public in Polk County, Florida, only makes MY various statements
"official," meaning it is "verified" hearsay, but, at the end of the day,
my claims that Daniggelis was VERY, VERY
upset at being lied about no less than 3 times (you'd be mad if three
lawyers/etc. lied about you, too, wouldn't you?) is still only hearsay.
For that reason, I believe it appropriate to speak not only to Mr. More,
but also to Mr. Daniggelis, and get it "official," straight from the horse's
mouth. While Mr. Galic, who is representing Daniggelis pro
bono, is justifid in being upset at "one more thing" to take his
limited time, I trust that he'll cooperate with you in communicating with
Daniggelis, should you need to get more details or an official
statement.
Finally, as I've stated in my reply to you, I could be wrong about my
claims that no consideration (payment) was made -- or, for that matter,
any of my claims of fact, or conclusions at law, I'll be glad to
admit wrong -if and ONLY if I'm wrong. (Remember: I admitted to Hon. Michael
F. Otto, the associate judge in Chancery overseeing one of Daniggelis'
cases, that I was wrong about my claims to a right to a telephonic hearing,
and I'll admit wrong to you, too, but not simply because you say so: Only if I
am actually wrong, and it can be shown to me.)
You raised a number of point in your February reply, Mr. Krawczyk, and
some were correct, but others incorrect. I replied to each and every concern
that you raised. Please find attached my reply, in PDF format -- and
cross-posted online to said websites, linked above - as well as sent to
you by hard-copy, and received & signed for, this morning, by the
front-desk receptionist, and signed for by an "L.MEDINA."
PS: I got an AOL notification that PMSA136@aol.com, which was for
Paul Shelton, is no longer a valid email address, so I'm updating my
email on this head, removing said email address, and
resending.~~GWW//
Very truly yours,
Gordon Wayne Watts, editor-in-chief, The
Register
www.GordonWayneWatts.com / www.GordonWatts.com
BS, The Florida State University, Biological & Chemical
Sciences;
Class of 2000, double major with honours
AS, United
Electronics Institute, Class of 1988, Valedictorian
821
Alicia Road, Lakeland, FL 33801-2113
Home:(863)688-9880 Work: (863)686-3411
Voice&FAX:(863)687-6141 Cell:(863)409-2109
See also: http://Gordon_Watts.Tripod.com/consumer.html
Gww1210@aol.com ; Gww12102002@Yahoo.com
Truth is the
strongest, most stable force in the Universe
Truth
doesn't change because you disbelieve it
TRUTH doesn't bend to the
will of tyrantshttp://GordonWayneWatts.com / http://GordonWatts.com
Get Truth
"First, they [Nazis] came for the Jews.
I was silent. I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists. I was
silent. I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists. I was
silent. I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me. There was no one
left to speak for me."(Martin Niemöller, given credit for a quotation in The
Harper Religious and Inspirational Quotation Companion, ed. Margaret
Pepper(New York: Harper &Row, 1989), 429 -as cited on page 44, note 17,of
Religious Cleansing in the American Republic, by Keith A. Fornier,Copyright
1993, by Liberty, Life, and Family Publications.
Some
versions have Mr. Niemöller saying: "Then they came for the Catholics, and I
didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant"; other versions have him saying
that they came for Socialists, Industrialists, schools, the press,and/or the
Church; however, it's certain he DID say SOMETHING like this. Actually, they
may not have come for the Jews first, as it's more likely they came for the
prisoners, mentally handicapped, &other so-called "inferiors" first -as
historians tell us-so they could get "practiced up"; however, they did come
for them -due to the silence of their neighbors -and due in part to their own
silence. So: "Speak up now or forever hold your
peace!"-GWW