Subject: "Case no:
2015-IN-03387" **CONFIDENTIAL**" (A follow-up to my prior
reply)
Mr.
Krawczyk:
This is Gordon Watts, who just emailed
you a formal reply regarding "In re: Joseph Younes, in relation to Gordon
Wayne Watts, case #: 2015-IN-03387." (See the attachments in this email, where I
subsume your February reply to me in my response.)
By and large, everything I said is OK
to share with the other parties, against whom I am complaining.
However, there were two
things that I did not mention in my "reply to all," because it was
inappropriate -or would otherwise compromise your investigation, so I
am replying to you -- privately -- and including only you, your
paralegal, Ms. Golden, and your co-counsel, Ms. Greggio, as cc
recipients.
*** #1 -- First off, Mr.
Daniggelis desires to speak with you. That much I vaguely alluded to in my prior
reply, but I did not mention that he and I spoke just yesterday, and that
he finally withdrew his objections to pass along this information (and his phone
number) to you. - Richard B. Daniggelis may be reached at 312-774-4742, but
his sleeping hours are odd. He has finally learned how to use voicemail on
a cell phone, but he may not be very good at it. (He tells me that he hopes to
learn how to use email later this week, but I would not hold my breath on
this.)
For your private consumption, I
represent to you that Richard has said that he plans to pay you a visit, and
address points with more clarity than I can: He reminds me in our conversations,
as you might imagine, that he is the "principle" in this matter, and that is it
"his" house: If he's said it once, he's said it a million times: "Gordon, I'm
the general, and you're the private,..." -- It was primarily because of his
prior objections that I did not include his contact information (or, if I
did, not as much as I should have).
***
#2 -- Secondly, however, you might wonder why I am even
suggesting that you contact Daniggelis directly, since he has an attorney (which
you pointed out in your reply)...
Well, while I think Andjelko Galic is a
man of honour and integrity, I realised some issues that Daniggelis can confirm,
if you want to verify my assertions:
Daniggelis is glad for the free
representation, but he thinks that Galic has psychological problems, and is
"narrow sighted" on what to do, reminding Danigellis that he (Galic) is a
lawyer, and that we (Daniggelis and myself) are not. However, there is a greater
problem...
If you view the Law Division docket,
GMAC v Daniggelis, 2007-CH-29738, before Hon. Sanjay T. Tailor (it has the
same case number and style as the Chancery case that was 'transferred' to the
Law Division), you will notice that Galic submitted to Judge Tailor a proposed
order to strike or otherwise reject my Amicus Curiae brief and related
filings.
If taken at "Face Value," without
"looking deeper," I am guessing that the reader might either think that Galic is
nutty and unbalanced (for indeed: What lawyer in his right mind would seek to
strike friendly pleadings that help his case - and you've seen my pleadings:
There is nothing 'nutty' about my pleadings, even if I am imperfect & human,
etc.)...
Alternatively, you might think that I
(myself) am nutty or otherwise unhinged: After all, Galic is an attorney, and I
am not, and he is trying to win Daniggelis' case: Why would he have reason to
lie? (In fact, one friend, not involved in this case, has told me that "he's the
lawyer, Gordon, and you're not -- and if this guy wants you to butt out, you
should.)
Galic privately text messaged me, and
also emailed me, stating, effectively (paraphrase from memory): "Gordon, you
might mean well and have good intentions, but your involvement in Richard's case
is not helping it. Please do not involve yourself in it..."
Galic can confirm this -- and, you can
see the order, proposed by Galic, in this attachment:
"intervene-denied-2007-CH-29738.pdf," referring to the Nov. 16, 2015 order in
said case.
So, why am I even telling you? ... I
hesitated to tell you because some things are better left unspoken, and telling
you might make me look like an idiot.
But, Richard and I discussed it, and he
think, based on my description of you, Mr. Krawczyk, that you're a reasonable
man, and that you won't let Galic's disfavour here cloud your decisionmaking,
and that you won't use this "as an excuse" to throw my redress into the
garbage,...
As a practical matter, should you
contact Galic and ask to speak with Daniggelis, he might tell you that he
doesn't want me to be involved. And, both Robert J. More as well as the
anonymous friend referenced above tyhink it'd be 'wise' for me to tell you
first, so you won't hear it later from Galic - and think I'm trying to
conceal something from you.
This all "begs the question": Why in
God's name, would Mr. Galic ask me to butt out if I've raised a few points that
he missed, and spoken well of him, telling the court that he's missed a few
things - but still done a good job?
Well, only 2 people *really* know that
answer to this (Galic - and God, Himself), and neither one is saying. (In fact,
when I asked Galic what his objections were, he said smarted back &
rhetorically asked to the effect: What? Did I think he had all the time in the
world to answer my question...)
Mr. Daniggelis and I also discussed
this: Again, I can not speak for Galic, but Richard and I both think that Mr.
Galic is afraid that my involvement may "irritate" the judges, and that the
judges are dishonest or otherwise corrupt, and that by giving the appearance of
opposing me, it might "get on their
good side," and win the case.
This assessment is not without
precedent, Mr. Krawczyk: Not only does your state (Illinois) have a history of
corruption (so does my state, Florida, for what it's worth, I'm not poking fun
at Chicago-style corruptions), but moreover, look at the Law Division docket:
Hon. James P. Flannery falsely claimed that I was representing another person.
(See the attached "298-denied.pdf" file -- or see the court's docket -- to
confirm.) That claim is a bald-faced lie: I am representing myself - pro
se - and asking to be allowed to submit a friend of the court
brief.
Why even a Federal Appeals court
allowed me to participate as an Amicus (see the
"FEDERAL-COURT-Order-on-Citro-and-Watts-motions.pdf" attachment -- or view the
Federal docket if you doubt me here). What is the problem with these little
trial courts not letting a Good Samaritan participate as an Amicus? One
would think I was asking the court to offer their first-born child as a
sacrifice! Or, maybe, that I was asking them to give me a Million
dollars!
So, why are these courts not only
resistant to my participation as an Amicsu, but also (even after ALL THESE
YEARS!!) still unable to offer a 'why' to explain that 'what' in judge Otto's
court order snatching title away from Daniggelis?
I know that judges sometimes say that
they need not offer an explanation for their orders - and maybe this is
'caselaw' in your state (I do not rightly know), but... If the courts can not
explain their decisions, then - as a practical matter - and a moral issue -- I
think they have something to hide, and are corrupt. (I explain my reasons, right
or wrong: Why can't all these judges, surely much smarter than you and me
combined!)
So, in conclusion, I understand that at
this stage of your investigation, all my complaints are "confidential," and,
while my email to you may eventually become "public," I don't have anything to
hide, and am OK with you disclosing this email in a public records request -- or
to the other parties -- should you need to question them about it.
However, for the time being, all that
is in this particular email -- to you, Ms. Golden, and Atty. Greggio, I would
appreciate you keeping it confidential for the time being. If you have to
disclose certain things in my email, here, in the court of your investigation, I
will trust you to use your best judgment - and, on that point, I will not
second-guess your judgement, and only wish you the best, but, for obvious
reasons, please keep this much confidential, for whatever time is necessary to
complete your investigation.
Since I am asking your help in
investigating corruption, it is incumbent upon me to meet you halfway, and do
what I can: If I can be of any assistance you -- in my limited human capacity,
please let me know. If you have any questions, please feel free to call, write,
or email me.
Sincerely,