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.
Consolidated Case Information Summary for Case Numbers:
Selected Case Activity
Chancery Division Case #: 2007-CH-29738 (GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, et al. v. RICHARD DANIGGELIS, et al.) *
Official Court Docket *
Cached copy
Civil Division Case #: 2014-M1-701473 (JOSEPH YOUNES v. RICHARD DANIGGELIS) *
Official Court Docket *
Cached copy
Law Division Case #: 2007-CH-29738 (GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, et al. v. RICHARD DANIGGELIS, et al.) *
Official Court Docket *
Cached copy
Related: Housing Case #: 2009-M1-401214 (City of Chicago, IL v. RICHARD DANIGGELIS, JOSEPH YOUNES, et al.) *
Official Court Docket *
Cached copy
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, the latter 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.
* Want to see what Mr. Watts has filed in this case? Here's a handy 'Chart-Summary of Gordon Wayne
Watts' filings in the Richard Daniggelis “mortgage fraud” case.' in both *.html Web-Page
and PDF formats.
* Want to compare Ms. Lessie Towns' case with this elderly
victim, Mr. Richard B. Daniggelis? Here's a handy 'Comparison Chart'
of the two (2) similar “mortgage fraud” cases, showing Richard is even more newsworthy, more innocent (he didn't sign away his house like she did), & thus
more deserving of rescue from sure homelessness/harm.
| Date Docketed aka: "Activity Date:" |
Description (Click to view/download) (Colour-coded case number & style) |
Filed By (Participant & Attorney whereof) |
Notes |
| 10/17/2007 | Complaint to Foreclose Mortgage 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis |
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 |
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). | |
| 10/5/2012 | JURY DEMAND FILED - FEE PAID, Court Fee: $230.00 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis |
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). | |
| 5/15/2014 | MEMORANDUM OF JUDGEMENT ENTERED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis |
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 |
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. (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.) | |
| 8/12/2014 | ORDER CASE TRANSFERRED FOR TRIAL TO LAW DIVISION 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis |
For reasons which are unclear to this writer, Hon. Judge Jacobius transferred this case from Chancery out to 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.) | |
| 8/12/2014 | TRANSFER FILE INTO DIVISION - ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis |
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 |
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 |
“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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
(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 |
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 |
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. |
| 8/21/2015 | NOTICE OF MOTION FILED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis |
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 |
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 |
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: |
|
| 10/29/2015 | MOTION FILED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis |
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: |
|
| 10/29/2015 | INCOMING CORRESPONDENCE FILED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis |
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: |
|
| 10/29/2015 | MOTION TO - DENIED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis |
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: |
|
| 11/23/2015 | MEMORANDUM OF LAW FILED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis |
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 |
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 |
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: |
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: |
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: |
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: |
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 SMR/pal 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis
UPDATE: received by 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 |
|
| 02/02/2016 |
***MISC.MOTION(SET FOR MOTION HEARING) 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 LaRoque" (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 |
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 |
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 |
| 8/26/2015 | ASSIGN TO JUDGE WITHIN DIVISION 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis |
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 - Date: 9/14/2015, Court Time: 0920 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis |
Now, this is VERY odd: Both sides failed to show up for the court date!! The judge was merciful and continued the case. | |
| 9/14/2015 |
AFFIDAVIT FILED
2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis |
Sept. 08, 2015 Affidavit of Gordon Wayne Watts, shown on docket as "9/14/2015." | |
| 9/14/2015 | EXHIBITS
FILED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis |
Sept. 09, 2015 Proposed Order of Gordon Wayne Watts, shown on docket as "9/14/2015." | |
| 9/14/2015 | NOTICE
OF MOTION FILED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis |
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 disobey the rules. 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 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 |
Sept. 09, 2015 "Time-Sensitive Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts – in semi-Emergency Fashion by OVERNIGHT FedEx," of Gordon Wayne Watts, shown on docket as "9/14/2015." | |
| 9/14/2015 |
MOTION
FILED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis |
Sept. 09, 2015 Motion for leave to file Amicus brief, proposed Amicus Curiae brief, and Exhibits, of Gordon Wayne Watts | |
| 9/23/2015 | Court's Docket does not have an entry on this date 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis |
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 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. |
|
| 10/13/2015 | NOTICE OF MOTION FILED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis |
"Notice of Motion" | |
| 10/13/2015 | MOTION FILED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis |
Notice of Intervention by right, and, in the alternative, Petition for Intervention by Non-attorney, Robert J. More | |
| 11/16/2015 | MOTION FILED with Court's Official
Electronic-upload Time Stamp 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis |
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 - Date: 11/23/2015 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis |
Point #1: Atty. Galic is ordered to file a status report within 7 days. | |
| 11/16/2015 | CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED -
Date: 11/25/2015, Court Time: 0930 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis |
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 |
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 |
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 - Date: 12/21/2015, Court Time: 0910am - ROOM 1912, Daley Center
(CST) 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis |
CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED - Date: Monday, 12/21/2015, Court Time: 0910am, ROOM 1912, Daley Center See e.g., http://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: |
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 |
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 |
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 - Date: 02/05/2016 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis |
Participant: DANIGELLIS (sic: misspelling of Richard's last name: it has two g's and one small letter L.) |
"It is further ordered: ... (2) These depositions to be completed by February 5, 2016." |
| 12/21/2015 | ISSUE
WRIT - ALLOWED - Date: 01/04/2016 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis |
Participant: DANIGELLIS (sic: misspelling of Richard's last name: it has two g's and one small letter L.) |
"(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 LaRoque." (Editor's note: spelling uncertain on some words due to handwriting; click here to see image.) |
| 12/21/2015 | CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE - ALLOWED - Date: 02/22/2016, Court Time: 09:10am 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis |
Participant: DANIGELLIS (sic: misspelling of Richard's last name: it has two g's and one small letter L.) |
"The matter is continued to 2-22-16 at 9:10 A.M. for: Deposition Matters." |
| 02/22/2016 | CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED - Date: 03/8/2016, Court Time: 09:20am 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis |
Participant: DANIGGELIS |
... |
| 02/22/2016 | SUE OR DEFEND AS A INDIGENT
PERSON - DENIED
2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis |
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 |
| 03/8/2016 | RULE TO SHOW CAUSE BE ISSUED AND RETURNABLE ALLOWED - Date: 04/12/2016, Court Time: 09:20am 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis |
Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHAR |
... |
| 03/8/2016 | CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED - Date: 04/12/2016, Court Time: 09:20am 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis |
Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHAR |
... |
| 04/12/2016 | CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED - Date: 05/04/2016, Court Time: 09:10am 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis |
Participant: DANEGGLIS (sic: misspelling!! It's 'DANIggelis, not DANEgglis! LOL. Court is sloppy here in its own docket.~Editor) |
... |
| 1/22/2014 | FORCIBLE ENTRY AND DETAINER COMPLAINT FILED 2014-M1-701473 CIVIL DIVISION Younes v. Daniggelis |
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 |
||
| 2/26/2015 | NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED 2014-M1-701473 CIVIL DIVISION Younes v. Daniggelis |
||
| 8/10/2015 | MOTION FILED 2014-M1-701473 CIVIL DIVISION Younes v. Daniggelis |
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 |
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 |
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. |
| 9/11/2015 | EXHIBITS FILED 2014-M1-701473 CIVIL DIVISION Younes v. Daniggelis |
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 |
Here's the proposed order I filed that day. | |
| 9/11/2015 | NOTICE FILED 2014-M1-701473 CIVIL DIVISION Younes v. Daniggelis |
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 |
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 |
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 |
||
| 11/17/2015 | RECORD ON APPEAL 2014-M1-701473 CIVIL DIVISION Younes v. Daniggelis |
This research, as protected by Fair Use and International "fair dealing" law, is specifically for non-profit, educational research criticism, review,
and newspaper summary.
Learn
more. (Alt. 'Learn more' link.) Tip:
To quickly find your search term on this page, press Ctrl+F and use the find bar.
Courtesy The
Register: GordonWatts.com
- GordonWayneWatts.com -
Irreverent, but clean Court Humour