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:
Click on "'Case #:'" for downloadable filing images
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
* Updated: Law Division Case #: 2007-CH-29738 (GMAC MORTGAGE
LLC, et al. v. Daniggelis, Watts, LaRocque, Younes, 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
* NEW: Related: Housing Case #: 2017-M1-400775 (City
of Chicago, IL v. 1720 N. SEDGWICK ST., Atty. 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 |
| ** Click HERE to get to Top of Page ** | |||
| ** Click HERE to get to Top of Page ** | |||
| 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). | |
| 7/13/2012 | CONTINUANCE - ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis |
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 |
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 |
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 - Addirmative Defense Count I is granted without leave to amend." |
| 7/13/2012 | MISCELLANEOUS MOTION - ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis |
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 forclosure 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 |
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 strick "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 |
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 |
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 |
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 forclosure 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 |
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). | |
| 1/18/2013 | AFFIDAVIT FILED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 forclosure 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 |
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 |
Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE LC |
** Court Room: 2804 Comments: Point "1" of this order: Plaintiff's [LaSalle Bank Natl. Assn.] motion for partial summary judgement fir forclosure is granted, etc. |
| 2/15/2013 | SUMMARY JUDGMENT - ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis |
Participant: YOUNES JOSEPH |
** Court Room: 2804 Comments: Point "1" of this order: "[Joseph] Younes' motion for Summary Judgent 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 enligten me? ~Editor |
| 2/15/2013 | MISCELLANEOUS MOTION - ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis |
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 |
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 |
Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE LC |
Date: 3/20/2013 Court Time: 03:00pm(CST) Court Room: 2804 Comments: Point "3" of this order: "The Presentmant 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 |
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 uneccesary, 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 |
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 |
Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD |
Comments: Atty. Galic points out that the 02/15/2013 order giving him until 02/20/2013 gave him onle 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 committments. He asks for fourteen (14) more days. |
| 2/26/2013 | CERTIFICATE FILED 2007-CH-29738 CHANCERY DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis |
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 |
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 |
Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE LC |
Comments: For some reason, this entry 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, for this docket entry) insofar as the judge, citing the facts and relevant case law, proves *conclusively* that there is indeed mortage 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 |
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 admit (Order, p.1) that Daniggelis "asserts that in 2006," Shelton, Rhone, & Younes duped him into signing over the deed under the guise of forclosure resuce. 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 misued 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), recission 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 agaibst 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, 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 Forgey with the Recorder of Deeds, stating that the deed filed in August 2006 [i.e., the ony 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 refinanancing 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 fraudulant 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 fraudulantly used. * Recission based on unjust enrichment (count III) -- The recors is clear that both the co-consipritors (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 usurous 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 quited 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 Judgement. 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. ~Editor |
| 5/15/2014 | MEMORANDUM OF judgment 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. *** 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 |
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 |
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 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 |
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 |
| ** Click HERE to get to Top of Page ** | |||
| ** Click HERE to get to Top of Page ** | |||
| 10/17/2007 | Complaint to Foreclose Mortgage 2007-CH-29738 LAW 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 | |
| 12/26/2007 | APPEARANCE FILED - FEE PAID 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE LLC |
Microfilm: LD999999999 |
| 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 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
"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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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., 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 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis |
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'.) |
| 12/21/2015 | ISSUE
WRIT - ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis |
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 |
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'.) |
| 02/22/2016 | CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED 2007-CH-29738 LAW DIVISION GMAC v. Daniggelis |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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) 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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
| ** Click HERE to get to Top of Page ** | |||
| ** 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 |
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 |
||
| ** Click HERE to get to Top of Page ** | |||
| ** Click HERE to get to Top of Page ** | |||
| 03/22/2017 | HOUSING COMPLAINT FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al. |
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 CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al. |
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 CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al. |
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 CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al. |
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 CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al. |
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 CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al. |
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 CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al. |
(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 CORPERATION 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 CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al. |
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 CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al. |
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 CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al. |
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 CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al. |
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 CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al. |
Participant: CITY OF CHGO |
** 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 CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al. |
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 CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al. |
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 CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al. |
(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' * CORPERATION 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 CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al. |
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 CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al. |
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 CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al. |
Participant: CITY OF CHGO |
** 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 CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al. |
(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.) * CORPERATION 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 CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al. |
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 CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al. |
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 CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al. |
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 CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al. |
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 CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al. |
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 CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al. |
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 CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al. |
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 CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al. |
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 CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al. |
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 CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al. |
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 CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al. |
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 CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al. |
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 |
| 08/23/2017 | NOTICE FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al. |
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 |
| 08/23/2017 | NOTICE FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al. |
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 |
| 08/23/2017 | NOTICE FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al. |
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 |
| 08/23/2017 | NOTICE FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al. |
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 |
| 08/23/2017 | MOTION FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al. |
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 |
| 08/23/2017 | MOTION FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al. |
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 |
| 08/23/2017 | MOTION FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al. |
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 |
| 08/23/2017 | MOTION FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al. |
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 |
| 08/23/2017 | MOTION FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al. |
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 |
| 08/23/2017 | MOTION FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al. |
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 |
| 08/23/2017 | MOTION FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al. |
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 |
| 08/23/2017 | MOTION FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al. |
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 |
| 08/23/2017 | MOTION FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al. |
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 |
| 08/23/2017 | MOTION FILED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al. |
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 |
| 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 CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al. |
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)
Proof of Service: |
| 08/31/2017 | COMPLY - ALLOWED 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al. |
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 |
| 08/31/2017 | CASE SET ON CASE MANAGEMENT CALL. 2017-M1-400775 1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al. |
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 |
| ** Click HERE to get to Top of Page ** | |||
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
** Click HERE to get to Top of Page **