Key links: 
 * _'GW'_ The Register Logo  *   * GordonWatts.com  *   * GordonWayneWatts.com  *   * Cook County, IL trial courts (Front Page) *   * Cook County, IL trial courts (Electronic Full Case Docket Search) *   * IL Appeals Court landing page *   * IL Appellate Court Clerks & Contact Information  *   * Illinois Supreme Court *   * Court Humour * 
The Register presents:
Selected docket items in the "Foreclosure / Mortgage Fraud" case from The Register's archives: an unofficial (but hopefully accurate) docket:
NOTE: This case relates the court action involving an elderly man who became homeless and had his life placed in peril due to mortgage fraud, in response to his responding to some lawyers who claimed to be willing to help him refinance his property & seek investors to save it from foreclosure. For those who remember, this is almost exactly like the 2009 'Mortgage Rescue' Scam case in which Lessie Towns became temporarily famous, and had a personal visit from former Gov. Pat Quinn (D-Ill.) to address her problem. (Google 'Paul Shelton' (who lost his license over this) and/or 'Lessie Towns' and/or 'Pat Quinn' and/or 'Mortgage Rescue Scam' to verify/clarify.) However, unlike Ms. Towns, Mr. Daniggelis did not actually sign away his house and was even more of an innocent victim (albeit with much less news coverage). For those of you unfamiliar with Mr. Daniggelis' case, you need only look at the initial filings by Gordon Watts in the LAW Division case below - denoted by Blinking DotthisBlinking Dot 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 or ?-F (Mac) and use the find bar.

Consolidated Case Information Summary for Case Numbers: Click on "'Case #:'" for downloadable filing images
* 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.

Selected Case Activity

|| Last Updated: Friday, 29 September 2017, 03:10 A.M. EST (02:10am CST) || To see prior coverage of this - and other - news, see the front-page news of The Register, linked above.

Date Docketed
aka: "Activity Date:"
Description (Click to view/download)
(Colour-coded case number & style)
Filed By
(Participant & Attorney whereof)
Notes
** Click HERE to get to Top of Page **
Chancery Case: 2007-CH-29738, CHANCERY DIVISION, GMAC v. Daniggelis
** Click HERE to get to Top of Page **
10/17/2007 Complaint to Foreclose Mortgage
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, Plaintiff, filed by Pierce & Associates
See pp. 1-4 of this 96-page PDF Public Records request. This filing is called the "NON OWNER OCCUPIED SINGLE FAMILY HOME OR CONDOMINIUM - FILED" on the Court's Chancery docket, but a document, titled "CONTRACT COMPLAINT FILED" was filed on the same date in the Law Division (same case number). This appears to be the self-same document. NOTE: GMAC v. Daniggelis, 2007-CH-29738, is currently in both the Chancery Division (which was appealed to the First Appellate Court) and in the Law Division. That this same case number is in 2 divisions is a constant source of confusion to the clerks in both divisions, as I personally recall, based on numerous phone conversations with many clerks, who often reply along the line of: "No, that is a Chancery case, since it has 'CH' in its title." -- Me: "Yes, it is a Law Division case; it's in both divisions: look at the dockets, if you don't believe me" ~Editor, Gordon W. Watts
4/8/2011 APPEARANCE FILED - NO FEE PAID
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
RICHARD DANIGGELIS, Defendant, filed by ANDJELKO GALIC, Esq.
Image not available here; see official court for this: This is just an appearance filed, showing that Atty. Galic is representing Mr. Daniggelis, included as a "landmark" on the timeline of the docket. This item was filed on the same date in the Law Division (same case number).
7/13/2012 CONTINUANCE - ALLOWED
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: DELORT MATHIAS WILLIAM
Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE LC
Comments: Date: 07/20/2012 Court Time: 03:00pm(CST) Court Room: 2804. Page 23 of this 88-page PDF file: The continuance is point "4" of this hand-written order.
7/13/2012 FILE AMENDMENT OR ADDITIONAL OR AMENDED PLEADINGS - ALLOWED
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: DELORT MATHIAS WILLIAM
Participant: YOUNES JOSEPH
Comments: Court Room: 2804. Page 23 of this 88-page PDF file: Point "3" of this hand-written order: "Richard Daniggelis is granted to 7-19-12 to file a reply in support of his motion to Extend Discovery."
7/13/2012 MOTION TO - ALLOWED
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: DELORT MATHIAS WILLIAM
Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE LC
Comments: Court Room: 2804. Page 23 of this 88-page PDF file: Point "2" of this hand-written order: "The plaintiff's motion to dismiss [which is image number] (2615) [on the court's docket] Richard Daniggelis' Amended Counterclaim - Affirmative Defense Count I is granted without leave to amend."
7/13/2012 MISCELLANEOUS MOTION - ALLOWED
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: DELORT MATHIAS WILLIAM
Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE LC
Comments: Court Room: 2804. Page 23 of this 88-page PDF file: Point "1" of this hand-written order: "The 216 request produced by Richard Daniggelis upon Plaintiff is stricken.*

*In the exercise of the court's supervisory authority over discovery, and because the court disfavors the use of RFAF in foreclosure fraud cases."

Editor's Note: This refers to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 216: "Admission of Fact or of Genuineness of Documents," in which a party may serve on any other party a written request for the admission by the latter of the truth of any specified relevant fact set forth in the request --and/or for admission of the genuineness of any relevant documents described in the request.

7/13/2012 STRIKE FROM THE CALL - ALLOWED
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: DELORT MATHIAS WILLIAM
Participant: YOUNES JOSEPH
Comments: Court Room: 2804. Page 23 of this 88-page PDF file: However, on the actual order, I don't see the order to strike "from the call" this case. Perhaps, it was a verbal (oral) motion in open court?
7/24/2012 CONTINUANCE - ALLOWED
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: DELORT MATHIAS WILLIAM
Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE LC
Date: 8/15/2012 Court Time: 03:00pm(CST) Court Room: 2804 ** Pp. 85-88 of this 88-page PDF file, with page 88 being a blank page with a Court time-stamp showing it was entered as part of the exhibits of the 01-18-2013 filing, by Atty. Indyke, below. Comments: Continuance to that date, and the court expects, at that time, to set briefing schedules on the dispositive motions. This judge means business! Good job, except that the title-theft mortgage fraud was allowed to stand. ~Editor
7/24/2012 EXECUTE OR PERFORM - ALLOWED
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: DELORT MATHIAS WILLIAM
Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE LC
Court Room: 2804 ** Pp. 85-88 of this 88-page PDF file, with page 88 being a blank page with a Court time-stamp showing it was entered as part of the exhibits of the 01-18-2013 filing, by Atty. Indyke, below. Comments: Not sure what this title means, but it probably refers to the last page of the order allowing (mandating) dispositive motions to be filed by August 10, 2012. ~Editor
7/24/2012 MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: DELORT MATHIAS WILLIAM
Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE LC
Court Room: 2804 ** Pp. 85-88 of this 88-page PDF file, with page 88 being a blank page with a Court time-stamp showing it was entered as part of the exhibits of the 01-18-2013 filing, by Atty. Indyke, below. Comments: Associate Judge, Mathias William DeLort (who was later promoted to the 6th Division of the ILLINOIS First District Appellate Court) royally chews out Richard B. Daniggelis' attorney, Andjelko Galic (who, by the way, is working pro bono, i.e., for free) for focusing too much on invalidating the actual underlying foreclosure suit through, as I read it, a supposed lack of standing by questioning ownership based on a spotty record of written transfer documents (including, of course, the infamous "Linda Green" assignment fraud issues) --instead of focusing on the actual mortgage fraud in question, which, of course, was the illegal transfer of title from Daniggelis to Younes, without any payment to Daniggelis, and by clear & obvious used of a "photocopy forgery-fraud" signature, and for purposes other than the mere refinancing for which Daniggelis initial sought help. I agree with Judge DeLort: Galic, however well-meaning, focused on the wrong thing. ~Editor
10/5/2012 JURY DEMAND FILED - FEE PAID, Court Fee: $230.00
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
RICHARD DANIGGELIS, Defendant, filed by ANDJELKO GALIC, Esq.
Image not available here; see official court for this: This is just a 'Trial by Jury' demand, showing that Atty. Galic is asking for a trial by jury - something which might actually get justice for Mr. Daniggelis, whose house was stolen from him via forgery fraud - a key "landmark" on the timeline of the docket. This item, like those above, was also filed on the same date in the Law Division (same case number).
1/18/2013 AFFIDAVIT FILED
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: INDYKE RICHARD
Participant: US BANK
Comments: This 88-page PDF file has several affidavits, so it's not clear which is/are the one(s) to which this docket entry refers. But, "AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN KNOPIC" is pp.14-12, which includes an exhibit; also: "AFFIDAVIT OF RASHAD BLANCHARD" is pp.24-84, which includes a lot of exhibits.
1/18/2013 EXHIBITS FILED
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: INDYKE RICHARD
Participant: US BANK
See entry, right above, for comments regarding the exhibits.
1/18/2013 NOTICE OF FILING FILED
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: INDYKE RICHARD
Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE LLC
Comments: The notice of filing and proof (certificate or affidavit) of service.
1/18/2013 MOTION FILED
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: INDYKE RICHARD
Participant: US BANK
Comments: The motion, proper, is on pp.1-13 of this 88-page PDF file.
1/18/2013 MOTION TO - DENIED
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: DELORT MATHIAS WILLIAM
Participant: YOUNES JOSEPH
** Court Room: 2804 Comments: The defendant's motions motions are denied, but without prejudice, and will be considered on the merits of brought on the court's regular motion call. NOTE: The court's docket has a typo: The judge who entered the order is Associate Judge, Michael F. Otto, not Judge DeLort: see the image here to verify. ~Editor
2/15/2013 ANSWER FILED
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: GALIC ANDJELKO
Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD
Comments: Defendant's reply in support of his prior motion for summary judgment, in which he discusses case law surrounding admission of fact. Here, Atty. Galic argues that the "Corrective Mortgage Assignment" (from GMAC to LaSalle) can not retroactively give the latter standing to sue if it was executed several years after the lawsuit was filed. However, Judge DeLort, in his 07/24/2012 order, had already warned Galic that the chain of custody in the written transfer documents was not a problem for standing to prosecute a mortgage foreclosure suit. One can only wonder why Galic, in his 02/15/2013 motion here, did not heed the Judge's warnings, the year before (read: Free Legal Advice from a judge!) on which tact to take! ~Editor
2/15/2013 JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: OTTO, MICHAEL F.
Participant: YOUNES JOSEPH
** Court Room: 2804 Comments: Point "4" of this order: "Judgment is entered in favor of [Cross-Defendant] Joseph Younes and against [Counter-claimant and cross-claimant] Richard Daniggelis for Counts I, II and III of Daniggelis' Third Amended Counterclaim."
2/15/2013 SUMMARY JUDGMENT - ALLOWED
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: OTTO, MICHAEL F.
Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE LC
** Court Room: 2804 Comments: Point "1" of this order: Plaintiff's [LaSalle Bank Natl. Assn.] motion for partial summary judgment fir foreclosure is granted, etc.
2/15/2013 SUMMARY JUDGMENT - ALLOWED
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: OTTO, MICHAEL F.
Participant: YOUNES JOSEPH
** Court Room: 2804 Comments: Point "1" of this order: "[Joseph] Younes' motion for Summary Judgment against Defendant Richard Daniggelis is Granted for reasons stated on the record in open court." Comments:Oh, and what would those 'reasons' be? I see none that exist. Would someone like to enlighten me? ~Editor
2/15/2013 MISCELLANEOUS MOTION - ALLOWED
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: OTTO, MICHAEL F.
Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE LC
** Court Room: 2804 Comments: Daniggelis' motion to strike the "735 ILCS 5/1-109, Section 1-109" Verification by Certification affidavits by Howard Handville and Rashad Blanchard is granted, etc.
2/15/2013 MISCELLANEOUS MOTION - ALLOWED
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: OTTO, MICHAEL F.
Participant: YOUNES JOSEPH
** Court Room: 2804 Comments: Point "7" of this order: "Richard Daniggelis is granted leave to file a Reply to each motion to strike by February 20, 2013." (And other misc. orders. ~Editor)
2/15/2013 STRIKE FROM THE CALL - ALLOWED
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: OTTO, MICHAEL F.
Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE LC
Date: 3/20/2013 Court Time: 03:00pm(CST) Court Room: 2804 Comments: Point "3" of this order: "The Presentment Date of March 20, 2013 at 3:00 pm for Younes' pending motions is stricken."
2/15/2013 MOTION TO - DENIED
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: OTTO, MICHAEL F.
Participant: YOUNES JOSEPH
** Court Room: 2804 Comments: Point "2" of this order: "Younes' "Motion for leave to File Additional Affirmative Defense and a Motion for Summary Judgment" is Denied for reasons stated on the record in open court." (I'm guessing that Younes' lawyer prepared this proposed order with the thought that they would get their way and these other motions would be unnecessary, and thus denied as moot. In any case, the judge signed off on this. ~Editor)
2/20/2013 NOTICE OF FILING FILED
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: GALIC ANDJELKO
Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD
Comments: This is merely the Notice of Filing of Atty. Galic that he filed his motion for additional time to reply to Plaintiff's response to strike some affidavits/certifications in support of their motion for summary judgment. (Boring stuff, trust me; I still don't know why Cook County, IL courts require a "notice of motion." While I'm not a lawyer -- and don't play one on T.V. -- nonetheless, I don't recall this protocol being used anywhere else. ~Editor)
2/20/2013 MOTION FILED
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: GALIC ANDJELKO
Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD
Comments: Atty. Galic points out that the 02/15/2013 order giving him until 02/20/2013 gave him only five (5) days to file a response, a very short period of time; that the motions & exhibits were voluminous, along with loads of case law, both local and foreign, as well as the fact that Atty. Galic had prior work commitments. He asks for fourteen (14) more days.
2/26/2013 CERTIFICATE FILED
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: GALIC ANDJELKO
Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD
Comments: The "certificate filed," not to be confused with the Certificate of Service, appears to refer to the service list, on page 2 of this 2-page document. ~Editor
2/26/2013 NOTICE OF FILING FILED
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: GALIC ANDJELKO
Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD
Comments: Here (on page 1 of this 2-page document), Atty. Galic certifies that he a partial reply to the Plaintiff's response to his motion to strike the Affidavit of Rashad Blanchard and the Certification of Richard Handville. For some reason, however, I didn't get a copy of Galic's actual reply & exhibits that he filed on 02/26/2013, in my public records request. I'm guessing this was a clerical error: The clerks in all three (3) divisions [Chancery, Civil, & Law Divisions] with which I've done business have been nothing short of excellent in granting timely Public Records requests, and complying with the Illinois State law in this regard. One only wishes "cops & courts" (policemen & judges) were even half as honest. See the court's records for any further official documents that might be missing here. ~Editor
3/8/2013 Blinking DotMOTION TO - DENIEDBlinking Dot
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: OTTO, MICHAEL F.
Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE LC
*Blinking Dot**Blinking Dot* Comments: For some reason, this "3/8/2013" entry, of Judge Otto's order, appears on the court's docket twice (duplicate or identical entries LOL), so I'm listing it twice. However, besides that, this order is exceptionally lengthy & long for a typical trial court order, at nine (9) pages. Moreover, as I discuss below, this order is probably the most unusual order I've ever seen, (which is why I'm using red font, yellow background, & generous use of boldface, underline, & italics, -and even the infamous "loud blinking dot" *.gif image -for this docket entry) insofar as the judge, citing the facts and relevant case law, proves *conclusively* that there is indeed mortgage fraud -- and then turns right around and says that there isn't mortgage fraud! Odd, yes! So, this entry bears repeating, and I shall do so: see below... ~Editor
3/8/2013 Blinking DotMOTION TO - DENIEDBlinking Dot
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: OTTO, MICHAEL F.
Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE LC
** Court Room: 2804 ** Comments: To begin with, the trial court judge (Associate Judge, Hon. Michael F. Otto, #2065, Chancery Division) pins his hopes of making his case by citing LaSalle Bank v Ferone, 384 Ill. App.3d 239, 892 NE2d 585, 322 Ill. Dec 948 (2nd Dist. Ill. App. Ct. 2008), a 2008 case arising out of the Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District. Judge Otto also rightly states that the elderly victim, Mr. Richard B. Daniggelis, claimed that he was a victim of a mortgage rescue fraud scheme, and LaSalle Bank, cited in the "Background" section of Judge Otto's order, here, indeed deals with that issue; here is the court's key finding:

"In this mortgage foreclosure action, defendant, Catherine Ferone, appeals the judgment of the circuit court of Du Page County, granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff, LaSalle Bank, as to her affirmative defense. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in finding that (1) plaintiff was a bona fide mortgagee for value because plaintiff did not have actual or constructive notice of defendant's interest in the subject property or of the fraud that defendant Marc J. Biagini perpetrated on defendant; and (2) Biagini's fraud was fraud in the inducement rather than fraud in the execution. We reverse and remand."

* First, let's look at Judge Otto's findings, and then let's compare them to the relevant case-law, above, shall we?

Otto's order (p.2) admits that Daniggelis, who fell behind on his mortgage payments, signed a limited POA (Power of Attorney) and signed a warranty deed for help (see Oder, p.4) "to pay the arrearages" (i.e., to get help refinancing). Otto also admits (Order, p.1) that Daniggelis "asserts that in 2006," Shelton, Rhone, & Younes duped him into signing over the deed under the guise of foreclosure rescue. Interestingly enough, here is a direct quote from the bottom of p.1 of Otto's 03-08-2014 order, here:

"They then subsequently misused that deed, along with a power of attorney Daniggelis had executed to Rhone, to effectuate a sale to Younes without Daniggelis's consent."

Otto does not say, here, that Daniggelis "claims" or "asserts" that they misused the POA and deed; rather, Otto's order states that: "They then subsequently misused that deed..." (Whether this is a mere typo, or, instead, a "Freudian slip," where Otto admits that Daniggelis' claim of fraud is correct, it is unknown, but an interesting 'typo,' if, indeed, that's what it is.) Addressing Daniggelis' complaints, however, Otto finds as follows:

On pp.4-5, Otto admits that Daniggelis made complaints for Invalid Deed (count I), Invalid POA (count II), rescission based on unjust enrichment (count III), and [skipping a 'count IV'], that Daniggelis seeks to quiet title in himself (count V) based on Rhone's and Shelton's fraud against LaSalle. Otto acknowledges other motions, which (for the purposes of discussion here) are not relevant. So, what is odd, here?

In the 02-15-2013 order, linked here, Judge Otto granted summary judgment to Younes for Counts I, II, & V of Daniggelis' claim (see above). So, let's see if Otto's Order on 02-15-2013 holds water:

* Invalid Deed (count I) -- Otto admit (Order, p.4) that the July 9, 2006 warranty deed "is in most respects identical" to the May 9, 2006 warranty deed that Daniggelis signed (except, of course, for the word 'July' being hand-written in), which supports the claims that there was a photocopy forgery. This is plain on its face: Since no mere mortal can sign his/her name exactly the same, then photocopy forgery is obvious to all but the blind, deaf, & dumb -- and the dishonest who refuse to admit.

* Invalid Deed (count I) -- Moreover, Otto admits (Order, p.4) that: "In April 2007, Daniggelis filed a Notice of 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 refinancing difficulties). [Even if it was unsigned at the time, Daniggelis takes credit for it, and, by virtue of his attorney entering it into the record as an exhibit, he signs it, which is further support of his claims of fraudulent misuse of a POA.] NOTE: Apparently, Otto did not see the exhibits filed in Daniggelis' July 30, 2008 answer (see pages 38 and 40 of the 96-page PDF file of a public records request at this link, where both Shelton and Rhone sign on to such statements, and Daniggelis also signs them: these contracts place limits on both the time and purpose of the POA). So, this conclusively proves the POA to be fraudulently used.

* rescission based on unjust enrichment (count III) -- The record is clear that both the co-conspirators (Rhone, Shelton, & Younes), as well as the bank, eventually had notice of the fraud. While the 'enrichment' (fees for extending a loan) were most likely ordinary (and not probably neither exorbitant nor usurious interest & fees), nonetheless, they became 'unjust' enrichment the moment the bank had notice that the underlying transaction was fraudulent.

* Quiet Title (count V) -- Whether the bank knew immediately -- or not -- nonetheless, the fact remains: Rhone, Shelton, & Younes fraudulently used both the POA and the forged warranty deed. (The POA was used for a purpose outside it's "limited POA" scope, and outside the allowed time-frame; and, the 2nd warranty deed, which was outside the legal time-frame of the POA, was clearly forged via a photocopy and a whiteout & alteration of the date.) Thus, Daniggelis is entitled, as a matter of law, to have the title quieted in himself -- i.e., to have his house & land, which was taken without any payment to him, whatsoever -- returned to him.

The bank's motion for summary judgment was a "Cleotex-type" Motion, that is, the bank merely alleged that Daniggelis lacked sufficient evidence to prove his claim, rather than use the "traditional test" of affirmatively disproving Daniggelis' claim by introducing damning evidence that, if uncontroverted, would prove the banks is entitled to Summary judgment. I.e., the bank used a "weak" argument to make its case. Since Daniggelis was (is) entitled to Summary Judgment against Rhone, Shelton, & Younes (and possibly also Stewart Title, who I'm told payed out a claim), this would "moot" the bank's motion here, and they would only be able to make a claim against Rhone, Shelton, & Younes (and possibly Stewart Title) for losses.

Moreover, we've learned in subsequent filings (see, e.g., page 11 of 27 of my 09/11/2017 Court-stamped filing, linked here) that Younes both admitted that there was a conspiracy, and -- as we've all seen -- participated in -- and BEFEFITTED FROM -- said conspiracy!

There was also a lack of payment to Daniggelis (payment to-or-from the bank doesn't count, hello? --as Daniggelis, the original, owner wasn't paid), so, this alone should void any such "sale," thus Daniggelis is still the genuine and true owner: Stilk v. Myrick, 170 Eng. Rep. 1168, 1168 (1809) (L.R.C.P) (Ellenborough, L) (holding a renegotiated contract void due to lack of consideration). (Besides, since Daniggelis didn't seek - or receive - any payment, this is further proof that his intention was not to sell the house, but rather to seek a refi mortgage rescue assistance for his underwater mortgage -- as he has claimed all along.) Of course, the forgery, for which there is no statutes of limitations, is a felony, and Younes and crew are culpable for engaging in -- and gaining unjust enrichment from -- said forgery, in their acts of furtherance, here. (The acts of furtherance, probably, also would toll the statutes of limitations, and reset the clock, on the other fraud offenses, for which there is a statute of limitation, but that is for courts and states attorney to decide.) All said and done, Judge Otto's 03/08/2013 order here, very convincingly provided damning evidence of mortgage fraud, but what says the relevant case law?

LaSalle Bank V. Ferone, cited above, states that Ms. Ferone actually signed the document in question: "When defendant signed the deed in trust, she did not understand that the effect of the document was to quitclaim her interest in the subject property. Rather, defendant trusted Biagini because he was her lawyer and her friend, and she believed Biagini's representation that she was signing a power of attorney that would be valid only for 24 hours." (Normally, if you sign it, you're bound by law, but there was fraud & misrepresentation, here.) By contrast, Daniggelis did not sign the document in question, because it was, as even Otto admitted, a forgery. So, if Ferone is entitled to relief, how much more, Daniggelis? And of the case law in question?

First off, eventually, *everyone* had: "actual or constructive notice of defendant's interest in the subject property or of the fraud" both alleged, and then later documented and proved.

Secondly, the appeals court held that: "Defendant concludes that, because the deed in trust was void, Biagini's mortgage based on the deed in trust was likewise void ab initio. We agree with defendant's first contention. Her claim to the appraiser that she owned the subject property and that it was her home arguably should have triggered further inquiry by plaintiff." So, it makes no difference if there was "fraud in execution" or not, since any transaction based on a false inducement (fraud) is, itself, fraud. Therefore, the bank should have further inquired into Daniggelis' claim once it was notified, even if that was as late as the court date of the lawsuits that flew back & forth. That is why the appeals court concluded that: "Because of our resolution of this issue, we need not consider whether Biagini's fraud constituted fraud in the execution or fraud in the inducement." It really made no difference: Fraud is fraud, and any fraud would be sufficient to void the entire transaction.

Thus, Otto's citation of LaSalle Band V. Ferone, here, offers conclusive proof that the facts in this case support summary judgment in favour of the elderly Mr. Daniggelis, and it is exceptionally inexplicably odd that Otto rules against Daniggelis in his 2-15-2013 order, even after laying out facts that give damning evidence that much, easily-documentable, fraud existed -- which resulted in his house being stolen and him not getting paid a dime for it: Judge Otto's order is clearly the most unusual order I've ever seen.

~Editor

5/15/2014 MEMORANDUM OF judgment ENTERED
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: OTTO, MICHAEL F.
For reasons that are unclear to this writer, The Court entered an order finding Atty. Joseph Younes, Esq., who is said to be a former law partner of Atty. Paul L. Shelton, Esq., the owner of the property in question.
8/7/2014 TRANSFER TO PRESIDING JUDGE FOR TRANS TO OUT OF THE DIVISION
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: OTTO, MICHAEL F.
For reasons which are unclear to this writer, Hon. Judge Otto transferred this case to Hon. Judge Jacobius, to transfer it from Chancery out to Law. *** PDF format *** *.PNG image *** *tif image ***
8/12/2014 ORDER CASE TRANSFERRED FOR TRIAL TO LAW DIVISION
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: JACOBIUS, MOSHE
For reasons which are unclear to this writer, Hon. Judge Jacobius transferred this case from Chancery out to Law. *** PDF format *** *.PNG image *** *tif image ***
8/12/2014 TRANSFER FILE INTO DIVISION - ALLOWED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: FLANNERY, JAMES P.
For reasons which are unclear to this writer, Hon. Judge Flannery transferred this case from Chancery into Law. (Image not available here: The Register did not see fit to purchase public records for the entire files; see court and/or docket for further info.)
3/25/2015 NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
RICHARD DANIGGELIS, Defendant, filed by ANDJELKO GALIC, Esq.
Atty. Galic filed an appeal of this Chancery case, and the First Appellate Court is hearing this case, in case #: 1-14-2751. (Again: Image not available, since this is a mere notice of appeal: see court or docket for further info.)
5/6/2015 ORDER -directed to:
the First Appellate Court: NO. 1-14-2751-appeal of:

2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT
“In the exercise of this Court's supervisory authority, the Appellate Court, First District, is directed to vacate its order in GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. Daniggelis, case No. 1-14-2751 (09/24/14), denying Richard Daniggelis leave to file a late notice of appeal. The appellate court is instructed to allow Richard Daniggelis to file a late notice of appeal and hear the case.” (27 N.E.3d 610 (2015))
5/29/2015 REVIEWING COURT ORDER RECEIVED, Court Room: 2403
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: APPELLATE COURT
Appeals court denies bond, since no stay was entered, but (and this is very scary!) appellee (e.g., plaintiff, GMAC, the bank) is free to pursue removal of elderly victim of mortgage fraud. Why is this scary? Well: The plaintiff, GMAC, is excused (see point #3 of this order finding there are no pending claims against GMAC, which - of course - would be impossible had they kicked Daniggelis out of his home). Even more frightening: The trial court apparently used this order as an excuse to simply steal Daniggelis' house and give it to Atty. Younes, even tho no one in their right mind would accept their implied claim that Daniggelis just "gave it away" for free - and lost several hundred thousands of dollars of equity. Worse yet: My pleadings showed the court duplicate signatures --something that both of Daniggelis' attorneys overlooked -- which, of course, can only happen via photocopy (you CAN NOT sign your name exactly the same twice in a row), translation: Photocopy, thus felony forgery fraud. ~~Editor
7/14/2015 REQUEST FOR PREPARATION OF RECORD
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
RICHARD DANIGGELIS, Defendant, filed by ANDJELKO GALIC, Esq.
Self-explanatory: Atty. Galic is asking the Chancery Division to prepare the record for the appellate court review. No image necessary to make the point here.
8/10/2015 AFFIDAVIT FILED
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
NON RECORD CLAIMANTS
Filed on Aug. 03, 2015 by Gordon Wayne Watts, but the court's docket reflects 8/10/15. This sworn & notarised affidavit basically serves as a statement of the case and facts, but puts Mr. Watts' signature on it backing its authenticity.
8/10/2015 EXHIBITS FILED
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
NON RECORD CLAIMANTS
Filed on Aug. 03, 2015 by Gordon Wayne Watts, but the court's docket reflects 8/10/15. The motion for an amicus, the proposed amicus brief, and the exhibits, all three (3), are filed as one document, here.
8/10/2015 NOTICE OF MOTION FILED
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
NON RECORD CLAIMANTS
(Filed on Aug. 03, 2015 by Gordon Wayne Watts, but the court's docket reflects 8/10/15.) Chicago courts, unlike most I've seen, require a "notice of motion," giving the court & parties 'notice' of the motion & its particulars. ~Editor, Gordon W. Watts
8/10/2015 MOTION FILED
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
NON RECORD CLAIMANTS
Filed on Aug. 03, 2015 by Gordon Wayne Watts, but the court's docket reflects 8/10/15. The motion for an amicus, the proposed amicus brief, and the exhibits, all three (3), are filed as one document, here.
08/17/2015 Various Motions
before the First Appellate Court: NO. 1-14-2751; Trial Court No.: 2007 CH 29738; appeal of:

2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Gordon Wayne Watts, PRO SE
Judge: APPELLATE COURT
Motions for waiver of court fees; leave for Amicus; and Motion to Supplement Record Instanter ~~ Supporting Record ~~ Proposed Orders. Note: filed on 8/16, but docketed on 8/17. The court entered this ruling on Sept. 11, 2015.
8/21/2015 NOTICE OF MOTION FILED
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Court docket reflects: "Attorney: GALIC ANDJELKO," even tho this was filed by Mr. Watts.
The court's date (8/21) is slightly later than the actual filing (8/16), as with other filings. The court did not follow the rules and allow Mr. Watts to appear telephonically (as the rules of the IL Supreme court allow) either this time or any other time: See Art. II, Rule 185 (Telephone Conferences), R.Civ. Proceedings in the Trial Court, Rule 206(h)(Remote Electronic Means Depositions), etc. ~ Moreover, the online docket, for reasons unknown to myself, do not reflect the “Motion for leave to file Supplemental Record,” or the proposed order, just the Notice of Motion.

However, since I did not know if my items were received or not (due to the docketing error, listing Atty. Galic as the filer), I refiled on 9/10/2015: see below. ~Editor, Gordon W. Watts

9/10/2015 Court's Docket does not have an entry on this date
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
N/A
I re-sent copies of the "8/21/2016" filings above, noting that they were being resent because the court had lost most stuff! In addition, I included a Time-Sensitive Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts – in semi-Emergency Fashion by OVERNIGHT FedEx and a Proposed Order for this case. -- NOTE: Looking above at the 8/21 entry (Notice of Motion) I gave the court timely notice of my intent to appear telephonically as the rules permit, but the court saw fit to disobey the rules. FedEx certified that my overnight deliveries to Craig in the Motions Department, who asked me to put it to his attention to that it didn't get lost again. (But it did!)
10/29/2015 EXHIBITS FILED
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
UNKNOWN/WATTS GORDON
Since the docket reflected Atty. Andjelko Galic as the filer for the 08/21/2015 items (above), I thought that my filings were lost, and I resent them to the court (as described in my 10/29/2015 'correspondence' below). The "8/21/2015" entry and the "9/10/2015" entries were either lost or docketed incorrectly (or both!), but "the 3rd time will be a charm," and I think that these items were finally received and reviewed by the court.

To see the items filed, please refer to the 08/10/2015, 08/21/2015, and 09/10/2015 docket entries above.

PS: All 3 divisions are without excuse, as I communicated directly with all of them, as I was asked by multiple employees of the court:
letter-to-judges.CHANCERY.pdf ** letter-to-judges.CIVIL.pdf ** letter-to-judges.LAW.pdf ** NOTE: The letters look similar, but they are not identical. ~Editor

10/29/2015 MOTION FILED
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
UNKNOWN/WATTS GORDON
Since the docket reflected Atty. Andjelko Galic as the filer for the 08/21/2015 items (above), I thought that my filings were lost, and I resent them to the court (as described in my 10/29/2015 'correspondence' below). The "8/21/2015" entry and the "9/10/2015" entries were either lost or docketed incorrectly (or both!), but "the 3rd time will be a charm," and I think that these items were finally received and reviewed by the court.

To see the items filed, please refer to the 08/10/2015, 08/21/2015, and 09/10/2015 docket entries above.

PS: All 3 divisions are without excuse, as I communicated directly with all of them, as I was asked by multiple employees of the court:
letter-to-judges.CHANCERY.pdf ** letter-to-judges.CIVIL.pdf ** letter-to-judges.LAW.pdf ** NOTE: The letters look similar, but they are not identical. ~Editor

10/29/2015 INCOMING CORRESPONDENCE FILED
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
UNKNOWN/WATTS GORDON
Since the docket reflected Atty. Andjelko Galic as the filer for the 08/21/2015 items (above), I thought that my filings were lost, and I resent them to the court (as reflected below). The "8/21/2015" entry and the "9/10/2015" entry were either lost or docketed incorrectly (or both!), but "the 3rd time will be a charm," and I think that these items were finally received and reviewed by the court.

This entry is a letter to the judge: It's self-explanatory - he had overlooked my filings, and multiple employees of the court said to write the judge. So, I did.

PS: All 3 divisions are without excuse, as I communicated directly with all of them, as I was asked by multiple employees of the court:
letter-to-judges.CHANCERY.pdf ** letter-to-judges.CIVIL.pdf ** letter-to-judges.LAW.pdf ** NOTE: The letters look similar, but they are not identical. ~Editor

10/29/2015 MOTION TO - DENIED
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: OTTO, MICHAEL F.
This is the order of the judge: it took him over two (2) months to rule on this time-sensitive matter, in which a elderly man became homeless due to mortgage fraud!

PS: All 3 divisions are without excuse, as I communicated directly with all of them, as I was asked by multiple employees of the court:
letter-to-judges.CHANCERY.pdf ** letter-to-judges.CIVIL.pdf ** letter-to-judges.LAW.pdf ** NOTE: The letters look similar, but they are not identical. ~Editor

11/23/2015 MEMORANDUM OF LAW FILED
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: GALIC ANDJELKO
Docket says: "Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD," but the image is not available without a laborious, costly, and lengthy public records request.

UPDATE: I just purchased public records from the court. Holy cow!? Did you read that!? Atty. Galic admits, in so many words, that - basically - NO ONE has any earthly idea why the case was transferred (see point 3.) from the Chancery Division to the Law Division -- and that many records have been lost (see point 2.).

My legal analyses: The cross-claims of Atty. Younes, basically claiming that the elderly, 76-year-old defendant, Mr. Daniggelis, signed over his house, and just gave it to him - and gave up the hundreds of thousands of dollars in equity that others admit was lost, should not have been addressed in Chancery. The Chancery Division is a court of equities, and should have addressed the GMAC foreclosure complaint - and nothing else. The 'Contract Law' case, which is now in the Law division, was probably a more appropriate forum for such a complaint. Caveat: I'm not a lawyer. ~~Editor, Gordon W. Watts

11/30/2015 Blinking DotMOTION FOR REHEARINGBlinking Dot (Note: the Notice of Motion is included, with both filed as one document.)
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Gordon Wayne Watts, Pro Se
I just mailed this off to the court and all parties and got signature confirmation and tracking for both the filing to Judge OTTO as well as the filing to the Clerk of the CHANCERY DIVISION of the Cook County, IL trial court. Not on docket as yet... (but should appear on docket soon - if the court/clerks don't lose my mail/filings once again!..) -- Oops - speak of the devil! Another screw-up: in that entire court, isn't there even one person to sign for what I mailed Priority Overnight to the Chancery Division or the Judge's chambers!? ~ Editor, Gordon W. Watts
UPDATE: I just spoke with Gerald Jones, Assistant Chief Deputy Clerk in CHANCERY, and he confirms my pleadings arrived safely. Gerald and his team are good guys who try to serve the public, even with the heavy workload they have. (I only wish the judges took their jobs as seriously.) Additionally, the U.S. Post Office confirms that both the service copy to Judge Otto (signed for by: 'J OBELHEIDE') and the service copy to the CHANCERY clerks (signed for by: 'G JONES') were received and signed for, and arrived safely.

PS: There is one small typo in my filing: I erroneously claim, on p.3, that I was finally able to file on August 10, 2005, but this is a clear typo: The case didn't even start until 2007, and I clearly meant that I was able to procure public records & file on Aug.10, 2015, not 2005. Sorry about that; however, this is the only 'major' typo (that changes the meaning) that I find after proof-reading. Should you lose the link to this page, it's front-page news on The Register, my namesake blogs. I hope you all have a Merry Christmas and happy holiday season. Best, ~ Editor, Gordon W. Watts

12/07/2015 MISCELLANEOUS MOTION - ALLOWED Court Room: 2804
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: OTTO, MICHAEL F.
Oddly-enough, while the actual order appears to deny my motion, above, the official court docket lists only one entry for '12/7/2015' and has 'MISCELLANEOUS MOTION - ALLOWED -' as its title with 'Court Room: 2804' and 'Judge: OTTO, MICHAEL F.' in the notes section. ~~Editor

** Official Court Docket ** Cache: courtesy The Register ** Screen shot (PDF format) ** Screen shot (Portable Network Gaphics *.png image format) ** Screen shot ("Jay Peg" *jpg image format) **

01/06/2016

(listed as: '1/14/2016' on court docket, and time-stamped as '2016 JAN 15 PM 4:07,' but it's truly dated 01/06/2015, since the U.S. Post Office stamp is what officially dates the filing, according to the rules of the court on timeliness: Rule 373. Date of Filing Papers in Reviewing Court; Certificate or Affidavit of Mailing)

NOTICE OF APPEAL
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis

UPDATE: received by Court:
As filed: this link (original PDF), and, as docketed: this link (pp.1-9 of this 26-page PDF)

Gordon Wayne Watts, Pro Se
Notice of Appeal. NOTE: This notice contains several items, which are procedural and statutory requirements, but they're bundled together for the sake of simplicity: NOTICE OF APPEAL; NOTICE OF FILING; REQUEST FOR PREPARATION OF RECORD ON APPEAL; Rule 321 MOTION (SUGGESTION) TO BOTH COURTS to “Order Less”; and, "Rule 298. Application for Waiver of Court Fees," and, of course, the "CERTIFICATE AND AFFIDAVIT OF DELIVERY (aka: Certificate of Service)." ALSO: Since the courts keep losing my filings, and/or docketing them at a time different than the legal postal stamp (which is the standard for the timing issue), I'm including this scanned image to verify that I filed these using 2-day priority mail from the U.S. Postal Service: receipt-2007-CH-29738-Wednesday06January2016-NOTICE-of-APPEAL-GordonWayneWatts.jpg.

PS: Here's helpful “mortgage foreclosure-rescue fraud” case law re physical possession of property in both *.html Web-Page and PDF format, which suggests that the continued open and visible possession of the home by the scammed homeowner (Mr. Daniggelis') after being duped by the foreclosure rescue operator(s) may be sufficient to charge those subsequently acquiring title and security interests in the home with notice of the fraud, and thereby disqualifying them from bona fide purchaser status. DELIVERY NOTES: As of today, Wednesday, 13 January 2016, I note that I mailed all items on Jan.06, 2016, and got them postmarked. Both the Appeals Court and Judge Michael Otto got their copies, but there was a problem with the Civil Appeals Division copy, even though it was indeed addressed correctly. After some calls to the Post Office, I was finally able to convince them to both deliver it and get it signed for by a 'George Aridas,' who works in the mail room. So, my appeal, since it was time-stamped on time, is timely, and not late, according to Court Rules: Illinois Supreme Court Rule 373 says that they're ontime if they're postmarked on the due date, and, if they were "received after the due date, the time of mailing, or the time of delivery to a third-party commercial carrier for delivery to the clerk within three business days, shall be deemed the time of filing." (Rule 373. Date of Filing Papers in Reviewing Court; Certificate or Affidavit of Mailing) -- Since I used 2-Day Priority Mail, this qualifies, as "for delivery to the clerk within three business days," even if it actually took longer.

UPDATE -- Received by Court -- As filed: this link (original PDF),and, as docketed: this link (pp.1-9 of this 26-page PDF)

01/15/2016 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FILED
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis

UPDATE: received by Court:
As filed: this link (original PDF), and, as docketed: this link (pp.1-9 of this 26-page PDF)

Attorney: PRO SE
Participant: UNKNOWN/WATTS
The 'Notice of Appeal.' (Included the cert. of mailing) -- See comments above.
NOTE: "The delivery record shows that this item was delivered on January 13, 2016 at 11:58 am in CHICAGO, IL 60602 to G ARIDAS," but court stamp reflects the 15th, oddly-enough. (See "01/06/2016" entry.) ~GW
01/15/2016 NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis

UPDATE: received by Court:
As filed: this link (original PDF), and, as docketed: this link (pp.1-9 of this 26-page PDF)

Attorney: PRO SE
Participant: UNKNOWN/WATTS
The 'Notice of Appeal' proper. -- See comments above.
NOTE: "The delivery record shows that this item was delivered on January 13, 2016 at 11:58 am in CHICAGO, IL 60602 to G ARIDAS," but court stamp reflects the 15th, oddly-enough. (See "01/06/2016" entry.) ~GW
01/15/2016 NOTICE OF FILING FILED
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis

UPDATE: received by Court:
As filed: this link (original PDF), and, as docketed: this link (pp.1-9 of this 26-page PDF)

Attorney: PRO SE
Participant: UNKNOWN/WATTS
The 'Notice of Appeal.' (Included the notice of filing) -- See comments above.
NOTE: "The delivery record shows that this item was delivered on January 13, 2016 at 11:58 am in CHICAGO, IL 60602 to G ARIDAS," but court stamp reflects the 15th, oddly-enough. (See "01/06/2016" entry.) ~GW
01/15/2016 Letter from Appellate Court

Steven M. Ravid, Clerk
Appellate Court, First District

SMR/pal
cc: Executive Clerk for Court Operations & Administration

2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis

UPDATE: received by Court:
As filed: this link (original PDF), and, as docketed: this link (pp.1-9 of this 26-page PDF)

Clerk: APPELLATE COURT
Letter tells me I have to file Notice of Appeal with Circuit Court (Civil Appeals Division, Hon. Patricia O'Brien, Chief Deputy Clerk, presiding; PH: 312-603-5406). I know that, hello!? However, pursuant to Rule 303(c)Service of Notice of Appeal: “The party filing the notice of appeal or an amendment as of right, shall, within 7 days, file a notice of filing with the reviewing court...," that is, the appeals court, here which is what I did. So, why the concern?

Note to self: I just got a call from Robt. J. More, another litigant in this case, alleging that the Chancery Court has incurred Felony Criminal liability for helping steal Mr. Daniggelis' home, and, in support of this, has cited Fayerweather v. Ritch, 195 U.S. 276; 25 S.Ct. 58; 49 L.Ed. 193, which holds that Daniggelis was deprived of Substantive Due Process because "we held that a judgment of a state court might be here reviewed if it operated to deprive a party of his property without due process of law, and that the fact that the parties were properly brought into court and admitted to make defense was not absolutely conclusive upon the question of due process...'The mere form of the proceeding instituted against the owner, even if he be admitted to defend, cannot convert the process used into due process of law, if the necessary result be to deprive him of his property without compensation.' If a judgment of a state court can be reviewed by this court on error upon the ground that, although the forms of law were observed, it necessarily operated to wrongfully deprive a party of his property (as indicated by the decision just referred to), a judgment of the circuit court of the United States, claimed to give such unwarranted effect to a decision of a state court as to accomplish the same result, may also be considered as presenting the question how far it can be sustained in the view of the prohibitory language of the 5th Amendment, and thus involve the application of the Constitution."

Note: "the forms of law were observed" refers to Procedural Due Process (PDP), whilst the obvious theft of Daniggelis' house refers to a lack of Substantive Due Process (SDP). So, the Supreme Court, above, apparently is saying that it's possible for a court to give PDP while, at the same time, depriving someone of SDP. The Court went on to say: "Upon what is this contention based? First, the silence of the judgment, which contains no findings to indicate upon what it is based...," which suggests that the Illinois Courts' lack of explaining its ruling was a violation of PDP, strengthening the claim the end result was a violation of SDP. Note: The Court's comment about "testimony of the trial judge, given on the hearing in this case some six years after his decision in the state court" suggests that state court judges may, indeed, be compelled to testify in Federal Court. Hmm...?

My thoughts: This pits Judicial Immunity against 42 U.S. 1983 violations for deprivations of Daniggelis under colour of law. This would be a hard thing to litigate, given the current political environment, but given the fact that the various courts did not offer any legal justification for snatching away Daniggelis' property (with hundreds of thousands of dollars of equity in it) and giving it away to one of their colleagues (fellow-attorney, Joseph Younes), this is suspicious at the least-and smacks of cronyism and "Chicago-style" backroom deals, even if no actual Quid Pro Quo bribe was given: If the courts thought they were justified in doing so, one would think that they would offer some sort of explanation, even if it was a bad one, but, so far as I can tell from the court record, they offered no explanation. Odd... Maybe some friendly "legal reporter" for local Chicago press can explain it to me? ~~Editor

02/02/2016 ***MISC.MOTION(SET FOR MOTION HEARING)
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis

Attorney: PRO SE
Participant: MOORE ROBERT
The docket lists Mr. Robert J. More like this, misspelling his last name. Why would judge Otto set this for a hearing if he didn't set my more serious and applicable motions for a hearing? (This is within the court's discretion.) Also, since More admitted that he's trespassed, banned, & barred from the courthouse (read his motion carefully), why would the court even entertain such a motion? (Do the court or judge even read this stuff?) More-importantly, however, why did the court outright steal Mr. Daniggelis' home and give it to Mr. Younes without any compensation?? ~Editor
02/11/2016 298 Petition
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis

Attorney: PRO SE
Participant: UNKNOWN/WATTS
After many screw-ups, not the least of which includes the court stealing Daniggelis' home and property, and giving it to a local rich lawyer for no legal reason (and not compensating Daniggelis for it), the court then ignored my Rule 298 poverty declaration. (See the bottom of page 2, of the 01/14/2016 Notice of Appeal - scroll up just a few notches - where I clearly stated, in the header "Rule 298. Application for Waiver of Court Fees," a statement that I qualify for Waiver of Court fees.)

However, Patricia O'Brien, the Chief Deputy Clerk of the CIVIL APPEALS DIVISION said I needed specific paperwork filled out. When I asked her what it was, she did not know, and said each division is different, and to check with Chancery. After many calls, I finally got a hold of Chief Deputy Clerk, Cynthia M. Eddington, who sent me this court form, which I promptly filled out and then mailed back to Chancery, as I was asked to do. Ms. Eddington promises to forward this promptly to Judge Otto, who we expect will rule on it, one way or the other.

After all the screw-ups and lost paperwork (not to mention theft of my friend's house for no legal reason - and without compensation), you can bet that we will be tracking this package more-so than NORAD track's Santa's sleigh as it flies on Christmas night! (Maybe, this time, we will get justice. We will see.) ~Editor

UPDATE: As of today, Wed. 02-17-2016, FedEx reports that my poverty declaration was received & signed for late yesterday - apparently by Ms. Eddington. ~Editor

02/22/2016 SUE OR DEFEND AS A INDIGENT PERSON - DENIED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: FLANNERY, JAMES P.
Microfilm: LD000000000
Participant: WATTS GORDON WAYNE
Order from Law Division judge on the 02/11/2016 poverty application in this Chancery case.

Order reads: "PETITIONER LACKS STANDING TO BRING SUIT ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER."

Two things wrong with this: First, why is a Law Division judge ruling on this matter. I know that this case was transferred to the law division, but the appeal is from the underlying Chancery Division. However, what is even more troubling is the clear obvious fact: The judge is either unwilling or unable to read: I did not bring suit on behalf of ANYONE, but rather filed a friend of the court brief with the appropriate motion to supplement the record on appeal. #BigDifference - #LearnToRead - #HonestyPlease - #LiberalActivistJudges

One last thing: Since there was probably only a small chance that the appeals court (who also was unfriendly regarding supplementing the record) would likely have upheld the unjust rulings in question, I don't see why this judge did not simply follow State Law regarding 298 Poverty applications, and simply forward on the appeal. He must have been really paranoid: It's not like it would have used that much judicial resources to address what, clearly, was/is a grave injustice in the theft of Mr. Daniggelis' house, without any compensation to him, whatsoever.~Editor

02/26/2016 RECORD ON APPEAL
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis

Attorney: GALIC ANDJELKO
Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD
Apparently, the entire record. Of course, we're not going to post the entire record online. ~Editor
03/08/2016 ***RULE TO SHOW CAUSE(SET FOR MOTION HEARING)
(as filed - upside-down, but with key service data) -- (right-side up)

2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: GALIC ANDJELKO
Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD
Note: This filing is an e-filing, supplied to The Register courtesy of Mr. Robert J. More, one of the litigants who was on the e-filing service list, a service that The Court, for some (unexplained) reason, did not afford to Register editor, and legal writer/investigator, Gordon W. Watts, even though Mr. Watts is also a litigant in this case.~Editor

Title proper: "Petition for Rule to Show Cause against John LaRocque" (e.g., for failure to appear at a deposition after having been properly served)

03/08/2016 ***RULE TO SHOW CAUSE(SET FOR MOTION HEARING)
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis

Attorney: GALIC ANDJELKO
Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD
Oddly enough, the court's docket lists this entry twice, therefore, so am I. ~Editor
03/23/2016 PLACITA AND CERTIFICATION OF TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD FOR APPEAL FILED
2007-CH-29738
CHANCERY DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis

Attorney: GALIC ANDJELKO
Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD
Apparently, the entire audio-to-paper verbal court transcript. Of course, we're not going to post the entire court conversation transcript online. ~Editor
** Click HERE to get to Top of Page **
LAW DIVISION Case: 2007-CH-29738, LAW DIVISION, GMAC v. Daniggelis, Watts, LaRocque, Younes, et al.
** Click HERE to get to Top of Page **
10/17/2007 Complaint to Foreclose Mortgage
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, Plaintiff, filed by Pierce & Associates
See pp. 1-4 of this 96-page PDF Public Records request. This filing is called the "NON OWNER OCCUPIED SINGLE FAMILY HOME OR CONDOMINIUM - FILED" on the Court's Chancery docket, but a document, titled "CONTRACT COMPLAINT FILED" was filed on the same date in the Law Division (same case number). This appears to be the self-same document. NOTE: GMAC v. Daniggelis, 2007-CH-29738, is currently in both the Chancery Division (which was appealed to the First Appellate Court) and in the Law Division. That this same case number is in 2 divisions is a constant source of confusion to the clerks in both divisions, as I personally recall, based on numerous phone conversations with many clerks, who often reply along the line of: "No, that is a Chancery case, since it has 'CH' in its title." -- Me: "Yes, it is a Law Division case; it's in both divisions: look at the dockets, if you don't believe me" ~Editor, Gordon W. Watts
12/26/2007 APPEARANCE FILED - FEE PAID
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: PRO SE
Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD
Court Fee: $163.00. APPEARANCE FILED - FEE PAID - (image not available at this time; check back)
7/16/2008 APPEARANCE FILED - NO FEE PAID
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: Chicago VOLUNTEER LEGAL S
Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD
APPEARANCE FILED - NO FEE PAID - (see page 18 of 19)
9/26/2008 APPEARANCE FILED - FEE PAID
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: MALONEY EUGENE WILLIAM
Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD
Court Fee: $188.00. APPEARANCE FILED - FEE PAID - (see page 17 of 19 - same filing, but listed twice on court's docket: see below)
9/26/2008 APPEARANCE FILED - NO FEE PAID
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: MALONEY EUGENE WILLIAM
Participant: YOUNES JOSEPH
APPEARANCE FILED - NO FEE PAID - (see page 17 of 19 - same filing, but listed twice on court's docket: see above)
3/5/2009 APPEARANCE FILED - FEE PAID
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: KROPIK PAPUGA AND SHAW
Participant: MORTGAGE ELECTRONICS
Court Fee: $198.00. APPEARANCE FILED - FEE PAID - (see page 16 of 19)
9/10/2009 APPEARANCE FILED - NO FEE PAID
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: KALLMAN JOHN K
Participant: LASALLE
APPEARANCE FILED - NO FEE PAID - (see page 14 of 19)
9/10/2009 APPEARANCE FILED - NO FEE PAID
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: INDYKE RICHARD
Participant: LASALLE
APPEARANCE FILED - NO FEE PAID - (see page 15 of 19)
9/18/2009 APPEARANCE FILED - NO FEE PAID
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: KROPIK PAPUGA AND SHAW
Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE
APPEARANCE FILED - NO FEE PAID - (see page 13 of 19)
12/29/2009 APPEARANCE FILED - FEE PAID
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: COHON RAIZES®AL LLP
Participant: STEWART TITLE ILLINOIS
Court Fee: $198.00. APPEARANCE FILED - FEE PAID - (see page 12 of 19)
1/12/2010 APPEARANCE FILED - FEE PAID
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: STONE MCGUIRE SIRGEL
Participants: DANIGGELIS RICHARD and LAROCQUE JOHN
Court Fee: $198.00. APPEARANCE FILED - FEE PAID - (see page 11 of 19)
1/19/2010 APPEARANCE FILED - FEE PAID
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: SHELTON AND YOUNES
Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD
Court Fee: $198.00. APPEARANCE FILED - FEE PAID - (see pages 8-9 of 19)
2/26/2010 APPEARANCE FILED - NO FEE PAID
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: DAVID COOPER LAW OFFICE
Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD
APPEARANCE FILED - NO FEE PAID - (see pages 7 and 10 of 19)
3/26/2010 APPEARANCE FILED - NO FEE PAID
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: DAVID COOPER LAW OFFICE
Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD
APPEARANCE FILED - NO FEE PAID - (see page 6 of 19, which is undated, in contrast to the "FEB 26 2010" page 7, above)
8/19/2010 APPEARANCE FILED - NO FEE PAID
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: PRO SE
Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD
APPEARANCE FILED - NO FEE PAID - (see page 5 of 19, and also page 19 of 19, where this image is duplicated for some unknown reason in this Public Records request) --**NOTE: Daniggelis made a JURY DEMAND, way back in 2010, regarding the theft of his house by mortgage fraud, clearly using a forged signature, which Due Process has YET to be honoured or granted by The Court, even as late as 2017, more specifically, today (Sunday, 13 August 2017).
4/8/2011 APPEARANCE FILED - NO FEE PAID
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: GALIC ANDJELKO
Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD
(No image available on this docket; see court's official docket or the clerk for this filing. ~Editor)
10/5/2012 JURY DEMAND FILED - FEE PAID
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: GALIC ANDJELKO
Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD
Court Fee: $230.oo. *** (No image available on this docket; see court's official docket or the clerk for this filing. ~Editor) *** NOTE: A jury trial was requested, way back in 2012, as it's a legal right, and yet, even as late as 2017, still no jury trial, and still no justice. (Please note that the house was stolen with the assistance of an illegal ruling by Judge Otto, and this judge did not require a 'jury trial' to illegally steal the house and land from Mr. Daniggelis and give it to Atty. Younes. So, I ask: Why should Mr. Daniggelis be required to "jump through the hoops" for a jury trial to get justice here?? ~Editor)
8/12/2014 TRANSFER FILE INTO DIVISION - ALLOWED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: FLANNERY, JAMES P.
Participant: US BANK NA
For reasons which are unclear to this writer, Hon. Judge Jacobius transferred this case from Chancery out to Law. (Order states: "Foreclosure Counts Dismissed," but why could Chancery not handle the other issues? *** PDF format *** *.PNG image *** *tif image *** Additionally, why does the court's own docket list Judge Flannery for this, when the image names Judge Otto and Judge Jacobius? (Perhaps is was because Judge Flannery was the chief judge in the Law Division.) Lastly, why are two time-stamp dates on this order, one for Aug.7 and one for Aug.12? Perhaps each judge "signed off" on this order at different times.
8/7/2015 POSTCARD GENERATED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorneys: various (see below for details)
Participants: various (see PDF for details)
Microfilm: LD000000000 *** See, generally, pp.41-51 of the 135-page PDF file, linked here, and compare with the official court docket. Images available on pp.41-51 of this PDF document but referenced in a group, here, for brevity.
8/7/2015 ELECTRONIC NOTICE SENT
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorneys: various (see below for details)
Participants: various (see PDF for details)
Microfilm: LD000000000 *** See, generally, pp.41-51 of the 135-page PDF file, linked here, and compare with the official court docket. Images available on pp.41-51 of this PDF document but referenced in a group, here, for brevity.
8/7/2015 CASE SET ON ASSIGNMENT CALL
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: FLANNERY, JAMES P.
Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE LLC
Date: 08/26/2015 Court Time: 10:30am (CST) Court Room: 2005 Judge: FLANNERY, JAMES P. Microfilm: LD999999997 *** (No image available on this docket; see court's official docket or the clerk for this filing. ~Editor)
8/26/2015 CASE SET ON INDIVIDUAL CALENDAR
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: FLANNERY, JAMES P.
Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE LLC
Case set on "Individual Commercial" calendar 'W'. *** PDF file *** *.PNG image *** *.tif image *** --**COMMENTS: Wow, did you see that? This case was transferred in from the Chancery Division way back on 08/12/2014, slightly over a year before -- almost twelve and a half (12.5) months to be exact. (Look at the images of the filings to verify.) Justice sure is slow when you're a poor common person who's had your house stolen via a forged signature Mortgage Rescue Scheme/Scam fraud.
8/26/2015 CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: FLANNERY, JAMES P.
Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE LLC
Hearing Date: 9/2/2015. Court Time: 09:30am (CST)
8/26/2015 ASSIGN TO JUDGE WITHIN DIVISION
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T.
Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE LLC
Microfilm: LD999999999
8/26/2015 ASSIGN TO JUDGE WITHIN DIVISION
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: FLANNERY, JAMES P.
Microfilm: LD999999999
LAW Division presiding judge, Judge James P. Flannery, assigned this to associate Law Division judge, Judge Sanjay T. Tailor.
9/2/2015 CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T.
Date: 9/14/2015, Court Time: 09:20am (CST) *** Now, this is VERY odd: Both sides failed to show up for the court date!! The judge was merciful and continued the case: PDF format *** *.PNG image *** *.tif image *** The court, Sua Sponte (on its own motion) continued the court date to a hearing on 09-14-2015, at 09:20am (CST).
9/14/2015 Blinking Dot AFFIDAVIT FILED Blinking Dot
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: PRO SE
See pages 1-9 of this 60-page PDF obtained obtained from The Court, and with Filing Stamp. *** House copy; text-searchable and in colour with scanned images of notarisation. *** Sept. 08, 2015 Affidavit of Gordon Wayne Watts, shown on docket as "9/14/2015." *** As filed: pp.1-9 of 60-pg PDF. *** As filed: pp.1-9 of 60-pg *.tif image.
9/14/2015 Blinking DotEXHIBITS FILEDBlinking Dot
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: PRO SE
I'm not sure what "Exhibits" the court's referring to here. Maybe referring to my Sept. 09, 2015 Proposed Order of Gordon Wayne Watts, shown on docket as "9/14/2015." However, I don't find this in the Public Records requests I've made. Possibly referring to the Exhibits in the motion (see p.35 of 60 of this filing) or the notice (see p.53 of 60 of this filing) docketed by The Court on 09/14/2015.
9/14/2015 Blinking DotNOTICE OF MOTION FILEDBlinking Dot
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: PRO SE
See pages 10-13 of this 60-page PDF obtained obtained from The Court, and with Filing Stamp. *** House copy; text-searchable and in colour with scanned images of signature. *** Sept. 09, 2015 Notice of Motion, shown on docket as "9/14/2015." *** As filed: pp.10-13 of 60-pg PDF. *** As filed: pp.10-13 of 60-pg *.tif image: Sept. 09, 2015 Notice of Motion (for leave to file an Amicus Curiae brief) of Gordon Wayne Watts, shown on docket as "9/14/2015." -- NOTE: I gave the court timely notice of my intent to appear telephonically as the rules permit, but the court saw fit to disregard the rules which permit (tho do not require) telephonic appearance. FedEx certified that my overnight deliveries to both the Law Division and the appeals court were both received and signed for. Note that the circuit court received this on "Sept. 10, 2015," leaving them no excuse to deny my "moral" (if not legal) right to appear in court by remote electronic means, as the rules permit.
9/14/2015 Blinking Dot NOTICE FILEDBlinking Dot
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: PRO SE
See pages 43-60 of this 60-page PDF obtained obtained from The Court, and with Filing Stamp. *** House copy; text-searchable and in colour with scanned images of signature. *** As filed: pp.43-60 of 60-pg PDF. *** As filed: pp.43-60 of 60-pg *.tif image: Sept. 09, 2015 Time-Sensitive Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts – in semi-Emergency Fashion by OVERNIGHT FedEx, shown on docket as "9/14/2015."
9/14/2015 Blinking Dot MOTION FILEDBlinking Dot
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: PRO SE
See pages 14-42 of this 60-page PDF obtained obtained from The Court, and with Filing Stamp. *** House copy; text-searchable and in colour with scanned images of signature. *** As filed: pp.14-42 of 60-pg PDF. *** As filed: pp.14-42 of 60-pg *.tif image: Sept. 09, 2015 "Motion for leave to file Amicus Curiae brief" and proposed "AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF GORDON WAYNE WATTS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT / APPELLANT, RICHARD B. DANIGGELIS," shown on docket as "9/14/2015."
9/14/2015 CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T.
Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHAR (sic)
Date: 10/7/2015, Court Time: 09:20am (CST) *** PDF format *** *.tif image format *** Court docket misspells Richard's name, leaving off 'd' in 'Richard'.
9/23/2015 Court's Docket does not have an entry on this date
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: PRO SE
On 09/23/2015, I filed another copy of the Proposed Order along with a Notice of Motion of my intent to appear in the upcoming Case Management Conference scheduled for Wednesday, 10/7/2015, at 09:20am CST (10:20am EST), in Courtroom 1912, as is my "moral" right (even if not my legal right) under the law: See Art. II, Rule 185 (Telephone Conferences), R.Civ. Proceedings in the Trial Court, Rule 206(h)(Remote Electronic Means Depositions), etc.; However, not only did the court not follow the law and permit me to appear, it did not even docket my filings! See e.g., Law Division Case #: 2007-CH-29738 (GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, et al. v. RICHARD DANIGGELIS, et al.) * Official Court Docket ** Cached copy}}}

This is without excuse because I mailed the court these filings by the US Postal Service's "Priority Mail Express®," item number EK979754662US, and the court received my filings: I serves all parties, and the court received my filings, and they were signed for by a 'G ARIDAS' on September 24, 2015 at 11:40 am in CHICAGO, IL 60602.

10/7/2015 CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T.
Participant: GMAC
Date: 10/14/2015, Court Time: 09:20am (CST) *** PDF format *** *.tif image format *** Plaintiff (apparently, GMAC -- or possibly Andjelko Galic, attorney for cross-plaintiff, Richard B. Daniggelis) having failed to appear, case is continued to 10-14-2015 at 9:20am for status hearing.
10/13/2015 NOTICE OF MOTION FILED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: PRO SE; Participant: MOORE ROBERT (sic)
"Notice of Motion" -- Court docket misspells Robert More's last name, adding an extra 'o'. *** Text-searchable service copy from Movant/Intervenor *** PDF format - as filed with court stamp *** *tif image - as filed with court stamp ***
10/13/2015 MOTION FILED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: PRO SE; Participant: MOORE ROBERT (sic)
Notice of Intervention by right, and, in the alternative, Petition for Intervention by Non-attorney, Robert J. More. -- Court docket misspells Robert More's last name, adding an extra 'o'. *** Text-searchable service copy from Movant/Intervenor *** PDF format - as filed with court stamp *** *.tif image - as filed with court stamp *** --NOTE: As Mr. More was already a named defendant, court should have denied his motion as moot, but to deny his participation and ignore his filings denied him Due Process, Equal Protection, Redress, etc.
10/14/2015 ORDER PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANT OR WITNESS TO APPEAR - ALLOWED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T.
Participants: GMAC and YOUNES
Date: 11/4/2015, Court Time: 09:10am (CST) *** "All parties of record are ordered to appear on 11-4-2015, at 9:10A.M." *** PDF format *** *.tif image ***
10/14/2015 CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T.
Participant: GMAC
Date: 11/4/2015, Court Time: 09:10am (CST) *** Case continued for status hearing. *** PDF format *** *.tif image ***
11/4/2015 FILE AMENDMENT OR ADDITIONAL OR AMENDED PLEADINGS - ALLOWED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T.
Participant: DANIGGELIS
Date: 11/16/2015 Court Time: 09:30am (CST) *** "Richard Daniggelis is granted 10 days to file a report regarding the status of the pleadings and regarding the parties (All) in this case." *** PDF format *** *.tif image ***
11/4/2015 CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T.
Participant: DANIGGELIS
Date: 11/16/2015 Court Time: 09:30am (CST) *** Case continued for subsequent pleading status. *** PDF format *** *.tif image ***
11/16/2015 MOTION FILED with Court's Official Electronic-upload Time Stamp
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: PRO SE; Participant: MOORE ROBERT (sic)
Court docket misspells Robert More's last name, adding an extra 'o'. *** As filed (PDF) *** As filed (*.tif) *** As served from litigant (text-searchable PDF) *** Electronic-upload Time Stamp (*.PNG) ***

Amended Notice of Intervention by right, and, in the alternative, Petition for Intervention by Non-attorney, Robert J. More. This call on Nov. 13, 2015 to the voice-mail of Judge Tailor's chambers clarifies one aspect of misunderstanding: Mr. Daniggelis told me that Judge Tailor referred to 'Robert More from Florida,' as if to imply that Mr. More and myself are the same person, but I'm the guy from Florida, and he's the guy from Chicago. Therefore, this voicemail clears up the confusion that Judge Tailor obviously had -and verifies & proves that claim. ~Editor, Gordon W. Watts

11/16/2015 FILE AMENDMENT OR ADDITIONAL OR AMENDED PLEADINGS - ALLOWED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T.
Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE
Date: 11/23/2015 *** PNG image format * PDF format * *.tif image format

Point #1: Atty. Galic is ordered to file a status report within 7 days.

11/16/2015 CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T.
Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE
Date: 11/25/201, Court Time: 09:30am (CST) *** PNG image format * PDF format * *.tif image format

Point #4: On motion of Atty. Andjelko Galic: his request for a continuance was granted.

11/16/2015 FILE AMENDMENT OR ADDITIONAL OR AMENDED PLEADINGS - DENIED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T.
Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE
PNG image format * PDF format * *.tif image format

Point #2: On motion of Atty. Andjelko Galic: his request for a Judge Tailor to strike Gordon W. Watts' pleadings were granted: this is counter-intuitive: While Mr. Watts is not named "by name" as a party, he is named as a defendant by GMAC, and thus has rights to participate, an argument that Mr. More makes here - and argument which gives More and Watts full and plenary legal right to defend as 'named' Defendants. Additionally, he has plenary rights as an Amicus Curiae, as Watts, himself argues here. So, the court is without excuse in denying Watts and More participation. Lastly, Watts - like Mr. More - is attempting to help Daniggelis get his house back, and is on the same side as Atty. Galic.

11/16/2015 INTERVENE - PLAINTIFF - DENIED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T.
Participant: YOUNES JOSEPH
Point #2: On motion of Atty. Andjelko Galic: his requests for Judge Tailor to strike Gordon W. Watts' and Robert J. More's pleadings were granted: this also is counter-intuitive: While Mr. More has claims against Mr. Daniggelis, More is attempting to help Daniggelis get his house back, and is on the same side as Atty. Galic.
11/25/2015 CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T.
Participant: DANIGGELIS
Date: 12/21/2015 Court Time: 09:10am (CST) ROOM 1912, Daley Center *** *.PNG image *** PDF file *** *.tif image *** CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED - Date: Monday, 12/21/2015, Court Time: 0910am, ROOM 1912, Daley Center See e.g., 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:
As filed: this link (original PDF), and, as docketed: this link (pp.10-26 of this 26-page PDF)

Attorney: PRO SE; Participant: WATTS, Gordon Wayne
This is my motion for rehearing. It's on its way to the court, as I speak. ~~Editor
UPDATE: My motion for rehearing was signed for and received on Monday, December 21, 2015 at 3:54 pm (CST) in CHICAGO, IL 60602 by a "J DUK" (or: 'KUK' - see handwriting) in Judge Tailor's chambers, in suite #1912, and it was also signed for and received on Tuesday, on December 22, 2015 at 11:42 am in CHICAGO, IL 60602 by a "G (George) ARIDAS" in the Law Division at the Circuit Court in 50 W. Washington Street. Tho they were received after the Wednesday, 12/16/2015 deadline, they were not late: Illinois Supreme Court Rule 373 says that they're ontime if they're postmarked on the due date, and, if they were "received after the due date, the time of mailing, or the time of delivery to a third-party commercial carrier for delivery to the clerk within three business days, shall be deemed the time of filing." (Rule 373. Date of Filing Papers in Reviewing Court; Certificate or Affidavit of Mailing) -- Since I used 2-Day Priority Mail, this qualifies, as "for delivery to the clerk within three business days," even if it actually took longer.

Even if they actually get their after their intended date, then, since, of course, both Judge Tailor's copy and the Law Division's copy were sent via "Priority Mail 2-Day," then they are timely, and not late. (The rule only demands that they were sent "for delivery to the clerk within three business days," not necessarily 'actually' delivered within that time, and 2-day priority easily meets that standard. (But since the clerk's office keeps losing stuff, and then, even when it arrives, judges hand down "bone-headed" rulings, reminiscent of the infamous 'Dred Scot' ruling, I don't know how much I can trust them to deem my filings as timely!)

Actually, since you don't count the day of the act (or weekends), then Thursday was day-1, Friday was day-2, and Monday was day-3, and thus the judge (and thus, the court) got my motion for rehearing ontime, and not late. Actually, I waited until the "last minute" to file it because neither the court, clerk, nor lawyer who proposed this ruling (who actually had the legal duty of service) served me a copy of the court's ruling. Can you say 'comedy of errors!'

UPDATE: As of today, Friday, 08 January 2016, my motion for rehearing is still Lost & Missing: not on docket. However, while I think they're normally not supposed to do this, Pam Sumpter, in the Law Division, was good enough to ask me to email her the stuff that they lost three (3) other times: I sent the judge's chambers a copy of my Rehearing Motion, as well as the Law Division, and I even emailed them a courtesy copy. I hope that this time (the 4th time) they get it right, docket it, and that the judge doesn't enter another bone-headed ruling in this time-sensitive, life-or-death case! ~Gordon W. Watts

UPDATE: As of yesterday, Tuesday, 12 January 2016, the Law Division finally docketed my motion for rehearing, here, but dates it as '12/21/2016,' and the entry is below. Editor, ~Gordon W. Watts

UPDATE -- Received by Court -- As filed: this link (original PDF), and, as docketed: this link (pp.10-26 of this 26-page PDF)

12/21/2015 EXHIBITS FILED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: PRO SE;
Participant: GORDAN WAYNE WATTS (sic: misspelling of my 1st name)
I wasn't planning on filing 'exhibits,' but when emailing my filing in to replace that which they lost, I included the various US Postal Service tracking proofs of delivery (screenshot of tracking page, and also signed receipt). W. Pam Sumpter, the Law Division clerk, asked me if I wanted to file them. At first, I said to myself 'no,' but after pondering that I needed proof of delivery when "fighting the 'Chicago Machine'," I had a change of heart, and told her 'yes.' -- I am awaiting official receipt of this public records request, which is on docket now, but not yet scanned, imaged, and processed by their data entry crew. Thus, if you click the link at the left, you'll see nothing. But, trust me, it's on docket now.

UPDATE -- Received by Court -- As filed: this link (original PDF), and, as docketed: this link (pp.10-26 of this 26-page PDF)

12/21/2015 MOTION FILED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: PRO SE;
Participant: GORDAN WAYNE WATTS (sic: misspelling of my 1st name)
This is the 12/16/2015 Motion for Rehearing, which is on docket now, but dated 12/21/2016, for some reason, even tho it got signed for by a "G (George) ARIDAS" in the Law Division at the Circuit Court in 50 W. Washington Street, and then delivered to the Law Division via "Priority Mail 2-Day," and postmarked as mailed on the 16th, and thus timely & not late, per the rules. As above, I'm awaiting a copy of what was filed and on docket now.

UPDATE -- Received by Court -- As filed: this link (original PDF), and, as docketed: this link (pp.10-26 of this 26-page PDF)

12/21/2015 TAKING OF DEPOSITION - ALLOWED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T.
Participant: DANIGELLIS (sic)
Date: 02/05/2016
"It is further ordered: ... (2) These depositions to be completed by February 5, 2016."

(Court's Docket has a misspelling of Richard's last name: It has two g's and one small letter 'L'.)
*** PDF file *** *.PNG image *** *.tif image ***

12/21/2015 ISSUE WRIT - ALLOWED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T.
Participant: DANIGELLIS (sic)
Date: 01/04/2016
"(1) It is further ordered: Richard Daniggelis is granted 14 days by 1/4/16 to issue subpoenas for deposition of Karen Shaner, Lisa Vitek and John LaRocque." (Editor's note: spelling uncertain on some words due to handwriting; click here to see image. Court's Docket has a misspelling of Richard's last name: It has two g's and one small letter 'L'.)
*** PDF file *** *.PNG image *** *.tif image ***
12/21/2015 CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T.
Participant: DANIGELLIS (sic)
Date: 02/22/2016, Court Time: 09:10am
"The matter is continued to 2-22-16 at 9:10 A.M. for: Deposition Matters."

(Court's Docket has a misspelling of Richard's last name: It has two g's and one small letter 'L'.)
*** PDF file *** *.PNG image *** *.tif image ***

02/22/2016 CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T.
Participant: DANIGGELIS
Date: 03/8/2016, Court Time: 09:20am (CST) *** PDF file *** *.tif image *** "This matter is continued to March 8, 2016 at 9:20 AM for: Petitions for Rule to Show Cause."
02/22/2016 SUE OR DEFEND AS A INDIGENT PERSON - DENIED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: FLANNERY, JAMES P.
Microfilm: LD000000000
Participant: WATTS GORDON WAYNE
*** PDF file *** *.tif image *** *.jpg image (only 1-page order) *** Order from Law Division judge on the 02/11/2016 poverty application in this Chancery case. Order reads: "PETITIONER LACKS STANDING TO BRING SUIT ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER."

Two things wrong with this: First, why is a Law Division judge ruling on this matter. I know that this case was transferred to the law division, but the appeal is from the underlying Chancery Division. However, what is even more troubling is the clear obvious fact: The judge is either unwilling or unable to read: I did not bring suit on behalf of ANYONE, but rather filed a friend of the court brief with the appropriate motion to supplement the record on appeal. #BigDifference - #LearnToRead - #HonestyPlease - #LiberalActivistJudges

One last thing: Since there was probably only a small chance that the appeals court (who also was unfriendly regarding supplementing the record) would likely have upheld the unjust rulings in question, I don't see why this judge did not simply follow State Law regarding 298 Poverty applications, and simply forward on the appeal. He must have been really paranoid: It's not like it would have used that much judicial resources to address what, clearly, was/is a grave injustice in the theft of Mr. Daniggelis' house, without any compensation to him, whatsoever.~Editor

03/8/2016 RULE TO SHOW CAUSE BE ISSUED AND RETURNABLE ALLOWED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T.
Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHAR (sic)
"It is further ordered: Richard Daniggelis' Petition for Rule [to Show Cause] is granted and Rule [to Show Cause] is issued against LISA VITEK and JOHN LAROCQUE to show [cause] why they should not be held in contempt of court. The Rule to Show Cause against both Respondents is returnable on 4-12-16 at 9:20 AM in Room 1912 of the [Richard J.] Daley Center in CHICAGO, IL 60601." *** PDF file *** *.tif image *** (Note: Court docket misspells Richard's 1st name.) Date: 04/12/2016, Court Time: 09:20am (CST)
03/8/2016 CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T.
Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHAR (sic)
"This matter is continued 4-12-16 at 9:20 AM for Service Status." *** PDF file *** *.tif image *** (Note: Court docket misspells Richard's 1st name.) Date: 04/12/2016, Court Time: 09:20am (CST)
03/10/2016 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FILED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: PRO SE
Participant: WATTS GORDON WAYNE
*** PDF file *** *.tif image *** This shows that my father, R.F. Watts, signed for mail sent to me by The Court: The court, on Monday, 02/22/2016, issued an order, my father got and signed for the mail (with a copy of the order) on Monday, 02/29/2016, and the court got the return receipt back on Thursday, 03/10/2016. -Editor, Gordon W. Watts
04/12/2016 CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T.
Participant: DANEGGLIS (sic)
Date: 05/04/2016, Court Time: 09:10am (CST) *** "This matter is continued to 5-4-16 at 9:10 AM for Service Status. It is further ordered: Rule to Show cause - status on service." *** PDF file *** *.tif image *** Misspelling!! It's 'DANIggelis, not DANEgglis! LOL. Court is sloppy here in its own docket.~Editor]
5/4/2016 CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T.
Participant: DANIGGELIS
*** PDF file *** *.tif image *** Date: 5/27/2016 Court Time: 09:10am (CST) *** "This matter is continued to 5-27-16 at 9:10 AM for Rule to Show Cause."
5/27/2016 EXECUTE OR PERFORM - ALLOWED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T.
Participant: DANIGGELIS RICH
*** PDF file *** *.tif image ***
5/27/2016 CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T.
Participant: DANIGGELIS RICH
*** PDF file *** *.tif image *** "This matter is continued to 6-29-16 at 9:20 AM for Service Statue re Rule to Show Cause."
5/27/2016 RULE TO SHOW CAUSE BE ISSUED - CONTINUED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T.
Participant: DANIGGELIS RICH
*** PDF file *** *.tif image *** "It is further ordered: Rule to show [is] issued against LISA VITEK and John LaRocque on March 8, [20]16, is returnable on 6-29-16 at 9:20 AM.

MARK SKRZYPCZAK from United Processing [apparently: IllinoisProcesSserver.com -Editor] is approved to serve LISA VITEK and John LaRocque with Rule to Show Cause."

6/29/2016 FILE AMENDMENT OR ADDITIONAL OR AMENDED PLEADINGS - ALLOWED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T.
Participant: DANIGGELIS
Date: 7/19/2016 *** "It is further ordered: Attorney Andjelko Galic representing that John LaRocque was served with Rule to Show Cause and that Lisa Vitek was not served, Andjelko Galic is Granted until 7-9-16 to file PROOF OF SERVICE."
6/29/2016 CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T.
Participant: DANIGGELIS
Date: 7/19/2016 Court Time: 09:10am (CST) *** "This matter is continued to 7-19-16 at 9:10 AM for: Service Status"
6/29/2016 RULE TO SHOW CAUSE BE ISSUED - CONTINUED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T.
Participant: DANIGGELIS
Court Time: 09:10am (CST) *** "Rules to Show Cause previously entered are continuing to 7-19-16 at 9:10 AM."
7/19/2016 CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T.
Participant: DANIGGELIS
Date: 7/29/2016 Court Time: 09:20am (CST) *** PDF file *** *.tif image *** "This matter is continued to July 29 [2016] at 920 [am] for:..." [Editor's note: Order does not specify, but title says for Case Management Conference.]
7/29/2016 SET BOND OR BAIL AMOUNT - ALLOWED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T.
Participant: LAROCQUE JOHN P.
*** PDF file *** *.tif image *** Amount: $20,000.00 with an order to the Sheriff of COOK COUNTY, IL to take custody of John P. LaRocque, and turn him over to the custody of the court for the hearing date in question.
7/29/2016 CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T.
Participant: DANIGGELIS
*** PDF file *** *.tif image *** "This matter is continued to 8-30-16 at 9:20 AM for Service Status. It is further ordered: Body Attachment."
7/29/2016 ATTACHMENT TO ISSUE AND RETURNABLE
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T.
Participant: LAROCQUE JOHN P.
*** PDF file *** *.tif image ***
8/30/2016 CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T.
Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE LLC
*** PDF file *** *.tif image *** Date: 10/17/2016 Court Time: 09:20am (CST) *** "The matter is continued to 10-17-16 at 920 AM for Status regarding body attachment." *** Microfilm: LD000000000
10/17/2016 CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T.
Participant: DANIGGELIS
*** PDF file *** *.tif image *** Date: 12/5/2016 Court Time: 09:20am (CST) *** "This matter is continued to 12-5-16 at 9:20 AM for: Status regarding body attachment."
12/5/2016 CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T.
Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD
*** PDF file *** *.tif image *** Date: 1/17/2017 Court Time: 09:10am (CST) *** "This matter is continued to 1-17-2017 at 9:10 AM for status regarding body attachment issued against John LaRocque."
01/17/2017 CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: TAILOR SANJAY T.
Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE LLC
Date: 3/14/2017 Court Time: 09:10am (CST) *** PDF file *** *.tif image *** Final status hearing regarding body attachment (subpoena). "It is further ordered: This matter is continued to 3-14-2017 at 9:10 AM for final status regarding service of body attachment issued against John LaRocque. If he is not served by 3-14-2017, this case will be dismissed."
*03/14/2017 CASE CONTINUED FOR TRIAL - JOINT MOTION - ALLOWED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: SHELLEY DIANE M.
Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD
Date: 04/17/2017, Court Time: 09:00am (CST) *** "It is further ordered: This matter is continued for the final status regarding [the] body attachment order entered against John LaRocque on 4-17-2017 at 9:00 AM." *** PDF file *** *.tif image *** Not really a trial, but rather a status conference, according to law division clerks; not sure why they have it docketed as a trial.
04/17/2017 PRODUCE EXHIBITS OR OTHER RECORDS OR DOCUMENTS OR PERSON - ALLOWED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: SHELLEY DIANE M.
Participant: GMAC MORTGAGE LLC
Date: 4/20/2017 *** PDF file *** *.tif image *** ORDER: "This matter comes before the court on status call and the court being advised on this matter IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
1. Attorney Andjelko Galic will provide the Court with a copy of pleading counterclaims and other dispositive orders within 3 days." [Editor: I.e., by 04/20/2017, 3 days hence from 4-17-2017.]
04/17/2017 CASE CONTINUED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE - ALLOWED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: SHELLEY DIANE M.
Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD
Date: 5/1/2017 Court Time: 09:20am (CST) *** PDF file *** *.tif image ***
"2. This matter is set on status by 5-1-17 at 9:20 AM in Room 1912 for status regarding pleadings and regarding service of body attachment on John LaRocque."
*04/21/2017 Second AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF GORDON WAYNE WATTS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT / APPELLANT, RICHARD B. DANIGGELIS
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: PRO SE
Participant: WATTS Gordon Wayne
Along with "Motion for leave to file Amicus Curiae brief" and Exhibits, as follows:

Exhibit-A ** Exhibit-B ** Exhibit-C ** Exhibit-D ** Exhibit-E ** Exhibit-F ** Exhibit-G **


TRACKING DATA - this was timely received by the following recipients:
*The Law Division (sent to Room 801; delivered to Room 1920)
*Hon. Diane M. Shelley, Circuit Judge, Law Division
*Atty. Andjelko Galic, Esq. (atty for Defendant, Daniggelis) (Atty No.: 33013)
*Atty. Richard Indyke, Esq. (312-332-2828 Atty for LaSalle Bank Natl. Assn.)
*Atty. Peter King, Esq. (Attorney for Joseph Younes) (Atty. No.: 48761)
*Atty. Joseph Younes, Esq. Law Offices (Package Refused) **
4/21/2017 EXHIBITS FILED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: PRO SE
Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD
First "4/21/2017" entry, above, is what was filed. This entry & 3rd one, below, are official Court Records showing that it was properly docketed. The filing was so large as to require the Public Records department of the Law Division to split the file up into four 60-page PDF files: ** Part 1 ** Part 2 ** Part 3 ** Part 4 **
4/21/2017 MOTION FILED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: PRO SE
Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD
First "4/21/2017" entry, above, is what was filed. This entry & 2nd one, above, are official Court Records showing that it was properly docketed. The filing was so large as to require the Public Records department of the Law Division to split the file up into four 60-page PDF files: ** Part 1 ** Part 2 ** Part 3 ** Part 4 ** (Note: 'Motion Filed' appears on court's docket twice. Perhaps this was because I filed everything in duplicate, just to be on the safe side, in case Post Office or FedEx or some clerk ripped one paper by accident.
5/1/2017 CASE SET ON TRIAL CALL
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: SHELLEY DIANE M.
Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD
*** PDF file *** *.tif image *** "Jury/Bench trial is set to begin on July 10, 2017 at 10:30 A.M."
*07/06/2017

*This is docketed as "07/07/2017" by the court, but was actually filed by mail on 07/06/2016. See below for 7-7-2016 court-stamped image scan filings, which are not text-searchable as are these PDF files.

MOTION TO INTERVENE BY INTERVENOR, GORDON WAYNE WATTS
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: PRO SE
Participant: WATTS Gordon Wayne
The law clearly allows me to Intervene, so I was stupid to ignore this option early-on, but I was simply hoping that an Amicus Curiae ("Friend of the Court" brief) would be less invasive and more acceptable. Not sure why Illinois courts seem to hate Amici briefs, but it is what it is. FILED: Along with a Notice of Motion, a [ Sworn, Witnessed, and Notarised ] AFFIDAVIT OF GORDON WAYNE WATTS, as well as the three (3) exhibits included with the Affidavit, as follows:

*"Infamous-POA-reply-Shelton.pdf" (Interesting email exchange with disbarred IL Attorney, Paul L. Shelton, dated 05/16/2017)
*"MiscEXCHANGE-Shelton-Watts.pdf" (Another 5/16 email and my 5/17 reply to Shelton)
*"POA-Law.pdf"(My 5/18 reply where I school the attorney on POA limitations, but, hopefully in a respectful tone, as he was quite helpful on a number of points)


TRACKING DATA - this was timely received by the following recipients:
*The Law Division (which is indeed in Room 801, and was signed for by a "B.MOORE" on Delivery date: July 07, 2017, @ 10:47am CST)
*Hon. Diane M. Shelley, Circuit Judge, Law Division Received & signed for by: "L.PIECHUTA" on Delivery date: July 10, 2017, @ 11:05am CST, in the "DALEY CENTER COURTROOM 2202," for delivery to Judge Shelley's chambers. (Probably, this is Lou Piechuta, who has worked in the chambers of Chief Judge, Timothy Evans.)
*Atty. Andjelko Galic, Esq. (atty for Defendant, Daniggelis) (Atty No.: 33013) (by 1st Class U.S. Postal Mail)
* Atty. Andjelko Galic, Esq. (atty for Defendant, Daniggelis) (Atty No.: 33013) (Returned Mail!) Whoops! I did my part; don't worry: we resent this package in a subsequent filing, so it's on its way to the attorney at his new address: See e.g., the Saturday, 08/26/2017 filing in the sister-case (Housing Case: 2017-M1-400775, City of Chicago v. 1720 N. Sedgwick, Younes, et al.), below. Note: Sent on 7/6/17, but Postmarked on 7/7/17, as it got in after the Post Office closed, & rolled over to next business day. ~Editor
*Atty. Richard Indyke, Esq. (312-332-2828 Atty for LaSalle Bank Natl. Assn.) (by 1st Class U.S. Postal Mail)
*Atty. Peter King, Esq. (Attorney for Joseph Younes) (Atty. No.: 48761) (by 1st Class U.S. Postal Mail)
*Atty. Joseph Younes, Esq. Law Offices (by 1st Class U.S. Postal Mail) **
07/7/2017 AFFIDAVIT FILED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: PRO SE
Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS
(As filed and court-stamped. For text-searchable PDF service copies, see above in the "07/06/2017" entry.) *** PDF file *** *.tif image *** Sworn / Notarised / Witnessed AFFIDAVIT of Gordon Wayne Watts: see pp. 15-19 of this 77-page PDF -- or pp. 15-33, if including Gmail exchange exhibits.
07/7/2017 EXHIBITS FILED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: PRO SE
Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS
(As filed and court-stamped. For text-searchable PDF service copies, see above in the "07/06/2017" entry.) *** PDF file *** *.tif image *** E.g., the exhibits at the end of each of the Affidavit, Notice of Motion, and Motion proper in this 77-page PDF document.
07/7/2017 NOTICE OF MOTION FILED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: PRO SE
Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS
(As filed and court-stamped. For text-searchable PDF service copies, see above in the "07/06/2017" entry.) *** PDF file *** *.tif image *** Notice of Motion - I filed 2 signed copies with court, which they dutifully docketed. See e.g., pp. 1-14 and pp. 34-47 of this 77-page PDF document.
07/7/2017 MOTION FILED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: PRO SE
Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS
(As filed and court-stamped. For text-searchable PDF service copies, see above in the "07/06/2017" entry.) *** PDF file *** *.tif image *** Motion to Intervene. See e.g., pp. 48-77 of this 77-page PDF document.
07/10/2017 NOTICE OF FILING FILED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: GALIC ANDJELKO
Participant: GMAC
*** PDF file *** *.tif image *** Notice of filing with clerk to 2 parties of record.
07/10/2017 PROOF OF SERVICE FILED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: GALIC ANDJELKO
Participant: GMAC
*** PDF file *** *.tif image *** Proof (affirmation) of service by U.S. Postal Mail.
07/10/2017 MOTION FILED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: GALIC ANDJELKO
Participant: GMAC
*** PDF file *** *.tif image *** Motion for continuance.
07/10/2017 DISMISS BY STIPULATION OR AGREEMENT
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: SHELLEY DIANE M.
Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD
*** PDF file *** *.tif image *** As I read the Order, there was not stipulation or agreement by any of the parties for dismissal. The only 2 reasons given were #1: Body Attachment to issue subpoena to John LaRocque could not be completed (allegedly, due to a combination bad police and/or flee-and-elude absconder who hides), and #2: Attorney for Counter-Plaintiff, Richard B. Daniggelis, misrepresented his client's ability to show up for court. Neither of these 2 reasons are legally sufficient to dismiss: Punishing the litigant for bad attorney, when litigant (victim) clearly (repeatedly) asked for trial denies Due Process. Secondly, punishing victim for bad behaviour on the part of flee-and-elude absconder and scammer "bad guy" and/or bad police is a clear and present egregious violation of Due Process, and makes a mockery of justice. BONUS #3: Even assuming Daniggelis or his attorney were bad guys, my own Intervention is of right, and, like the case-law cited by the judge, trial court is also without discretion to grant Intervention and subsequent review of my complaint. But, looking at docket, since I'm finally a named defendant, it seems that the judge did (in name, at least) grant me Intervention. I hope to have substance, not name only, to my complaint, since the frauds committed were no small laughing matter, the theft of a home and land, all without ANY payment, and thru a forged signature. It would be odd if Daniggelis won his case because I intervened, when he might have otherwise lost due to a combination of bad counsel and bad prior rulings (unjust judges). For the record, even with all Atty. Galic's oversights, and with all due respect to Judge Otto, nonetheless, I can not see how Judge Otto legally transferred title to Joseph Younes: No legal basis for transfer existed, and this was a clear egregious example of an exercise of judicial brute force, no more.
07/10/2017 VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL W/LEAVE TO REFILE-DENIED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: SHELLEY DIANE M.
Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD
*** PDF file *** *.tif image *** While I must take the word of the trial judge, here, regarding the facts, her case law seems sound, if, in fact, Atty. Galic neither paid required court filing costs for defendant, nor given notice to the parties of record. Thus, he would not be permitted to voluntarily dismiss & refile. (And, I don't know why he would want to do so!? As it stands, he has a solid case to make a motion for summary judgment in favour of Daniggelis for both return of his stolen house, as well as a judgment to compensate for damages & loss that he's incurred.)
07/10/2017 CONTINUANCE - DENIED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: SHELLEY DIANE M.
Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD
*** PDF file *** *.tif image *** If Daniggelis was, in fact, in court, as the trial judge admits, why not have a trial right then and there? To both deny trial AND deny continuance (e.g., to dismiss) is a denial of Daniggelis' Due Process rights of Redress and also implicates Equal Protection, assuming arguendo that we can accept that a richer litigant would have gotten a better attorney and thus better, more fair, treatment by The Court.
07/10/2017 JUDGMENT FOR A SPECIFIC LITIGANT
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Judge: SHELLEY DIANE M.
Participant: SHELTON PAUL
*** PDF file *** *.tif image *** Shelton is famous (infamous) for having lost both his mortgage broker's license and, subsequently, his law license, by administrative agency action by the IDFPR and the IARDC, respectively. So, he's suffered enough, even assuming there was some guilt on his part. But, if he was more guilty than Joseph Younes, he would be legally liable to repay damages incurred by Daniggelis. I don't know all the facts, and I do think Shelton may have lied about his wife witnessing and notarising Daniggelis' signature (based on testimony both Shelton and Daniggelis gave to me on that head), but even assuming arguendo Shelton to be guilty, here, my gut feeling says he was a bit player, who did not benefit from the theft of Daniggelis' house -- or at least not to the same magnitude as Younes, so I think Younes is the key scammer, as I read it.
8/8/2017 CERTIFICATE FILED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: GALIC ANDJELKO
Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD
The "Certificate" referred to, here, is the VERIFICATION statement on page 6 of this 6-page PDF file.
8/8/2017 NOTICE OF FILING FILED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: GALIC ANDJELKO
Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD
Top of page 1 of this 6-page PDF file.
8/8/2017 PROOF OF SERVICE FILED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: GALIC ANDJELKO
Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD
Bottom of page 1 of this 6-page PDF file.
8/8/2017 MOTION FILED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: GALIC ANDJELKO
Participant: DANIGGELIS RICHARD
The motion, proper, is in pp.2-5 of this 6-page PDF file: A motion to reconsider the piping-hot, scorched-earth order that Hon. Diane M. Shelley, Circuit Judge, entered right above, and directed against Atty. Galic and Mr. Daniggelis. Even tho Galic has made major missteps, his motion is not bad, if I say so myself. Galic has, in fact, made numerous good points which are worth review. But, sometimes, fraud is simply fraud, and you don't need all the bells & whistles to make a sound legal argument, and, probably, summary judgment (or a "bench" trial) is in order (with NO need for a "Jury Trial") as most (if not all) of the facts are not in question: Mr. Daniggelis simply got his house & land stolen via a forged signature (mortgage rescue scam), did NOT get paid for it, and was so unlucky enough to have a judge sign off onto the Grand Theft of house. It is no more complex than that.~Editor
09/11/2017 ANSWER/RESPONSE/REPLY
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: PRO SE
Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS
This is the court's "Stamped" copy, showing proof that I filed it electronically: "Motion in Opposition to Richard Daniggelis' 8-8-17 Motion to Reconsider 7-10-17 Order," which is opposing Daniggelis' attorney's motion for non-suit (voluntary dismissal), even though that (usually) is his absolute right. Now, why would I file a motion in 'opposition' to the attorney for my friend, whose claim I support and defend?? ANSWER: Because, allowing Galic's motion for Daniggelis would prolong the headache of the court, I must oppose it. The judge, however, entered a ruling in violation of loads of case-law, statutory law, etc., and allowing that to stand would *also* guarantee a "Black Eye" reputation for the court, as it is harmful, immoral, etc. -- So, what do I propose to get the court (and the other litigants) out of the bind into-the-which they find themselves? Well, normally, the "Law Division" does not vacate or reverse title-transfer orders from the "Chancery Division," but it does have jurisdiction, as I show the judge. NOTE: I made the Chief Judge (Hon. Timothy C. Evans) a party, in the rare, but non-zero, chance that the Law Division judge does not believe me, so he can assure her that my reading of the local rules is correct: If I had allowed the trial judge, here, Hon. Diane M. Shelley, to proceed without having notified her of this 3rd option, which would allow her to deny Atty. Galic's motion on mootness grounds, she would probably have entered a decision that would, eventually, have brought shame and disrepute upon the court system. She seems to be a good judge, but this legal maneuver was above her pay grade: She did not catch it before I did; if she is, indeed, and honest jurist, she will at least admit that while she didn't think of this idea, it is both a 'good' idea, and, really, the *only* 'good' option available. ~Editor
09/19/2017 AFFIDAVIT FOR MAILING FILED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: PRO SE
Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS
* "AFFIDAVIT FOR MAILING FILED" -- in other words, my "Verification by Certification" 735 ILCS 5/1-109, Section 1-109 affidavit, which is page 14 of 27 of this PDF file.

* The linked immediately above (dated: "09/19/2017," a 27-page PDF file) is what I filed (both electronically and by U.S. Postal Mail). However, here (dated: "09/11/2017," by The Court) is the link to the 28-page PDF, which was sent to me via the Cook County, ILLINOIS Electronic Filing System: The 'extra' page is a "cover page" showing receipt by the court -- and, this version has the official court-stamp on each page.

09/19/2017 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FILED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: PRO SE
Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS
* "CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FILED" -- in other words, my "SERVICE LIST," which is page 2 of 27 of this PDF file.

* The linked immediately above (dated: "09/19/2017," a 27-page PDF file) is what I filed (both electronically and by U.S. Postal Mail). However, here (dated: "09/11/2017," by The Court) is the link to the 28-page PDF, which was sent to me via the Cook County, ILLINOIS Electronic Filing System: The 'extra' page is a "cover page" showing receipt by the court -- and, this version has the official court-stamp on each page.

09/19/2017 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE FILED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: PRO SE
Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS
* "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE FILED" -- in other words, my "CERTIFICATE AND AFFIDAVIT OF DELIVERY (aka: Certificate of Service)," which is on the bottom of page 1 of 27 of this PDF file.

* The linked immediately above (dated: "09/19/2017," a 27-page PDF file) is what I filed (both electronically and by U.S. Postal Mail). However, here (dated: "09/11/2017," by The Court) is the link to the 28-page PDF, which was sent to me via the Cook County, ILLINOIS Electronic Filing System: The 'extra' page is a "cover page" showing receipt by the court -- and, this version has the official court-stamp on each page.

09/19/2017 EXHIBITS FILED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: PRO SE
Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS
* "EXHIBITS FILED" -- in other words, my "INDEX TO THE EXHIBITS" (page 15 of 27) and the exhibits, proper (pp.16-27), of this PDF file.

* The linked immediately above (dated: "09/19/2017," a 27-page PDF file) is what I filed (both electronically and by U.S. Postal Mail). However, here (dated: "09/11/2017," by The Court) is the link to the 28-page PDF, which was sent to me via the Cook County, ILLINOIS Electronic Filing System: The 'extra' page is a "cover page" showing receipt by the court -- and, this version has the official court-stamp on each page.

09/19/2017 NOTICE OF FILING FILED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: PRO SE
Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS
* "NOTICE OF FILING FILED" -- in other words, my "NOTICE OF FILING," which is on the top of page 1 of 27 of this PDF file.

* The linked immediately above (dated: "09/19/2017," a 27-page PDF file) is what I filed (both electronically and by U.S. Postal Mail). However, here (dated: "09/11/2017," by The Court) is the link to the 28-page PDF, which was sent to me via the Cook County, ILLINOIS Electronic Filing System: The 'extra' page is a "cover page" showing receipt by the court -- and, this version has the official court-stamp on each page.

09/19/2017 MOTION FILED
2007-CH-29738
LAW DIVISION
GMAC v. Daniggelis
Attorney: PRO SE
Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS
* "MOTION FILED" -- in other words, my "Motion in Opposition to Richard Daniggelis' 8-8-17 Motion to Reconsider 7-10-17 Order" (the motion, proper), which is just eleven (11) pages long, as it is pp.3-13, inclusive of this PDF file.

* The linked immediately above (dated: "09/19/2017," a 27-page PDF file) is what I filed (both electronically and by U.S. Postal Mail). However, here (dated: "09/11/2017," by The Court) is the link to the 28-page PDF, which was sent to me via the Cook County, ILLINOIS Electronic Filing System: The 'extra' page is a "cover page" showing receipt by the court -- and, this version has the official court-stamp on each page.

** Click HERE to get to Top of Page **
Civil Case: 2014-M1-701473, CIVIL DIVISION, Younes v. Daniggelis
** Click HERE to get to Top of Page **
1/22/2014 FORCIBLE ENTRY AND DETAINER COMPLAINT FILED
2014-M1-701473
CIVIL DIVISION
Younes v. Daniggelis
JOSEPH YOUNES, Plaintiff, filed by PERELMAN DORF LLC
See e.g., pages 4-6 of this 90-page PDF file I obtained under a Public Records request. ~Editor
1/27/2015 ORDER FOR POSSESSION
2014-M1-701473
CIVIL DIVISION
Younes v. Daniggelis
Judge: SCULLY, GEORGE F., JR.
2/26/2015 NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED
2014-M1-701473
CIVIL DIVISION
Younes v. Daniggelis
RICHARD DANIGGELIS, Defendant, filed by ANDJELKO GALIC, Esq.
8/10/2015 MOTION FILED
2014-M1-701473
CIVIL DIVISION
Younes v. Daniggelis
Attorney: PRO SE
The court's docket only has this one entry, but it refers to all 3 documents: The Affidavit, the Notice of Motion, and the "3-in-1" above, namely the Motion, proposed Amicus, & Exhibits. As with other entries, the court's date is off a little bit: This item was filed on 8/3/15, but the court's docket reflects 8/10/15. ~Editor
8/16/2015 Court's Docket does not have an entry on this date
2014-M1-701473
CIVIL DIVISION
Younes v. Daniggelis
Attorney: PRO SE
On 08/16/2015, I filed a 'Notice of Motion,' a 'Motion to Supplement Record,' and a 'Proposed Order,' and sent these items by certified FedEx to document delivery. In fact, I served ALL parties, both in my Monday, August 03, 2015 filings and my Sunday, August 16, 2015 filings. However, the court lost these items filed on the 16th! {{{See e.g., Civil Division Case #: 2014-M1-701473 (JOSEPH YOUNES v. RICHARD DANIGGELIS) * Official Court Docket * Cached copy}}} Nonetheless, I was permitted to refile them, and the court docketed them with a date of '9/11/2015,' as reflected below.
08/17/2015 Various Motions
before the First Appellate Court: NO. 1-15-0662; Trial Court No.: 2014-M1-701474; appeal of:

2014-M1-701473
CIVIL DIVISION
Younes v. Daniggelis
Gordon Wayne Watts, PRO SE
Judge: APPELLATE COURT
Motions for waiver of court fees; leave for Amicus; and Motion to Supplement Record Instanter ~~ Supporting Record ~~ Proposed Orders. Note: filed on 8/16, but docketed on 8/17. The court entered this ruling on Sept. 09, 2015.
9/11/2015 EXHIBITS FILED
2014-M1-701473
CIVIL DIVISION
Younes v. Daniggelis
Attorney: PRO SE
Here's the "Time-Sensitive Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts – in semi-Emergency Fashion by OVERNIGHT FedEx."
9/11/2015 EXHIBITS FILED
2014-M1-701473
CIVIL DIVISION
Younes v. Daniggelis
Attorney: PRO SE
Here's the proposed order I filed that day.
9/11/2015 NOTICE FILED
2014-M1-701473
CIVIL DIVISION
Younes v. Daniggelis
Attorney: PRO SE
This is the 'Notice of Motion' to Supplement the Record, originally filed 8/16, but lost by the court; here it finally appears on docket.
9/11/2015 MOTION FILED
2014-M1-701473
CIVIL DIVISION
Younes v. Daniggelis
Attorney: PRO SE
This is the 'Motion to Supplement the Record,' originally filed 8/16, but lost by the court; here it finally appears on docket. (Here's the proposed order that I included that day.)
10/02/2015 Letter to 3 Civil Division judges, dated: Friday, 02 October 2015
2014-M1-701473
CIVIL DIVISION
Younes v. Daniggelis
Attorney: Gordon W. Watts, PRO SE
As you can see, this Letter to 3 Civil Division judges, dated Friday, 02 October 2015 is listed here on my online docket. However, the court's docket (links at top of page: CIVIL DIVISION) do not have this. AGAIN: The Court loses stuff. But, I did file it: All the judges as well as the clerk & all the other parties were served via USPS, including, of course, Hon. Judge Diana Rosario, the Civil Division judge assigned to hear this case.

The court is in a sad state of affairs, continually losing and/or refusing to process & file life-of-death pleadings, such as this, which deal with the elderly, 76-year-old friend of mine whose house was stolen in a "mortgage rescue scheme," making him homeless, which is not good for an elderly person.

11/17/2015 PLACITA AND CERTIFICATION OF TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD FOR APPEAL FILED
2014-M1-701473
CIVIL DIVISION
Younes v. Daniggelis
RICHARD DANIGGELIS, Defendant, filed by ANDJELKO GALIC, Esq.
11/17/2015 RECORD ON APPEAL
2014-M1-701473
CIVIL DIVISION
Younes v. Daniggelis
RICHARD DANIGGELIS, Defendant, filed by ANDJELKO GALIC, Esq.
** Click HERE to get to Top of Page **
Housing Case: 2017-M1-400775, 1st MUNICIPAL Division, City of CHIGAGO v. 1720 N. Sedgwick St., ASSOCIATED BANK NA, Atty. Joseph Younes, et al.
** Click HERE to get to Top of Page **
03/22/2017 HOUSING COMPLAINT FILED
2017-M1-400775
1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION
City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al.
CITY OF CHGO, Plaintiff, filed by Attorney: CORPORATION COUNSEL
Date: 03/30/2017; Court Time: 09:30am(CST), Court Room: 1105; Court Fee: $368.00; Ad Damnum Amount: $15,000.01.

Pages 1-14 (of the 101-page PDF file, linked above).

03/30/2017 APPEARANCE FILED - FEE PAID
2017-M1-400775
1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION
City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al.
Atty. JOSEPH YOUNES, Esq., Defendant
Court Room: 1105

Page 18 (of the 101-page PDF file, linked above).

03/30/2017 APPEARANCE FILED AT THE REGISTER
2017-M1-400775
1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION
City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al.
Atty. JOSEPH YOUNES, Esq., Defendant
Court Fee: $237.00.

Page 19 (of the 101-page PDF file, linked above).

03/30/2017 PETITION FILED
2017-M1-400775
1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION
City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al.
CITY OF CHGO, Plaintiff
Judge: BALL-REED, PATRICE MUNZEL
Page 17 (of the 101-page PDF file, linked above).
03/30/2017 APPOINT GUARDIAN AD LITEM, TRUSTEE, ADMINISTRATOR OR EXECUTOR - ALLOWED -
2017-M1-400775
1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION
City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al.
CITY OF CHGO, Plaintiff
Judge: BALL-REED, PATRICE MUNZEL
Pages 15-16, top of both pages (of the 101-page PDF file, linked above).
03/30/2017 CASE SET ON CASE MANAGEMENT CALL
2017-M1-400775
1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION
City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al.
CITY OF CHGO, Plaintiff
Judge: BALL-REED, PATRICE MUNZEL
Date: 04/27/2017; Court Time: 11:00am(CST), Court Room: 1105.

Pages 15-16, bottom of both pages (of the 101-page PDF file, linked above).

04/22/2017 Time-Sensitive Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts
2017-M1-400775
1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION
City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al.
Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS
(As filed; for docketed copy, with court-stamp, see 4/25/17 entries, below.)
You may click the name of the filing, to the left, to view it in PDF format.
* USPS TRACKING DATA - this was timely received by the following recipients:
*The filing to the Clerk of the CIVIL Division was delivered and signed for by a 'G ARRIDAS'.
*The filing to the Hon. Judge Patrice Munzel Ball-Reed (Associate Judge, LAW Division) was delivered and signed for by a 'V BROWN'.
*The filing to 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.
Attorney: PRO SE
Participant: NON-RECORD CLAIMANT
Page 22 (of the 101-page PDF file, linked above).

(Docketed copy, with court-stamp; for the text-searchable PDF copy, filed, see 4/22/17 entry, above.)

04/25/2017 NOTICE FILED
2017-M1-400775
1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION
City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al.
Attorney: PRO SE
Participant: NON-RECORD CLAIMANT
Pages 20-25 (of the 101-page PDF file, linked above).

(Docketed copy, with court-stamp; for the text-searchable PDF copy, filed, see 4/22/17 entry, above.)

04/26/2017 APPEARANCE FILED - FEE PAID
2017-M1-400775
1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION
City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al.
Attorney: HEAVNER BEYERS MIHLAR LLC
Participant: ASSOCIATED BANK NA
** Court Room: 1105 ** Page 26 (of the 101-page PDF file, linked above). **
04/26/2017 APPEARANCE FILED AT THE REGISTER
2017-M1-400775
1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION
City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al.
Attorney: HEAVNER BEYERS MIHLAR LLC
Participant: ASSOCIATED BANK NA
** Court Fee: $237.oo ** Page 27 (of the 101-page PDF file, linked above). **
04/26/2017 NOTICE FILED
2017-M1-400775
1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION
City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al.
Attorney: HEAVNER BEYERS MIHLAR LLC
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.
Judge: BALL-REED, PATRICE MUNZEL
Participant: 1720 N SEDGWICK ST
** Page 29 (of the 101-page PDF file, linked above). ** Order mandating that Younes & Receiver schedule & be present for a joint inspection, interior & exterior. (See order for details.) **
04/27/2017 CASE SET ON CASE MANAGEMENT CALL
2017-M1-400775
1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION
City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al.
Judge: BALL-REED, PATRICE MUNZEL
Participant: 1720 N SEDGWICK ST
** Date: 05/18/2017 Court Time: 11:00am(CST) Court Room: 1105 ** Page 29 (of the 101-page PDF file, linked above). ** (See bottom of the Order for this.) **
05/17/2017 MOTION TO INTERVENE BY INTERVENOR, GORDON WAYNE WATTS
2017-M1-400775
1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION
City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al.
Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS
(As filed; for docketed copy, with court-stamp, see 5/18/17 entry, below.)
Self-explanatory - Motion to Intervention as of right. (Exhibits are included in the self-same document, unlike as is sometimes done.) You may click the name of the filing, to the left, to view it in PDF format.
* FedEx and USPS TRACKING DATA - this was timely received by the following recipients:
* Emma J. Burse, Mail Room Manager (to deliver filings to both the LAW Division clerk and the judge's chambers) signed for by an 'S.REED'
* 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.
Attorney: PRO SE
Participant: 1720 N SEDGWICK ST
** Motion to Intervene. ** Pages 30-57 (of the 101-page PDF file, linked above). Note: Exhibit "C-2" is missing, but it is included in both what the court docketed in both Exhibit "E-2" of my "July 10, 2017" filing (page 62 of *this* 101-page PDF), as well as in the original 'text-searchable' PDF filed, in the "05/17/2017" entry, above. ** Also, some of the pages are IN REVERSE ORDER, but you can still make out what I was trying to file; don't get down on the clerks for scanning it in "out of order": They, like we, ourselves, are only human, after all: For the most part, I think, the clerks have done an excellent job scanning in & docketing my filings. ~GW// ** (Docketed copy, with court-stamp; for the text-searchable PDF copy, filed, see 5/17/17 entry, above.)
05/18/2017 COMPLY - ALLOWED
2017-M1-400775
1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION
City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al.
Judge: BALL-REED, PATRICE MUNZEL
Participant: 1720 N SEDGWICK ST
** Page 58 (of the 101-page PDF file, linked above). ** Court, again, orders that Younes & Receiver schedule & be present for a joint inspection, with the City of Chicago, Department of Buildings (interior & exterior inspection) before the next court date. (See order for details.) **
05/18/2017 CASE SET ON CASE MANAGEMENT CALL
2017-M1-400775
1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION
City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al.
Judge: BALL-REED, PATRICE MUNZEL
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.
Participant: GORDON WAYNE WATTS
(As filed; for docketed copy, with court-stamp, see 7/10/17 entries, below.)
Whoops!.. What was that? I heard unconfirmed rumours that my Motion to Intervene was denied because Mr. Daniggelis (allegedly) didn't want me to intervene. [That is false, as he's said that he doesn't mind, so long as I don't rock the boat or otherwise cause trouble.] Moreover, it matters not what he thinks, as both statutory and case law says my rights to intervene are absolute, so long as I meet certain criteria: It doesn't depend on his views, but simply a matter of fact, as he admits he owes me for certain research; and, like any other lien placed against a property, it matters not what the owner thinks. Another (more believable) rumour has it that my motion was struck because I failed to appear "in person" to present my motion. While "in person" presentation is the norm, not all motions are heard in person, as I argue in my notice, here. Lastly, since I demonstrate in my notice, here, that the court didn't even **receive** my motion until after the hearing time (FedEx had a late delivery), it seems quite impossible that I could have been denied a motion that hadn't yet been received by the court. What seems more likely is they were probably discussing my 04/22/2017 legal memo, and since others seem to have gotten my email service of my 05/17/2017 filing, they might have been discussing that, and the judge may have commented on that--even tho she had not gotten her service copy, due to FedEx being late.
* FedEx and USPS TRACKING DATA - this was timely received by the following recipients:
* Emma J. Burse, Mail Room Manager (to deliver filings to both the LAW Division clerk and the judge's chambers) signed for by: "S.FRIEDER" on Delivery date: July 10, 2017, @ 11:00am CST, at the Receptionist/Front Desk of 50 West Washington Street of the courthouse, and for delivery to Judge Shelley's chambers. (Probably, however, it was signed for by M.Salome, looking at the signature, and probably the other signature was one on file with FedEx.)
* 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.
Attorney: PRO SE
Participant: 1720 N SEDGWICK ST
** See, generally, pages 59-101 (of the 101-page PDF file, linked above). ** NOTE: Please note that the court-stamped copy (here) is GROSSLY out of order -- and includes another copy of my original motion. (I only filed the notice, proper, on 7/6/17.) You can probably "get the gist" of what I filed by looking at this court-stamped copy, but to see the pages "in the proper order" (and in 'text-searchable' PDF form), I refer you to the "07/06/2017" entry (Notice proper) and the "05/17/2017" entry (Motion proper to Intervene), linked above. HOWEVER, don't get down on the clerks for scanning it in "out of order": They, like we, ourselves, are only human, after all: For the most part, I think, the clerks have, otherwise, done an excellent job scanning in & docketing my filings. ~Editor
07/10/2017 EXHIBITS FILED
2017-M1-400775
1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION
City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al.
Attorney: PRO SE
Participant: 1720 N SEDGWICK ST
** See, generally, pages 59-101 (of the 101-page PDF file, linked above). ** NOTE: Please note that the court-stamped copy (here) is GROSSLY out of order -- and includes another copy of my original motion. (I only filed the notice, proper, on 7/6/17.) You can probably "get the gist" of what I filed by looking at this court-stamped copy, but to see the pages "in the proper order" (and in 'text-searchable' PDF form), I refer you to the "07/06/2017" entry (Notice proper) and the "05/17/2017" entry (Motion proper to Intervene), linked above. HOWEVER, don't get down on the clerks for scanning it in "out of order": They, like we, ourselves, are only human, after all: For the most part, I think, the clerks have, otherwise, done an excellent job scanning in & docketing my filings. ~Editor
07/10/2017 NOTICE OF MOTION FILED
2017-M1-400775
1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION
City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al.
Attorney: PRO SE
Participant: 1720 N SEDGWICK ST
** See, generally, pages 59-101 (of the 101-page PDF file, linked above). ** NOTE: Please note that the court-stamped copy (here) is GROSSLY out of order -- and includes another copy of my original motion. (I only filed the notice, proper, on 7/6/17.) You can probably "get the gist" of what I filed by looking at this court-stamped copy, but to see the pages "in the proper order" (and in 'text-searchable' PDF form), I refer you to the "07/06/2017" entry (Notice proper) and the "05/17/2017" entry (Motion proper to Intervene), linked above. HOWEVER, don't get down on the clerks for scanning it in "out of order": They, like we, ourselves, are only human, after all: For the most part, I think, the clerks have, otherwise, done an excellent job scanning in & docketing my filings. ~Editor
07/10/2017 MOTION FILED
2017-M1-400775
1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION
City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al.
Attorney: PRO SE
Participant: 1720 N SEDGWICK ST
** See, generally, pages 59-101 (of the 101-page PDF file, linked above). ** NOTE: Please note that the court-stamped copy (here) is GROSSLY out of order -- and includes another copy of my original motion. (I only filed the notice, proper, on 7/6/17.) You can probably "get the gist" of what I filed by looking at this court-stamped copy, but to see the pages "in the proper order" (and in 'text-searchable' PDF form), I refer you to the "07/06/2017" entry (Notice proper) and the "05/17/2017" entry (Motion proper to Intervene), linked above. HOWEVER, don't get down on the clerks for scanning it in "out of order": They, like we, ourselves, are only human, after all: For the most part, I think, the clerks have, otherwise, done an excellent job scanning in & docketing my filings. ~Editor
07/13/2017 TRIAL LAWYER APPEARANCE FILED - NO FEE PAID
2017-M1-400775
1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION
City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al.
Attorney: HOWARD HUGH D.
Participant: YOUNES JOSEPH
** Page 1 (of the 18-page PDF file, linked above).
07/13/2017 COMPLY - ALLOWED
2017-M1-400775
1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION
City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al.
Judge: BALL-REED, PATRICE MUNZEL
Participant: 1720 N SEDGWICK ST
** Pages 2-3 (of the 18-page PDF file, linked above). Duplicate copies of Order reaffirming prior orders which compel Younes, Receiver, & Building Department (City of Chicago) to comply with prior orders. NOTE: Judge strikes my motion for intervention due to not being able to appear in court. (I live in Florida, hello!?) However, as the 3-prong test for Intervention does NOT make "In Propria Persona" physical appearance necessary for Intervention, she rightly scratches out that order. (I hope to God that an honest judge, like this, does NOT get in trouble for doing the right thing.)
07/13/2017 CASE SET ON CASE MANAGEMENT CALL
2017-M1-400775
1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION
City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al.
Judge: BALL-REED, PATRICE MUNZEL
Participant: 1720 N SEDGWICK ST
** Pages 2-3 (of the 18-page PDF file, linked above). Duplicate copies of Order setting the next hearing date: see bottom of Order. ** Date: 07/20/2017 Court Time: 11:00am(CST) Court Room: 1105 ** NOTE: Judge strikes my motion for intervention due to not being able to appear in court. (I live in Florida, hello!? However, as the 3-prong test for Intervention does NOT make "In Propria Persona" physical appearance necessary for Intervention, she rightly scratches out that order. (I hope to God that an honest judge, like this, does NOT get in trouble for doing the right thing.)
07/20/2017 COMPLY - ALLOWED
2017-M1-400775
1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION
City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al.
Judge: BALL-REED, PATRICE MUNZEL
Participant: 1720 N SEDGWICK ST
** Pages 4-5 (of the 18-page PDF file, linked above). Duplicate copies of Order, ordering Receiver to monitor the construction (e.g., the repair of the huge damage done) and submit reports to the City "LANDMARKS" commission, weekly, during the repair process.
07/20/2017 CASE SET ON CASE MANAGEMENT CALL
2017-M1-400775
1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION
City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al.
Judge: BALL-REED, PATRICE MUNZEL
Participant: 1720 N SEDGWICK ST
** Date: 08/31/2017 Court Time: 11:00am(CST) Court Room: 1105 ** Pages 4-5 (of the 18-page PDF file, linked above). Duplicate copies of Order, setting the next hearing date.
07/21/2017 ANSWER FILED
2017-M1-400775
1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION
City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al.
Attorney: HOWARD HUGH D.
Participant: YOUNES JOSEPH
** Pages 6-17 (of the 18-page PDF file, linked above). Duplicate copies Atty. Hugh Howard's answer brief, on behalf of Atty. Joseph Younes, the lead defendant in this case.
07/21/2017 NOTICE FILED
2017-M1-400775
1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION
City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al.
Attorney: HOWARD HUGH D.
Participant: YOUNES JOSEPH
** Page 18 (of the 18-page PDF file, linked above). Atty. Hugh Howard's "Notice of Filing," "Notice of Mailing," and "Certificate of Service," on behalf of Atty. Joseph Younes, the lead defendant in this case.
08/23/2017 NOTICE FILED
2017-M1-400775
1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION
City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al.
Attorney: PRO SE
Participant: 1720 N SEDGWICK ST
Apparently referring to my supplement, filed (by mail) on Sat. 08-26-2017, and appearing on the docket over the weekend, after having the FedEx Priority Overnight (PDF format) Delivered on: Tue. 29 Aug 2017, 2:54pm(CST). Unknown as to why it was pre-dated to the 23rd. Also, unknown as to why the court's official docket lists this one filing five (5) times, with different participants. For the record, I filed in duplicate (e.g., 2 copies), as a courtesy to The Court, in case the hard copy, sent in by FedEx 3rd-party commercial carrier and/or a scan clerk tears the paper hard-copy. CAVEAT: Image not available at this time; please check back -- and/or check with the clerk -- for details. ~~Editor
08/23/2017 NOTICE FILED
2017-M1-400775
1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION
City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al.
Attorney: PRO SE
Participant: YOUNES JOSEPH
Apparently referring to my supplement, filed (by mail) on Sat. 08-26-2017, and appearing on the docket over the weekend, after having the FedEx Priority Overnight (PDF format) Delivered on: Tue. 29 Aug 2017, 2:54pm(CST). Unknown as to why it was pre-dated to the 23rd. Also, unknown as to why the court's official docket lists this one filing five (5) times, with different participants. For the record, I filed in duplicate (e.g., 2 copies), as a courtesy to The Court, in case the hard copy, sent in by FedEx 3rd-party commercial carrier and/or a scan clerk tears the paper hard-copy. CAVEAT: Image not available at this time; please check back -- and/or check with the clerk -- for details. ~~Editor
08/23/2017 NOTICE FILED
2017-M1-400775
1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION
City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al.
Attorney: PRO SE
Participant: ASSOCIATED BANK NA
Apparently referring to my supplement, filed (by mail) on Sat. 08-26-2017, and appearing on the docket over the weekend, after having the FedEx Priority Overnight (PDF format) Delivered on: Tue. 29 Aug 2017, 2:54pm(CST). Unknown as to why it was pre-dated to the 23rd. Also, unknown as to why the court's official docket lists this one filing five (5) times, with different participants. For the record, I filed in duplicate (e.g., 2 copies), as a courtesy to The Court, in case the hard copy, sent in by FedEx 3rd-party commercial carrier and/or a scan clerk tears the paper hard-copy. CAVEAT: Image not available at this time; please check back -- and/or check with the clerk -- for details. ~~Editor
08/23/2017 NOTICE FILED
2017-M1-400775
1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION
City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al.
Attorney: PRO SE
Participant: NON-RECORD CLAIMANT(S)
Apparently referring to my supplement, filed (by mail) on Sat. 08-26-2017, and appearing on the docket over the weekend, after having the FedEx Priority Overnight (PDF format) Delivered on: Tue. 29 Aug 2017, 2:54pm(CST). Unknown as to why it was pre-dated to the 23rd. Also, unknown as to why the court's official docket lists this one filing five (5) times, with different participants. For the record, I filed in duplicate (e.g., 2 copies), as a courtesy to The Court, in case the hard copy, sent in by FedEx 3rd-party commercial carrier and/or a scan clerk tears the paper hard-copy. CAVEAT: Image not available at this time; please check back -- and/or check with the clerk -- for details. ~~Editor
08/23/2017 NOTICE FILED
2017-M1-400775
1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION
City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al.
Attorney: PRO SE
Participant: UNKNOWN OWNERS
Apparently referring to my supplement, filed (by mail) on Sat. 08-26-2017, and appearing on the docket over the weekend, after having the FedEx Priority Overnight (PDF format) Delivered on: Tue. 29 Aug 2017, 2:54pm(CST). Unknown as to why it was pre-dated to the 23rd. Also, unknown as to why the court's official docket lists this one filing five (5) times, with different participants. For the record, I filed in duplicate (e.g., 2 copies), as a courtesy to The Court, in case the hard copy, sent in by FedEx 3rd-party commercial carrier and/or a scan clerk tears the paper hard-copy. CAVEAT: Image not available at this time; please check back -- and/or check with the clerk -- for details. ~~Editor
08/23/2017 MOTION FILED
2017-M1-400775
1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION
City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al.
Attorney: PRO SE
Participant: 1720 N SEDGWICK ST
Apparently (like the 5 entries, immediately above this set of 5), referring to my supplement, filed (by mail) on Sat. 08-26-2017, and appearing on the docket over the weekend, after having the FedEx Priority Overnight (PDF format) Delivered on: Tue. 29 Aug 2017, 2:54pm(CST). Unknown as to why it was pre-dated to the 23rd. Also, unknown as to why the court's official docket lists this one filing five (5) times, with different participants. For the record, I filed in duplicate (e.g., 2 copies), as a courtesy to The Court, in case the hard copy, sent in by FedEx 3rd-party commercial carrier and/or a scan clerk tears the paper hard-copy. CAVEAT: Image not available at this time; please check back -- and/or check with the clerk -- for details. ~~Editor
08/23/2017 MOTION FILED
2017-M1-400775
1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION
City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al.
Attorney: PRO SE
Participant: YOUNES JOSEPH
Apparently (like the 5 entries, immediately above this set of 5), referring to my supplement, filed (by mail) on Sat. 08-26-2017, and appearing on the docket over the weekend, after having the FedEx Priority Overnight (PDF format) Delivered on: Tue. 29 Aug 2017, 2:54pm(CST). Unknown as to why it was pre-dated to the 23rd. Also, unknown as to why the court's official docket lists this one filing five (5) times, with different participants. For the record, I filed in duplicate (e.g., 2 copies), as a courtesy to The Court, in case the hard copy, sent in by FedEx 3rd-party commercial carrier and/or a scan clerk tears the paper hard-copy. CAVEAT: Image not available at this time; please check back -- and/or check with the clerk -- for details. ~~Editor
08/23/2017 MOTION FILED
2017-M1-400775
1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION
City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al.
Attorney: PRO SE
Participant: ASSOCIATED BANK NA
Apparently (like the 5 entries, immediately above this set of 5), referring to my supplement, filed (by mail) on Sat. 08-26-2017, and appearing on the docket over the weekend, after having the FedEx Priority Overnight (PDF format) Delivered on: Tue. 29 Aug 2017, 2:54pm(CST). Unknown as to why it was pre-dated to the 23rd. Also, unknown as to why the court's official docket lists this one filing five (5) times, with different participants. For the record, I filed in duplicate (e.g., 2 copies), as a courtesy to The Court, in case the hard copy, sent in by FedEx 3rd-party commercial carrier and/or a scan clerk tears the paper hard-copy. CAVEAT: Image not available at this time; please check back -- and/or check with the clerk -- for details. ~~Editor
08/23/2017 MOTION FILED
2017-M1-400775
1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION
City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al.
Attorney: PRO SE
Participant: NON-RECORD CLAIMANT(S)
Apparently (like the 5 entries, immediately above this set of 5), referring to my supplement, filed (by mail) on Sat. 08-26-2017, and appearing on the docket over the weekend, after having the FedEx Priority Overnight (PDF format) Delivered on: Tue. 29 Aug 2017, 2:54pm(CST). Unknown as to why it was pre-dated to the 23rd. Also, unknown as to why the court's official docket lists this one filing five (5) times, with different participants. For the record, I filed in duplicate (e.g., 2 copies), as a courtesy to The Court, in case the hard copy, sent in by FedEx 3rd-party commercial carrier and/or a scan clerk tears the paper hard-copy. CAVEAT: Image not available at this time; please check back -- and/or check with the clerk -- for details. ~~Editor
08/23/2017 MOTION FILED
2017-M1-400775
1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION
City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al.
Attorney: PRO SE
Participant: UNKNOWN OWNERS
Apparently (like the 5 entries, immediately above this set of 5), referring to my supplement, filed (by mail) on Sat. 08-26-2017, and appearing on the docket over the weekend, after having the FedEx Priority Overnight (PDF format) Delivered on: Tue. 29 Aug 2017, 2:54pm(CST). Unknown as to why it was pre-dated to the 23rd. Also, unknown as to why the court's official docket lists this one filing five (5) times, with different participants. For the record, I filed in duplicate (e.g., 2 copies), as a courtesy to The Court, in case the hard copy, sent in by FedEx 3rd-party commercial carrier and/or a scan clerk tears the paper hard-copy. CAVEAT: Image not available at this time; please check back -- and/or check with the clerk -- for details. ~~Editor
08/23/2017 MOTION FILED
2017-M1-400775
1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION
City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al.
Attorney: WACHTEL SHANE RYAN
Participant: 1720 N SEDGWICK ST
An unknown motion filed, apparently by Atty. Shane Ryan Wachtel. (Appearing in quintuplicate on the court's official docket - e.g., 5 copies, like my motion & notice, shown above.) CAVEAT: Image not available at this time; please check back -- and/or check with the clerk -- for details. ~~Editor
08/23/2017 MOTION FILED
2017-M1-400775
1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION
City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al.
Attorney: WACHTEL SHANE RYAN
Participant: YOUNES JOSEPH
An unknown motion filed, apparently by Atty. Shane Ryan Wachtel. (Appearing in quintuplicate on the court's official docket - e.g., 5 copies, like my motion & notice, shown above.) CAVEAT: Image not available at this time; please check back -- and/or check with the clerk -- for details. ~~Editor
08/23/2017 MOTION FILED
2017-M1-400775
1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION
City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al.
Attorney: WACHTEL SHANE RYAN
Participant: ASSOCIATED BANK NA
An unknown motion filed, apparently by Atty. Shane Ryan Wachtel. (Appearing in quintuplicate on the court's official docket - e.g., 5 copies, like my motion & notice, shown above.) CAVEAT: Image not available at this time; please check back -- and/or check with the clerk -- for details. ~~Editor
08/23/2017 MOTION FILED
2017-M1-400775
1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION
City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al.
Attorney: WACHTEL SHANE RYAN
Participant: NON-RECORD CLAIMANT(S)
An unknown motion filed, apparently by Atty. Shane Ryan Wachtel. (Appearing in quintuplicate on the court's official docket - e.g., 5 copies, like my motion & notice, shown above.) CAVEAT: Image not available at this time; please check back -- and/or check with the clerk -- for details. ~~Editor
08/23/2017 MOTION FILED
2017-M1-400775
1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION
City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al.
Attorney: WACHTEL SHANE RYAN
Participant: UNKNOWN OWNERS
An unknown motion filed, apparently by Atty. Shane Ryan Wachtel. (Appearing in quintuplicate on the court's official docket - e.g., 5 copies, like my motion & notice, shown above.) CAVEAT: Image not available at this time; please check back -- and/or check with the clerk -- for details. ~~Editor
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.
Attorney: PRO SE
Participant: 1720 North SEDGWICK Street
"Supplement to Motion for Limited Intervention by Intervenor, Gordon Wayne Watts concurrent with Responsive pleadings regarding Scrivener's Errors, etc.," which is pretty self-explanatory: Short, 11-page text-searchable PDF document, filed by mail, as indicated, below.

The supplement, here, reflects several major new developments: First, I was granted Intervention in the sister case, which is legally persuasive, even if not binding Collateral Estoppel; Secondly, I found numerous Scrivener's Errors, mostly from others; Lastly, I notice I had to address some orphaned legal issues, not the least of which was how Mr. Daniggelis was not getting his fair day in court, even in spite of the benevolent generosity of the Housing (Code Violations) judge, assigned to this case, so I had to offer an alternative solution for him. Oh, and, as I was claiming my interests weren't being represented, I owed The Court a solution, which was to reverse the order of the fines and the repairs, so-as-to avoid running off Mr. Younes before he could complete the necessary repairs on the mess he created!

* Notice of Filing & Certificate of Service (Page 1 of 11)
* Service List (Page 2 of 11)
* Motion, proper, for Limited Intervention, etc. (Pages 3-7 of 11)
* Verification by Certification (Page 8 of 11)
* Exhibits (Page 9-11 of 11)

Proof of Service:
* FedEx Priority Overnight (PDF format) Delivered on: Tue. 29 Aug 2017, 2:54pm(CST)
* First Class U.S. Postal Mail postage (with FedEx receipt too) ** *.jpg image ** PDF file ** *.doc Word doc **

08/31/2017 COMPLY - ALLOWED
2017-M1-400775
1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION
City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al.
Judge: BALL-REED, PATRICE MUNZEL
Participant: 1720 N SEDGWICK ST
Probably an Order allowing (or more like: ORDERING) that the court-appointed receiver, the City of Chicago, and Atty. Joseph Younes, all 3, cooperate and COMPLY with the prior court orders regarding fixing what Mr. Younes damaged after he stole the house from Daniggelis thru a forged (and obviously identically-photocopied) signature on a Warranty Deed when Daniggelis attempted to get refinancing. CAVEAT #1: Daniggelis NEVER got paid a DIME, and lost (as documented in my court filings) HUNDREDS of thousands of dollars in equity, as well, which lack of payment, all by itself, invalidates any transfer of title - not even counting the proof of photocopy forgery that I provided the court, using the court's own record. ** CAVEAT #2: Image not available at this time; please check back -- and/or check with the clerk -- for details. ~~Editor
08/31/2017 CASE SET ON CASE MANAGEMENT CALL.
2017-M1-400775
1st MUNICIPAL DIVISION
City of CHIGAGO v. Younes, et al.
Judge: BALL-REED, PATRICE MUNZEL
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 or ?-F (Mac) 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 **