Good old Judge Santiago allowed Respondent’s counsel to question a court reporter,

December 6, 2013 § Leave a comment

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

COUNTY DEPARTMENT, DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION

IN RE: THE MARRIAGE OF )

JXXXXXX A. XXXXXX, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

) No. 07DXXXX

and )

)

BDZR V. XXXXXX, )

)

Respondent )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

TO: Marcy Newman

205 W. Randolf St.,

Suite 2000

Chicago, IL 60606

Petitioner, JXXXXXX A. XXXXXX’s   Motion for Substitution of Judge

JXXXXXX A. XXXXXX, ProSe

XXXX N XXXXXX

Chicago, IL 60XXX

CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY (PERSONALLY OR BY MAIL)

I, JXXXXX A. XXXXXX, do hereby certify under penalties of perjury as provided by the law pursuant to 735ILCS5/1109, that the above notice and any attached pleadings were [X]hand delivered and/or ____ placed in the U.S. Mail properly addressed to the parties at the address(es) set forth above on or before 5pm on January 17, 2011.

_____________________________

JXXXXXX A XXXXXX

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

THIRD MUNICIPAL DISTRICT

JXXXXXX A. XXXXXX                 )

)

Petitioner,            )

v.                         )                No.  07D0XXXX

)

BDZR V. XXXXXX         )

Respondent,         )

)

___________________________________________________________________________

MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF JUDGE LEIDA SANTIAGO

Comes JXXXXXX A. XXXXXX, Petitioner, prose (Here after “JXXX”), pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/21001(a)(3) et seq. and moves this Honorable Court for a Substitution of Judge Leida Santiago for cause.  Relevant parts of the rules of civil procedure are as follows;

(735 ILCS 5/2 1001)

Sec. 2 1001. Substitution of judge.

(a) A substitution of judge in any civil action may be had in the following situations:

(3) Substitution for cause. When cause exists.

(i) Each party shall be entitled to a substitution or substitutions of judge for cause.

(ii) Every application for substitution of judge for cause shall be made by petition, setting forth the specific cause for substitution and praying a substitution of judge. The petition shall be verified by the affidavit of the applicant.

(iii) Upon the filing of a petition for substitution of judge for cause, a hearing to determine whether the cause exists shall be conducted as soon as possible by a judge other than the judge named in the petition….

1.   The Illinois Appellate Court has held that once a motion for substitution of judge for cause is properly brought, trial judge loses all power and authority over case except to make necessary orders to effectuate change.  People v. Bell, 276, Ill.App.3d 939, 658 N.E.2d 1372, 1378 (1995).

2. Judge Santiago’s actions throughout these proceedings have been contrary to the Illinois Code of Civil Procedures and the IMDMA Act, which has deprived JXXX of his right to due process of law. Judge Santiago on numerous occasions has allowed Respondent’s counsel to make baseless allegations against JXXX for 10-20 minutes at a time, while at the same time denying JXXX the opportunity to respond or prove the allegations false.  The judge then made substantive rulings and orders based on those one sided hearings.  In the many appearances in this case, Judge Santiago has shown bias and prejudice against JXXX and a disregard for JXXX’s rights.

3. Against JXXX’s wishes, on several occasions, Judge Santiago has held secret meetings in chambers with attorneys only, specifically denying JXXX the right to attend and/or his court reporter. In these secret hearings, substantive decisions are made without JXXX having the opportunity to attend or to hear what has been discussed.  JXXX has the right to attend all meetings concerning his own case before this court.

4. In open court, Judge Santiago displays an unprofessional camaraderie with opposing counsel, Marcy Newman, and at the same time displays a blatant animosity towards JXXX, and his previous attorneys.  Judge Santiago (a female) engages in discriminatory banter with Newman (a female) aimed at JXXX (a male) often during these proceedings, in what clearly appears to be a man hating club.

5. Judge Santiago has allowed Respondent to file numerous “Emergency” Petitions that were not emergencies at all. These false “Emergency” petitions were ruled upon without an opportunity for JXXX to respond or present facts and evidence in opposition.  The judge has allowed Respondent to use these false emergencies as a litigation strategy that has run up attorney fees and deprived JXXX of valuable marital assets.  With each false emergency motion filed, the judge never inquires, or cares, as to whether or not any attempt has been made to contact JXXX and settle the alleged emergency.   Judge Santiago’s allowance of these multiple false Emergency Petitions has in fact denied JXXX of his due process rights under the law and assisted the Respondent in fraudulent legal practices.

6. Throughout these proceedings, Judge Santiago has abused her discretion to the detriment of JXXX.  Some of the many abuses are as follows;

7. Under threat of contempt, Judge Santiago forced JXXX to sign a quitclaim deed of the marital residence over to Respondent, during one of the false “emergency” hearings.  The single family home represented the largest single asset of the marriage and was arbitrarily handed over to the Respondent without the benefit of trial, or witnesses, or evidence presented. JXXX never received any agreement as to the price of the home or the terms of split.  This constitutes a fraud upon JXXX and Judge Santiago is a coconspirator.  Judge Santiago entertained Respondent’s counsel’s numerous false claims, false allegations, and outright lies that resulted in JXXX’s signature on a quitclaim deed and loan agreement that has now made JXXX liable for a 30 year loan of $171,000, all in a divorce proceeding to which JXXX is supposed to end up independent and separated from the Respondent.  Judge Santiago blindly accepted Respondent’s counsel’s  unsubstantiated lies, while dismissing JXXX’s repeated pleas for facts and proof before he signed loan papers.

8. Under threat of contempt, Judge Santiago forced JXXX to sign the Quit Claim Deed under the premise that he would be getting his half of the money for the home from the proceeds of the Respondent’s alleged loan.  After signing under duress, JXXX received nothing.  Judge Santiago then allowed Respondent to hold the proceeds in an escrow account with no accounting to JXXX or his previous attorneys, and allowing JXXX’s funds to be considered subject to Respondent’s income tax liabilities, Mary Doheny’s legal fees, Kerry Smith’s fees, etc.  It appears that Judge Santiago conspired with Respondent’s Counsel to force JXXX to sign new loan papers on a property that they were taking away from him to finance the legal costs of the divorce.  Or in simpler terms, to line the pockets of the attorneys, who are in the same club with Judge Santiago.

9. In an earlier hearing, Judge Santiago found JXXX guilty of Contempt of Court for alleged Discovery violations that were in fact no violation at all. Respondent filed a Motion to Compel Discovery that did not contain any “statement” that “reasonable attempt” was made to “resolve differences”, as per  Supreme Court Rule 201.  Respondent made no attempt to contact JXXX concerning discovery, nor was any list of specific items of discovery presented to the court.  Regardless of the mandates of Rule 201, Judge Santiago held JXXX in contempt of court, without ever giving him a chance to provide whatever the Respondent allegedly needed.  It is an abuse of discretion to disregard the requirements of a Supreme Court Rule and the contempt order against JXXX is void. However, this void order remains hanging over JXXX’s head until JXXX can seek a remedy in the Illinois Appellate Court.

10. Judge Santiago also found JXXX guilty of willful contempt regarding non payment of support in the amount of $850 per month. The amount of support is more than JXXX can afford and was based on the false claim that Respondent earned no more than $40,000 a year, when in fact her 13.3.1 disclosure filed April 2007, showed she earned $80,000 net income in her hair cutting business.  JXXX filed a motion to modify support, but the motion was arbitrarily thrown out by Judge Santiago as a punishment for the above mentioned false Discovery violation. Judge Santiago ignores material facts, but accepts blind allegations made, not by witnesses under oath, but by Respondent’s counsel’s rhetoric.  Another abuse of discretion.  Additionally, JXXX has been disabled for many years and unable to work and earn enough to pay the amount of support.  Judge Santiago has arbitrarily declared JXXX to NOT be disabled, despite JXXX being qualified as disabled by the Social Security Administration as of October of 2007, and despite the professional opinion of a highly qualified Cardiologist.  It is an undeniable fact that JXXX suffered a catastrophic aortic dissection and anuerysm which has left him disabled, but due to bias against JXXX, Judge Santiago arbitrarily disregards these supported facts, and instead, accepts the unsupported rhetoric of Respondent’s counsel.  Judge Santiago issues rulings against JXXX almost exclusively based on unsupported rhetoric.

11. On a regular basis, Judge Santiago makes faces, rolls her eyes, groans, sighs, and makes utterances negatively toward JXXX and his previous counsel.  Judge Santiago has stated, “I have a migraine, you would be better served if you came to an agreement before you appear before me.”

Judge Santiago’s attitude and mannerisms reflect an extreme arrogance and display a dismissive attitude towards JXXX and a complete lack of respect.  But NEVER toward the female Respondent or the female Respondent’s attorney. Judge Santiago dismisses JXXX as a peasant “pro se” who “must follow the rules”, but at the same time, both the judge and Respondent are allowed to ignore all the rules of civil procedure.

12. On December 16, 2010, JXXX appeared before Judge Santiago concerning no less than 11 pending motions and responses.  Judge Santiago and Respondent’s attorney again engaged in critical banter and derogatory comments directed at JXXX for bringing a court reporter into the proceedings, but made the negative comments before the court reporter was set up.  In a ridiculous order, Judge Santiago set all 11 motions for a 30 minute hearing on January 11, 2011. Among the motions is JXXX’s Motion to Compel Discovery.  In the 3 ½ years of this litigation, Respondent has refused to give JXXX the most basic financial records of BDZR’s sole-proprietor business, BDZRs Hair Design, needed for trial on February 22, 2011.   Judge Santiago has ignored and brushed aside JXXX’s repeated pleas for help in obtaining discovery from the Respondent. As of this date, JXXX does not have the necessary financial records from Respondent to litigate at trial, yet Judge Santiago acts too busy to care. This blatant violation of JXXX’s due process can only have been accomplished with the help of a judge that is bias against JXXX.  JXXX’s Motion to Compel has been pending for over 6 months and is now set to be heard one month before trial which will not allow JXXX reasonable time to use the discovery to prepare for trial.  Even worse, Judge Santiago stated that if the 30 minute hearing on January 10th  was insufficient time, then she will hear the remaining motions the day of trial. However, ruling on JXXX’s Motion to Compel Discovery the day of trial is meaningless, and an abuse of discretion. This is the work of a judge that is out to defeat JXXX and assist Respondent.

13. Judge Santiago has been made aware of the fact that Respondent has been carrying on an intimate relationship with another married man prior to December of 2009. Although this violates several court orders and ethical conduct, it is most detrimental to the 4 minor children involved in this case.  The following are but a few of the violations allowed by Judge Santiago;

a. The minor children have had the married man, and other unrelated males, forced on them.

b. Respondent allowed the married man to sleep in the marital home with the minor children present several times in December of 2009.

c. Respondent allowed the married man to take the youngest 7 year old boy home with him and sleep in the same bed.

d. Respondent and the married man told the minor child to lie to his father, JXXX, about what had happened.

e. Respondent allowed the married man to take the 7 year old child to bars multiple times while he drank alcohol and smoked cigars.

f. Respondent encouraged the married man to threaten and harass JXXX on the phone and through texts from Respondent’s phone and the married man’s own phone.

g. Respondent allowed the married man to threaten and physically accost JXXX, the oldest son who is 17 years old, on multiple occasions.

h. Respondent allowed the married man to bite the 7 year old son and the 11 year old daughter on the legs while they were in bed at a hotel room trying to go to sleep.

i. Respondent and the married man drink excessively in front of the children.

j. Respondent allows the married man to smoke cigars regularly in front or the children.

k. Respondent has become so inebriated she cannot walk or stand up without assistance in front of the children while drinking with the married man .

Respondent has also passed out from alcohol consumption while with him.

l. Respondent allows the married man to make direct derogatory statements about JXXX to the children.

m. Respondent has allowed and facilitated the married man in threatening JXXX mentally, physically, and emotionally in front of the other children and in private.  Respondent and the married man have exhibited physical, mental, and emotional abuse on JXXX in the presence of the other children.

n. Respondent has broken down 3 doors in the marital home in anger and fits of RAGE and possible drunken or drug-induced RAGE. JXXX’s office door was obliterated twice with wrenches and hammers, JXXX’s bedroom door was broken down with Respondent’s body flung against the door to gain access so the married man could verbally assault JXXX all in front of the other minor children. The kids observed all of this and called 911 to report it.

o. Respondent has sent JXXX hundreds of harassing, disparaging and racially hateful texts and phone calls.

p. Respondent has filed multiple false police reports against JXXX and JXXX, their oldest son.

q. JXXX has e-mails from the minor children to JXXX and their attorney, Mary Doheny confirming what they hear, experience and detailing what is going on at the home.

14. Judge Santiago has full knowledge of the above mentioned violations of previous court orders and 750 ILCS 501/, but has done nothing to stop it, or to protect JXXX or the children. Again, this is blatant abuse of discretion, not to mention bias against JXXX.

15. JXXX is currently forced to act pro se because Judge Santiago has allowed the Respondent to file numerous false “emergency” petitions and many other frivolous motions that have used up all of JXXX’s financial resources.  JXXX now acts with a legal disadvantage directly due to Judge Santiago’s negligence in recognizing and stopping Respondent from filing false documents in this case.

16. Judge Santiago has given Respondent an unfair advantage by allowing her to argue her Motions or Petitions out of order and before Petitioner’s Motions that had been first filed, and then assessing penalties against Petitioner which disallow JXXX to defend himself against the allegations by Respondent.

17. Judge Santiago ruled in favor of the Respondent filed another Emergency Petition with this Court on December 16, 2010 to recover a @$4000 refund check as part of the proceeds of $12,000 she was hiding in these Divorce Proceedings from this Court, JXXX, and the IRS. The money represented left over funds that Respondent denied existed on JXXX and BDZR’s 2008 US Federal Income Tax return and 2 separate Petitions to this Court.  Judge Santiago agreed with Respondent that there existed an emergency that Petitioner, JXXX, may abscond with the refund proceeds by forging BDZR’s signature on a 2 party check and ordered the money be returned to Respondent and held in Respondent’s counsel’s escrow account.

18.    Judge Santiago has ignored police reports concerning Respondent breaking into JXXX’s home office [twice] and stealing business records. These business records were originals with no other copies available, resulting in complete loss of valuable and necessary records. Additionally, Respondent has deleted valuable and necessary computer files and Judge Santiago does nothing to stop it.

19. Judge Santiago’s favoring toward Respondent has allowed Respondent to dispose of Marital assets without hearings, and without compensation to JXXX, including assets that were exclusively valuable to JXXX.

20. Judge Santiago, at a court appearance in March 6, 2009, threatened JXXX with a remark of even more punitive rulings if JXXX forced a hearing on this matter. Judge Santiago made it clear to JXXX that if JXXX did not accept her ruling, he really wouldn’t like the next one. Judge Santiago’s words, “I’m sorry, did I just not rule in this matter? and “you may not like the next one even more” sent a clear message to JXXX of her intentions and bias.

21. Judge Santiago allowed Respondent’s counsel to question a court reporter, JXXX hired to record a hearing on whether JXXX would be forced to unjustly sign a quit claim deed and other loan documents. The original proceeding was immediately dropped even though it had already started without JXXX present in the courtroom, after Judge Santiago was informed there was a court reporter present. Judge Santiago then called the attorneys into her private chambers for a private meeting. JXXX’s court reporter was denied access despite JXXX’s requests and protest otherwise. When the lawyers and judge re-emerged from Judge Santiago’s chambers and entered the courtroom, Judge Santiago allowed Respondent’s counsel to question and harass said court reporter about who she was, where she was from, how much she was paid, who paid her and who hired her for court that day, over JXXX’s attorney’s objections as to the whole line of questioning and behavior.

22. Judge Santiago, by her rulings and actions in this courtroom, has jeopardized JXXX’s health and his share of the marital assets, including the 2000 Chevrolet Suburban vehicle, and the property located at 179 Downing Road, Buffalo Grove, IL, the marital residence, and his position or standing as far as child custody and arrangements.

23.      Judge Santiago’s prejudice against JXXX is so egregious that it is impossible for JXXX to receive a fair trial, or any fair pretrial hearings.  Judge Santiago’s actions and inactions has caused JXXX to pay tens of thousands of dollars in unnecessary legal fees over the past 3 ½ years.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, JXXXXXX XXXXXX, Petitioner, prays that this Honorable Court enter an order granting the motion for Substitution of Judge Santiago, and appoint a new fair and impartial  judge to preside over this case.

JXXXXXX A XXXXXX acting ProSe

By:______________________________________

CERTIFICATION

The undersigned, JXXXXXX A XXXXXX, states that he is the Petitioner

in the above captioned cause, that he has read the above and foregoing

MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF JUDGE,

and that under penalties as provided by law pursuant to Section 5/1109

of the Code of Civil Procedure, certifies that the statements set forth in

this instrument are true and correct.

JXXXXXX A XXXXXX ______________________________________________

Advertisements

Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading Good old Judge Santiago allowed Respondent’s counsel to question a court reporter, at Will County Pro-se.

meta

%d bloggers like this: