UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION Jerome A. Pintaro, et al. Plaintiff v. James D. Orel, et al. Defendants E FIL5/2D3 02 8/1 AXK BRUTON THOMAS G.TRICT COURT . DIS CLERK, U.S Case No. 23-cv-01425 Judge Thomas M. Durkin MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BY JUDGE THOMAS M. DURKIN PURSUANT TO PLAINTIFF JEROME A. PINTARO'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY A JUDGE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S. CODE 455 (b)(1) WHERE A JUDGE HAS A PERSONAL BIAS OR PREJUDICE CONCERNING A PARTY, HAS PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF DISPUTED EVIDENTIARY FACTS CONCERNING FRAUD AND DECEPTION BY THE COURT FILED ON 7/10/2023 BACKROUND MOTIONS MOTION (23) filed by Plaintiff Jerome A. Pintaro to dismiss without prejudice certain parties who have not filed an answer or motion for summary judgment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 41 (a)(1)(A)(i), transaction entered on 6/20/2023 at 12:35 PM CDT and filed on 6/20/2023 to case no. 1:23-cv-01425; case titled Pintaro et al v. Orel et al. MOTION (26) filed by Plaintiff Jerome A. Pintaro to disqualify a judge pursuant to 28 U.S. Code 455(b)(1) where a judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning fraud and deception by the court, transaction entered on 7/12/2023 at 4:33 PM CDT and filed on 7/10/2023 to case no. 1:23-cv-01425; case titled Pintaro et al v. Orel et al. MINUTE entry (27) before the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin: Plaintiff's motion to disqualify [26] is denied. The only 1 1
basis for disqualification raised by Plaintiff are his disagreements with the Court's substantive and case management decisions. These are not a basis for recusal. See Thomas v. Dart, 39 F.4th 835, 844 (7th Cir. 2022) ("By itself, an adverse judicial ruling does not provide a valid basis for questioning a judge's impartiality,") transaction entered on 7/18/2023 at 4:35 PM CDT and filed on 7/18/2023 to case no. 1:23-cv-01425; case titled Pintaro, et al v. Orel, et al. Plaintiff Jerome A. Pintaro alleges that Judge Thomas M. Durkin's Minute entry (27) had nothing to do with the Court's substantive and case management decisions and everything to do with violations of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendmens to the U.S. Constitution relative to "Procedural Due Process" which requires that the procedures by which laws are applied must be evenhanded, so that individuals are not subjected to the arbitrary exercise of government power. UNCONTROVERTIBLE FACTS 1. Plaintiff Jerome Pintaro's Motion to Dismiss (23) without prejudice, certain party defendants who had not filed an answer or motion for summary judgement under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 41 (a)(1)(A)(i), Judge Thomas M. Durkin did not provide plaintiff Jerome Pintaro the opportunity to plead and be heard in court on 6/26/2023 (25). 2. Plaintiff Pintaro's Motion for Default Judgements were never pleaded in court, plaintiff Jerome Pintaro was never given an opportunity to respond and be heard in court, defendants who individually and collectively failed to answer the complaint, and who individually and collectively failed to file a motion under Rule 12(b)6 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 3. On 4/19/2023, plaintiff Pintaro filed for entry of default with attachments(15). On 4/19/2023, Judge Durkin (16) entered and continued the motions for default. Judge Durkin, not favoring "clerk defaults" under Rule 55(a), "required 2 2
plaintiff Pintaro to serve each defaulted defendant individually with an actual motion for default, along with a date and time it would be heard, and provide proof of that service." 4. On 5/18/2023, Judge Durkin filed a Minute Entry vacating the 5/22/2023 scheduled status report deadline which would have detailed plaintiff Pintaro's pending thirteen Motions for Default that had not been plead or ruled upon. 5. On 6/16/2023, plaintiff Pintaro filed a Motion to Dismiss (23) without prejudice, certain party defendants who had not filed an answer or motion for summary judgement under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 41 (a)(1)(A)(i). 6. At the 6/26/2023 status hearing, Judge Durkin denied Jerome Pintaro's filed Motion for Dismissal of certain named defendants under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 41 (a)(1)(A)(i) for "reasons on the record" cited by Judge Thomas M. Durkin. The reasoning for denial of plaintiff Pintaro's motion was cited by Judge Thomas M. Durkin in court as a letter allegedly sent by Assistant State's Attorney Paul F. Bruckner, an alleged ex parte communications by an individual who was not party to plaintiff Pintaro's complaint, an unsigned letter which was never verified was allegedly sent by ASA Paul F. Bruckner. The status hearing which was not an in-person hearing, was conducted over a telephone conference on 6/26/2023 at 9:15 a.m. 7. Judge Thomas M. Durkin denied plaintiff Jerome Pintaro's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 41 (a)(1)(A)(i) pursuant to an ex parte communication, an unsubstantiated written communication allegedly by DuPage County Assistant State's Attorney Paul F. Bruckner 'under cover of law' and not a party to plaintiff Jerome A. Pintaro's Section 1983 Complaint, ASA Bruckner implying he was an advocate for the thirteen certain named defendants, KATHLEEN V. CARRIER, EDUARDO P. CASTILLO, BRYAN S. CHAPMAN, ROBERT G. GIBSON, KRISTOPHER GRAVEL, JEFFREY S. MACKAY, PAUL A. MARCHESE, JAMES MENDRICK, MONIQUE N. O'TOOLE, CHRISTINE T. OREL, JAMES D. OREL, CANDICE ADAMS, AND CRAIG BELFORD. ASA Bruckner, DuPage County Assistant State's Attorney who allegedly acted in an official capacity under 'color of law' who was never acknowledged by plaintiff Pintaro, a person who was not 3 3
solicited by plaintiff Jerome Pintaro in any way, plaintiff Jerome Pintaro having never met, or heard of Assistant State's Attorney Robert F. Bruckner prior to plaintiff Pintaro's receipt of Attorney Bruckner's alleged ex parte communication by USPS mail. Attorney Bruckner was not a named party to Jerome Pintaro's Section § 1983 Claim for Violations of Civil Rights, U.S. District Court, Case No. 23-cv-1425, titled, Pintaro, et al., v. Orel, et al. Assistant State's Attorney Bruckner likewise never filed an appearance or made any appearance in the U.S. District Court telephone conferenced hearing on 6/26/2023, at 9:15 a.m., or anytime prior or afterwards. Assistant State's Attorney Robert F. Bruckner never provided any official oral or written testimony or or any official evidence to the court or to the court record relative to what capacity he was interfering with plaintiff Pintaro's complaint. Judge Durkin's denial of plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss certain named defendants was based upon an alleged, ex parte communication mailed via USPS to plaintiff Jerome Pintaro allegedly by Paul F. Bruckner, an Assistant State's Attorney, Office of the DuPage County State's Attorney, Robert Berlin. 8. Plaintiff Jerome A. Pintaro, unequivocally affirms under oath that on 6/16/2023, plaintiff Pintaro filed a hard copy Motion to Dismiss Thirteen Certain named defendants via Box.com, specifically a Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 41 (a)(1)(A)(i) (23) without prejudice, certain party defendants who had not filed an answer or motion for summary judgement. Plaintiff Pintaro further affirms under oath that he made no oral Motion to Dismiss certain defendants before, during, or after the telephone conferenced hearing on 6/26/2023 at 9:15 a.m. as Judge Thomas M. Durkin's implied in his Minute entry (25) as follows: For the reasons also stated on the record, Plaintiff's motion for default as to certain defendants [23] is denied. Plaintiff's oral motion to dismiss certain defendants is granted. 9. Plaintiff Jerome Pintaro unequivocally states that as a 'MATTER OF LAW' as stated below, the thirteen certain named defendants were, correctly, officially, and legally served summonses which each and every one of them in their official and individual capacities personally and intentionally elected not to respond to the summonses within the time 4 4
and legal constraints required by the law. 10. 735 ILCS 5/2-211) (from Ch. 110, par. 2-211) Sec. 2-211. Service on public, municipal, governmental and quasi-municipal corporations. In actions against public, municipal, governmental or quasi-municipal corporations, summons may be served by leaving a copy with the chairperson of the county board or county clerk in the case of a county, with the mayor or city clerk in the case of a city, with the president of the board of trustees or village clerk in the case of a village, with the supervisor or town clerk in the case of a town, and with the president or clerk or other officer corresponding thereto in the case of any other public, municipal, governmental or quasi-municipal corporation or body.(Source: P.A. 82-280.) PLAINTIFF JEROME A. PINTARO RESPECTFULLY ALLEGES THAT THE HONORABLE THOMAS M. DURKIN IN BOTH HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, VIOLATED PLAINTIFF JEROME PINTARO'S RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, AND IMMUNITIES, GUARANTEED HIM UNDER THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES RELATIVE TO 'PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS' AS FOLLOWS: A. THE THIRTEEN CERTAIN NAMED DEFENDANTS, KATHLEEN V. CARRIER, EDUARDO P. CASTILLO, BRYAN S. CHAPMAN, ROBERT G. GIBSON, KRISTOPHER GRAVEL, JEFFREY S. MACKAY, PAUL A. MARCHESE, JAMES MENDRICK, MONIQUE N. O'TOOLE, CHRISTINE T. OREL, JAMES D. OREL, CANDICE ADAMS, AND CRAIG BELFORD, WERE ALL PROPERLY SERVED COURT PAPERS KNOWN AS SUMMONSES RELATIVE TO DEFENDANT PINTARO'S 41 U.S.C. Section § 1983 FEDERAL COMPLAINT, CASE NO. 23-cv-1425, TITLED PINTARO, et al., v. OREL, et al, PRESIDED OVER BY JUDGE THOMAS M. DURKIN PURSUANT TO 735 ILCS 5/2-211) (from Ch.110, par. 2-211). B. THAT EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE THIRTEEN CERTAIN NAMED DEFENDANTS ELECTED NOT TO RESPOND OR FILE A MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER RULE 12(b)(6) PURSUANT TO SUMMONSES WHICH 5 5
WERE LEGALLY SERVED EACH DEFENDANT UNDER 735 ILCS 5/2-211) (from Ch. 110, par. 2-211). C. THAT SUCH CONDUCT BY THE THIRTEEN CERTAIN NAMED DEFENDANTS RESULTED IN DEFAULT JUDGEMENTS UNDER FEDERAL RULE 55, DEFAULT JUDGMENTS WHICH WERE FILED BY PLAINTIFF JEROME PINTARO WITH THE CLERK OF THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT OF NORTHERN ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION PURSUANT TO FURTHER LITIGATION. D. THAT JUDGE THOMAS M. DURKIN'S INAPPROPRIATE, UNSUBSTANTIATED DECISION ON THE RECORD TO DENY PLAINTIFF JEROME PINTARO'S FILED MOTION TO DISMISS THIRTEEN CERTAIN NAMED DEFENDANTS KATHLEEN V. CARRIER, EDUARDO P. CASTILLO, BRYAN S. CHAPMAN, ROBERT G. GIBSON, KRISTOPHER GRAVEL, JEFFREY S. MACKAY, PAUL A.MARCHESE, JAMES MENDRICK, MONIQUE N. O'TOOLE, CHRISTINE T. OREL, JAMES D. OREL, CANDICE ADAMS, AND CRAIG BELFORD, UNDER FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RULE 41 (a)(1)(A)(i) HAS ILLEGALLY REMOVED FROM THE RECORD THE LIABLE CONDUCT OF THE CERTAIN THIRTEEN NAMED DEFENDANTS CITED ABOVE RELATIVE TO THEIR DEFAULT BY INTENTIONALLY REFUSING TO REPLY TO THE PROPERLY SERVED SUMMONSES AND THAT DEFAULT JUDGMENTS WERE FILED TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT PURSUANT TO FURTHER LITIGATION E. PLAINTIFF JEROME PINTARO REQUESTS THAT THE COURT RECORD BE CORRECTED CLEARLY SHOWING THAT PLAINTIFF JEROME PINTARO TIMELY FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE UNDER Rule 41 (a)(1)(A)(i) ON 6//16/2023 AND STRIKE JUDGE THOMAS DURKIN'S REPORTING IN HIS MINUTE ENTRY THAT THE MOTION TO DISMISS WAS GRANTED PURSUANT TO AN 'IN COURT' ORAL MOTION WHICH WAS NEVER MADE BY PLAINTIFF JEROME PINTARO. 6 6
CECERTIFICATION AND CLOSING U ÿ CERTIFICATIONAND CLOSINGÿ NDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 11, BY SIGNING BELOW, I CERTIFY TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, UNDER FEDERAL BELIEF THATCIVIL NOTICE: (1) IS NOT BEING PRESENTED FOR AN CERTIFY TO THE BEST OF MY HARASS, CAUSE RULE OF THIS PROCEDURE 11, BY SIGNING BELOW, I IMPROPER PURPOSE, SUCH AS TO KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION, AND INFORMATION, AND BELIEF THAT THIS NOTICE: (1) IS NOT BEING PRESENTED FOR AN IMPROPER PURPOSE, SUCH UNNECESSARY DELAY, OR NEEDLESSLY INCREASE THE COST OF LITIGATION; (2) IS SUPPORTED BY EXISTING LAW OR BY A NON FRIVOLOUS AS TO HARASS, CAUSE UNNECESSARY DELAY, OR NEEDLESSLY INCREASE THE COST OF LITIGATION; (2) IS ARGUMENT FOR EXTENDING, MODIFYING, OR A NON FRIVOLOUS ARGUMENT FOR EXTENDING, MODIFYING, OR SUPPORTED BY EXISTING LAW OR BY REVERSING EXISTING LAW; (3) THE FACTUAL CONTENTIONS HAVE EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT OR, IF REVERSING SO IDENTIFIED, WILL(3) THE FACTUAL CONTENTIONS HAVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION OR SPECIFICALLY EXISTING LAW; LIKELY HAVE EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT AFTER A EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT OR, IF SPECIFICALLY SO IDENTIFIED, WILL LIKELY HAVE EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT AFTER A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY FOR FURTHER DISCOVERY; AND (4) THE COMPLAINT 11. ÿ INVESTIGATION OR DISCOVERY;OTHERWISETHE COMPLAINT OTHERWISE COMPLIES ÿ RTIFICATIONREQUIREMENTS OF AND (4) COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULEWITH THE AND CLOSING UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 11, BY SIGNING BELOW, I CERTIFY TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION, AND BELIEF THAT THIS RULE 11. NOTICE: (1) IS NOT BEING PRESENTED FOR AN IMPROPER PURPOSE, SUCH AS TO HARASS, CAUSE UNNECESSARY DELAY, OR NEEDLESSLY DATE: AUGUST 14, 2023 INCREASE THE COST OF LITIGATION; (2) IS SUPPORTED BY EXISTING LAW OR BY A NON FRIVOLOUS ARGUMENT FOR EXTENDING, MODIFYING, OR REVERSING EXISTING LAW; (3) THE FACTUAL CONTENTIONS HAVE EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT OR, IF JEROME PINTARO____________________________________________________ SPECIFICALLY SO IDENTIFIED, WILL LIKELY HAVE EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT AFTER A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION OR DISCOVERY; AND (4) THE COMPLAINT P.O. BOX 3441 OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 11. ÿ ERTIFICATION AND CLOSINGÿ NDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 11, BY C U ÿ OAK BROOK, IL 60522 SIGNING BELOW, I CERTIFY TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION, AND BELIEF THAT THIS NOTICE: (1) IS NOT BEING PRESENTED FOR 630-280-9300 AN IMPROPER PURPOSE, SUCH AS TO HARASS, CAUSE UNNECESSARY DELAY, OR NEEDLESSLY INCREASE THE COST OF LITIGATION; (2) IS japintaro@protonmail.com SUPPORTED BY EXISTING LAW OR BY A NON FRIVOLOUS ARGUMENT FOR EXTENDING, MODIFYING, OR REVERSING EXISTING LAW; (3) THE 7 7
E FIL5/2D3 02 8/1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION AXK BRUTON THOMAS G.TRICT COURT . DIS CLERK, U.S Jerome A. Pintaro, et al. Plaintiffs v. Case No. 23-cv-1425 James D. Orel, et al. Defendants Judge: Thomas M. Durkin NOTICE OF FILING Please Take Notice That on August 15, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. the undersigned, Jerome Pintaro filed via Box.com with the Clerk of the Court for the Northern District of Illinois, at 219 SouthDearborn Street, 20th flooor, Chicago, IL 60604, the following: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BY JUDGE THOMAS M. DURKIN PURSUANT TO PLAINTIFF JEROME A. PINTARO'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY A JUDGE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S. CODE 455 (b)(1) WHERE A JUDGE HAS A PERSONAL BIAS OR PREJUDICE CONCERNING A PARTY, HAS PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF DISPUTED EVIDENTIARY FACTS CONCERNING FRAUD AND DECEPTION BY THE COURT FILED ON 7/10/2023 PROOF OF SERVICE I, Jerome A. Pintaro, Plaintiff, Case No. 23-cv-1425 - Complaint Title: Jerome A.Pintaro, et al v. James D. Orel, et.al, under penalties as provided by 28 U.S. Code § 1746, certify, and verify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct: Defendants were served by e-filing a copy of the above Reply on August, 15, 2023 to Box.com, e-filing with the Clerk of the Court for the Northern District of Illinois, located at 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60604,
Plaintiff: Jerome A. Pintaro_____________________________________ P.O. BOX 3441 OAK BROOK, IL 60522 630-280-9300 japintaro@protonmail.com
Fleepit Digital © 2021