IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION FILED 7/10/2023 JB BRUTON THOMAS G.TRICT COURT DIS CLERK, U.S. JEROME A. PINTARO, et al. Plaintiff v. JAMES D. OREL, et al. Defendant CASE NO. 23-cv-01425 JUDGE: THOMAS M. DURKIN MAGISTRATE JUDGE: McSHAIN 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 PLAINTIFF JEROME PINTARO MOVES THIS COURT PRESIDED OVER BY JUDGE THOMAS M. DURKIN, DISQUALIFY HIMSELF PURSUANT TO 28 U.S. CODE 455 (b)(1) IN THE FOLLOWING PENDING PROCEEDINGS, U.S. DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION, COMPLAINTS 23-cv-1425 AND 23-cv-2008 IN WHICH JUDGE THOMAS M. DURKIN'S IMPARTIALITY IS REASONABLY QUESTIONED, PURSUANT TO CONDUCT CONDUCIVE TO FRAUD UPON THE COURT AS WELL AS FRAUD BY THE COURT, COMPLAINT 23-cv-1425, FOR PERSONAL BIAS AND PREJUDICE 'AGAINST' PLAINTIFF JEROME A. PINTARO AND PERSONAL BIAS AND PREJUDICE 'FOR' CERTAIN PARTY DEFENDANTS, DUPAGE COUNTY OFFICIALS, ELECTED, APPOINTED, AND EMPLOYED, 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 ON 6/26/2023, 9:15 a.m. DURING A TELEPHONE CONFERENCED STATUS HEARING, JUDGE THOMAS M. DURKIN DENIED PLAINTIFF JEROME PINTARO'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT FOR CERTAIN PARTY DEFENDANTS KATHLEEN V. CARRIER, EDUARDO P. CASTILLO, BRYAN 1
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 E-FILED BY PLAINTIFF PINTARO ON 4/19/2023 (15) (Exibit 15) . PLAINTIFF JEROME PINTARO ALLEGES THAT JUDGE DURKIN INTENTIONALLY AND FRAUDULENTLY DENIED PLAINTIFF JEROME PINTARO'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT (23) (Exhibit 23) AS TO CERTAIN DEFENDANTS "FOR THE REASONS ALSO STATED ON THE RECORD" THE RECORD HAVING BEEN DISCUSSED AT THE STATUS HEARING ON 6/26/2023 BY JUDGE DURKIN WHO IMPLIED THAT THE "SERVICE OF PROCESS" ON THE NAMED DEFENDANTS IN COMPLAINT NO. 23-cv-1425 WAS IMPROPER AND INCORRECT BASED ON AN UNSIGNED, UNOFFICIAL, LETTER SENT "EXCLUSIVELY" TO JEROME PINTARO ALLEGEDLY BY ATTORNEY ROBERT BRUCKNER, WHO IDENTIFIED HIMSELF AS THE DEPUTY CHIEF, CIVIL BUREAU, OFFICE OF THE DUPAGE COUNTY STATE'S ATTORNEY, ROBERT BERLIN, A DUPAGE COUNTY STATE'S ATTORNEY WHO WAS NOT IN ANY WAY SOLICITED BY PLAINTIFF JEROME PINTARO, A DUPAGE COUNTY STATE'S ATTORNEY WHO JEROME PINTARO NEVER ACKNOWLEDGED NEITHER IN WRITING OR VERBALLY, A DUPAGE COUNTY STATE'S ATTORNEY WHO WAS OBVIOUSLY BIASED AND INTENTIONALLY DECEITFUL IN HIS FRAUDULENT, INCORRECT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, A DUPAGE COUNTY STATE'S ATTORNEY WHO WAS NOT PARTY TO PLAINTIFF JEROME PINTARO'S SECTION § 1983 COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS, A DUPAGE COUNTY STATE'S ATTORNEY WHO DID NOT FILE AN APPEARANCE IN JUDGE DURKIN'S COURT IN CASE NO. 23-cv-1425, A DUPAGE COUNTY STATE'S ATTORNEY WHO DID NOT APPEARE IN JUDGE DURKIN'S COURT IN CASE NO. 23-cv-1425, A DUPAGE COUNTY STATE'S ATTORNEY WHO NEVER FILED ANY WRITTEN OR SPOKEN TESTIMONY TO U.S. DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN ILLINOIS CASE NO. 23-cv-1425, THE LETTER, DEFICIENT AT LAW, WAS CITED IN COURT BY JUDGE DURKIN AS GROUNDS FOR DENYING PLAINTIFF PINTARO'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT BASED ON ATTORNEY BUCKNER'S FRAUDULENT, DECEPTIVE LEGAL DETERMINATION AS TO AN IMPROPER "SERVICE OF PROCESS," THE REASON STATED ON THE RECORD BY JUDGE DURKIN FOR DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF JEROME PINTARO'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT AS TO CERTAIN DEFENDANTS (23) - INTENTIONALLY DENIED BY JUDGE 2
DURKIN IN AN "ACT OF FRAUD ON THE COURT AND FRAUD BY THE COURT" - PLAINTIFF JEROME PINTARO'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT OF CERTAIN PARTY DEFENDANTS WAS NOT DENIED AS ANY "MATTER OF LAW." (Exhibit Letter) CERTAIN PARTY 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 PROPERLY SERVED BY SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION PURSUANT TO ILLINOIS GENERAL ASSEMBLY'S COMPILED STATUTE 735 ILCS 5/2-211, SERVICE OF PROCESS ON PUBLIC, MUNICIPAL, GOVERNMENTAL, AND QUASIMUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS - SUMMONS MAY BE SERVED BY LEAVING A COPY WITH THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE COUNTY THE COUNTY BOARD OR COUNTY CLERK IN THE CASE OF A COUNTY. (EMPHASIS ADDED). (Exibit 735) CERTAIN PARTY 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, INTENTIONALLY DEFAULTED ON THE SUMMONS SERVED UPON THEM ON A SECTION § 1983 CLAIM FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF PLAINTIFFS JEROME PINTARO AND MARILYN PINTARO, CERTAIN PARTY DEFENDANTS INTENTIONALLY VIOLATED "AS A MATTER OF LAW" THE SERVED SUMMONS MANDATE THAT WITHIN 21 DAYS AFTER SERVICE OF THE SUMMONS, THE DEFENDANT SERVE ON THE PLAINTIFF JEROME PINTARO AN ANSWER TO THE ATTACHED COMPLAINT SERVED UPON THEM, OR A MOTION UNDER RULE 12 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, CERTAIN PARTY DEFENDANTS FAILED TO DO EITHER. (Exhibit AO 440) EACH OF THE PARTY DEFENDANTS SERVED BY SUMMONS, INDIVIDUALLY, AND COLLECTIVELY ACTED IN THE CAPACITY OF A RACKETEER INFLUENCED CORRUPT ORGANIZATION IN A CONSPIRACY WHICH SUBJECTED THE PLAINTIFFS JEROME PINTARO 3
AND MARILYN PINTARO TO CONDUCT THAT OCCURED UNDER "COLOR OF LAW" AND THAT CONDUCT DEPRIVED PLAINTIFFS JEROME PINTARO AND MARILYN PINTARO OF RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, AND IMMUNITIES GUARANTEED UNDER THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, BY INTENTIONALLY AND FRAUDULENTLY FAILING TO FILE AN ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT AND FAILING TO FILE A MOTION UNDER RULE 12 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AND HAVE YET TO DO SO AS OF THE TIME OF THIS WRITING, EACH PARTY DEFENDANT DEFAULTING "AS A MATTER OF LAW." THE MOTION FOR DEFAULT AS TO CERTAIN DEFENDANTS WAS ENTERED AND CONTINUED BY THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY THAT PLAINTIFF PINTARO E-FILED THE MOTION OF DEFAULT TO THE COURT ON 4/19/2023 (16) (Exhibit 16) ON 5/18/2023 JUDGE DURKIN VACATED THE 5/22/2023 DEADLINE FOR A STANDING COURT ORDER REQUIRING A JOINT STATUS REPORT FROM PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANTS BE FILED WITH THE COURT (22) (Exhibit 22) ON 6/26/2023, PLAINTIFF PINTARO'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT OF CERTAIN NAMED DEFENDANTS, ALL OF WHOM INDIVIDUALLY, DEFAULTED "AS A MATTER OF LAW," AND COLLECTIVELY ACTED IN THE CAPACITY OF A RACKETEER INFLUENCED CORRUPT ORGANIZATION IN A CONSPIRACY WHICH SUBJECTED THE PLAINTIFFS JEROME PINTARO AND MARILYN PINTARO TO CONDUCT THAT OCCURED UNDER "COLOR OF LAW" AND THAT CONDUCT DEPRIVED PLAINTIFFS JEROME PINTARO AND MARILYN PINTARO OF RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, AND IMMUNITIES GUARANTEED UNDER THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES. THE NAMED DEFENDANTS INTENTIONALLY AND FRAUDULENTLY FAILING TO FILE AN ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT AND FAILING TO FILE A MOTION UNDER RULE 12 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AND AS OF THE TIME OF THIS WRITING HAVE YET TO FILE AND ANSWER OR A MOTION UNDER RULE 12 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, EACH PARTY DEFENDANT DEFAULTING "AS A MATTER OF LAW." 4
PLAINTIFF PINTARO'S MOTION TO DEFAULT FILED ON 4/19/2023, AND ENTERED AND CONTINUED BY THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY, 4/19/2023, WAS DENIED BY JUDGE DURKIN AT THE STATUS HEARING ON 6/26/2023, WITHOUT PLAINTIFF PINTARO'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT EVER BEING HEARD OR PLEADED IN COURT. UNDER FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 41(b), ALL INVOLUNTARY DISMISSALS WHERE THE DEFENDANT(S) MOVE(S) FOR DISMISSAL AND THE JUDGE GRANTS THE MOTION(S) ARE CONSIDERED TO BE AJUDICATIONS ON THE MERIT, AND THUS "DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE." (Exhibit FRCP 41(b). 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, NEITHER INDIVIDUALLY NOR COLLECTIVELY, EVER FILED ANY MOTIONS FOR DISMISSAL, AS OF THE DATE OF THIS WRITING. JUDGE DURKIN'S DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF JEROME PINTARO'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT SUBJECTED THE PLAINTIFFS JEROME PINTARO AND MARILYN PINTARO TO CONDUCT THAT OCCURED UNDER "COLOR OF LAW" AND THAT CONDUCT DEPRIVED PLAINTIFFS JEROME PINTARO AND MARILYN PINTARO OF RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, AND IMMUNITIES GUARANTEED UNDER THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES. PLAINTIFF PINTARO'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT OF CERTAIN NAMED DEFENDANTS, WAS DENIED BY JUDGE DURKIN WITHOUT PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS OF LAW, WITHOUT EVER BEING HEARD OR PLEAD IN COURT, VIOLATING PLAINTIFFS CIVIL RIGHTS GUARANTEED THEM BY THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS. JUDGE DURKIN'S MINUTE ENTRY ON 6/26/2023, STATED AS FOLLOWS; "THE COURT WILL RULE ON THE PENDING MOTION TO DISMISS IN DUE COURSE" WITHOUT JUDGE DURKIN QUALIFYING AS TO WHICH MOTION TO DIMISS HE WAS REFERRING TO. OBVIOUSLY IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN A MOTION TO DISMISS BY ANY OF THE 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, ALL OF WHOM NEVER FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS TO THE COURT INDIVIDUALLY NOR COLLECTIVELY PRIOR TO THE MINUTE ENTRY FILED TO TO THE COURT DOCKET ON 6/26/2023 BY JUDGE DURKIN. JUDGE DURKIN'S MINUTE ENTRY, DECEPTIVELY AND 5
INACCURATELY REFERENCED DOCUMENT NUMBER (23) (Exhibit 23) A MOTION FILED BY PLAINTIFF PINTARO ON 6/16/2023, A MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE, CERTAIN PARTIES: 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, WHO HAVE NOT FILED AN ANSWER OR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT UNDER FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RULE 41(a)(1)(A)(i). "MINUTE entry (25) (Exhibit 25) before the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin: Telephone status hearing held on 6/26/2023. THE COURT WILL RULE ON THE PENDING MOTION TO DISMISS IN DUE COURSE" For the reasons stated on the record, Plaintiff's request for removal of a criminal prosecution under 28 U.S.C. § 1455 pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [19] is denied. 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. 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 R. Belford are dismissed without prejudice." PLAINTIFF JEROME PINTARO NEVER MADE ANY ORAL MOTION TO DISMISS DURING THE STATUS HEARING DURING THE STATUS HEARING CONDUCTED BY JUDGE DURKIN IN 6/26/2023, AT 9:15 a.m., WHICH CAN BE READILY VERIFIED BY THE COURT'S RECORDING, AND BY PLAINTIFF PINTARO'S AFFIRMATION OF SAME UNDER OATH. JUDGE DURKIN ASSERTED IN THE MINUTE ENTRY (25) "THE COURT WILL RULE ON THE PENDING MORTION TO DISMISS IN DUE COURSE" WITHOUT IDENTIFYING AND REFERENCING WHICH "PENDING MOTION" JUDGE DURKIN WAS REFERRING TO, "PLAINTIFF'S 'ORAL MOTION' TO DISMISS CERTAIN DEFENDANTS IS GRANTED" (25) (Exhibit 25) WITH NO STIPULATION AS TO 6
PREJUDICE, IS A MATTER OF FRAUD ON THE COURT AND FRAUD BY THE COURT, AN INTENTIONAL ACT OF DECEPTION AND FRAUD BY THE COURT, A CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS, A VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS, A CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT WHEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNEMENT ACTS IN SUCH A WAY THAT DENIES A CITIZEN OF A LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY INTEREST, THE PERSON MUST BE GIVEN NOTICE, THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, AND A DECISION BY A NEUTRAL DECISION-MAKER. THIS FRAUD BY THE COURT WAS AN INTENTIONAL ACT OF DECEPTION AND FRAUD BY THE COURT IN A SCHEME TO INSULATE CERTAIN DUPAGE COUNTY GOVERNMENTAL PARTY DEFENDANTS FROM ANY POSSIBILITY OF FUTURE LIABILITY IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES, AND IN ANY FUTURE (R.I.C.O.) RACKETEER INFLUENCED CORRUPT ORGANIZATION, CIVIL COMPLAINT THAT MAY IN THE FUTURE BE BROUGHT AGAINST 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. WHY WOULD PLAINTIFF JEROME PINTARO EVER MAKE ANY "ORAL MOTION IN COURT" AT THE 6/26/2023 STATUS HEARING CONDUCTED OVER TELEPHONE CONFERENCE, WHEN PLAINTIFF PINTARO ALREADY HAD THE PENDING MOTION TO DISMISS CERTAIN PARTY PLAINTIFF FILED TO THE COURT TEN DAYS PRIOR ON 6/16/2023, A MOTION TO DISMISS (23) PARTY PLAINTIFFS WHEN HE ALREADY HAD A MOTION TO DISMISS (23) WITHOUT PREJUDICE CERTAIN PARTIES WHO HAVE NOT FILED AND ANSWER OR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT UNDER FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 7
RULE 41 (a)(1)(A)(i)? (Exhibit 23) Plaintiff Jerome Pintaro's Motion to Dismiss (23) without prejudice, certain party defendants whom had not filed an answer or motion for summary judgement under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 41 (a)(1)(A)(i) which was not heard by Judge Thomas M. Durkin at a status hearing on 6/26/2023 (25). Notice of the status hearing (24) was filed by Judge Durkin's Minute Entry to the docket on Tuesday, 6/20/2013 to be heard on the following Monday, 6/26/2023. There was no notice that the plaintiffs' Motions for Default which were entered and continued by Judge Durkin (6) were to be heard and pleaded at the 6/26/2023 status hearing. Plaintiffs Motion for Default were never heard by the court or pleaded in or out of court, and plaintiff Jerome Pintaro never was given an opportunity to respond to Judge Durkin's individual and collective denials of the thirteen defendants who individually and collectively failed to answer the complaint, and who individually and collectively failed to file a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 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 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." 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. 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). Notice of a status hearing (with no mention of plaintiff's previously entered and continued Motions for Default,) was 8
filed by Judge Durkin's Minute Entry to the docket on Tuesday, 6/20/2013, to be heard on the following Monday, 6/26/2023. At the 6/26/2023 status hearing, Judge Durkin Judge Durkin denied Jerome Pintaro's Motion for Default for "specific reasons stated on the record" by Judge Thomas M. Durkin. 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. Judge Durkin's denial of plaintiff's motions referenced a letter (Exhibit Letter) mailed via USPS to plaintiff Jerome Pintaro allegedly by sender Paul F. Bruckner, an Assistant State's Attorney, Office of the DuPage County State's Attorney, Robert Berlin. Assistant State's Attorney Paul F. Bruckner was not solicited by plaintiff Jerome Pintaro in any way, plaintiff Jerome Pintaro never met, or never heard of Assistant State's Attorney Robert Bruckner prior to plaintiff Pintaro's receipt of Attorney Bruckner's letter. Mr. Bruckner was not a 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. Attorney Robert Bruckner never provided any oral or written testimony to the court or to the court record. As far as the court record indicated in Pintaro, et al. v. Orel, et al., Mr. Robert Bruckner did not exist. Attorney Bruckner's unsolicited, and unsigned letter was addressed exclusively to Jerome Pintaro, Judge Thomas M. Durkin was not copied on Attorney Bruckner's letter, nor was anyone else copied on Attorney Bruckner's letter. The letter consisted of three pages of information relative to Illinois General Assembly's compiled statute 735 ILCS 5/2-211, service of process on public, municipal, governmental and quasi-municipal corporations. In actions against public, municipal, 9
Fleepit Digital © 2021