THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 7TH CIRCUIT AN APPEALBLE ORDER FROM THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION THE EVERETT MCKINLEY DIRKSEN U.S.COURTHOUSE 219 SOUTH DEARBORN STREET, CHICAGO, IL 60604 JEROME A PINTARO AND MARILYN PINTARO v. ADAHAM ALAILY, DIMITRI A. SAYEGH, AND MADJ G. KHOURY MOTION TO COMPEL PURSUANT TO THE FOLLOWING COURT ORDER WHICH DEFENDANTS ADHAM ALAILY, DIMITRI A. SAYEGH, AND MADJ G. KHOURY DID NOT COMPLY ORDER DOCUMENT NO. 10 On consideration of the paper captioned “Jurisdictional Statement” filed by appellants on October 10, 2023, IT IS ORDERED that appellees file, on or before October 17, 2023, a response to appellants’ filing, addressing the jurisdictional issue raised in the court’s order of September 27, 2023. Defendant Adham Alaily, an Illinois licensed attorney, was named a defendant by Plaintiff Jerome A. Pintaro and Marillyn Pintaro in U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Illinois, case no. 23-cv-01425, Pintaro, et al., v. Orel, et al. Defendant Adham Alaily attested to and filed an appearance with the court as the attorney representing Dimitri A. Sayegh, the fraudulent winning bidder and fraudulent Certificate Holder pursuant to a fraudulent DuPage County 1
attorney Adham Alaily, was the petitioner under fraudulent eviction orders that the DuPage County Sheriff Deputy Sergeant Eduardo Castillo, and Deputy Kristopher Gravel, without any court order, without any probable cause, armed with fraudulent eviction notices and orders, evicted Plaintiff Jerome A. Pintaro, Marilyn Pintaro, and Christopher Pintaro who was an occupant of the home for the past twenty years, Christopher Pintaro who was not any owner of record, Christopher Pintaro who was not any party to the fraudulent foreclosure order, and Christopher Pintaro who was illegally evicted by DuPage County Sheriff Deputy Sergeant Eduardo Castillo, and Deputy Kristopher Gravel. DIMITRI A. SAYEGH WAS NEVER AN OWNER OF RECORD OF THE PINTAROS' OAK BROOK RESIDENCE, DIMITRI A. SAYEGH WAS NEVER IN TITLE, DIMITRI A. SAYEGH WAS NEVER CONFERRED ANY INTEREST IN THE PINTAROS' OAK BROOK RESIDENCE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES BY DUPAGE COUNTY SHERIFF JAMES MENDRICK OR ANY OTHER PERSON OR ENTITY HOLDING THEMSELVES OR ITSELF OUT TO BE THE GRANTOR OF ANY TYPE OF INTEREST Dimitri A. Sayegh and his attorney Adham Alaily both fraudulently attested to Dimitri A. Sayegh being the owner of record pursuant to a fraudulent foreclosure sale of Jerome A. Pintaro's and Marilyn Pintaro's principal residence located at 118 Saint Francis Circle, Oak Brook, IL 60523 on12/6/2022. On 12/6/2022, DuPage County Sheriff Sergeant Eduardo Castillo and Sheriff Deputy Kristopher Gravel confiscated the Pintaros' Oak Brook residence without 2
only the Pintaros' Oak Brook residence but additionally all the furnishings and personal property, money, investment certificates, legal documents, food, clothing, furniture, mortgage documents, including a signed copy of a note and other mortgage documents originated by ING DIRECT, FSB on 3/28/2008 as lender and Plaintiff Jerome A. Pintaro as exclusive borrower and signer, so situated within the Pintaro principal residence, personal property and family heirlooms, jewelry, acquired over the past 78 years were stolen with the Pintaro's principal residence. DUPAGE COUNTY SHERIFF JAMES MEDRICK CONDUCTED TWO SEPARATE FRAUDULENT FORECLOSURE SALES ALLEGEDLY COLLECTING $3,088,653.07 IN CASH SALES PROCEEDS FOR THE TWO FRAUDULENT FORECLOSURE SALES AND THEN FRAUDULENTLY ALLEGES AN ADDITIONAL $555,886.55 IN FRAUDULENT JUDGMENTS FOR A TOTAL OF $3,644,539.62 AGAINST PLAINTIFF JEROME A. PINTARO, EXCLUSIVE AND ORIGINAL SIGNER OF THE NOTE AS WELL AS MARILYN PINTARO, A NON-SIGNER OF THE NOTE - WHO NEVER SIGNED THE ORIGINAL $1.5M NOTE DUPAGE COUNTY SHERIFF JAMES MENDRICK CONFERRED INTEREST IN THE FRAUDULENT FORECLOSURE SALE ON 12/22/2022 TO MADJ G. KHOURY, A "STRAW BUYER" A SUBHUMAN THAT DOES NOT EXIST EXCEPT AS A FICTICIOUS NAME FABRICATED BY DEFENDANT ATTORNEY ADHAM ALAILY AND DEFENDANT DIMITRI A. SAYEGH Defendant Jerome A. Pintaro was the sole signer on the original $1.5M mortgage note originated 3/28/2008, Plaintiff Marilyn Pintaro was not a signer on the note yet Marilyn Pintaro was illegally named a debtor on two judgments filed against her totaling $555,886.55 across two fraudulent deficiency judgments, the 3
sales conducted by DuPage County Sheriff James Mendick, at a fraudulent auction on 2/17/2022 for $1,738,652.07, with a deficiency judgment of $57,114.09, and again on 6/16/2022, for $1,350,001.00, with a deficiency judgment of $498,772.46 again by DuPage County Sheriff, James Mendrick. The combined sales prices, $3,088,653.07 were in addition to an alleged deficiency judgement of $555,886.55, a total sale and judgment amount of $3,644,539.62 PLAINTIFF JEROME A. PINTARO WAS FALSELY ACCUSED OF 'ASSAULT' BY DIMITRI A. SAYEGH, JUDGE JEFFREY MACKAY GRANTS SEVERAL ORDERS OF PROTECTION WHICH WERE DISTRIBUTED TO ALL STATE OF ILLINOIS LAW ENFORCEMENT INDICATING THAT JEROME A. PINTARO WAS 'ARMED AND DANGEROUS' AND THEN WAS TOLD BY DUPAGE COUNTY SHERIFFS AND OAK BROOK POLICE THAT JEROME A. PINTARO WAS IN DANGER OF BEING SHOT IF HE WENT WITHIN 1,000' OF HIS OAK BROOK HOME WHICH WAS CONFISCATED BY DUPAGE COUNTY SHERIFF JAMES MENDRICK, SHERIFF EDUARDO CASTILLO, AND SHERIFF DEPUTY KRISTOPHER GRAVEL Plaintiff Jerome A. Pintaro was maliciously and falsely arrested and imprisoned at the DuPage County Jail by Sheriff Sergeant Eduardo Castillo, and Sheriff Deputy Kristopher Gravel, pursuant to Defendant Dimitri A. Sayegh on the morning of the eviction falsely claiming that Plaintiff Jerome A. Pintaro struck him. Defendant attorney Adham Alaily filed the fraudulent criminal complaint and fraudulent orders of protection for a term of two years which were fraudulently prosectued by DuPage County Judge Jeffrey Mackay for petitioner and affiant Dimitri A. Sayegh who never signed the complaint and never signed the affidavit 4
Adham Alaily, neither of whom have ever appeared in court on their behalf over the past year on a criminal proceeding presided over by Judge Monique O'Toole, who has maliciously and fraudulently prosecuted the criminal DuPage County case No. 2022CM001855. Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Circuit Rules of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Seventh Ciruit Operating Procedures, Rule 28(b) states that an appellee does not need to include a jurisdictional statement in their brief unless they are dissatisfied with the appellant’s jurisdictional statement. The Seventh Circuit in particular does require an appellee to address the jurisdictional statement. Circuit Rule 28(b) states that “The appellee’s brief shall state explicitly whether or not the jurisdictional summary in the appellant’s brief is "complete and correct." If it is not, the appellee shall provide a complete jurisdictional summary.” Chief Judge Diane Wood of the Seventh Circuit recently issued an opinion ordering briefs from the Department of Justice and Air Line Pilots, an appellee in a separate case, stricken requesting new briefs from the parties that addressed both the completeness and accuracy of the appellants’ statements. Judge Wood said: 5
see if it is both complete and correct. These terms are not synonyms. A statement might be complete in the sense of covering all required topics, yet contain inaccuracies. Alternatively, everything furnished might be correct, but the statement might be missing something critical….If the appellant’s statement is not complete, or not correct, the appellee must file a ‘complete jurisdictional summary.’ It is not enough simply to correct the misstatement or omission and ‘accept’ the balance of the appellant’s statement.” The appellees in Lowrey v. Tilden, 948 F.3d 759 (7th Cir. 2020) had expressed dissatisfaction with the pro se appellant’s jurisdictional statement, requiring them to supply a complete jurisdictional statement of their own. See Cir. R. 28(b). In their jurisdictional statement, however, they had failed to include the dates on which the parties had consented to the entry of an appealable judgment by the magistrate. Lowrey, 948 F.3d at 760. In McCray v. Wilkie, No.19-3145 (7th Cir.2020), the jurisdictional statement was inadequate in that it did not even mention that a magistrate judge had rendered the judgment being appealed. Id. (The opinion does not say which party had furnished the inadequate jurisdictional statement in that case.) Having failed to mention the magistrate’s role at all, that jurisdictional statement presumably also failed to give the dates of the parties’ consent to the entry of 6
In Baez-Sanchez v. Sessions, 862 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2017) , the brief filed by the Department of Justice contained a jurisdictional statement pronouncing its adversary’s jurisdictional statement “correct,” without saying whether it was also complete. Baez-Sanchez, 862 F.3d at 641-42. In the other case, Bishop v. Air Line Pilots Association International (2021), the appellee’s jurisdictional statement had what Judge Wood called “the mirror-image problem”: It described the appellant’s jurisdictional statement as complete without saying if it was correct, a flaw that required his brief to be returned as well. Id. at 642. In both Baez-Sanchez and Bishop, the failure to adhere to these requirements also meant that the jurisdictional statements presumably also failed to identify what was potentially incorrect or incomplete about the statements they were describing. More importantly, without a statement agreeing that the appellant’s jurisdictional statement was both complete and correct, and without any jurisdictional statement in response, the possibility remained in each case that no party had provided an adequate jurisdictional statement—giving the court inadequate assurance that it had the authority to decide the appeals. In both Baez-Sanchez and Bishop, Judge Wood ordered the briefs returned to the parties who had filed them, with directions to file amended briefs containing 7
and correct” or not—and if not, supplying complete and correct jurisdictional statements themselves. BaezSanchez, 862 F.3d at 642. KELLY v. UNITED STATES et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the third circuit No. 18–1059. Argued January 14, 2020—Decided May 7, 2020 During former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s 2013 reelection campaign, his Deputy Chief of Staff, Bridget Anne Kelly, avidly courted Democratic mayors for their endorsements, but Fort Lee’s mayor refused to back the Governor’s campaign. Determined to punish the mayor, Kelly, Port Authority Deputy Executive Director William Baroni, and another Port Authority official, David Wildstein, decided to reduce from three to one the number of lanes long reserved at the George Washington Bridge’s toll plaza for Fort Lee’s morning commuters. To disguise their efforts at political retribution, Wildstein devised a cover story: The lane realignment was for a traffic study. As part of that cover story, the defendants asked Port Authority traffic engineers to collect some numbers about the effect of the changes. At the suggestion of a Port Authority manager, they also agreed to pay an extra toll collector overtime so that Fort Lee’s one remaining lane would not be shut down if the collector on duty needed a break. The lane realignment caused four days of gridlock in Fort Lee, and only 8
Baroni and Kelly were convicted in federal court of wire fraud, fraud on a federally funded program or entity (the Port Authority), and conspiracy to commit each of those crimes. The Third Circuit affirmed. Held: Because the scheme here did not aim to obtain money or property, Baroni and Kelly could not have violated the federal-program fraud or wire fraud laws. The federal wire fraud statute makes it a crime to effect (with the use of the wires) “any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.” 18 U. S. C. §1343. Similarly, the federal- program fraud statute bars “obtaining by fraud” the “property” (including money of a federally funded program or entity. §666(a)(1)(A). These statutes are “limited in scope to the protection of property rights,” and do not authorize federal prosecutors to “set standards of disclosure and good government for local and state officials.” McNally v. United States, 483 U. S. 350, 360. So under either provision, the Government had to show not only that Baroni and Kelly engaged in deception, but that an object of their fraud was money or property. Cleveland v. United States, 531 U. S. 12, 26. The Government argues that the scheme had the object of obtaining the Port Authority’s money or property in two ways. First, the Government claims that 9
Fleepit Digital © 2021