Legal Document Opposition Guide

me or show me an example

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT-DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION IN RE THE PARENTAGE OF: A.K, J.K, S.K., minor children, ) ) LULA KOROTKOV, ) Petitioner, Pro Se ) ) and ) No: 2021D051242 ) NASER BEGANOVIC, ) Respondent. Opposition to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Petitioner’s Motion for Substitution of Judge for Cause NOW COMES the Petitioner, Lula Korotkov, proceeding pro se, pursuant to the Illinois Civil Code of Procedure. Hereby, Petitioner files an Opposition to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Petitioner’s Motion for Substitution of Judge for Cause. Hereof, Petitioner states as follows: *. The respondent and I were in a committed relationship for 17 years, during which time we raised three children together. In August of *, we moved into my parents’ basement. We were preparing to purchase a home for our children before we separated on July *, *. Although we were never legally married, the respondent has a legal obligation to provide for our children. *. I filed for child support through Healthcare and Family Services (HFS) on July *, *. The process was delayed due to administrative reasons, and it took nine months for HFS to send me the necessary paperwork, which I received and signed in April *. documented evidence of this is in Exhibit C. *. On October *, *, the Respondent filed his appearance following successful service by the Kane County Sheriff on September *, *. This came four months after an unsuccessful attempt by the Cook County Sheriff on May *, *, the delay was a result of the Respondent's intentional evasion of service, as evidenced by documentation showing his whereabouts as unknown. Evidence provided in Exhibit C. *. Our first court hearing took place via Zoom on January *, *. Throughout the hearing, the respondent consistently demanded DNA tests for the children, refuting his paternity. He also requested a continuance, ostensibly to hire an attorney. However, it was apparent that his intentions were to financially exploit our twin boys for personal gain by falsely claiming them on his tax returns. *. On February *, *, the State’s Attorney formally requested the submission of financial documents from both parties. In Exhibit J, there’s documented evidence of what the respondent provided to the State’s Attorney. Additionally, my email to the State’s Attorney, which included the respondent’s bank statements from his hidden account at that time. *. On March *, *, I sought a continuance with the aim of obtaining legal representation. This decision was influenced by my examination of the respondent’s bank records, where I uncovered a hidden account and observed substantial amounts of money being spent and transferred to Lisa Marie Calderon and her sons. I presented these findings to the State’s Attorney on March *, *, as supported by the provided evidence. I would like to note for the record that the State’s Attorney expressed her concerns to the judge regarding the respondent’s bank records, particularly because the respondent had only provided two bank statements from an account ending in *. This is corroborated by the evidence in Exhibit J. *. On May *, *, my attorney officially filed his appearance. The State’s attorney withdrew from the case. This action was influenced by my decision to hire a private attorney after I found a hidden account in the respondent’s name. I noticed a substantial amount of money being spent and transferred via Zelle and Apple Cash to Lisa Marie Calderon and her adult sons. *. On May *, *, my attorney filed a motion for a temporary child support payment of $* per month. Those payments started in June * and ended in November * However, this amount was insufficient to meet the needs of three teenage children. This was especially significant given that Lisa Calderon and her sons spent $*,* of the Respondent’s money on dining out in a single week, intentionally depriving his biological children of these resources. Exhibit A provides evidence of the substantial amount of money being spent on Ms. Calderon and her sons. *. On June *, *, both parties were required to exchange updated financial affidavits, along with the necessary supporting documents. Despite the judge’s clear instruction for the Respondent to submit all required documents, the Respondent’s girlfriend persistently emailed Mr. Renzetti, refusing to comply and impersonating the Respondent. Evidence of this can be found in Exhibit K. *. On October *, *, my initial legal counsel filed a motion to withdraw due to the persistent interference from Lisa Calderon, the Respondent’s girlfriend. Lisa Marie Calderon has been impersonating the Respondent throughout this process and has deliberately sent misleading emails to my attorney with the intent to undermine my credibility. *. On October *, *, the court granted Mr. Renzetti’s request to withdraw from this case. *. On December 19th, *, a motion was filed for the continuation of the same temporary support amount of $* per month. This is despite my explicit instruction to Mr. Hook to request an increase in the temporary child support to $* per month. As the amount of $* was insufficient for the sustenance of our three teenage children. Furthermore, it has come to my attention that the Respondent is allocating $* on pizza for Lisa Calderon’s consumption, while our three minor children experience hunger and retire to bed without adequate nourishment. This disparity in the allocation of resources is concerning and I believe it should be taken into consideration. *. On March *, *, the Respondent was served with a three-page order to produce by my second attorney, Mr. Hook. Despite this explicit instruction, the Respondent once again did not comply, demonstrating a consistent pattern of non-compliance. Moreover, the documented evidence provided clearly indicates that Lisa Calderon, the Respondent’s girlfriend, continued to impersonate the Respondent and send emails to Mr. Hook, as she had done with Mr. Renzetti, making false claims intended to undermine my credibility. This is corroborated by the evidence in Exhibit H. *. Both parties were required to revise our financial affidavits on February *, *. My financial affidavit was revised and notarized on February *, *, as the evidence will show. However, it took the Respondent until June *, *, four months later, to revise and notarize his financial affidavit, as the evidence clearly demonstrates. This is a clear example of the Respondent’s consistent failure to adhere to the court’s orders. Evidence in Exhibit H. *. On June *, *, the respondent provided some documents. These included one month’s worth of bank statements from each of his two Chase accounts, a document from the IRS indicating his outstanding debt, his financial affidavit that was due in February, and a W-* form. Evidence in Exhibit H. *. On July *, *, a rule to show cause was filed against the respondent. A rule to show cause was filed against the respondent due to his non-compliance with a discovery request that had been served on him on March *, *. Evidence can be seen in Exhibit H. *. On July *, *, Mrs. Caldoron engaged the services of an attorney/attorneys with the Respondent’s money that she is keeping from the children. This action was taken immediately after the respondent received the DNA results of his children. Mrs. Caldoron had managed to convince the Respondent that his biological children, who had been raised by him, were not actually his biological children. Consequently, she sought the assistance of attorneys with the intention of concealing the Respondent’s assets and money from his children, who are, in fact, legally entitled to them. *. On November *, *, an agreement was struck between my previous attorney and the opposing party’s attorney in the judge’s chambers, without my knowledge, while I was sitting out in the courtroom. It’s important to note that an attorney cannot agree to a child support order without consulting with the custodial parent. The custodial parent has the right to be involved in decisions that affect their children’s financial support. The ruling was based on intentionally false information stated in a pretrial memorandum that was submitted to the court by the opposing party’s attorney on November *, *. The pretrial memorandum also had the respondent’s ex-employer, NCR Corporation, listed as his full-time employer. This has led to no child support payments coming for the children, as I have received only one since then. This is due to the fact that the respondent intentionally provided his ex-employer’s information for wage withholding. As a result, HFS had to submit a wage withholding notice to his actual employer, Cardtronics, on February *, *. The respondent’s true monthly income is $*,*, as can be seen in the overwhelming documented evidence I personally delivered to the judge’s courtroom on February *, *. *. On December *, *, I made the decision to request my attorney to step down. This decision was made because he did not have the authority to negotiate a child support agreement on behalf of three children who have been enduring hardship. *. Motions filed by me, as the pro se Petitioner, a. Motion to Reconsider filed on December *, *. b. Petition for Rule to Show Cause: This petition was filed on February *, *, with a hearing date set for February *, *. This motion was stricken on February *, *, due to an oversight on my part - I failed to sign it. c. Motion for Sanctions Against Respondent’s Counsel for Filing Frivolous Motions: This motion was filed on February *, *, with a hearing date set for February *, *. Delayed by four months by the judge. d. Motion for Contempt and Sanctions for Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Obstruction of Child Support Proceedings, and Third-Party Interference: This motion was filed on February *, *. with a hearing date set for. March *, *. Delayed by four months by the judge. e. Motion to Expedite Proceedings and Address Frivolous Filings Endangering Children's well-being: This Motion was also Filed on February *, *, with a hearing date set for March *, *. Delayed by four months by the judge. f. Motion for substitution of judge for cause. Filed March *, *. *. All the motions that I’ve filed for the well-being of the children are scheduled for a hearing on June *, *. This is six months and one week from when the motion for reconsideration was filed on December *, *. The delay has occurred because the opposing party’s attorney appeared before the judge on December *, *. Despite being notified of the hearing date and time for the motion to reconsider on December *, *, she succeeded in getting the hearing stricken. Following this, the opposing party intentionally filed a frivolous motion to dismiss the motion to reconsider on January *, *. This motion is also filled with intentionally misleading information. It appears that their intent is to prolong this proceeding until our twin boys graduate from high school, a strategy they were successful in implementing. The motion to reconsider was not given priority, nor were any of the other motions filed on behalf of the children. However, the respondent’s motion to impound records was expedited and granted based on false information. The judge did not review any of the exhibits that were electronically uploaded or personally delivered to her courtroom on June *, *. In the meantime, these tactics have seriously endangered the well-being of our three children. It is of utmost importance that these issues are promptly addressed to ensure the safety and well-being of the children. *. It has become increasingly clear that the opposing party’s attorney is employing a strategy of intentional misrepresentation and delay. Despite the clear distinction between motions and pleadings, the attorney has been consistently mislabeling my motions as pleadings. This mischaracterization is not a mere oversight but appears to be a calculated tactic. By incorrectly applying the rules of civil codes and statute laws, such as §*-* of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, that are relevant to pleadings, the attorney is attempting to muddle the issues at hand. In response to this, I would like to clarify that the section that the opposing party’s attorney referenced, §*-* of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, is applicable to objections to pleadings. Pleadings are formal written statements that present a party’s claims or defenses against another party’s claims in a civil action, and they help frame the issues to be decided in a lawsuit. However, a motion for substitution of judge for cause and a child support case do not fall under the category of pleadings. Instead, they are motions, which are formal requests made to the court to obtain a ruling or order directing some act to be done in favor of the applicant. Since these are motions and not pleadings, they are not subject to the same rules and procedures outlined in §*-* of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the specific requirements of §*-*, such as pointing out defects in the pleadings or asking for a pleading to be made more definite, do not apply to these motions. *. On March *, *, after the hearing for substitution of judge for cause, I took the necessary corrective measures and filed the appropriate affidavit with the corrected statute for substitution of judge for cause. In addition, I filed an amended motion for the substitution of judge for cause. It is crucial to note that these actions were accompanied by due notifications. Copies of the affidavit, the amended motion, and the notices were sent via email to both the court and the opposing parties on the same day. I believe these actions demonstrate my commitment to transparency and due process. * ILCS */*-* Sec. *-*. Substitution of judge. a A substitution of judge in any civil action may be had in the following situations: * 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. The judge named in the petition need not testify but may submit an affidavit if the judge wishes. If the petition is allowed, the case shall be assigned to a judge not named in the petition. If the petition is denied, the case shall be assigned back to the judge named in the petition. *. In Illinois, the guidelines for filing a motion for substitution of judge due to bias do not specify a particular timeline. Upon recognizing the potential bias of the presiding judge in my case, I felt that this bias has already affected the fairness of the trial. As a result, I promptly filed a motion for substitution of judge for cause. *. Throughout the course of these proceedings, there have been several instances that suggest a distinct bias on the part of the presiding judge, which are as follows. a. The judge granted the respondent’s attorney’s request to cancel a hearing scheduled for December *, *, without considering the implications of this decision on the case. b. Despite being presented with bank statements as evidence, the judge expressed an unwillingness to review these documents, thereby disregarding crucial evidence in the case. c. The judge ordered me to provide our daughter’s identity protection pin to the respondent for tax purposes, despite my explanation of the respondent’s history of financial exploitation of the children. d. The judge expedited and granted the opposing party’s motion to impound records. This decision was based on false information submitted by the opposing party, without even looking at the exhibits. The judge prioritized the respondent’s records over the best interest and well-being of the children. If the judge had looked at the exhibits A, B, M, and N, she would have seen that the respondent’s account number was redacted on his bank statements. Bank statements do not display personal routing numbers, and cashier’s checks do not display the purchaser’s personal account or routing number. They display the bank’s account and routing number, not the respondents. This was intentionally stated in the opposing party’s motion to impound the records. e. The judge stated that the opposing party’s attorney had not appeared for the hearing on February *, *, because I did not properly notify the attorney, despite evidence to the contrary. *. These actions and decisions taken by the judge indicate a distinct bias towards the respondent and a seeming disregard for the welfare of the children. This bias seriously undermines the fairness and impartiality of the judicial process, and as such.

But what do I write in the ending?