1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

In The Circuit Court Twentieth Judicial Circuit St. Clair County, Illinois Matthias Hawkins, Plaintiff, vs. East St. Louis City Clerk, Dorene Hoosman City of East St. Louis City Council, et al., Mayor Alvin Parks Councilman Roy Mosley Councilwoman Emeka Jackson Councilwoman Latoya Greenwood Councilman Robert Eastern III City Manager, Deletra Hudson Defendant(s) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 13 MR-0190 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS

Now come, Matthias Hawkins, PRO SE, herein known as Plaintiff, on behalf of himself, who now resides in the City of East St. Louis, the County of St. Clair and the State of Illinois. The Defendants et al named herein are paid elected city officials or staff in the employ of the City of East St. Louis. Plaintiff is a duly registered voter in the City of East St. Louis who currently resides at 1705-B Exchange Avenue, East St. Louis, IL 62205. Defendants et al are represented by Mr. Michael Wagner of the Clayborne, Sabo, & Wagner, LLP, 525 West Main Street, Suite 105, Belleville, IL 62220.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

CASE BACKGROUND: 13-MR-0190

1. On July 2, 2013, an attorney from the Defendants law firm showed up in Court in a limited appearance claiming to not know if her firm was counsel of record or corporate legal counsel. 2. By virtue of their own correspondence dated June 26, 2013, Clayborne, Wagner & Sabo stipulates to being corporate counsel for the Defendants et al ; 3. Plaintiff prays the Courts mercy in finding the Defendants et al and their legal counsel, Michael Wagner to have perjured themselves pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure for making statements known to be untrue and misleading to the Court regarding who was corporate counsel for the City of East St. Louis on the morning of July 2, 2013; 4. On Monday, August 5 plaintiff received a registered letter dated June 26, 2013 containing the Defendants belated written response to Plaintiffs Freedom of Information Request dated March 27, 2013, five months (approximately 150 days) beyond the time limits set forth in Section 3 of the Freedom of Information Act (5 ILCS 140) of five (5) business days. 5. On that same day, Plaintiff received a package via regular mail which contained a Motion to Dismiss Case #13-MR-190 amongst other documents; 6. At no point has Attorney Wagner or his agent(s) served this Motion to Dismiss to the Plaintiff or on my normal place of abode followed up by a mailed copy as required

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

in Section 2-203: Service on Individuals of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5), Defendants have not perfected service. Section 2-203 reads as follows: a. Sec. 2-203. Service on individuals.
(a) Except as otherwise expressly provided, service of summons upon an individual defendant shall be made (1) by leaving a copy of the summons with the defendant personally, (2) by leaving a copy at the defendant's usual place of abode, with some person of the family or a person residing there, of

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

the age of 13 years or upwards, and informing that person of the contents of the summons, provided the officer or other person making service shall also send a copy of the summons in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, addressed to the defendant at his or her usual place of abode, or (3) as provided in Section 1-2-9.2 of the Illinois Municipal Code with respect to violation of an ordinance governing parking or standing of vehicles in cities with a population over 500,000. The certificate of the officer or affidavit of the person that he or she has sent the copy in pursuance of this Section is evidence that he or she has done so. No employee of a facility licensed under the Nursing Home Care Act, the Specialized Mental Health Rehabilitation Act, or the ID/DD Community Care Act shall obstruct an officer or other person making service in compliance with this Section. (b) The officer, in his or her certificate or in a record filed and maintained in the Sheriff's office, or other person making service, in his or her affidavit or in a record filed and maintained in his or her employer's office, shall (1) identify as to sex, race, and approximate age the defendant or other person with whom the summons was left and (2) state the
3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

place where (whenever possible in terms of an exact street address) and the date and time of the day when the summons was left with the defendant or other person. (c) Any person who knowingly sets forth in the certificate or affidavit any false statement shall be liable in civil contempt. When the court holds a person in civil contempt under this Section, it shall award such damages as it determines to be just and, when the contempt is prosecuted by a private attorney, may award reasonable attorney's fees. (Source: P.A. 96-339, eff. 7-1-10; 97-38, eff. 6-28-11; 97227, eff. 1-1-12; 97-813, eff. 7-13-12.)

7. Plaintiff prays the Courts mercy in finding the Defendants et al guilty of civil contempt pursuant to Section 2-203(c) for claiming to have perfected service in his Affidavit (page 3) attached to the Defendants Motion to Dismiss; (See Exhibit 1B: Defendants Motion to Dismiss) 8. Plaintiff prays the Courts mercy that it shall award such damages to the Plaintiff as the Court determines to be just while keeping in mind the 18 mile trip one way to appear in Court for the Plaintiff and that, including filing the complaint, this makes at least three (3) times that the Plaintiff has had to travel to appear before the Court from his home at 1705 Exchange Avenue, #B, East St. Louis, IL 62205; 9. Plaintiff prays that the Court is mindful of the fact that Plaintiff must also secure daycare for his children in order to attend these hearings with a varying cost; 10. Plaintiff humbly submits to the Court that due to misinformation provided to the Plaintiff and the Court about who is corporate counsel for the City of East St. Louis, an extra $80.00 in process service fees were incurred for a total of $120.00;

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

11. The attorney who appeared in limited appearance indicated that she did not know that her firm-Clayborne, Wagner, & Sabo, LLP, was corporate counsel for the City of East St. Louis despite an article in the Belleville News Democrat on May 1, 2013 announcing the new firm and the fact that they would transfer the contract by May 8, 2013, long before the July 2, 2013 hearing before this Court; 12. On the matter of substitution, Plaintiff contends that the trial had started on July 2, 2013 and that this pre-trial Motion for Substitution is simply another well crafted attempt to delay justice 13. Plaintiff further contends that several significant rulings were in fact made by the Court in allowing the Defendants limited appearance to prevent them from having a default judgment entered against them on July 2, 2013 when an attorney from their firm did appear in a limited fashion and a Court Order was entered setting a new date for the purpose of allowing the Plaintiff to perfect service; (See Exhibit 3B: July 2 Court Order) 14. Plaintiff summarily rejects any overture to substitute judges and does not have any interest in granting consent on the matter; 15. Moreover, Plaintiff prays the Courts mercy in expediting these proceedings wherever possible in keeping with Section 11(h) of the Illinois Freedom of Information Act which reads: a. (h) Except as to causes the court considers to be of
greater importance, proceedings arising under this Section shall take precedence on the docket over all other causes and be assigned for hearing and trial at the earliest practicable date and expedited in every way.
5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

16. Looking at the Defendants incomplete quotation of the Section 2 -603, it is clear that this Motion to Dismiss is written to deceive the Court and the Plaintiff for if they had only continued to Part C of the same section they would have clearly seen that this law also stated that pleadings shall be liberally construed with a view to doing substantial justice. 17. Here are the entire contents of Section 2-603 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure: a. Sec. 2-603. Form of pleadings. (a) All pleadings shall
contain a plain and concise statement of the pleader's cause of action, counterclaim, defense, or reply. (b) Each separate cause of action upon which a separate recovery might be had shall be stated in a separate count or counterclaim, as the case may be and each count, counterclaim, defense or reply, shall be separately pleaded, designated and numbered, and each shall be divided into paragraphs numbered consecutively, each paragraph containing, as nearly as may be, a separate allegation. (c) Pleadings shall be liberally construed with a view to doing substantial justice between the parties. (Source: P.A. 82-280.)

18. Plaintiff has clearly outlined his status as a Pro Se litigant and prays the Courts mercy for any technical oversight contained in my pleadings and that the Court allows for a chance to correct any defects with this pleading prior to ruling since that Court has given the Defendants et al ample time to respond to pleadings and figure out who was or is now corporate counsel for the City of East St. Louis; 19. Plaintiff has utilized a line numbering system that should make the Defendants attempts to reference parts of this pleading more effective even without paragraph
6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

numbers as outlined in the Code of Civil Procedure and prays the Courts mercy in recognizing this enumeration to be sufficient for the purposes of this hearing; 20. Plaintiff prays the Courts mercy in finding all pleadings in this case (13-MR-190) sufficient to merit a hearing of the facts based upon the law governing the Freedom of Information Act and not be distracted by the Defendants brazen attempt to deflect attention away from the historic level and degree of corruption, greed and disregard for the Plaintiff, the General Assembly and the Courts as evidenced by their failure to respond to the Plaintiffs duly submitted request for public information for over 150 days and then only after Plaintiff filed a lawsuit; 21. Plaintiff prays the Court takes into account the history of corruption, malfeasance, fraud, theft, and graft for the City of East St. Louis when it rules on this Freedom of Information case which seeks to enable citizens to participate in the tough work of effective local governance; 22. Plaintiff prays that the Court keeps in mind recent prosecutions of police detectives, police chiefs, deputy liquor commissioners, directors of regulatory affairs, and elected political leaders who have pled guilty to felony charges; 23. Plaintiff prays that the Court is aware of that fact that his duly submitted FOIA request(s) were submitted nearly 6 months ago (180 days) at the time of this hearing; 24. Plaintiff prays that the Court is aware that his case was filed on May 31, 2013 which means it now has been over 3 months (90 days) since filing this FOIA case with no ruling to date;

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

25. Plaintiff humbly submits that the first court date for this case was set for June 25, 2013 by Judge Robert Haida and was reset for July 2 in order to perfect service; 26. Plaintiff prays the Courts mercy in its summary denial of the Defendants time wasting, meritless motion to dismiss which fails to cite any of the 30 plus exceptions outlined in Section 7 of the Freedom of Information Act (5 ILCS 140);
27. Plaintiff prays the Courts mercy in ordering a summary judgment in favor of the

Plaintiff granting all requested remedies and recovery without delay so as to promote the most substantial justice as soon as humanly possible in Case #13-MR190, Hawkins v City of East St. Louis et al.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

MATTHIAS HAWKINS, Petitioner

Dated this Friday, September 27, 2013

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Matthias Hawkins certifies that he has caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing document to be served and delivered by hand upon Attorney Mike Waggoner, Attorney of Record for the City of East St. Louis in Court Room 109, St. Clair County Court House, #10 Public Square, Belleville, IL 62220.

X____________________________________ Matthias Hawkins