Pentagon paid WHAT for two 19-cent washers?

Welcome to BushWorld...

...where organizations like the USA War Machine and Big Oil were once thought to be a little out of control until BushCo took office and let them run TOTALLY out of control.

Who would have thought those $700.00 toilet seats and claw hammers back in the early 1980s were a good deal?

Ka Ching!

Charlene Corley has been offered a job as the head of accounting at Halliburton starting as soon as she gets out of prison.

I'm n ot going to excuse waste and fraud on any whomever, but let's some Swamp items on the Dan Ryan Project ballooning from $500 million to $1 billion. Or how about the trillions spent on public housing, perhaps one of the biggest boondoggles ever. I'd love to see government waste and fraud brought down to the slightest minimum, but there has been a lot more in the non-defense sector than in the defense sector. Criminy, just look at the ridiculous waste and fraud within Illinois, a Demoncrap stronghold!

Welcome to "John E" world, where Pres. Bush is blamed for fraudulent billing that started in 2000, before he was president.

Bill Clinton was president then. Before today I thought even leftnuts knew that.

The fraudulent billing was caught by the Bush administration, and stopped. And the frauders are serving big-time jail sentences. Something we should all be happy about.

Bruce, you should know by now that the leftnuts, Loony Left, World's Worst that Mankind Has to Offer, whatever they are, know absolutely nothing.

RNCBruce...WRONG AGAIN!

Why can't you ever tell the complete story, deadender? According to the article while the scheme began in 2000, the chief agent is quoted: "As time went on they got more aggressive in the amounts they put in." This went on for six years (2006) according to the article...Clearly, the brunt of the corruption occured under GW, not Clinton. But then again, according to the wingnuts, everything wrong in 2007 is directly accountable to B.C.

Welcome to "John E" world, where Pres. Bush is blamed for fraudulent billing that started in 2000, before he was president.

Bill Clinton was president then. Before today I thought even leftnuts knew that.

The fraudulent billing was caught by the Bush administration, and stopped. And the frauders are serving big-time jail sentences. Something we should all be happy about.

Posted by: Bruce | August 16, 2007 2:38 PM

Welcome to "Bruce Whinerdyce" world where everything is Bill Clintons fault:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chXjCtkymRQ&mode=related&search=

I am in total agreement, Bruce. Every time a story like this pops up the finger gets pointed at Bush. Too bad most people jump to assumptions before looking at the facts... such as the year 2000... Not all the problems that we have now are recent, such as the Iraq/Afganistan issues. Most current issues were alive and problematic, well before the Bush administration.

"Most current issues were alive and problematic, well before the Bush administration."

Yep, that's absolutely true. And most of them were alive and problematic before Clinton, too. Iraq has been a problem since the British put it together and Afghanistan has always been a problem. Clinton didn't create the problems any more than Bush did--pointing a finger at either of them is just a waste of time and shows that you care more for partisanship and the politics of personal destruction than you care about helping America and the world solve these current problems.

My issue with Bush is that I disagree vehemently with his priorities (e.g., Iraq before Osama), his administration's practices (e.g., declaring Americans enemy combatants--there's a word for those people already-Traitors. Why disregard the constitution?) and his rhetoric--which focuses on partisanship and the politics of personal destruction. Buying into any nonsense about whether the terrorists are Bush's "fault" or Clinton's "fault" obscures the big picture and leads to name-calling (e.g. "fascist" "enemy of America") which gets everybody off message--which is that, one way or another, we need to get the terrorists to stop wanting to kill us.

Take the position that, to get them to stop, we need to kill them all or that we need to adopt sharia in America or anything in between, but defend it with facts and with an eye toward results rather than point-scoring. If all of you partisans can't get that through your thick skulls, then I don't want any of you on my side--the side of freedom, mom, apple pie and baseball.

Kent, there were no problems in the world before Bush took office. Or, if there were, we were well on the way to solving them. So you should just go away and be quiet.

How about we hire some accountants with common sense. Surely they did not think that it cost that much for shipping!?!

Kent & Bruce...the pointing finger argument goes both ways. Both sides do it like children, blaming each other about who broke the window. It does not matter to an adult, you just fix it and move on.

Or how about the trillions spent on public housing, perhaps one of the biggest boondoggles ever.
Posted by: John D | August 16, 2007 2:32 PM

Hey johnd,

You finally got one correct and one of the "biggest boondogglers" was your hero, ronnie ray-gun.

Reagan not only failed to recognize his own HUD Secretary, he failed to deal with the growing corruption scandal at the agency that resulted in the indictment and conviction of top Reagan administration officials for illegally targeting housing subsidies to politically connected developers.

I'm n ot going to excuse waste and fraud on any whomever, but

Posted by: John D | August 16, 2007 2:32 PM

Yes you are... That's exactly what you're going to do... or else why even bother with your tired statement minimizing and excusing today's corruption under the watch of your heros with reminders of yesterday's corruption under the watch of those you hate?

Conservatives my ass!!!!

Why no pics of twins anywhere?? Are they hot???

If it started in 2000, that would be under the Clinton Administration ansd continued under the Bush administration. A simple data extract could find this - where's the GAO?

Also, many folks want to put gov't bureaucrats in charge of our health care?

Response to Multiut - Nachshon Draiman rebuttle about his fraud – rev.
Nachshon Draiuman - Multiut Corp. Fraud
You will note that State and Federal Court records in llinois and elsewhere are replete with lawsuits, judgments and wrongdoing by Nachshon Draiman and his companies. Causing the death of patients in the Nursing homes and a lawsuit by the State of Illinois and conviction People v. Gurell – Nachshon Draiman (1983), 98 Ill.2d 194, 207, 74 Ill.Dec. 516, 456 N.E.2d 18.). abusing nursing home patients see State of Illinois records.

Multiut Corp and Nachshon Draiman dba Future Associate of Skokie, IL. are withholding evidence of fraudulent activities in the Energy industry and inflated Medicaid billing to the government for Nursing Home patients. Also Bank fraud against their bank by presenting fraudulent and inflated receivable reports in order to get and keep a credit line, Nachshon Draiman was a large stock holder of the bank. Draiman Nachshon • SC 13G • Success Bancshares Inc • On 2/17/98
Filed On 2/17/98 • SEC File 5-53545 • Accession Number 950137-98-586

Just because he was able to cheat the system with political contributions and expired statute of limitations does not make him any less guilty.
Everything stated previouly by me against Nachshon Draiman, Multiut, Future Associates and his Nursing Homes can be very easily verified.

Where there is smoke - there is fire.

Several courts and administrative bodies have found Nachshon Draiman culpable in providing fraudulent documents and the intentional abuse and negligence of Nursing Homes patients in Illinois – in every case Nachshon tried to blame others for his misdeeds. See People of the State of Illinois vs. Gurell, Nachshon Draiman et al – 456 N.E.2d 18 there has been numerous patient abuse and deaths due to that abuse. In 127 Ill.App.3d 1165, 483 N.E.2d 731, 91 Ill.Dec. 385 Sonnenberg v. Mill View Associates, Nachshon Draiman where millions of dollars had to be paid as damages for abuse and death of a patient, not to mention numerous patients who died falling down an elevator shaft.
Nachshon Draiman former partner from Lydia Healthcare Arnold Simenson will testify that Nachshon has been breaking and entering and stealing his personal financial records which is recorded on video tape. Nachshon therefore lost his ownership interest in that home. Numerous Nursing Homes operated by Nachshon Draiman have been closed down by the State due to abuse and deaths of patients – Numerous judgments are entered against Nachshon Draiman’s entities for overcharges. Not to mention the over 20 litigations that are currently pending. (Such as Dynegy v Nachshon Draiman w 6 contempt of court orders – Multiut, Israel Discount Bank vs. Nachshon Draiman, State Financial Bank vs. Nachshon Draiman and others). Inflated gas bill to his own nursing home and his friends and associates in order to increase the expenses and bill Medicaid fraudulently
Not to mentioned that he is represented by a Law Firm with attorneys who pleaded guilty to criminal conduct with Jack Abramoff as one of the partners – to say the least and has numerous ethical and criminal transgressions (Greenberg Traurig).

PS – THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
States: “All men are created equal” I state (except those with money, power and influence – who are more equal than others)

NEWSMEAT - NACHSHON DRAIMAN's federal campaign contribution search ...NACHSHON DRAIMAN » IL » 60077 ... Receive an alert every time new records are added to this search for NACHSHON DRAIMAN. Your Email ...

Political Campaign Contributors415777. Paulette Dragul ... Contribution Count/Amount - 1 / $2000 415778. Nachshon Draiman ... Contribution
Count/Amount - 2 / $2000 415779. ...

Dynegy Mkg & Trade v. Multiut Corp, Nachshon Draiman et al 1:02-cv-07446.

Court: United States District Court Northern District of Illinois -
Case Title: Dynegy Mkg & Trade v. Multiut Corp, Nachshon Draiman et al
Case Number: 1:02-cv-07446
Judge: Hon. John A. Nordberg
Filed On: 10/16/2002
128 01/10/2005 MINUTE ORDER of 1/10/05 by Honorable Michael T. Mason : As stated on the reverse of this order, plaintiff's motion to compel financial documents [124-1] and for sanctions is granted in part and denied in part. [124-2] Defendant's request for reconsideration is denied. (See reverse of minute order.) Notices mailed by judge's staff (hp) (Entered: 01/10/2005)
Multiut Nachshon Draiman lawsuits

2001-CH-19688
GORE JACK MULTIUT CORPORATION 11/20/2001

2002-CH-21586
KSJ CORPORATION TAM FITNESS TENNIS CLUB/ Nachshon Draiman 12/02/2002

2007-L-006471
MADDY MELISSA ADAIR THOMAS, Nachshon Draiman 06/22/2007
2006-L-005786
COWANS ISABELLE BURNHAM HEALTHCARE PROPER, Nachshon Draiman 06/02/2006

2004-L-013384
FEDDELER VIRGINIA PETERSON PARK HEALTH CARE, Nachshon Draiman 11/29/2004
2004-L-008129
STATE FINANCIAL BANK EMBASSY CARE ASSOCIATES, Nachshon Draiman 07/20/2004
2004-L-000663
ISRAEL DISCOUNT BANK LTD DRAIMAN NACHSHON Z 01/20/2004

2006-M1-129654
WEIS DUBROCK DOODY DRAIMAN NACHSHON 04/19/2006
1987-M1-168987
ILLINOIS PUBLIC AI DRAIMAN NACHSON D 09/09/1987

Case Number Plaintiff Defendant Date Filed
2004-M2-001804
LUBIN ROBERT MULTIUT CORPORATIO 08/02/2004
2004-M1-134094
MCCLURE WILLIAM MULTIUT 06/02/2004
1999-M2-000227
RABIN SCOTT R MULTIUT CORP 01/28/1999

Dynegy Mkg & Trade v. Multiut Corp, Nachshon Draiman et al 1:02-cv-07446.

Draiman and Multiut breached the Guaranty by failing to pay after demand, when due, the Unpaid Principal. Balance and the Interest.
WHEREFORE, Dynegy requests entry of a judgment in its favor and against Multiut, for $12,504,912.51, plus interest, through the date of judgement, in an amount in excess of $593,997.74, and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.
-4-

COUNT III
(Fraudulent Transfer In Law- Multiut)
27. Dynegy repeats and reasserts the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 26, inclusive, as paragraph 27.
28. At all relevant times, Draiman has been a director, officer and/or control ling shareholder of Multiut.
29. At all relevant times, Draiman has been a general partner in Future Associates or otherwise had authority and/or control over the business affairs of Futures Associates or an entity that had authority over the business affairs of Futures Associates.
30. Since at least January 1999, Multiut failed to make timely payment, when due, for some or all of the natural gas delivered by Dynegy.
31. On March 7, 2001, Ginger Wright of Dynegy and Lenore Kamien of Multiut ' agreed that Multiut owed Dynegy approximately $11,000,000, excluding interest.
32. On September 5, 2001, Dynegy representatives Pete Pavluk and Mark Ludwig met with Multiut representatives Lenore Kamien and/or Nachshon Draiman at Multiut's offices to discuss the amount owed by Multiut.
33. At that meeting, Mr. Draiman said that Multiut did not have funds sufficient to pay the debt owed and that Multiut would propose a payment plan by September 17, 2001.
34. In a September 17, 2001 letter, Multiut proposed a payment plan by which it would make monthly payments, from October 2001 through March 2002, in order to pay down the amount owed to Dynegy. The proposed payments ranged from $600,000 in some months to $1,800,000 in other months. According to Mr. Draiman, Multiut was, 'insurefd] [sic] an additional annual profit of $2,000,000' and that, 'in the meantime, [Multiut] was working on bank financing as well as funds from private sources for capital infusion.'
-5-

35 . In an October 4, 2001 letter to Multiut, Dynegy responded to Multiut's September 17, 2001 proposal by asking for 'a detailed formal plan by no later than Wednesday, October 10, 2001 that outlines bringing your account balance current by no later that [sic]-January 15, 2002.'
36. In an October 12, 2001 letter, Multiut responded to Dynegy's October 4, 2001 letter by proposing 'weekly payments for October through January.' The weekly payments proposed by Multiut totaled $7,700,000.
37. Multiut did not make all the weekly payments described in its October 12, 2001
letter.
38. Multiut's check , dated August 23, 2001, made payable to Dynegy for $300,000, was returned for insufficient funds.
39. Multiut's check, dated October 26, 2001, made payable to Dynegy for $150,000, was returned for insufficient funds.
40. Multiut's check, dated November 9, 2001, made payable to Dynegy for $200,000, was returned for insufficient funds.
41. Multiut check no. 1946, made payable to Dynegy for $200,000 and deposited on December 7, 2001, was returned twice due to insufficient funds.
42. On January 8, 2002, Multiut claimed it could not pay the amounts owed to Dynegy because of slow payment by the government in connection with Mr. Draiman's nursing homes.
43. On January 31, 2002, Multiut told Dynegy that it would make a $200,000 payment while it worked to raise cash through a factoring company and while it attempted to arrange a line of credit with Bank Leumi.
-6-

54. Multiut did not receive reasonably equivalent value for the transfer described in paragraph 53.
55. In the years 1999 through 2003, Multiut transferred cash or other assets to Future Associates, Draiman and/or other entities, including Draiman's nursing home, hotel or other business interests when Multiut was indebted to Dynegy.
56. Multiut did not receive reasonably equivalent value for the transfers desciibed in paragraph 55.
57. When Multiut made the transfers described in paragraphs 53 and 55 (the 'Transfers'), Multiut was insolvent and/or became insolvent as a result of the Transfers.
58. The Transfers were fraudulent conveyances in violation of applicable laws.
WHEREFORE, Dynegy requests entry of an order granting judgment in its favor and against Multiut, for $12,504,912.51, plus interest, through the date of judgment, in an amount in excess of $593,997.74; voiding the fraudulent transfers and returning the Transfers to Multiut to be used to satisfy the debt to Dynegy; and such other relief as this Court deems appropriate.
COUNT IV (Fraudulent Transfer In Fact- Multiut)
59. Dynegy repeats and reasserts the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 58, inclusive, as paragraph 59.
60. The Transfers were made with actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud Dynegy, a creditor of Multiut and as-such constituted fraudulent conveyances in violation of applicable laws.
WHEREFORE, Dynegy requests entry of an order granting judgment in its favor and against Multiut, for $12,504,912.51, plus interest, through the date of judgment, in an amount in excess of $593,997.74; voiding the fraudulent transfers and returning the money to Multiut to be
-8-

used to satisfy the debt to Dynegy; punitive damages and such other relief as this Court deems
•
appropriate.

Ken Ditkowsky
wrote on May 16, 2007 9:52 AM:

' Read your story with interest. In my opinion we apparently have not learned from the Resko transactions. While Government cannot plan and execute a 'one car funeral' it should not delegate its responsibilites 'helter skelter.' The Illinois Court records are replete with information concerning the people involved in the transaction. '

Jerald Dims
wrote on May 16, 2007 8:52 AM:

' See Illinois Court documents federal and state regarding Nachshon Draiman, Future associates, Multiut corp. being involved in fraudulent actions and inflated billing, defrauding partners of $8 million dollars, fraudulent documents to the illinois department of Registration to obtain a Nursing Home License, defrauding the banks in Israel - currently pending a lawsuit and a criminal investigation 02c7446 '

This is just a small sample of the various actions and criminal and fraudulent acts by Nachshon Draiman and his alter ego companies.
Yehuda Draiman 8/15/2007
פרקי מלון פנינת דן בירושלים: לחייב את היזמים ב-20 מיליון שקל
טוענים כי יזמי הקמת המלון, נחשון ואליצור דריימן, ביצעו פעולות לא חוקיות שהביאו את המלון לחוב של כ-45 מיליון דולר, רובו לדיסקונט
שמואל דקלו‏
16:18 15/1/07
המפרקים של מלון פנינת דן שבירושלים דורשים בבית המשפט המחוזי בירושלים לחייב את יזמי הקמת המלון בפיצוי של למעלה מ-20 מיליון שקלים. בתביעה שהגישו המפרקים, עוה"ד יאיר גרין ירון פיינשטיין וניצן שמואלי, הם טוענים כי יזמי הקמת המלון, האחים נחשון ואליצור דריימן, ביצעו פעולות לא חוקיות שהביאו את המלון לחוב של כ-45 מיליון דולר, רובו לבנק דיסקונט
(

904
-0.66% )
.
המפרקים טוענים כי הם מצויים בהליכי מכירת הנכס, כאשר התשלום המבוקש הוא כ-20 מיליון דולר, ולאחר המכירה יגיע סכום החובות לכ-25 מיליון דולר.
את
מודעה

ההפרש הם מבקשים מהאחים דריימן, שהקימו את המלון באמצעות חברת חוץ שהתאגדה באלינוי.
המלון, שבו 88 חדרים ו-22 סוויטות, הופעל על ידי רשת מלונות דן, ולטענת המפרקים בעלי המלון לשעבר חייבים לרשת כ-900 אלף שקל.
לדבריהם, האחים דריימן ביצעו העברות פיקטיביות בין חשבונות; נתנו בטוחות באמצעות צ'קים שאת החשבון ממנו נמשך אחד הצ'קים סגרו; הציגו מצגי שווא בדבר סכום ההשקעה במלון; העבירו כספים לחו"ל מכספי החברה ללא הסבר וניפחו את סכום בניית המלון (כ-2,500 דולר למטר) בסכומים העולים פי כמה על הערכות הסבירות של בניית המלון.
עוד נטען, כי הם הציגו מצג מטעה כלפי מרכז ההשקעות על מנת להשיג הלוואות בערבות מדינה ומענקים. (פש"ר 119/99

Also, many folks want to put gov't bureaucrats in charge of our health care?

Posted by: Terry | August 17, 2007 8:39 PM

Check this out, Terry. If only if were just bureaucracy.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0818goppolitics0818.html

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT - CHANCERY DIVISION
FILED
JACK GORE on behalf of himself and all ) NOV 28, 2002
other persons or entitles similarly situated, |
•
vs. No. 01 CH 19688

DOROTHY 8ROWN CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT

MULTIUT CORP, an Illinois corporation, } Judge Stephen A, Schiller
Defendant ) Courtroom 2402

RESPONSE TO §2-619.1 MOTION TO DISMISS J/
Plaintiff JACK GORE (“Gore”). by his attorneys LARRY D DRURY LTD., hereby responds to the Motion to Dismiss 2nd Amended Complaint, pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-615 and 619, brought as a combined 2-619.1 motion by defendant MULTIUT CORP. (“Multiut”).
Introduction
Multiut is trying to time-bar this case by transforming express a written agency-service contract drafted by Multiut into a contract for sale of goods, and by disputing Gore's allegations as to concealment and discovery of the wrong – but without submitting any Rule 191 affidavit or documentation. This is a class action arising out
of a written contract drafted by Multiut, attached here and to the 2nd Amended Complaint as Exhibit A and B collectively referred to herein as the "contract" or "agreement “ unless otherwise indicated by context): (1)
(A) A service contract to act as Gore's "purchasing representatives" in obtaining natural gas from “off system" suppliers. This contract, entered into on or about December 1990, was titled “Agreement," Exh. A 1, 3-6, 10. And,
{B} A series of supplemental agency contracts to act as Gore’s agent, in so doing with respect to various Properties. These were entered into contemporaneously with the service contract and thereafter, and titled "Natural Gas Purchasing and Agency Agreement.” Exh.-B. (2)
(1) Similarly Multiut refers to them collectively as “the agreement” in its brief (Mem. p. 2, fn. 1). Although the documents are on separately filed pages, they are mutually inclusive and one could not be entered into without the other; e.g. the service contract refers to and incorporates the agency contracts, wherein Multiut refers to itself as Gore's 'exclusive natural gas purchasing agent'. See Exh. A, third introductory paragraph and 16-17; Exh. B 1,

(2) Exh. 8 one of the series, is dated 1998, Exh. C is Gore’s §2-806 affidavit as to the others. Gore has stated he does not have a copy of each, they are inaccessible to him i.e. no longer in his possession, whether missplaced or otherwise, and cannot be located or returned. 2nd Amd.. Compl. {4; Exh, C, in the 1st Amd. Complaint, Count 4 for breach of oral contract was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice after Gore's deposition of May 8,- 2002, when the service contract and the 1998 agency contract were produced by Multiut and adequately established, Exhs, A-B are the same Exhs. 1-2 attached to the Gore transcript, excerpts of which are attached herein as Exh. D, Similarly the missing agency agreements are likely in Multiut’s possession and will be produced in discovery.
The contract was drafted by Multiut, it unequivocally defines Multiut's role in the transactions, and shows that this case is not governed by the UCC. What is at issue here is not the "good" that Multiut obtained for Gore, but the service Multiut provided as his purchasing agent. Gore is suing upon the service and agency contract – not the natural gas - and has alleged that Multiut breached its duties in two respects;
{1} By falsely and intentionally charging and retaining for its own use funds that were to be applied to a City of Chicago 8% gross receipts tax (“Tax”), which it had promised would be placed in escrow and forwarded to the City. Between December 1990 and January 1995 (after the City of Chicago changed the Tax), Multiut collected approximately $14,000 from Gore and at least $1 million to $1.5 million from the Class, for this Tax that was not actually imposed upon Multiut. 2nd Amd. Compl. 7-9, '3! Multiut not only failed to inform Plaintiff and
the Class that the money collected was not so applied or escrowed, but also failed to escrow, account for, and refund the funds with interest.
(2) By overcharging for the service of providing natural gas. Multiut was to charge for natural gas actually supplied to Gore and the Class on a set per therm cost basis, plus an amount equal to 1/2 of their respective per therm cost savings per month, instead, Multiut overcharged and billed Gore at least $100.000 and the class millions of dollars and refuses to provide an accounting and refund with interest. Id. 10-11.
Gore has further alleged that Multiut prevented him from discovering the wrongs by intentionally concealing them until at least December 2000, when he discovered the truth and could not reasonably have done so earlier. (Gore testified at his deposition on May 8, 2002 that he first discovered the discrepancies in his bills, the overcharges, the taxes, and failure to escrow the taxes, in December 2000. See Exh, D, pp. 25-28,) Thereafter he was unable to obtain any refund and based thereon, terminated Multiut’s services on or about June 2001, However, the wrongful acts are continuing to date, in that Multiut continues to 'refuse to provide an accounting and refund with interest to Gore and the Class, all to their detriment and damage. They seek imposition of constructive trust (id. 22), an accounting and damages in not less than the foregoing amounts plus interest (id, 9-13, 23).
Gore filed the original Class Action Complaint on Nov. 20, 2001, and in lieu of responding to a motion to dismiss, filed the 1st Amended Class Action Complaint Feb. 14, 2002, setting forth 4 counts for (1) breach of
3-: The City did not and will not collect the 8% Tax, presumably because of U.S. constitutional restrictions as to the interstate commerce clause and exceptions for interstate pipelines and out-of-state suppliers. As a result in 1994 the City changed the tax from an 8% gross receipts tax to a flat rate tax of 1.4 to 1.5 cents per therm. 2nd Amd. Comp. P 8. in Multiut’s response to First Request to Admit {attached hereto as Exh. F), it has admitted the following statements about this Tax; (8) that Multiut collected approximately $14,000 in Tax from Gore between 1991-1994; and (9) that Multiut spent its customers Tax payments on business expenses.. Yehuda Draiman testified to the same effect in his deposition 1-10-02 See transcript excerpts attached hereto as Exh. E, at pp, 36-37,40, 68, and Exh, 6 thereto.

Activity Date: 8/15/2007 Participant: GORE JACK
CASE SET ON STATUS CALL
Court Date: 8/29/2007
Court Time: 0930
Court Room: 2402
Judge: BRONSTEIN, PHILIP L.

Dynegy vs Multiut, Nachshon Draiman, Future Associates et al - 02 C 7446
(A $22 million dollar lawsuit for fraud and insolvency – numerous contempt of court)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
DYNEGY MARKETING and TRADE, a
Colorado Partnership, )
Plaintiff, )
)No. 02 C 7446
v. )
) Judge Nordberg
MULTIUT CORPORATION, an Illinois
Corporation and NACHSHON DRAIMAN, )
an Illinois Resident, FUTURE ASSOCIATES, )
an Illinois General Partnership, )
Defendants. )
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
Dynegy Marketing and Trade ("Dynegy"), by its attorneys, complains of Multiut Corporation ("Multiut"), Nachshon Draiman ("Draiman"), and Future Associates, as follows:
THE PARTIES
1. Dynegy is a Colorado general partnership with its principle place of business in Houston, Texas. The only partners of the partnership are Dynegy GP, Inc., a Delaware corporation which maintains its principle place of business in Texas, and DMT Holdings, LP, a Delaware limited partnership (f7k/a NGC GP, Inc.).
2. The only partners of DMT Holdings LP are (1) DMT G.P., LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and (2) DMT L.P., LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation.
3. The sole member of DMT G.P., LLC is DMT Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation which maintains its principle place of business in Texas.
4. The sole member of DMT L.P., LLC is DMT Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation which maintains its principle place of business in Texas.

5. Multiut is an Illinois corporation with its principle place of business located in Cook County, Illinois.
6. Future Associates has its principal place of business located in Cook County, and is, upon information and belief, an Illinois general partnership.
7. Draiman is an individual residing in Cook County, Illinois.
JURISDICTION
AND VENUE
8. This Court has jurisdiction, under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(l), because the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens of different states.
9. Venue is proper, under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a), because the defendants reside in and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this judicial district.
COUNTI (Breach of Agreement)
10. On or about January 1, 1994, Multiut signed a Natural Gas Sales Agreement with Natural Gas Clearinghouse ("NGC") for the purchase and sale of natural gas (the "Agreement"). A true and correct copy of the Agreement, with Exhibits A and B, is attached as Exhibit 1.
11. On July 7, 1998, NGC changed its name to Dynegy Marketing and Trade.
12. Under the Agreement, Multiut "[acted] as the duly authorized agent and representative of ultimate consumers and users of natural gas delivered to Multiut under the Agreement." (Agreement, page 1.)
13. Under the Agreement, Multiut is "responsible for collecting payment from its principals. The payment to [Dynegy] by Multiut on behalf of Multiut's principals shall be due on
-2-

the twentieth (20th) day of the month, or as to statements delivered after the tenth (10th), within ten (10) days after receipt of such statements." (Agreement, page 5, Article V-A (2).)
14. For natural gas Dynegy delivered to Multiut through December 2000, there existed an outstanding balance owed to Dynegy by Multiut of $1,664,501.06 (after offsets for payments made by Multiut through March 1, 2001).
15. Dynegy sent and/or Multiut received monthly invoices for the purchase and sale of natural gas under the Agreement from January 1, 2001 through December 31,2002 (the "Invoices").
16. Multiut breached the Agreement by failing and/or refusing to pay the Invoices in full when due.
17. As of April 30,2003, the unpaid principal balance due to Dynegy under the Invoices, after application of payments in accordance with Article V-A(3) of the Agreement, is $12,504,912.51 (the "Unpaid Principal Balance").
18. Under the Agreement, "Should Multiut fail to pay all of the amount of any bill when the same becomes due, Multiut shall pay [Dynegy] a late charge on the unpaid balance that shall accrue on each calendar day from the due date at a rate equal to two percent (2%) above the then-effective monthly prime commercial lending rate per annum announced by The Federal Reserve Bulletin from time to time . . . . " In addition, "the late charge . . . shall compound monthly." (Agreement, page 5, Article V-A (3).)
19. Under the-Agreement, "If either principal or late charges are due, any payments thereafter received shall first be applied to the late charges due, then to the previously outstanding principal due and lastly, to the most current principal due." (Agreement, page 5, Article V-A (3).)
-3-

20. As of April 30, 2003, the amount of interest due, in accordance with Article V-A(3) of the Agreement, is $593,997.74 (the "Interest").
21. Dynegy has performed all of its obligations under the Agreement.
WHEREFORE, Dynegy requests entry of a judgment in its favor and against Multiut, for $12,504,912.51, plus interest, through the date of judgment, in an amount in excess of 5593,997.74, and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.
COUNT II
(Breach of Guaranty)
22. Dynegy repeats and reasserts the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, as paragraph 22.
23. On or about October 31,1995, Draiman and Multiut executed a Guaranty (the "Guaranty"). A true and correct copy of the Guaranty is attached as Exhibit 2.
24. Under the Guaranty, Draiman and Multiut, jointly, severally, and unconditionally "[guaranteed] the payment to NGC promptly when due, or upon demand thereafter, pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, the full amount of all obligation or indebtedness due to NGC under the Agreement."
25. Draiman and Multiut are jointly and severally liable for their obligations under the Guaranty.
26. Draiman and Multiut breached the Guaranty by failing to pay after demand, when due, the Unpaid Principal. Balance and the Interest.
WHEREFORE, Dynegy requests entry of a judgment in its favor and against Multiut, for $12,504,912.51, plus interest, through the date of judgement, in an amount in excess of $593,997.74, and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.
-4-

COUNT III
(Fraudulent Transfer In Law- Multiut)
27. Dynegy repeats and reasserts the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 26, inclusive, as paragraph 27.
28. At all relevant times, Draiman has been a director, officer and/or control ling shareholder of Multiut.
29. At all relevant times, Draiman has been a general partner in Future Associates or otherwise had authority and/or control over the business affairs of Futures Associates or an entity that had authority over the business affairs of Futures Associates.
30. Since at least January 1999, Multiut failed to make timely payment, when due, for some or all of the natural gas delivered by Dynegy.
31. On March 7, 2001, Ginger Wright of Dynegy and Lenore Kamien of Multiut ' agreed that Multiut owed Dynegy approximately $11,000,000, excluding interest.
32. On September 5, 2001, Dynegy representatives Pete Pavluk and Mark Ludwig met with Multiut representatives Lenore Kamien and/or Nachshon Draiman at Multiut's offices to discuss the amount owed by Multiut.
33. At that meeting, Mr. Draiman said that Multiut did not have funds sufficient to pay the debt owed and that Multiut would propose a payment plan by September 17, 2001.
34. In a September 17, 2001 letter, Multiut proposed a payment plan by which it would make monthly payments, from October 2001 through March 2002, in order to pay down the amount owed to Dynegy. The proposed payments ranged from $600,000 in some months to $1,800,000 in other months. According to Mr. Draiman, Multiut was, "insurefd] [sic] an additional annual profit of $2,000,000" and that, "in the meantime, [Multiut] was working on bank financing as well as funds from private sources for capital infusion."
-5-

35 . In an October 4, 2001 letter to Multiut, Dynegy responded to Multiut's September 17, 2001 proposal by asking for "a detailed formal plan by no later than Wednesday, October 10, 2001 that outlines bringing your account balance current by no later that [sic]-January 15, 2002."
36. In an October 12, 2001 letter, Multiut responded to Dynegy's October 4, 2001 letter by proposing "weekly payments for October through January." The weekly payments proposed by Multiut totaled $7,700,000.
37. Multiut did not make all the weekly payments described in its October 12, 2001
letter.
38. Multiut's check , dated August 23, 2001, made payable to Dynegy for $300,000, was returned for insufficient funds.
39. Multiut's check, dated October 26, 2001, made payable to Dynegy for $150,000, was returned for insufficient funds.
40. Multiut's check, dated November 9, 2001, made payable to Dynegy for $200,000, was returned for insufficient funds.
41. Multiut check no. 1946, made payable to Dynegy for $200,000 and deposited on December 7, 2001, was returned twice due to insufficient funds.
42. On January 8, 2002, Multiut claimed it could not pay the amounts owed to Dynegy because of slow payment by the government in connection with Mr. Draiman's nursing homes.
43. On January 31, 2002, Multiut told Dynegy that it would make a $200,000 payment while it worked to raise cash through a factoring company and while it attempted to arrange a line of credit with Bank Leumi.
44. Multiut never raised cash through a factoring company or arranged a line of credit with Bank Leumi in 2002 or 2003.
45. In 2002 and 2003, Multiut did not have cash sufficient to pay the Invoices when due.
46. During 2000 and 2001, Multiut had creditors, in addition to Dynegy, to whom it did not make payments when due in the normal course of its business.
47. On June 19, 1998, Multiut entered into a Natural Gas Sales Agreement with WPS Energy Services, Inc. (“WPS”) for the purchase and sale of natural gas.
48. By June 2000, Multiut was indebted to WPS in the amount of $1,625,472 for natural gas delivered to Multiut prior to May 2000.
49. On September 27, 2000, Multiut gave WPS its promissory note in the amount of $1,570,337.87 (the “WPS” Promissory Note).
50. The WPS Promissory Note was a reaffirmation by Multiut of its debt to WPS incurred under the terms of the Natural Gas Sales Agreement between WPS and Multiut.
51. In the summer and fall of 2001, Multiut did not make payments, when due, in accordance with the WPS Promissory Note.
52. On September 27, 2001, WPS filed a lawsuit against Multiut alleging that Multiut defaulted on its obligation under the WPS Promissory Note by failing to make the required payments due on July 10, 2001, August 10, 2001 and September 10, 2001.
53. According to Multiut’s 2002 tax return, Multiut transferred approximately $2,000,000 (or more) to Future Associates, Draiman and/or other entities, including Draiman’s nursing home, hotel and/or other business ventures, at some time during 2001 when Multiut was indebted to Dynegy.
-6-

54. Multiut did not receive reasonably equivalent value for the transfer described in paragraph 53.
55. In the years 1999 through 2003, Multiut transferred cash or other assets to Future Associates, Draiman and/or other entities, including Draiman's nursing home, hotel or other business interests when Multiut was indebted to Dynegy.
56. Multiut did not receive reasonably equivalent value for the transfers described in paragraph 55.
57. When Multiut made the transfers described in paragraphs 53 and 55 (the "Transfers"), Multiut was insolvent and/or became insolvent as a result of the Transfers.
58. The Transfers were fraudulent conveyances in violation of applicable laws.
WHEREFORE, Dynegy requests entry of an order granting judgment in its favor and against Multiut, for $12,504,912.51, plus interest, through the date of judgment, in an amount in excess of $593,997.74; voiding the fraudulent transfers and returning the Transfers to Multiut to be used to satisfy the debt to Dynegy; and such other relief as this Court deems appropriate.
COUNT IV (Fraudulent Transfer In Fact- Multiut)
59. Dynegy repeats and reasserts the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 58, inclusive, as paragraph 59.
60. The Transfers were made with actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud Dynegy, a creditor of Multiut and as-such constituted fraudulent conveyances in violation of applicable laws.
WHEREFORE, Dynegy requests entry of an order granting judgment in its favor and against Multiut, for $12,504,912.51, plus interest, through the date of judgment, in an amount in excess of $593,997.74; voiding the fraudulent transfers and returning the money to Multiut to be
-8-

used to satisfy the debt to Dynegy; punitive damages and such other relief as this Court deems appropriate.
COUNT V
(Fraudulent Transfer in Law- Future Associates)
61. Dynegy repeats and reasserts the allegations of paragraphs 1 thorough 58, inclusive, as paragraph 61.
62. Future Associates accepted the Transfers of the assets without having provided adequate consideration for the Transfers.
WHEREFORE, Dynegy requests entry of order granting judgment in. its favor and against Future Associates, voiding the fraudulent transfers and returning the money to Multiut to be used to satisfy the debt to Dynegy; and such other relief as this Court deems appropriate.
COUNT VI (Fraudulent Transfer in Law- Diraiman)
63. Dynegy repeats and reasserts the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 58, inclusive, as paragraph 63.
64. Draiman accepted the Transfers without having provided adequate consideration or reasonably equivalent value for the Transfers.
WHEREFORE, Dynegy requests entry of order granting judgment in its favor and against Nachshon Draiman, voiding the fraudulent transfers and returning the money to Multiut to be used to satisfy the debt to Dynegy; and such other relief as this Court deems appropriate.
COUNT VII
(Breach of Fiduciary Duty)
65. Dynegy repeats and reasserts the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 58, inclusive, as paragraph 65.
-9-

66. When Multiut purchased natural gas from Dynegy in 2001 and 2002, Multiut was insolvent.
67. Because Multiut was insolvent, Draiman, as a director and officer of Multiut, owed a fiduciary duty to Dynegy, as a creditor of Multiut.
68. Draiman breached his fiduciary duty to Dynegy by causing Multiut to take natural gas from Dynegy when Draiman knew that Multiut did not intend to and/or could not pay for it. Draiman also breached his fiduciary duties to Dynegy by making and/or authorizing the Transfers.
WHEREFORE, Dynegy requests entry of an order granting judgment in its favor and against Draiman, for $ 12,504,912.51, plus interest, through the date of judgment, in an amount in excess of $593,997.74, and for punitive damages and any further relief that this Court deems appropriate.
DYNEGY MARKETING and TRADE

Barry S. Hyman (#6188142)
Helen Wilson
SCHIFF HARDIN & WATTE
6600 Sears Tower
Chicago, IL 60606
-10-

(312)258-5500

Nachshon Draiman Conviction for the death of a patient and abuse in his Mill View nursing homes in Niles, Illinois. R1

Nachshon Draiman - Multiut Corp. – Future Associates Fraud
You will note that State and Federal Court records in Illinois and elsewhere are replete with lawsuits, judgments and wrongdoing by Nachshon Draiman and his companies. Causing the death of patients in the Nursing homes and a lawsuit by the State of Illinois with civil and criminal conviction People v. Gurell, Nachshon Draiman (1983), 98 Ill.2d 194, 207, 74 Ill.Dec. 516, 456 N.E.2d 18.). Abusing nursing home patients see State of Illinois records.
See People of the State of Illinois vs. Gurell, Nachshon Draiman et al – 456 N.E.2d 18 there has been numerous patient abuse and deaths due to that abuse. In 127 Ill.App.3d 1165, 483 N.E.2d 731, 91 Ill.Dec. 385 Sonnenberg v. Mill View Associates, Nachshon Draiman where millions of dollars had to be paid as damages for abuse and death of a patient, not to mention numerous patients who died falling down an elevator shaft.

Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Brian W. Ellis Claims he has DNA forensic evidence that Nachshon Draiman - Multiut forged and modified documents presented to the Court in his lawsuit against his brother Yehuda J. Draiman
The Supposed 1991 IMA Agreement Put Into Evidence by Multiut – Nachshon Draiman Is a Fraud
The evidence overwhelmingly favors Yehuda Draimans' account of events. There are at least eight separate, independent indicators that Nachshon Draiman deceptively modified an IMA Agreement that Yehuda received and signed in 1989, added terms to which Yehuda never agreed, including the incorporation of an unsigned Employee Confidentiality Agreement, and inserted a false date of execution to create the document introduced as Plaintiff's Exhibit 10. First, Defendants' expert forensic ink analyst, Erich Speckin, testified that he found manufacturer date tags in the ink for the disputed writings on Plaintiff's Exhibit 10, and that the sequence of those date tags establishes without question that the ink was manufactured in 1993, two years after Nachshon Draiman said he made the writings. (8/14/02 Tr., at 2214-25) That testimony is undisputed.

It is a known fact that justice in Chicago can be swayed in your favor with proper incentives. The trial judge left the bench after this case when the court ignored overwhelming evidence against Multiut and Nachshon Draiman and other cases were investigated by the government.
Nachshon Draiman’s intimidation of witnesses, blackmail and other scare tactics will not work.

Nachshon Draiman defrauds Israel Discount Bank in Hotel financing to the tune of $45 million dollars.
Utilizing modified and fabricated sales contract of units in the Jerusalem Pearl purchased and totally paid for by 1. Nachshon Draiman, 2. Elitzur Draiman, 3. Irwin Katz a former Federal Judge and part owner of Multiut, 4. Barry Ray, 5. Danny Shabat, 6. Gershon Bassman, 7. Dr. Sam Lipschitz, 8. It seems presenting false and deceptive documents is a way of life for Nachshon Draiman

Nachshon Draiman presented a forged College Diploma to the Illinois Department of Registration in order to receive his Nursing Home Administrator’s license No. 44001323.
See: www.antidefamationusa.com..

Nachshon Draiman, Chicago – nursing home administrator license (044001323) revoked and fined
Illinois Department of Financial and
Professional Regulation NEWS
IDFPR
Disciplinary Actions for January 2008 SPRINGFIELD
The Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (IDFPR)
announced today that the Directors of the Division of Professional Regulation, Daniel E. Bluthardt, and Insurance, Michael T. McRaith, signed the following disciplinary orders in January. Orders for the Division of Banking were authorized by Director Jorge Solis.

NURSING HOME ADMINISTRATOR

Nachshon Draiman, Chicago – nursing home administrator license (044001323)
revoked and fined $2,000 for misrepresenting information in his application concerning postgraduate education degree, to obtain nursing home administrator licensure from the Department.

American economy in crises - a long time coming

When a country and its society import more than they export for over a quarter of a century, it is bound to erod the economy to its primate state.

We have only ourselves to blame, what goods and products are we exporting, what goods and services are produced in the USA, the answer is very little by comparison.

In the past 50 years as our population has increased, technology advanced, we have become a nation that consumes enormous amounts of resources, we shop for competitive prices. Corporate America is constantly looking to increase the bottom line.

Most of the goods for and by Americans and its companies are produced overseas and in the past decade with the advancement of telecommunications, many of the services sector are also imported.

The increased costs of energy over the past 10 years, has affected the economy to unimaginable comprehension.

This economic activity has eroded our economy to its core. It seems that the situation is getting worse every year. American debts are increasing beyond our wildest dreams, endangering the future economic vitality of our future generation.

I hope it is not too late for our society to recognize the graveness of our economic predicament and its resolve to take appropriate action to stem the tide of our economic downturn.

Americans are a nation of great technology and knowhow. We must utilize that technology and our resources to find new means to regain our economic independence.

We must face and implement fiscal responsibility, both by the government and the population with its infrastructure of corporate America.

It is no longer an option, it is a must if we as a nation want to survive and retain our way of life and economic vitality.

Inflation, recession and financial crises are here. Let us take the bull by the horn, initiate immediate actions to minimize and hopefully reverse our economic crises.

Jay Draiman, Northridge, CA.

PS
The US economy has enormous momentum. Metaphorically speaking, if someone turned off the locomotive that drives the US economy, the economy would go on for miles before anyone would likely notice something was wrong. But something has been wrong for many years. Is there really hope for the future? Maybe. But the terrible truth is that no one really knows. But if there is hope, we're already on the wrong track. And that has to change..

Unauthorized Charges on Your Local Phone - Utility Bill?
How to Find Them, Eliminate Them & Get Your Money Back!
If your business still gets its phone service through the old "AT&T and Verizon, etc" local phone company (as opposed to one of the newer competitive phone providers) then you need to double check your phone bill each and every month for charges you did not authorize. You may not know it but the local phone company allows other companies to bill you through your local phone bill. And while the local phone company allows other businesses to bill you through your local phone bill, the local phone company does not verify that the charges being billed to you by the other company are valid. When these unauthorized charges fraudulently appear on your phone bill it's called "cramming". Unfortunately you as the business owner or manager are the only one that can spot the unauthorized charges and if you don't comb over your bill every month to spot these unauthorized charges - you'll pay for them.
Why does the local phone company allow other companies to pass charges onto your phone bill? "Third-party billing" is supposedly a great convenience in that you only have to pay one bill instead of separate bills for obvious authorized phone related charges like yellow-page advertising in the "real yellow pages", 411 information calls and long-distance calls from your chosen long distance carrier. Over the years though, some less-than-scrupulous companies have realized that most businesses rarely scrutinize their local-phone bills. To take advantage of this, these companies have come up with elaborate schemes to place
unauthorized charges on your phone bill that you'll end up paying for without even thinking. Unauthorized
charges you can end up paying for include charges for unwanted (and unused) email accounts, web sites,
directory information calls, directory advertising in obscure publications, voice mail accounts and other
services.
In theory, before these charges can be placed on your phone bill, the company that is originating the third-party billed charges is supposed to have a verification of the order like a voice recording. In reality though,
all the company needs to do to initiate the charge is submit your name and phone number to the billing
entity. The verifications are only required to be produced if a complaint is filed.
To prevent these charges from appearing on you business phone bill it's helpful to understand the four
parties that make unauthorized third party phone charges a costly reality. Party number one is any
employee who can answer your business phones. The unauthorized charge is rarely random and it usually
happens after one of your company employees gets a telemarketing call. Employees should be instructed to
document and report any overly aggressive telemarketing calls they receive. Party number two is the
telemarketing company that originates the unauthorized charges by trying to get your employee to accept
some service for which you'll be billed through your local phone bill. Party number three is the third-party
billing company that has billing agreements with your local phone company. The name of the third-party
billing is the one that is prominently displayed on your phone bill. After the third-party billing company's
name is the name of the company that is originating the unwanted charges. Party number four is your "former Ma Bell" local phone company that collects the unwanted charges (keeps a share for "Ma") and then passes the rest to the third-party billing company (who keeps a big share) and then passes the balance on to the company that initiated the unwanted charge.
Following are some of the top third-party billing names and unauthorized charge originators you'll find on
your phone bill. If you see these names on your phone bill you'll want to call the toll free number listed next to the charge to confirm it's a charge that's been properly authorized to be placed on your bill. Following are actual examples that we've recently found while auditing business phone bills.
We recommend customers should review any utility bills issued by deregulated utility companies. (In most instances today, consumers are paying higher charges to the deregulated gas and electric supply companies).
All Utility - Energy, gas, electric and water bills should be reviewed for proper reading and tariff.
If you suspect that you have been overcharged ask for detailed explanation and or file a complaint with your State Utility Commission.
Compiled by: Jay Draiman, Utility Auditor

Nachshon Draiman and Multiut charged $15 million judgment
Honorable John A. Nordberg: Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order.
For the reasons set forth above, defendants motion for summary judgment is granted, and judgment is granted to plaintiff, and against defendants Multiut and Nachshon Draiman
Case 1:02-cv-07446 Document 228 Filed 06/11/2008 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.2.1
Eastern Division
Dynegy Marketing and Trade
Plaintiff,
v. Case No.: 1:02−cv−07446
Hon. John A. Nordberg
Multiut Corporation, Nachshon Draiman, et al.
Defendant.
NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY
This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, June 11, 2008:
MINUTE entry before the Honorable John A. Nordberg:Enter Memorandum
Opinion and Order. For the reasons set forth above, defendants motion for summary judgment is granted, and judgment is granted to plaintiff, and against defendants Multiut and Nachshon Draiman, on Counts I and II of plaintiffs amended complaint, in the amount of
$15,348,244.72 plus interest accruing from October 1, 2004. Judgment is granted for plaintiff and against defendants on Counts I through VI of defendants
counterclaims.Status hearing set for 10/2/2008 at 2:30 PM. [183],[196]Mailed notice(tlp, )
ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please refer to it for additional information.
For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.