3303 -Ni 13372 - Proof of Service File (10-90 CcDR-5) IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION IN RE: THE [%] MARRIAGE [] CUSTODY Ci support oF: TESSE JACKSON, JR. Petitioner, NO: and SANDRA JACKSON, Respondent. NOTICE OF MOTION TO: Jessica Bank Interlandi Schiller DuCanto & Fleck 200 North LaSalle Street 30* Floor Chicago, Ilinois 60601 ‘On Mareh 21, 2017 at _9:30_a.m.,, or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, I shall appear before the Honorable Caroie Bellows, or any judge sitting in her stead, in courtroom rnumber 1602_in Richard J. Daley Center, Chicago, IL and shall then and there present the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, herewith served upon you. Attomey Signature: Name: Berger Schatz, LLP Attomey for: Jesse Jackson, Jr. ‘Address: 161 North Clark Street, #2800 City, State, ZIP: Chicago, llinois 60601 ‘Telephone: (312) 782-3456 Attomey Code No. 42030 Email Service: ‘emailnotice@bergerschatz.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ‘The undersigned hereby centfies under penalties as provided by law pursuant to Section 1-109 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that this Notice of Motion, together with the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, were served by the undersigned on the above-named party, at the address indicated above ] via hand delivery; Bd via U.S. Mail (properly addressed, deposited at 161 N. Clark Steet, Chicago, Illinois, with first class postage prepaid); [_] via facsimile (__ pages, to the number listed above); and/or Bd] via email to chicagoservice@isdflaw.com and ji 3 com, before §:00 pm. on March 14, 2017,‘Attomey No. 42030 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION TN RE THE MARRIAGE OF ) d JESSE JACKSON, JR. ) iz d ) = ) . ic ) - 3 SANDRA JACKSON, i: ) — ; oo oe \ Tet Jessica Ban nertand 28 ‘Schiller DuCanto & Fleck 200 North LaSalle Street 30° Floor Chicago, Illinois 60601 ‘You are hereby notified that on March 14, 2017, there was filed withthe Clerk of the Circuit Court ‘of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Domestic Relations Division, the following documents: 1) Notice of Motion; and 2) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Copies of which are is herewith served upon you. (CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies under penal 1-109 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that this Notice of Filing, together with the documents referred to herein, were served by the undersigned on the above-named party, at the address indicated above [] via hand delivery; DX] via U.S. Mail (properly addressed, deposited at 161 N. Clark Street, Chicago, Illinois, with frst class postage prepaid); [] via facsimile (_ pages, to the number listed above), and/or [2] via email to chicagoservice@sdflaw.com and jinterlandi@sdflaw.com, before 5:00 p.m. on March 14, 2017. ee ‘Clark Berger Schatz, LLP 161 North Clark Street Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60601 (B12) 782-3456 Attomey No. 42030 ‘Attomeys for Jesse Jackson, Jr. Email Service: emailnotice@bergerschatz.comSu THAR Uh PH 2 2bAttorney No. 42030, IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. |= COUNTY DEPARTMENT, DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JESSE JACKSON, JR. Petitioner, and NO. 16 D 006506 SANDRA JACKSON, Respondent. )R PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Petitioner, JESSE JACKSON, JR. (“Jesse”), by and through his attorneys, Berger Schatz LLP, pursuant to 725 ILCS 5/2-209, 735 ILCS 5/2-301 and 735 ILCS 5/2-1005, moves for a partial summary judgment finding that Illinois has personal jurisdiction over Respondent, SANDRA JACKSON (“Sandra”) by virtue of 735 ILCS 5/2-209(a)(3) and/or 735 ILCS 5/2-209(a)(5), and in support of his instant Motion, states as follows: Statement of Undisputed Facts 1, Jesse and Sandra were married in Chicago, Illinois on June 1, 1991. 2. In October, 1994 ~ Sandra and Jesse purchased a home located at 2559. 72" Street, Chicago, Illinois (the “Chicago Residence”), Jesse and Sandra purchased the home via financing from First National Bank of Chicago and a Mortgage executed by both parties was recorded against the Chicago Residence. (A copy of the statutory Illinois Warranty Deed for the Chicago Residence and recorded Mortgage are attached as Group Exhibit 1 to the Affidavit of Jesse Jackson, Jr. which is attached hereto as Exhibit A).3. Pursuant to the Mortgage, signed by the parties and notarized, as borrowers, they agreed to “occupy, establish, and use the [Chicago Residence] as {their] principal residence...” Group Exhibit 1 4, In 1999, a Release of Mortgage of Trust Deed (the “Release”) bearing Sandra and Jesse's names was recorded with the Cook County Recorder relative to the Chicago Residence. (A ‘copy of the Release is attached as Exhibit to the Affidavit of Jesse Jackson, Jr. which is attached hereto as Exhibit A). 5. In2007, Sandra Jackson was elected to serve as the Alderman for the Seventh Ward of the City of Chicago. In order for Sandra to run for election and serve as an Alderman, she was required to be a resident of this city under the Illinois Municipal Code — and was further required to live in the ward that she sought to represent. Sandra met those requirements, was elected and ‘was swom into office on May 21, 2007. Sandra also served as Democratic Committeewoman for the Seventh Ward. 6. In March, 2008, a Deed in Trust was recorded relative to the Chicago Residence. As grantors, Sandra and Jesse conveyed the aforementioned home to the Jesse L. Jackson, Jr. Living Trust dated February 20, 2008 (the “Jesse Living Trust”) ~ of which Sandra was the beneficiary. Proximate to this time, Sandra also established a Living Trust - of which Jesse was the beneficiary. (A copy of the Deed in Trust is attached as Exhibit 3 to the Affidavit of Jesse Jackson, Jr. which is attached hereto as Exhibit A). 7. On February 20, 2008, Jesse and Sandra both signed, as Co-Trustees, an Affidavit of Trust relative to the Jesse Living Trust. (A copy of the Affidavit of Trust attached as Exhibit 4 to the Affidavit of Jesse Jackson, Jr. which is attached hereto as Exhibit A).8. In 2011, Sandra once again ran for and was elected to serve as Seventh Ward Alderman for the City of Chicago. The requirements of the Illinois Municipal Code, for Sandra to run for and serve in municipal government in 2011, required her to be a resident of the City of Chicago, just as they did in 2007. 9. In addition, during her political career, and commencing in 2006, the Friends of Sandi Jackson was a committee (the “Sandi Committee”) registered with the Illinois State Board of Elections. The Sandi Committee officially registered under the same address as the Chicago Residence. 10. Sandra has enjoyed the possession, ownership, use and/or enjoyment of the Chicago Residence from its purchase in 1994 through the present. Indeed, at times, Sandra's sister has resided for extended periods in the Chicago Residence herself. Moreover, mortgage payments, real estate taxes, utilities, insurance, upkeep and maintenance have all been paid for the Chicago Residence from marital funds on a consistent and uninterrupted basis during this same period of time. The parties have also claimed various items of expense associated with the Chicago Residence as tax deductions. (A copy of that portion of the parties’ 2014 Federal Income Tax Return reflecting their claiming a deduction for the payment of real estate taxes for the Chicago Residence is attached to the Affidavit of Jesse Jackson, Jr. as Group Exhibit 5). 11. Since 2013, Sandra has continued to utilize the Chicago Residence when present in Chicago, Illinois. During Jesse’s incarceration, Sandra made payments associated with expenses of the Chicago Residence and water, sewer and garbage expenses assessed by the City of Chicago continue to be directed to both Sandra and Jesse at the Chicago Residence. 12, On or about July 14, 2016, Jesse filed a Praecipe for Summons. Since that time, Jesse subsequently filed a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage in this action. Approximately eight(8) months have passed since the Praecipe was filed and approximately four (4) months have passed since the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage were filed. (A copy of the Praecipe for ‘Summons and Petition for Dissolution of Marriage are attached as Group Exhibit B). 13, Sandra filed an Objection and Motion to Dismiss Action for Dissolution of Marriage Due to Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (the “Objection and Motion”) on November 10, 2016 and a Supplement to the Objection and Motion ‘on January 20, 2017. This Court has not adjudicated the Objection and Motion at present. 14, On or about January 4, 2017, this Court entered an Agreed Order providing that “all other [i.¢., non-party] discovery re jurisdiction to be served within 14 days of this order, subject. to supplementation or other order of court upon motion or written agreement of the parties.” (A. copy of the January 4, 2017 Order is attached as Exhibit C.) 15, Jesse issued three (3) subpoenas on or about January 17, 2017 — within the time frame set forth in the January 4, 2017 Agreed Order. 16. After issuing his subpoenas to third parties, on or about January 18, 2017, Jesse received a First Request for Production of Documents from Sandra. Two days later, on January 20, 2017, and as noted above, Jesse received the Supplement to the Objection and Motion. 17. On or about January 26, 2017, Sandra filed a multiple count Motion to Quash and Objection to Discovery Issued by Petitioner and Motion to Supervise Discovery and for Discovery Sanctions and for Hearing, Instanter (the “Discovery and Sanctions Motions”\Copies of the Discovery and Sanctions Motions are attached as Exhibit D). 18. Sandra presented her Discovery and Sanctions Motions on or about January 31, 2017. In an Agreed Order entered on that date, Jesse was granted twenty-one (21) days to respond to the Discovery and Sanctions Motions and hearing on the motions was set for February 27, 2017,In addition, by agreement, all subpoenas issued by Jesse were voluntarily stayed pending further order of Court. (A copy of the January 31, 2017 Order is attached as Exhibit E). 19. On February 27, 2017, with Jesse having submitted his response to the Discovery and Sanctions Motions on February 21, 2017, hearing commenced on the Discovery and Sanctions Motions. The parties announced ready for hearing, addressed the Court on the matters set for hearing and proceeded to then conduct a conference in chambers relative to the Discovery and Sanctions Motions. 20. As a result of the parties’ conference with the Court, an order was entered on February 27, 2017 that entered and continued Sandra's Discovery and Sanctions Motions to April 3, 2017 for status. Moreover, the Court directed the parties to address, in briefing to be submitted to the Court, the applicability of 735 ILCS 5/2-209(a)(3) and 735 ILCS $/2-209(a)(5). (A copy of the February 27, 2017 Order is attached as Exhibit F.) 21, In recent proceedings conducted in Washington, D.C., Sandra introduced evidence of utility and other bills for the Chicago Residence. (Copies of various Chicago Residence related documents are attached to the Affidavit of Jesse Jackson, Jr. as Group Exhibit 6). Summary Judgment Standard 22, Pursuant to Section 2-1005 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (“Code”), summary judgment is proper and shall be rendered without delay, if: the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c). 23. Summary judgment is an appropriate when the moving party's right to a judgment in its favor is clear and free from doubt. Madigan v, Yballe, 397 Ill. App. 34 481, 493, 920N.E.2d1112, 1122 (Ist Dist. 2009) (citations omitted). ‘The summary process of decision-making is encouraged, when appropriate, because it promotes judicial economy by avoiding the expense of time, money and effort for unnecessary trials. Loveland v. City of Lewistown, 84 Ill. App. 3d 190, 192, 405 N.E.2d 453, 455 (3d Dist. 1980). 24, This Courtis permitted, as a matter of law, to grant a motion for summary judgment relative to jurisdiction in the context of a dissolution of marriage proceeding where a motion to dismiss contesting jurisdiction has been interposed. In re Marriage of Ricard and Sahut, 975 N.E.2d 1220 (2014), Argument 25. Sections 2-209(a)(3) and (a)(5) of the Code provide: (@ Any person, whether or nota citizen or resident of this State, who in person or through an agent does any of the acts hereinafter enumerated, thereby submits such person, and, if an individual, his or her personal representative, to the jurisdiction of the courts of this State as to any cause of action arising from the doing of any of such acts: (3) The ownership, use, or possession of any real estate situated in this State; (5) With respect to actions of dissolution of marriage, declaration of invalidity of marriage and legal separation, the maintenance in this State of a matrimonial domicile at the time this ‘cause of action arose or the commission in this State of any act giving rise to the cause of action. 735 ILCS 5/2-209 (emphasis added). 26. Sections 209(a(3) and (a)(S) plainly apply here. Regardless of the conveyance for convenience of the Chicago Residence to a living trust some 14 years after the purchase of the home, which revocable, living trust Sandra is also a trustee, based on the foregoing she has clearly satisfied the aforementioned provisions of the Code for purposes of determining jurisdiction. Moreover, Sandra may not credibly claim the Chicago Residence as a valid legal residence for purposes of becoming and then maintaining her status as a municipal official and now deny thatthe Chicago Residence was or is a matrimonial domicile, deny that she possessed, used and/or ‘owned said residence, or claim that by some mysterious sleight of hand became “divorced” from the property subsequent to resigning from office. 27. Moreover, even if Sandra were not an “owner” or “possessor” of the Chicago Residence, itis unavoidable conclusion that she was and is a “user” of the residence. As the Illinois, Appellate Court has noted, “{tJhe [former Civil Practice Act] is much broader (J... Our Act ‘embraces any person in any cause of action arising from the ownership, possession or use of real estate, Instead of defining what particular owner, possessor or use intended, it includes all owners, users or possessors. A tenant, by the very nature of his relationship with the lessor, is in possession of and using real estate and is necessarily included.” Porter v. Nahas, 35 IlLApp.24 360 (1962). 28. Citing Porter, in United Federal Savings Bank v. McLean, 694 F. Supp. $29 (C.D. Il, 1988), the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois found in personam Jurisdiction over a defendant under the “use prong” ofthe Illinois long-arm statute where that party took tax deductions and purchased insurance policies for the subject real estate. Indeed, the Court opined: “[eJlearly, the Defendant reaped or would have reaped financial benefits from his acts with this property, which looks very much like “use” to this Court.” 29. Here, Sandra and Jesse have: paid real estate taxes, utilities, upkeep, maintenance and other expenses for the Chicago Residence; insured the Chicago Residence; and taken tax deductions associated with the Chicago Residence. Moreover, Sandra’s own committee of political friends was organized and received mailings at the Chicago Residence. Finally, Sandra cannot disavow that she and Jesse both possess, own or “use” the Chicago Residence in light of the fact that, when seeking financial support from Jesse in another forum, Sandra utilized many of the billsand invoices associated with Chicago Residence expenses and acknowledge the payment of those bills as marital expenses. 30. Based upon the foregoing, it is appropriate for this Court to enter a summary judgment finding that Illinois has personal jurisdiction over Sandra in this matter. WHEREFORE, Petitioner, JESSE JACKSON JR,, respectfully request that this Court: A) Enter a summary judgment finding that Illinois has personal jurisdiction over Respondent, SANDRA JACKSON, by virtue of 735 ILCS 5/2-209(a)(3) and/or 735 ILCS 5/2 209(a)(5); and B) Enter an Order granting to JESSE JACKSON, JR. such other, further and different relief as equity requires and as this Honorable Court deems just. Respectfully submitted, JESSE JACKSON, JR. By: Biuel tebe Berger Schatz LLP Berger Schatz LLP 161 North Clark Street Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60601 T: G12) 782-3456 F: G12) 782-8463 Attomey No. 42030 Attomeys for JESSE JACKSON, JR. Email Service: emailnotice@bergerschatz.comAttomey No, 42030 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JESSE JACKSON, JR. Petitioner, and NO. 16 D 006506 SANDRA JACKSON, Respondent. AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1, Jesse Jackson, Jr., submit this Affidavit under penalties as provided by law pursuant to Section 1-109 of the Code of Civil Procedure and certify that the statements set forth in this Affidavit are true and correct. 1, Sandra Jackson (“Sandra”) and I were married in Chicago, Illinois on June 1, 1991 2, In October, 1994, Sandra and I purchased a home located at 2559 E. 72™ Street, Chicago, Illinois (the “Chicago Residence”), Sandra and I purchased the home via financing from First National Bank of Chicago and a Mortgage executed by both of us was recorded against the Chicago Residence. (A true and correct copy of the statutory Illinois Warranty Deed for the Chicago Residence and recorded Mortgage are attached to this Affidavit as Group Exhibit 1, incorporated by reference only). Pursuant to the Mortgage, signed by Sandra and myself and notarized, as borrowers, wwe agreed to “occupy, establish, and use the [Chicago Residence] as {their] principal residence...” Group Exhibit 14, In 1999, a Release of Mortgage or Trust Deed (the “Release’) bearing our names was recorded with the Cook County Recorder relative to the Chicago Residence. (A true and correct copy of the Release is attached to this Affidavit as Exhibit 2, incorporated by reference only). 5. In 2007, Sandra was elected to serve as the Alderman for the Seventh Ward of the City of Chicago. In order for Sandra to run for election and serve as an Alderman, she was required to be sshe sought to represent. Sandra met those requirements, was elected and was swom into office on May 21, 2007. Sandra also served as Democratic Central Committeewoman for the Seventh Ward. 6. In March, 2008, a Deed in Trust was recorded relative to the Chicago Residence. As grantors, we conveyed the aforementioned home to the Jesse L. Jackson, Jr. Living Trust dated February 20, 2008 (the “Jesse Living Trust") — of which Sandra was the beneficiary. Proximate to this time, Sandra also established a Living Trust — of which I was the beneficiary. (A true and correct copy of the Deed in Trust is attached to this Affidavit as Exhibit 3, incorporated by reference only). 7. On February 20, 2008, Sandra and I signed, as Co-Trustees, an Affidavit of Trust relative to the Jesse Living Trust. (A true and correct copy of the Affidavit of Trust is attached to this, Affidavit as Exhibit 4, incorporated by reference only). 8. In 2011, Sandra once again ran for and was elected to serve as Seventh Ward Alderman for the City of Chicago. The requirements of the Illinois Municipal Code, for Sandra to run for and serve in municipal government in 2011, required her to be a resident of the City of Chicago, just as they did in 2007. 9. Imaddition, during her political career, and commencing in 2006, the Friends of Sandi Jackson was a committee (the “Sandi Committee") registered with the Illinois State Board of Elections. The Sandi Committee officially registered under the same address as the Chicago Residence.10. Sandra has enjoyed the possession, ownership, use and/or enjoyment of the Chicago Residence from its purchase in 1994 through the present. Indeed, at times, Sandra's sister has resided for extended periods in the Chicago Re nce herself. Moreover, mortgage payments, real estate taxes, utilities, insurance, upkeep and maintenance have all been paid for the Chicago Residence from ‘marital funds on a consistent and uninterrupted basis during this same period of time. Sandra and I have also claimed various items of expense associated with the Chicago Residence as tax deductions. (A true and correct copy of that portion of our joint 2014 Federal Income Tax Retum reflecting Sandra and myself claiming a deduction for the payment of real estate taxes for the Chicago Residence is attached hereto as Group Exhibit 5, incorporated by reference only). 11, Since 2013, Sandra has continued to utilize the Chicago Residence when present in Chicago, Illinois. During my incarceration, Sandra was responsible for making payments associated with expenses of the Chicago Residence and water, sewer and garbage expenses assessed by the City of Chicago continue to be directed to both Sandra and myself at the Chicago Residence. 12, On or about July 14, 2016, I filed a Praecipe for Summons. Since that time, I subsequently filed a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage in this action. Approximately eight (8) months have passed since the Praccipe was filed and approximately four (4) months have passed since the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage were filed. 13, Sandra filed an Objection and Motion to Dismiss Action for Dissolution of Marriage Due to Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (the “Objection and Motion”) on November 10, 2016 and a Supplement to the Objection and Motion on January 20, 2017. This Court has not adjudicated the Objection and Motion at present. 14, On or about January 4, 2017, this Court entered an Agreed Order providing that “all other (i.e, non-party] discovery re jurisdiction to be served within 14 days of this order, subject to supplementation or other order of court upon motion or written agreement of the parties.” 315. My attorneys issued three (3) subpoenas on or about January 17, 2017 ~ within the time frame set forth in the January 4, 2017 Agreed Order. 16. After issuing the subpoenas to third parties, on or about January 18, 2017, I received 1 First Request for Production of Documents from Sandra. Two days later, on January 20, 2017, and 1s noted above, I received the Supplement to the Objection and Motion. 17. On or about January 26, 2017, Sandra filed a multiple count Motion to Quash and Objection to Discovery Issued by Petitioner and Motion to Supervise Discovery and for Discovery Sanctions and for Hearing, Instanter (the “Discovery and Sanctions Motions”. 18, Sandra presented her Discovery and Sanctions Motions on or about January 31, 2017. In an Agreed Order entered on that date, I was granted twenty-one (21) days to respond to the Discovery and Sanctions Motions and hearing on the motions was set for February 27, 2017. In ‘addition, by agreement, all subpoenas issued by my attomeys were voluntarily stayed pending further order of Court. 19. On February 27, 2017, after I submitted my response to the Discovery and Sanctions Motions on February 21, 2017, hearing commenced on the Discovery and Sanctions Motions. I was physically present for the hearing on this date. The parties announced ready for hearing, addressed ‘the Court on the matters set for hearing and proceeded to then conduct a conference in chambers relative to the Discovery and Sanctions Motions. 20, Asaresult of the parties’ conference with the Court, an order was entered on February 27, 2017 that entered and continued Sandra’s Discovery and Sanctions Motions to April 3, 2017 for status, Moreover, the Court directed the parties to address, in briefing to be submitted to the Court, the applicability of 735 ILCS 5/2-209(a)(3) and 735 ILCS 5/2-209(a\(5). 21. In recent proceedings conducted in Washington, D.C., Sandra introduced evidence of utility and other bills for the Chicago Residence. (True and correct copies of various Chicago 4Residence related documents are attached to this affldavit as Group Exhibit 6, incorporated by reference only). Further Affiant sayeth naught. JESSE JACKSON, JR. CERTIFICATION ‘Under penalties as provided by law pursuant to 735 ILCS $/1-109, the undersigned certifies thatthe statements set forth in this instrument are true and comrect, except as to matters therein stated to be on information and belief and as to such matters the undersigned certifies as aforesaid Ying luulac IESSE JACKSON, JR. that he verily believes the same to be true. Berger Schatz LLP 161 North Clark Street 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60601 (G12) 782-3456 Attomey No, 42030 ‘Attomeys for Jesse Jeckson, Jr. Service by Eraail:i) awa - seem ENCLEDO wi le fa com0017- Praecipe for Dissolution S ~ 0018 - Praecipe for-Legal Separati.. (Rev. 923/11) _CCDR 0003 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS (COUNTY DEPARTMENT, DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION Praecipe for Summons in Suit for [Dissolution of C] Legal Separation Marriage C1 Civil Union 20160006506 JESSE JACKSON, JR. Me CALENDAR/ROOM 64 Petit : Soeatars a etitlover Dissolution and SANDRA JACKSON, ‘Respondent PRAECIPE FOR SUMMONS yu wa axyuu To the Honorable Clerk of the Cireuit Court of Cook County: Please issue Summons in the above cause to the Sheriff of Cook County, Ilinois, directed SfthGqBovestamed Respondent. = Atty. Code No 42030 Name: Barty Schatz / Berger Schatz, LLP Atty. for: Petitioner Address; 161 North Clark Street, Suite 2800 City/Staterzip: Chicago, llinois 60601 ‘Telephone: (312) 782-3456 DOROTHY BROWN, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS GROUP EXHIBIT B‘Attorney No. 42030 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION © jana IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF a a ) : z JESSE JACKSON, JR. ) a0 ) “| a Petitioner, ) 1 ) = and JNO. t6D006s06 75, 2S ) 28 SANDRA JACKSON, ) ae a ) fol Ry Respondent. ) 7 i oe 5 = PETITION FOR DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE sm: Petitioner, Jesse Jackson, J. (es by his tome, Berg: Stas, LP pir o Sexi 0 te. oft is Mange nd Don of Mange At RID 0 = TLCS 540 ep. andin supporto er Pelton fr Dissolution of Mariage, us as lows: 1 Jesse is presently 51 years of age; resides in Chicago, Cook County, Minos, and has maintained residence for more than 90 days immediately preceding the filing ofthis action, Jesse is curently unemployed, 2. Sandra Jackson (“Sandi”) is presently 52 years of age, 3. Jesse and Sandi were married on June 1, 1991, in Chicago, Cook County Illinois. 4. There is no other Petition for Dissolution of Marriage is pending in any other county or state, Jesse filed a Preecipe for Summons in Cook County, Illinois on July 14, 2016. 5. Sulicient grounds exis for the entry of a Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage in ‘cordance with Section 401 of the IMDMA.6. Two children were bom by the parties, J), age 16, and J, 1, age 12, (ollectively, the “mninor children”). No other children were bom to or adopted by the partes as ‘result of this marriage and Sandi is not pregnant. Jesse is a fit and proper person to male significant decisions on behalf of the minor children. Jesse requests that this Court allocate Parental responsibilities in accordance with Section 602.5 of the IMDMA. and that the minor ‘children reside with him, subject to Sandi's exercise of reasonable parenting time. 7. ‘Theparties have acquired marital property, The marital estate should be allocated between the partis, taking imo consideration all relevant factors in the IMDMA, including but ‘ot limited to the contribution or dissipation of each party in the acquisidon, preservation, Aepreciaton oF apprectation of said property 8. Jesse has acquired non-marital property, both prior to and during’ the mariage, which should be assigned to him. 9. Both parties should be barred ffom receiving temporary or permanent maintenance, and should be required to pay his attomeys' fees and costs in connection with this cause, WHEREFORE, Jesse Jackson, J. requests that this Court: ‘A) Enter a Judgment for Dissolution of Marriage dissolving the bonds of masriage now existing by and between the parties; B) Allocate to Jesse significant decision-making responsibilities for the minor ‘hildren and seta parenting schedule, whereby the minor children reside with Jesse, subject to ‘Sandi's exercise of reasonable parenting time to be determiried in accordance with their best foneress; ©) Award Jesse and equitable share ofthe marital property acquired by the parties.D) Award each party his and her non-martal property. E) Ester an Order awarding Jesse such other, further, and different relief as this ‘Court deems appropriate, CERTIFICATION Under penalties as provided by law pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/11 certifies thatthe stalements set forth in this instrument are ue and correct, excep as to matlers , the undersigned ‘therein stated to be on information and belief and as to such matters the undersigned. certifies as aforesaid that he verily believes the same to be tue. ‘Berger Schatz, LLP 161 North Clark Street Chicago, Iinois 60601 12) 782-3456 ‘Attomey No. 42030 ‘Attomeys for Jesse Jackson, Jr. Emil Service: ¢mailnotice@bergerschatz.comFSC wx soe costsIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: ) ) JESSE JACKSON, JR., 2 Petitioner, ) No. 16D6506 and ) 2 SANDRA JACKSON, ) A " 2 olbe This cause coming before the court for status and setting of hearing, counsel for the parties present, the Court being fully advised in the premises; ITIS HEREBY ORDERED: (1) Respondent is granted leave to Amend or Supplement her Objection and Motion +o Dismiss Action for Dissolution of Marriage Due to Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (“Objection and Motion to Dismiss”) to account for the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage subsequently filed by the Petitioner. Said Amendment or Supplement shall be filed and served on or before Teas 5Y 20. 2017. Petitioner is granted until “eamuutsCy_3Q, 20171 ead svt Reporte od Ament or Septet (2) Respondent is granted leave to file a Reply to Petitioner’s Response to the Objection and Motion to Dismiss (including a Reply to any Response to the Amendment or Supplement). Said Reply shall be filed and served on or before Macc 2 _, 2017. @) This matter is continued to_MeaColn._S¢, 2017 for status and setting of hearing date for Respondent's Objection and Motion to Dismiss as amended or supplemented. EXHIBIT.C(4) The time within which Respondent is required to plead to Petitioner's Petition for Dissolution of Marriage pursuant to 750 ILCS $/411(b) is hereby tolled pending adjudication of Respondent’s Objection and Motion to Dismiss, including any amendment or supplement. S) Counsel Gos He PattieS Shall schedule dewSitiory akeS fol wre gactics! enter: Soe AcPISTb IONS, ENTERED 4 Lefole scumty weit JAN 64 2017 CYAN OMer Kscay justin yo ve aS Se Hngremer ara us - Viduys of WS ofdet, SOWjCet inca Nee bad SAVE MENMAION OF OXves Ofdel AF Attomeys for Respondent Cott YEA woke OC Wore 200 North LaSalle Street, 30th Floor eet of Wt QUES: Chicago, llinois 60601-1089 ay ee Telephone No. (312) 641-5560 Facsimile Telephone No. (312) 641-6361 ‘Servie by Facsimile Transnsion Wil Be Accepted noesAty No, 26828 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION, 3 ge Sos INRE: MARRIAGE OF ) = ) 3 JESSE JACKSON, JR, ) 2 ) z Petitioner, ) ¥ } No: 16D 6506 = And ) : i SANDRA JACKSON, ) ) Respondent. 5 MOTION TO QUASH AND OBJECTION TO DISCOVERY ISSUED BY PETITIONER AND MOTION TO SUPERVISE DISCOVERY AND FOR ‘DISCOVERY SANCTIONS AND REQUEST FOR HEARING, INSTANTER ‘NOW COMES the Respondent, SANDRA JACKSON (“Sandra”), by and through her sttomeys, SCHILLER DU CANTO & FLECK LLP, pursuant to Ilinois Supreme Court Rules 201, 214, and 219 and Section 5/2-1101 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-1101) and in support of her Motion to Quash and Objection to Discovery Issued by Petitioner, JESSE JACKSON, JR. (“Jesse”), and Motion to Supervise Discovery and for Discovery Sanctions and Request for Hearing, Instanter, Sandra states as follows: 1. On January 17, 2017 and January 18, 2017, Jesse, through counsel, issued vast discovery in this case in clear violation of this Court's January 4, 2017 Order and Supreme Court Rule 201(), which limit discovery to the narrow issue of this Court's jurisdiction. Jesse has improperly issued three third party subpoenas simply to harass Sandra and to engage in an ‘unlawful and far-ranging fishing expedition for information, It is well-settled that the misuse of the discovery process to conduct a “fishing expedition” will be “properly shut down” by a court. See in re Marriage of Bennett, 306 Il. App. 34 246, 250 (2nd Dist. 1999). Ilinois law does not EXHIBIT Dpemnit the use of the subpoena process to oppress, harass, add needless cost to litigation or to allow one party to conduct a general fishing expedition. See People v. Teller, 207 Dl. App. 3d 346, 350-51 (2nd Dist. 1991). ‘That the third party subpoenas issued to Gary MeCarthy, Richard Simon, and James Love are improperly being used for the sole purpose of harassing Sandra is clear from the record. ‘The subpoenas were filed in the public cour file and immediately posted in online news articles, all without a copy being served on Sandra or her atiomeys until over a day thereafter. The issuance and filing in the public record of unwarrented subpoenas full of unsupported inmuendo can serve no constructive purpose to the parties or their children. Instead, this deliberate course of conduct reveals an improper intent to try this case in the media rather than before this Honorable Court. Sandra seeks a hearing instanter to prevent any further discovery abuse by Jesse, the consequence of which is the immodiate dissemination of information to the public at large, including the parties’ teenage children, 2. On July 14, 2016, Jesse filed a Praecipe for Summons. On December 12, 2016, ‘esse filed a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage. 3. OnNovember 3, 2016, Sandra, through counsel, filed in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia her Complaint for Legal Seperation, Absolute Divorce, Child Custody, Child Support, Alimony, Suit Money and Other Relief. 4. OnNovember 10, 2016, Sendra filed her Objection and Motion to Dismiss Action for Dissolution of Marriage Due to Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (“Objection and Motion to Dismiss”). masat9 3 25. On January 4, 2017, this Court entered an order in pertinent part setting deadlines for discovery related to the jurisdictional issues and scheduling a date for status regarding discovery and setting a hearing date regarding Sandra’s Objection and Motion to Dismiss. A copy of the January 4, 2017 Order is attached hereto as “Exhibit A.” 6. On January 17, 2017, Jesse, through counsel, issued subpoenas for deposition ta Gamy McCarthy, Richard Simon, and James Love (“Third Party Subpoenas”). Said subpoenas ‘were filed with the court just prior to 4:00 p.m. A copy of said subpoenas is incorporated herein by reference as “Exhibit B.” 7, Arnews article regarding these subpoenas was posted online on January 17, 2017, ‘within approximately 30 minutes of thé subpoenas being filed. Counsel for Sandra was not served with a copy of the subpoenas until over one day thereafter. 8. On January 18, 2017, Jesse, through counsel, served Sandra with discovery requests. A copy of said discovery requests is incorporated herein by reference as “Exhibit C.”. 9. This Court's January 4, 2017 Order specifically limits the issuance of discovery to the pending narrow jurisdictional issues. 10. Additionally Supreme Court Rule 201() states, in pertinent pat, as follows: (1) While a motion filed under section 2-301 of the Code of Civil Procedure is pending, a party may obtain discovery only on the issue of the court’s jurisdiction over the person of the defendant unless: (2) otherwise agreed by the parties; or (b) ordered by the court upon a showing of good cause by the party seeking the discovery that specific discovery is required on other issues. Ilinois Supreme Court Rule 201 governs how discovery is conducted. In subsection (b)1), the ‘Rule further makes it clear that the scope of discovery is nof unlimited — rather, discovery is resttcted to such matters thet are “relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action.” MLSup. Ct R. 201(6)(1)(Emphasis supplied)11. Contrary to this Court’s Order and Supreme Court Rule 201(), the subpoenas and additional discovery requests issued on bebalf of Jesse are overly broad and burdensome as they contain vast requests for documents and information from the third party deponents and Sandra ‘that have no relevance to the pending narrow jurisdictional issues in this matter. 12, Additionally, on information and belief, the subpoenas issued on behalf of Jesse are being used for the sole purpose of harassing Sandra. ‘The subpoenas were filed in the public court file and then copies of the subpoenas immediately posted in online news articles, all ‘without a copy being served on Sandra or her attorneys. 13, Tlinois law does not permit Jesse to use the discovery or subpoena process to harass Sandra or to engage in a fishing expedition for irrelevant information cloaked in unsupported innuendo and received by the media prior to service on counsel for Sandra, 14, 735 TLCS 5/2-1101 provides, in pertinent part, that for good cause shown the Court, on motion, may quash or modify any Subpoena. 15, Additionally, Iinois Supreme Court Rule 201(6) states as follows: (1) Protective Orders. The court may at any time on its own initiative, or on motion of eny party or witness, make a protective order as justice requires, denying, limiting, conditioning, or regulating discovery to prevent unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage, ‘or oppression. ( Supervision of Discovery. Upon the motion of any party or witness, on notice to all parties, or on its own initiative without notice, the court may supervise all or any part of any discovery procedure, (3) Proportionality. When making an order under this Section, the court may determine waether the likely burden or expense of the proposed discovery, including electronically stored information, outweighs the likely benefit, faking info account the amount in controversy, the resources of the parties, the importance of the issues in the litigation, and the importance of the requested discovery in resolving the issues.16. Sandra objects to the discovery requests served on her and seeks for this Court to quash the Subpoenas issued to Garry McCarthy, Richard Simon, and James Love, 17. Additionally, in order to prevent further discovery abuse by Jesse, Sandra requests that this Court enter an order pursuant to Iinois Supreme Court Rule 201(e) to supervise discovery and roquire Jesse to obtain leave of Court to issue discovery. 18, In furtherance. of the public policy against using this type of improper ‘gumesmanship in discovery, Iinois Supreme Court Rule 219(d) provides that if « party abuses the discovery rules, this Honorable Court may impose ppropriate sanctions upon the party and/or her attorney, which may include an order that the offending party pay the other party's reasonable attomey’s fees. Il. Sup. Ct. R. 201(@), 19, Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 219(¢), Sandra requests that this Court impose sanctions, including but not limited to, an entry of an Order that Jesse pay her attomeys' fees for ‘the preparation and presentation of this Motion. WHEREFORE, the Respondent, SANDRA JACKSON, respectfully prays for the following relief instanter: ‘A. For entry of an Order providing that the Subpoenas for Deposition to Garry ‘McCarthy, Richard Simon, and James Love be hereby quashed; B. For entry of an Order providing appropriate sanctions pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 219(¢), including but not limited to payment of Respondent's attomeys’ fees for preparing and presenting this Motion; C. For the entry of an Order in accordance with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 201(¢) for the Court to supervise discovery and require Petitioner to obtain leave of Court to issue discovery; andD. For such further and other relief as this Honorable Court deems just and equitable, SCHILLER DU CANTO & FLECK LLP ‘SCHILLER DU CANTO & FLECK LLP Attorney No. 26828 ‘Attomeys for Respondent 200 North LaSalle Street, 30th Floor Chicago, Ilinois 60601-1089 ‘Telephone No. (312) 641-5560 Facsimile No. (312) 641-6361 Service by Facsimile Tranaision Wil Be Accepted Service Preferred at: chicagoservice@sdflaw.com mast 6STATE OF ILLINOIS.) - au : a) COUNTYOFCOOK =) hdr pnt n pv yw prt 0735 LS S10, Loy tt stents ot forth ia ths nse sre tue and coment xcept ao mats hecin el 10 econ information and bli end wo such mates 1 certify that verily belive the sume fo be ‘rue. pata: __'-2l- 2017 ‘SANDRA JACKSON ‘SCHILLER DU CANTO & PLECK LLP Attorney No, 26828 “Attomeys for Respondent 200 North LaSalle Street, 30th Floor Chicago, Mlinois 60601-1089 ‘Telephone No, (312) 641-5560 Facsimile No. (312) 641-6361 ‘Serves by Pree Tamsmlskon WIL Bo Acceptd Service Preferred aIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION INRE THE MARRIAGE OF: TESSB JACKSON, JR, Petitioner, and No. 16D 6506 SANDRA JACKSON, Repmiett f0€EED ‘ORDER ‘This cause ooming before tho court for stats and setting of hearing, counsel for the parties present, the Court being fully advised in the premises; IT 18 HEREBY ORDERED: () Respondent is granted leave to Amend or Supplement her Objection and Motion to Dismiss Action for Dissolution of Marriage Due to Lack of Personal Jrisdictlon end Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (‘Objection and Motion to Dismiss) to account forthe Petition for Dissolution of Mariage subsequently filed by th Petitioner. Said Amendment or Supplement hall be filed and served on or before JAWUALY PP 20,2017, vesitioner is grated wil JAbehley BO 2017 0 Ste and serve is Response to seid Amendment or Supplement. 2) Respondent is granted leave to fle Reply to Petitonet’s Response to the Objection and Motion to Dismiss (including a Reply to any Response to the Amendment or Supplement), Seid Reply sal be filed and served on or before A/C 3 2017, ATE:30A8en gu Drscs ve ky 66) ‘Thismatteris continued w 17 MAC B 2017 for se seing of hearing date for Respondent's Objection and Motion to Dismiss ae amended or supplemented. ry |(@ The time within which Respondent is required to plead to Petitioner's Petition for ‘Dissolution of Mamriage pursuant to 750 ILCS 5/411(b) is hereby tolled pending adjudication of Respondent's Objection and Motion to Dismiss, including any amendment or lement. (@) Soames, Foe THE PARTIES ene RIEDC LE DE POSTION AAS, Fone THE ee ae € pe ss7oi Moe derune buoy (20% JAN 04 207 g/ @ Lk OTHER. D/sCovEe RY KE ceersacTiond _ Tol Caolo Kamin owas TBGE SERVED nczeliu 14 ORYS OF THIS BODER, KETECT TO ‘SCHILLER DU CANTO & FLECKLLB | SUPARE mEMTITI Ow OR OTHER OLDER, ‘Attomey No. 26828 OF Court PO NEMA) Sie wet TTL ‘Attorneys for Respondent TED, ee bisa Suet, 30th Flooe 46 tee men OF TYE Annes, ‘Chicago, Ilinois 60601-1089 ‘Telephone No. (312) 641-5560 Facsimile Telephone No, (312) 641-6361 Sern by Frade reason Wil Be Asp@IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF; 2 ) JESSE JACKSON, JR, ) Petitioner, ) No, 16106506 and ) * SANDRA JACKSON, ) Respondent. d AGREED ORDER This cause coming on for presentment of Petit Subpoena, and Respondent's Motion to Quash and Objection to Discovery Issued by Petitioner and Motion to Supervise Discovery and For Discovery Sanetions and Request for Hearing, Instanter; counsel for both parties present, and the Court being fully advised in the premises, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Subpoenas served on the following individuals are hereby stayed until further order of cour: a. Garry MeCarthy, issued January 17, 2017; b. Richard Simon, issued January 17, 2017; and € James Love, issued January 17, 2017, 2. Sandra is gramted ‘2 days to respond to Jesse's Motion for Leave to Issue Additional ‘Subpoena, 3. Jesse is granted Z{ _ days to respond to Sandra's Motion to Quash and Objection to Discovery Issued by Petitioner and Motion to Supervise Discovery and For Discovery Sanctions and Request for Hearing, Instanter. 4, _ Hearing on she motions referenced in paragraphs 2 and 3 above is set for Feb 2% 20174 ENTERED: TERED JAN 3 4 207 Ww ‘ethie Kania Below o3 ‘SCHILLER DU CANTO & FLECK LLP ‘Attorney No. 26828 ‘Attomeys for Respondent 200 North LaSalle Street, 30th Floor Chicago, flinois 60601-1089 ‘Telephone No. (312) 641-5560 Facsimile No. (312) 641-6361 ‘Service hy Facsimile Transmission Will Be Accepted Service Preferred at: chicagoservice/@sdflaw.com 240730 doer DOROTIIY NROWN, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY EXHIBIT Eee orem mee srwnlertorcomOrder ev. 02/24/05) COG NOW? INTHE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS See Mitte co Nc . v. wo. lie fore ORDER 2 vos, pele He Cont nec. hora oo. 1K el aint A A el few vac: Dercutsy Tose Gid Fee igor iy Ne s a ane PN GE rE ES, 4 19 Kesthy Galeve! lo “Fe cit Pei ie CCU Be woe, Cosh 1% Gan awa evs eA yed Urn Ce ier TOS Ge ACE MHinm( + At N fee Mauch fo bare f fe ater tas 212 Bache 5 dee ye, PUTNEY [Wfante er OG, Biter Name / Ay. to. 3 Address: — Meee Cite Telephone: BK Soc echt Donor sony cLERKOF THE ORCUTT CpURT OF COOK COUNTY HEINOIE @r £1 L IS st cleye eed Cod Mataatel ee A