Appendix — Schuchman v. United States

Supreme Court brief1986

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

EDITOR'S NOTE

THE FOLLOWING PAGES WERE POOR HARD COPY

AT THE TIME OF FILMING. IF AND WHEN A

BETTER COPY CAN BE OBTAINED, A NEW FICHE

WILL BE ISSUED.

85-1875 » | PTL >

FEB 14 1986

| | JOSEPH F. SPANIOL, JR,

CLERK

IN THE Mes ones

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY TERM 1986

THOMAS L. SCHUCHMAN, ET UX PETITIONER,

UNITED STATES, SOLICITOR GENERAL CHARLES FRIED,

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT , ATTORNEY GENERAL EDWIN MEESE,

U.S. ATTORNEY FREDERICK J. HESS, AUSA CLIFFORD

J. PROUD, U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE, DIRECTOR

STANLEY E. MORRIS, U.S. MARSHAL DONALD R.

BROOKSHIRE, DEPUTY MARSHAL ROBERT WINKLEMAN,

DEPUTY MARSHAL RICHARD WOODARD, SMALL BUSINESS

ADMINISTRATION, ADMINISTRATOR JAMES SANDERS,

ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATORS, JOHN E. LAGOS, CHARLES

R. HERTZBERG, EARL CHAMBERS, PATRICK H. STIEHMS,

ERIC BENDERSON, WILLIAM A. KRAJEC, MARJORIE L.

CASEY, W.K. ANDREWS, aka R.K. ANDREWS, aka

ROBERT K. ANDREWS, DONALD I. BROOKHART, aka

D. I. BROOKHART, ET AL UNKNOWN

RESPONDANTS

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED

STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

APPENDIX

Thomas L. Schuchman Terry Lynn Schuchman

46 Emerald Lane 46 Emerald Lane

Fairview Heights, I1. Fairview Heights, I1.

62208 62208

618-398-8091 618-398-8091

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

December 5. 1985

Before

Hon. JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge

Hon. PRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

Hon. JESSE E. ESCHBACH, Senior Circuit Judge

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 7

Plaintiff-Appellee,

Appeal from the

United States

District Court

> for the Southern

District of

No. 84-2322 V6.

THOMAS L. SCHUCHMAN and Illinois,

TERRY LYNN SCHUCHMAN, J Alton Division.

. Defendants-Appellants. No. 80 C 5143

William L. Beatty,

Judge.

THOMAS L. SCHUCHMAN and

TERRY LYNN SCHUCHMAN,

Petition for Review

Petitioners, of an Order of the

United States Small

No. 85-2348 vs. Business

UNITED STATES SMALL BUSINESS Administration.

ADMINISTRATION,

Respondent.

ORDER

On consideration of the petition for rehearing and sug-

gestion for rehearing en banc filed in the above-entitled

cause by defendants-appellants, no judge in active service

has request a vote thereon, and all of the judges on the

original panel have voted to deny a rehearing. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the aforesaid petition for rehearing

be, and the same is hereby, DENIED.

Append X AL

Muted Diules Wourl vl Appeuis ie |

tion for Rehearing Fer the Seventh Cet 9S ase 100 iva

Woy ber 9, 1985! Chicago, Illinois 60604

Se so Fort :

, Lon |UKITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appeal from the Gatces

rwith = Plainciff-Appellee, yay A oo ay 4 i b

gf In Banc” Distriet of Tiliscts,

= Ho. 84-2322 vs. Alton Diviston. Cypload ™

age: t1iON = THOMAS L. SCHUCHMAN and TERRY LYM Te iae wititan L. Beatty hint

SCHUCHMAN ,

: he Defendants-Appellancs. e e * -

0 25 eS Moms L. SCHUCIMAM and TERRY LYMM Petition for Review of ho

Fopellent's Main Brief ee — St acce Sesil Business. oe EAfE Y7/ Me

led 2 9-19-84. ad Mo. 85-2348 =v.

. :

UNITED STATES SHALL. BUSINESS > : at

a ai ORIGIN AL

"in the appendix.”

ett v Aetna Cas. and Sur Co C.A. La. 1976 539 F 2d 496.

3 distributed!

ederal Rule of

pr ellate Procedure Rule 35 {b]: The clerk shall

ls kee estion [oO tre amDers oO . pane an if

p couRtTats id gular active service..." — agentes

006. SUGGESTION FOR "REHEARING IN BANC ji

Motion For Mistrial and A New Trial garg July 2 al F

Lomes now FPEO se citing is fe

THOMAS "y983 contained in Short Appendix pages 6,7,8, of Appellant's Main Brief

d Motion to “

filed 9-19-84 end #9 on page 10 Short Appendix, an ; i 7

Compel to Answer “Tr. 14 and 15, Short Appendix of Appellant's +

Main Brief filed 9-19-84 and states: f

re Ph = a .

Tie Supreme Court succinctly stated, “Ko meatier how rational or consistunt oh 7 o

th congressional intent « particular decision might be, the determination Al {

e@ligibility cannot be msde on an a4 hoc basis by the dispenser of the funds.* ’ e

pton v Muiz, 415 U.S. 199, 232 (1974). wa ot Piy

Seasons given by SBA in 2-14-80 order to accelerate the loan were “conclusory any

+ and contradictory” and the decision was thus an abuse of discretior

Lisoa v. Slock 556 F. Supp 400, 405 (W.0. Mo. 1982). 723 F 24 631 (8th Cir)

» , proof OF SERVICE: a

: yy met eligibility requirements for deferment an4d disaster loan y

i VA assignment showed reasonable repayment ability and Schuchmen Ti os fe

' fei yf ae keene ee, tae which sen loan officer

tr court concedes “there be some

orks 1 __ pny Be ne FO ~ > ai eleia.? Copies to MUSA Clifford J. Proud

record would tend suppor 750 Missouri Ave.

Sven if SBA does not publish formal findings of fact and conclusions E. St. Louis, 111. 6220.

lew, it must clearly articulate the reasons for each decision in « manner

eeptible to judicial review for an abuse of discretion. See City of west and

Loage v United States Kegulatory Commission 701, F. 24 632, 648 (7th Cir 1983 William A. Krajec, SBA Counsel

y, Pour Worth Old state Capitol Plaza

“SRA mey choose to foreclose on «

Washington Building

ee time.” is clearly an iseue of contiaulan oath a the mortgagor Springfield, Illinois 62701

Statement of facts in unpublished order i

qeestions Lew 28 OSC 1292 (a) ti). © AGtg erroneous and criticize:

ies injunction must bs allowed. Taterlocutory appeal trom order

That “the sea ,

wehesete the a Clearly authorized to declare Sohochman in deteuit, this yo*ey of Movember 1985.

existing 15 USC 633 et

we. 406, 465, wd. me 1962. 723 F 24 631 Sine. “Allison y Block 556 fF .

*) request a vote on pro se Suggestion For Rehearing in Banc

fees 08 cee nnlates enter wor 6, 1985. ‘Christoffel v U.s. 1951 190 F. "I- 10-85

585, 68 ¥.8. o Banded. ser ma 4 a ) )

dang HOOF dchucfy, a Se 3g Mpend + *

etl

618-396-8091 Sees

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

November 6 , 19.85.

Before

Hon. JESSE E. ESCHBACH, Circuit Judge

Hon. JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge

Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

Appeal from the United

States District Court

) for the Southern

No. 84-2322 vs. District of Illinois,

Alton Division.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

No. 80 C 5143

THOMAS L. SCHUCHMAN and TERRY LYNN

Judge William L. Beatty

SCHUCHMAN,

Defendants-Appellants.

+ 7 + +

+ + + +

THOMAS L. SCHUCHMAN and TERRY LYNN ’ Petition for Review of

SCHUCHMAN, an Order of the United

Petitioners, States Small Business

Administration.

No. 85-2348 vs.

UNITED STATES SMALL BUSINESS

ADMINISTRATION,

Respondent.

This cause came before the Court for decision on the record

from the United States District Court for the Southern District

of Illinois, Alton Division, and the United States Small Business

Administration.

On consideration whereof, IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED by this

Court that the judgment of the said District Court is AFFIRMED; and

the petition for review of an order of the United States Small

Business Administration is DISMISSED, with costs, in accordance

with the order of this Court entered this date.

APPENDIX A

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

December 4, 19 85 .

Before

Hon. JESSE E. ESCHBACH, Circuit Judge

Hon.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

No. 84-2322 vs.

THOMAS L. SCHUCHMAN and TERRY

LYNN SCHUCHMAN,

Defendants-Appellants.

* * * oa

THOMAS L. SCHUCHMAN and TERRY

LYNN SCHUCHMAN,

Petitioners,

No. 85-2348 vs.

UNITED STATES SMALL BUSINESS

ADMINISTRATION,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United

States District Court

for the Southern

District of Illinois,

Alton Division.

No. 80 C 5143

Judge William L. Beatty

+ + * &

Petition for Review of

an Order of the United

States Small Business

Administration.

This matter comes before the court for its consideration

upon the “AFFIDAVIT AND MOTION FOR FULL COURT RECONSIDERATION

OF ORDER NOV 21, 1985 TO STAY THE MANDATE" filed herein on

November 26, 1985, by Thomas L. and Terry Lynn Schuchman.

On consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED that the request for "full court reconsideration"

is hereby DENIED pursuant to Seventh Circuit Operating Procedure

l(a)(1).

ppenax 6 A.

—_ ft

‘on, SBA, ET ai ) A 5

BESPrUABaNTO, FLAINTIFFo, )

: APPELLEE ) JOINT aiPEABR AND 2ETITON FOR

y) REVIEW Sha ORDER

m g¥ 152%

oCHClHMAN, sT au D a Se CEx AND

abFIDaVIT 2#ra¢rPHnT MOTivN Fu FULL COUKT

wECunNSIDEnaTI UK OF OnDER WOV 21, 1985 TO STaY

THE MANDaTE, Christoffel v U.3. 1951 190 F. 2d, 585,

oe app. Lb. ©. 1 and kobihkson v } 2. 196 2

I abhiaNl Titdao ~. oChUCHMal DO o0u bend ab ¥ Lind:

1. Raiterative answer by Tnomas L. Schuchman presented for filing February

7, 1983. atrbas.s Lh wnbCUal TY CCA AS LDICUMENT F 43.

2. Jriginal answerg mailed to U.3. Attorney timely, (TRANSCuIVT 11-29-82

page 10, lines 17 et al.) has written across it in red ink "a judtctal

review is sought.” or words to that effect.

3. Humber 3 scid &thilsanlive anodoa filed 2-7-83 states, "SBA was argumentativ:

and capricious..." cleurly referring to 5 UsC 8 706 2(A) and reiterating letter

7-19-80 styled answer 60-5143(8-1-80).

4. ium bers 3, 9, 10, said #iLTiRaTIVE aANobin refer t2 5 USL § 706 2(B)(C)

und (0), inter alic. as did orignal answers mailed to U.S. attorney, in 1980.

5. I did pot submit to the jurisdiction of the Cistrict court for any reu3zon

other than o kgg@ocogarneczornsprzx judicial review of SBa order 2-14-80

Oo. The district courts refusal to perform a juciciul review pursuant tb

15 UsCG 054 et seq, 5 Use ¥ 701 et seg may be an ubuse of discretion.

7.- June 3, 1985 motion heuring clearly evidesces judicial review is sought. |

My mot:on for continuvance tndicat es I am askin, soba to clearly articulate

the stututory reusons for their dectstons not to defer and not to grant

atesaster reltef in a manner susceptible to judiciaci review for an atude-

of discreticn by oba Officials darjorie u. Casey, william a. kKrajec et al.

6. For that to occur aistrict court must stay its hand until Ska review

is perforned and Sha central office (13 CF ch 1 122.15-3(c)) makes its

determination. 13 CFk Ch 1 et seg cleurly stutes any subsequent holder

Of oba note is bound to sine terms und conditions as SBA would be.

me Tidn bua dlotnaie aww a WEA Thlau certified to CCA as Document # 128;

anc 7-21-82 AUTLON sadicr allowed by district court as attached to said

und certified by district court as document # 132. I certify by ny signature

heteto thet the co-y uttached ts u true und authentic copy of the first

pese of said 7-21-83 MOTIUs wulEF , and do herety seek to stay the #aiNDaTE

on ,rouads that appeul has merit und pro se shall prevail on Writ of Cert. To

do substantial juetice £ doweek CCa full court, or judge thereoff other than

the Honoralte Jesse E. Eschbalsh' to muke appropruite motion pursuant to dtes

in caption stove. I hereby request clerk to instanter file and submit to

lecst three actjve\judges this motion and officavit.

hae Meat Yana | debcacdotar

. 4 GE

“WOBERY BUcLIC Subscribed and arn to before me tiis AS “Gay of

Novemenber 19ts- My commission erptres:

SONDRA L. WILKINSON

wv cones cxPines SEPT. 9, 1986 kROOF OF SERVICE: COPIES TO ail raRTIES. 4 : | f

ST. CLAIR COUNTY A yy ‘

47 Aopendx og 11 95] 89

(se

Cs he

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

ve.

Thomas L. Schuchman,

Defendants,

te et ee ee ee ee ee ee ee

CIVIL NO. 80-5143

7-21-83 Motion Brief

Attached are documents refered to in Motion for Mistrial and a@ New Trial. ~~~

6-9-78 deferment letter

10-11-78 letter & phone memo

2 page financial achedule

10-20-78 Chicago report

4-3-79 letter

Verbal Dun & Bradatreet

Equifax Credit Report

4-4-79 letter

10-8-79 letter

12-14-82 Court Order

Duplicate 81-80 answer

Below is a listing of statutes cited.

5 USC Sections 701-706 Inclusive

5 USC Section 555(e)

5 USC Section 554 (d) (1); (Ce)

5 USC Section 556 (c) (6); (4); (e)

Public Law 89-773

Public Law 91-606 Section 226 (b); 2321) (8) 52); 234; 236 (b); 237(»); AppenaiX A-2

7-25-79 letter

6-23-79 deferment request

Colonial Barber Shop note from SBA file

SBA Form 327 dated 7-25-79

159 Highway Certification

6-14-82 letter

10-4-82 letter

/a-6-%2 letter

12-21-82 Letter

12-23-82 letter

1-27-83 letter

2-18-83 letter

8-11-83 letter

42 USC Section 4451

15 USC Section 636 (a); (b)

15 USC Section 634 (b)

Section 5(e) (1) #.. of Small Gusiness Act

Public Law 95-89 Section 303

2. we

SOBRE ON rm

-aert

RE ry

United States Caurt of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

USCA. -/ ta Circult

% 2 oe VEN

Jonuary JO 1 59 Ri ~-

| , on j

Before , hed |

THOMAS § te

Hon, WILLIAM BALE, Ci reit lucy

Hon. KICHAKD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge

Hon. JESSE_E. ESCHBACH, Circuit Judye

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appeal prom the cnited

Plainctitf-Appel lee, Sister Vial Cict Caw

>. Por the Southern

No. 84-2322 Vs. Districi of: Tilineois,

Alton Division.

THOMAS L. SCHUCHMAN and TERKY LYNN J No. 80 C 5143

SCHUCIMAN , Judge William L. Beatty

Defendants-Appel Lants.

This matter comes betore the court for its consideration

upon the "REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURLSDICYiON WITH

MEMORANDUM" and brief in support of, filed herein on December 21,

1984, by pro se defendants-appellants.

Agr reed bese se ysatar Pa dard co need gansy cae added se, abbvetaad Ceowrte

CpumerssC daecydenps Che Jurissadbet day cet tha beoweer Gamers ter erthaart a

judgment againse them. Such a contention is not properly

addressed in a motion to disiiss and is more appropriately

addressed in appellants’ briefs on the merits. Accordingly,

IT LS ORDERED that said motion is DENTED and appellants

are instructed to raise the issues contained therein in their

briefs on the merits.

+Us Se COURY UF APPEALS

- FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

) =

USA, SBA, ET AL PLAINTIFF . ) JOINT PETITION FOR REVIEW OF SBA ORDER

RESPONDANT, APPELLEE) AND APPEAL FROM SOUTHERN DISTRICT

vs * )

)

SCHUCHMAN, ET AL DEFENDANT, )

PETITIONER, APPELLANT )

MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE. RECORD ON PETITION FOR REHEARING, CCA TO

SUA SPONTE MAKE APPROPRIATE MOTION, SEE FOOTNOTE 2 PAGE 4 NOV 6, 1985

CCA UNPUBLISHED ORDER, MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

Comes now pro se and seeks to supplement the record on Petition for

Rehearing and attaches relevant motions filed in 82-LM-1278, a state court

action, and a copy of page 449 Black's Law Dictionary signed by Thomas L.

Schuchman, all cites contained therein due process clause et seg, and further

cites footnote 2 page 4 Nov 6, 1985 CCA unpublished order, Robinson v U.S.

C.A. Mo. 1964, 333 F. 2d 322, Christoffel v U.S. 1951, 190 F. 2d 585, 88_U.S.

App. D. C. 1. State action 82- LM-1278 file does contain. _ copy of 5 USC 8 706

—et—seq. . ——— -— _

MEMORANDUM

1. District court allows third party intervenor (D.C. DOC. #37) who claims

to be recipient of a warrenty deed. (D.C. DOC. #30).

2. Request to cite Plaintiff and third party intervenor et al for contempt

(D.C. DOC. #109) is ordered without merit and is therefore denied (D.C. DOC. #

113). Interlocurtory appeal pursuant to 28 USC 1292(a)(1) (D.C. DOC.#125,

CCA correspondance file letter 7-11-83) is ignored.

3. Request to cite (D.C. DOC. # 109) is restyled and filed 4-5-84 in state

action 82-LM-1278 with SBA Loan Action #17 dated 7-21-83 attached. Said

attached hereto and incorporated herein along with motion to remove inter

alia filed 11-27-85 in 82-LM-1278 by mention.

4. SBA loan action #17 dated 7-21-83 reinstates loan 7786851007, an

action that is required before SBA cin act on request made 7-10-80 (D.C. DOC.

#21; #22; inter alia. See also transcript 11-29-82 page 18 lines 9 thru )2.)

pursuant to Illinois Revised Statutes con 95 57. - (D.C. DOC. #68).

Copy Illinoi-s Revised Statutes Ch 95 23 7.2; 57. 87. attached hereto

and incorporated herein by mention.

5. SBA review begun 7-28-83.(D.C. DOC. #149, #166, #173) finds in favor

of pro se Thomas L. Schuchman. As appears of record SBA officials Marjorie

L. Casey, William A. Krajec and D.I. Brookhart abused their discretion es

did Alton district court in proceeding to trial (D.C. DOC. #33, #34, #35

#36, #37, #68, #102, #110, #113, #119) and in failing to perform review/

judicial review as originally requestex. (Transcript 11-29-82 page 10 and

page 18 lines 9 thru 13) inter alia. ‘*Suggestion For Rehearing In Banc

attached’ hereto and incorporated herein by mention.

. 5

! aed.

Y -PUBLIC

Fairview Heights, Iilinois 62208

Subsct ibed’ and sworn to aoe 618-398-8091

day of November, 19/5 PROOF OF SERVICE: COPIES TO ALL

L-4 parrres 11-29-85. 7

Ao pendix @ Pa9C ee ke ce

Seed tee

“Buited States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Gov tau sek Ge

Chicago, Illinois 60604 ee ee oe - se “er

Submitted October 22, 1985* ~~" ~"~"""*" srs ©

November 6 , Re... .

Before

Hon JESSE E. ESCHBACH, Circuit Judge

Hon, JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge

Hon. RANK_H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, \ Appeal from the United

Plaintiff-Appellee, States District Court

for the Southern

District of Lllinois,

Alton Division.

84-2322

No. " No. 80 C 5143

THOMAS L. SCHUCHMAN and William L. Beatty,

TERRY LYNN SCHUCHMAN, Judge.

Defendants-Appellants.

THOMAS L. SCHUCHMAN and TERRY

LYNN SCHUCHMAN,

Petitioners,

Petition for Review of

an Order of the United

States Small Business

Administration.

No. 85-2348

UNITED STATES SMALL BUSINESS

ADMINISTRATION,

Respondent.

a | ee | ee ees ee ee ee | S|

* After preliminary examination of the briefs, the court

notified the parties that it had tentatively concluded that

oral argument would not be helpful to the court in this case.

The notice provided that any party might file a "Statement as

to Need of Oral Argument."' See Rule 3a), Fed. R. App. P.;

Circuit Rule 14(f). On September 19, 1984 Defendants-

Appellants, Thomas and Terry Schuchman, filed a request to

waive oral argument. On August 6, 1985, Defendants-Appellants

filed a "Statement as to Need for Oral Argument with Motion to

Make Certain Unanimous Three Judge Panel. Upon consideration

of these statements, the briefs, and the record, the appeal is

submitted on the briefs and record.

As pendix f ic qe |

OB DER

b oo BOetes comprntest an actior to fezeci..¢ or *

, si &

ucrese: “te poste, thewes ané Terry Sctwcher.. exer’

et attr Pod ( Steetae Amiatetrr tos F'5ma") -«6

Pom <2 eigen Porn « the @4e¢ ict courte enter-

weed :f thc Witt + @eetes. 6B Coe debuct@ers

yo. Lip etn pericrm: wich bas beer « ne0l Lerte:

the ‘Gene acpen., The CCwuichmear cequés* pov@av ai + 3

oxéer. We aulire ‘mp pect oi Cismicse ©” per

may ald .. Phe Sek loaned Yeodes Gericke 98.9%

er Speen an. qe. Fe Sas 3 te -soneneies af a Ge

Lownie an a? ae , u a en eS Le

ue oe om, teen too s gécVCe ese 16M Senta

ed m™, = ig a wi] bag ett ee oe Be

Fi Yr fon Urder tne coke 2k He ute, oeyrs

Sg oot ha krcrwbec’lLS?h. Duriag the course la is

~ SBA (ae Btiuc yeert Gwe cis-menth derecmente, cf ” %

cov at tug 218 pesice “tom book) to Beptesber 1979. +i gbowe

Avot ly das cesjece <éve ~C began again in October 1979,

chuconah (@Bhe GO peyuest, end the SBA isewed « delingienry

norice. Wives Scho ches fasted te meke the instaileentse ate

ucvemLoe ec& Degguler i? the S54 agein contected Schwetima:

This

ace e@v6eed win Bnet. ite \.ce was chree Bourne pate due

nevever, the SE «lero wersved Schuchman the: LE the cic

ine foccabiugeits creo due che SBA would erenafer the ion

ro jlom@idecten atatur bur. ite SBA received tio Money. and

ies £@ fables tc ce -ive che inete) lament due January 1980.

bee abd. ac Scluctese”. Glee it nad elected to dJeciare the

en je Béfeul’ end Ghe pabevce of tha nate dye Sc Ruciman

A60uerRh? requan ts & tice SBA danted) ye: aaptne:

“sertery fegsue gee ac peced means ©9 remady “Re je fa

g-oG! » sage’ Bec 5; Jai 4aqgided wo orig foreciosy

gis tugtngs It puis ah ah ver The €icet eortgege aad Dole on ce

dab tines ote ecmrices a° welgument, ant on Bee 7, 1980,

te. ae £4@% OR Ber ce tw SBA commenced <' Loetsnt

ie ecpoceeé 26714: Fut (e0gsogs Ost followed only cov 4

Be WRK aghuse: ed, but Che “46 «TeLe”

kaye teund that ae ,

0% ae “mat >

2° tgsees @.act sais

see tee spelled «85.”

' th ‘<hey , vax ne Héraods

. eins Lote o¢ fea” nt the

“ouarae 7. thé Giatrim “sor

Bs io cary~ Of che We fan *

2 A eats ne “ale 2 age Soha

_eyseees iwipetn: “o faven of the

(pA 26 260 Me af Vv nbectr- are uo t™

Wir 2 a eh 5. tabs seg ; 7 of

hve ALAEFLcO count «™ ‘arn in >7r*

| ~ Sx. <* ¥e/ fi . 5 #6. (be

198% the cite: ~¢ Sepia? at “c¥tal e-

Sonu haan s

—— a a er ceed

There is no question but that che SBA must insist upon

prompt payment of due installments on its loans, see 13 C.F.R.

g 122.21, and, if a borrower is in default on one or sore

installments, the SBA may choose to foreclose on a mortgage

rather than give the mortgag« more time. See 13 C.F.R. RS

122.23-.24. Contrary to the Schuchmans' assertion, the record

clearly establishes that the SBA loan was in default and that

there was no deferment in effect to prevent the default.

The first payment on the Schuchman loan was due on

November 20, 1977 (and the 20th day of each month thereafter)

but made on December 6, 1977. Schuchman paid the next four

monthly installments on December 19, 1977; January 27,

March 13, and April 6, 1978. Schuchman failed to make the

April and May payments, but on June 8, 1978 the SBA granted

Schuchman a six-month deferment (for installments due April 20 |

through September 20, 1978). Schuchman made six additional

payments on his loan--November 1 and November 24, 1978;

February 12, March 14, April 11, and July 10, 1979--which the

SBA applied to the installments due October 1978 through March

1979. In June 1979 Schuchwan requested another six-month

deferment. The SBA again approved the request (upon a

recommendation that Schuchman be given “one last chance") but

mistakenly granted only a four-month deferment. When

discovered, the SBA remedied the problem and added two months

to the second deferment. Consequently, the SBA deferred

payments on Schuchman's loan for the period April through

September 1979. Payments were to resume again on October 20,

19/9. However, Schuchman made no further installments, and the

SBA granted no additional deferments. The Schuchmans'

contention that there was an additional deferment that would

have prevented the note and mortgage from being in default is

without meric. The district court conceded that "(t]here may

be some evidence in the record that would tend to support that

claim,” but found the evidence “not convincing, not

persuasive." Tne district court's finding is not clearly

erroneous and accordingly will not be set aside. DePass v.

United States, 721 F.2d 203, 205 (7th Cir. 1983). Schuchman

contracted to pay monthly installments on his SBA loan, and the

SBA's insistence upon prompt payment of the installments when

due was ok Moreover, the SBA was clearly authorized to

declare Schuchman in default, accelerate the maturity of the

note, and foreclose on the second mortgage where it held both

first and second mortgages. United States v. Olsen, 515 F.2d

1269, 1271 (list Cir. 995). Indeed, the SBA*s actions were

consistent with its obligation to insure the integrity and

viability of its loan program. See United States v. Wallace &

Wallace Fuel Oil Co., Inc., 540 F. Supp. 419, 431 (5.D. WY.

1962).

The Schuchmans further contend that SBA decisions regarding

the loan were not proper. They argue that decisions not to

grant a third deferral, provide other financial or managerial

assistance, or accept VA checks as direct payment on the loan,

Append A f

and many other administrative decisions were wrong and violated

their right to due process under the law. The SBA must sake

many decisions in the course of administering its loan programs

which are by their very nature on tis to agency discretion

and expertise. See e. See ¢-4- 13 C.F.R. § 131. 3(a) (loan

deferments); see ly 15 U.S.C. ., 634(b). Where, as here,

the decisions Sf thes agency involve discretionary managerial

and business rather than legal Pe, gree such decisions are

unreviewable. See Gifford v. Business Administration,

626 F.2d 85, 86 (Sch Cir. 1980) (SBA"s determination of whether

to provide managerial counseling and aid is clearly committed

to agency discretion and nonreviewable); see also United States

v. OCCI Co., 7586 F.2d 1160, 1167 (7th Cir. |

managerial and business judgments made during course of

administering loans not relevant to foreclosure action)

(Posner, J., concurring).

Finally, the Schuchmans seek review of “the order of the

U. S. Small Business Adainistretion authorizing demand letter

entered on February 14, 1980."* In essence, the Schuchmans

ask that we review the SBA's initial decision to declare the |

loan in default and accelerate payment. Section 634(b)(1) of '

Title 15, United States Code, permits the Administrator of the

SBA to sue and be sued and confers jurisdiction on the federal | |

district courts to hear such suits. Expedient Services, Inc. |

v. Weaver, 614 F.2d 56, 57 (5th Cir. 0); see also Johnson v.

Citizens Bank & Trust Co., 659 F.2d 865, 870 (8th Cir.

57-39) 2 The Schuchmans sought no review in che district

court. Rather, they filed the instant petition as an original

action in chis court on August 6, 1985. As such, this Court is

without jurisdiction to entertain the petition. See Noland v.

United States Civil Service Commission, 544 F.2d 333, 334 (8th |

Cir. 1¥/0) (per curiam) (court of appeals has no jurisdiction

to review administrative order under Administrative Procedure

Act unless expressly authorized by separate statutory grant of

power); School Board of Broward County v. Department of Health

Education and Welfare, 4/5 c f.

(same); Arizona State Ve artment of Public Welfare v

Departcent of Health, Education and Welfare, 449 F. 73 456, 464

(9th Cir. 19/1) (sane), cert. denied, 405 U. Ss. 919 (1972).

1 This request was filed as a separate appeal (No. 85-2348)

and consolidated with the instant appeal (No. 84-2322) for

decision.

2 Jurisdiction is also granted to state courts having

porrdagg jucisdiction. 15 U.S.C. § 634(b)(1). See, e.g.,

arter v. Small Business Administration, 573 P.Zd ez, ZO Colo.

App. 271 (1977), cert. denied, 104 S. Ct. 711 (1984).

Appendix fA |

2 EE——EeoOr

Compare 25 U,S.C. § 2342.3 Accordingly, we dismiss appeal

~ 85-2348 .4

AFFIRMED IN PART;

DISMISSED IN PART. |

3 The Schuchmans allege jurisdiction under the

Adminietrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., but it is

clear that this Act does not provide an independent grant of

jurisdiction. Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 107 (1977).

4 Since the submission of their Reply Brief, the Schuchmans

have filed a series of motions. In an order dated August 19,

1985, two such motions were to be considered along with the

merits of the appeal, i.e., "Motion to Allow Correction of

Ommissions (sic) and Misstatements" and "Motion to Allow

Composition of the Record as Follows."' Upon consideration of

both motions, each is hereby denied.

On September 26, 1985, appellant filed an “Emergency

Petition for Injunction to Enjoin SBA from Selling by Quit

Claim Deed and Title Policy Mortgaged Property 122 East Shore

Drive, Subject Matter of this Case.’ Our decision today makes

the reliet requested moot.

On October 7, 1985, appellant filed a "Motion to Make Certain:

No Excusable Neglect in 85-1431; Law Clerk on Docket 84-2322

wno Withdrew Record, 1 env. loose pldgs, 3/29/5, Contents of

Said 1 env. loose pidgs; AND/OR to Supplement the Record;

memorandum in support." To the extent that the motion requests

action with respect to case 85-1431, we remind appellant that

this docket number has been closed since March 22, 1985.

Accordingly, this Court will entertain no motion with respect

to Case No. 85-1431. To the extent that the motion seeks to

supplement the record in consolidated cases 84-2322 and 85-2348

due to the withdrawal of an envelope of pleadings by a law

clerk, such request is denied as unnecessary.

On October 8, 1985, appellant filed with this Court a

"Motion to the Full Court Compeling [sic] Clerk to Instanter

File and Mail Any Order Coming Down in Pro Se Cases 84-2322,

85-2348, and 85-1431 to the Correct Address 46 Emerald Lane,

Fairview Heights, IL. 52208 or be Held in Contempt for Failure

to Comply and Thereby Delaying Pro Se, Affidavit in Support: ‘

and/or for Court to Review Motions, and Orders Denying,

Reconsiderations Filed September 6, 1985 and September 16, 1985

and so Delayed by Clerk's Mailing ag pnt September 30, 1985

to Incorrect Address 122 East Shore ive Belleville, tilinois

62221; and/or to Correct Typographical Error in Number 9 of

(footnote continued)

fi ppend: K Ht

———

4 (cont.) Pro Se Motion to Make Certain: Mailed October 4,

1985 from April 14, 1985 to April 12, 1985, Copy Appearance

Docket 85-1431 Atteched Hereto in Support: and/or to Compel

Clerk to Locate and File in 85-1431 and 84-2322 52-page ‘Motion

to Judge Coftey for an Order of Mandamus Compelling Clerk to

Perform its Duty and File: Petition for Review and Serve a Copy

of Notice of Filing of Said Petition for Consideration Three

Judge Panel Et Seq, Request to Interlocutory Appeal and Correct

the Record with Memorandum and Others’ Made and Mailed March

20, 1985 With Affidavit in Support: and/or to Supplemment the

Record." To the extent that this motion requests the Court to

ascertain movant's correct address, such request is granted,

the Court having ascertained that movant's correct address is

on all records associated with the consolidated cases. To the

extent that the motion requests further review of the Court's

dispositions of previous motions filed herein, such relief is

denied. All further relief sought is hereby denied as moot, as

a copy of the Petition for Review has been duly filed with chis

courc.

—_—

fippendry A

_—

i —- =

————— eee queues

would have prevented the mortgage from being in default. There

may be some evidence in the record that would tend to support

that claim, but that evidence is certainly not convincing, not

persuasive, and to the contrary, the plaintiff's evidence demon-

strates quite clearly and the Court finds that there was no

third deferral which the defendant contends, that there were

deferrals for six months in '78 and six months in '79, but

there were not sufficient deferrals to prevent the ioan from

going into default.

I thik at this point it is good to note that you almost

have to read this record word by word to separate the real

evidence ioe unsupported, unverified statements made by Mrs.

Schuchman, which were in no way supported by any evidence, but

taking the evidence and only the evidence, the Court finds

that there was no deferral, for the second six-month period

as she contends, and the loan was, therefore, in default.

The defendants contend that the plaintiff failed to give

them management assistance and failed to accord the defendant,

Thomas Schuchman, certain benefits that he is entitled to be-

cause of the fact that he is a Vietnam veteran. There is no

evidence to support that suggestion.

The defendant contends that they did not receive payment

cards and could not therefore make their payments. Even if

that were true, there is no evidence to show that that would

in any way excuse the payments being made. The word negligence

has been used throughout this trial, but this is not a negli-

gence case and I have been pointed to no law that would show

that negligence on the part of the SPA would excuse the prompt

and timely payments on the mortgage and the note.

In effect, what we have in this case, and in large part,

is the defense that the administrative determinations by the

SBA were not proper. Their administrative decisicns not to

grant the third deferral, their administrative decision not

to make a disaster assistance loan, or emergency loan or

whatever other loan or disaster assistance, their adminis-

trative decision not to accept the VA checks as direct payment

on the loan and many other decisions that they made, they are

contending that these decisions were wrong. It is not for

this Court to make a de novo determination that those eres |

were right or wrong.

If I am to overturn those decisions, or to say that those

decisions are wrong, the burden is on the defendant to show

that the administrative agency acted arbitrarily or capricious:

or perhaps that there was no substantial evidence to support

their decision. In some way they must overturn those adminis-

trative decisions. The burden is not upon the plaintiff to

show that the decisions were right.

In her closing argument, Mrs. Schuchman showed for the

first time, I believe, some understanding and insight into

the real issues and the real problems that have brought about

“te

— SE foe

. 23

this situation. She appealed strongly to the Court's emotion

and in essence threw herself-and her family on the mercy of

the Court. It is difficult for the Court to disregard every-

thing that has happened in this case before and after the re-

fusal to make the payments, but I feel that I must.

I point out that on at least meand probably several

occasions early in this matter, the SBA order to let them

bring the payments current at one time required a payment of

six hundred and some odd dollars. They offered to let them

make their payments current and continue with the loan. They

did not do that. It is difficult for me to believe as long

as we're talking about equity and mercy, it is difficult for

me to believe that they could not at that point have obtained

the six hundred dollars and brought the loan current as any

time prior to this date, recognizing that for whatever reason,

the SBA did not want their business, they could have sold the

house, paid up the mortgage, or else they could have refinance

the house, secured new financing and paid off the SBA mortgage

and aithough this situation that the defendants find them-

selves in at this point is a situation of their own making,

I recognize the financial difficulties that they must have

had in trying to start a new business. But I think they have

had every possible consideration.

I take note that the Government could have early in this

case, asked for a trustee, could have required the payment of

-1 |} rent, any number of steps the Government could have taken

2 || during the pendency of this litigation which they did not take.

3 | In the final analysis, it is obvious that these people have

4 | been living in this house and have not paid a dime rent or

5 || anything else since July 10th, 1979. |

é MRS, SHAW: They have been paying it to me, sir.

7 THE COURT: That is approximately four years that they |

g || have lived in the place without making any payment on either

g || the first mortgage that was purchased by the Government, or

190 || the second mortgage which the Government made.

11 Mr. Proud, I am going to ask you to prepare a suggested

12 || decree and order directing the sale of the mortgaged property

13 || and submit it to the Court for approval.

14 MR. PROUD: I assume, Your Honor, that you want me to run :

the figures current to today's date?

THE COURT: We have the figures, bring the figures current,

and of course, you have outlined the priorities which are

1g || correct. The sixteen hundred dollars advance payment, of

19 || course, is junior to Mrs. Shaw's mortgage.

Now, we of course, don't know what her mortgage is, but ('

it certainly is junior to the Government's mortgage and the

First Federal's mortgage. Since the initial order, the file

reflects that some of the other indebtedness which was con-

24 sidered in the original decree have been either paid or with-

drawn and you will have to reflect that in your order and send

Ali

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" F | L E D

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOTS :

}

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) JUL 21 1983

| “Set ie

Plaintiff, ) cubixMARVIN: HELART

SOUTH ‘>. DISTRICT COURT

: ) EAS sp STRICT OF ILLNC

vs. ) CIVIL NO 80-5143 (ls LOUIS OFFICE

)

Thonas L. Schuchman, )

)

Defendant, )

)

MOTION FOR MISTRIAL AND A NEW TRIAL

Now comes pro se defendant Terry Lynn Schuchiman and asks for the finding of a

ee AL CL EEE LI Oh ARIE th

mistrial and granting of a new trial on the proceedinzs hepun June 27, 1983 and

concluding on June 30, 1983 and states:

1. This Court lacks jurisdiction pursuant to Title 5 USC Section 706 Subsection

(1), (2) (A), (2)(8),2(C), (2)(D), (2)(£), (2)(F). Motion is made pursuant to Pule 59

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

2. The prejudicial error which cause! the order and decree of this Court tssued

Feb-uarv 23, 1982 to be set aside and vacated denied defendants richt to a sneedy trial.

3. Prejudicial error did affect the final results of the de nova trial. Actual

prejudice to defendants ability to present an effective defense was evident in Court's

/ conduct at de nova trial.

: 4, The reviewing Court shall, pursuant to Title 5 Se Section 796 Subsection (1),

|! compel agency action unlavfully withheld or unreasonably delaved,

5. Pleadine filed July 11, 1930 did present cefendanta richt to an administrative

review and did show a request for said appeal timely rade,

6. Testimony by “tajorey Casey did show failure to consider and admitted lack

of ‘:rritten response to defendants requests for administrative review and appeal at

| that time, S use § 55 (<)

| 7. SBA official “Marjorey Casey did fail to observe orocedure reouired and admits

L-2 Pasa |

eK Appendix &) sige <>

—————

said failure to respond in writing to said requests in testimony under oath,

§. Said failure was an abuse of diseretion that was arbitrary and capricious

and not in accordance with statute. ‘SRA official ‘larjorey Casey did state in sworn

testimony that her decision was a "judgment call", (5 Use (3 (b)

9. SBA procedure requires a written response and is not subject to a "Judgment

call".

10. Defendants did request an administrative review again on June 14, 1982,

October 4, 1982 and December 23, 1982 at the appropriate levels, No written response

was received from the rerional or Washington level,

ll. Springfield SBA response claimed length of time elansed prevented them from

taking action,

» Leneth cf time elarsed was due not to faule of defendants but to prejudicial

error.

13. Court failed to take prejudicial error into account and blamed defendants

for delav.

14, The defendants entitlement to adrinistrative reviev was prejudiced as a

result of the conduct, misrepresentation and silence of the PLaintif®é.

15. Conduct of plaintiff which has placed defendant in a situation where his

rights will be irpertled and his defenses embarrassed is a basis of laches, Knowledpe,

unreasonable delay and chance of position are all evident,

16, Court has refused to issue a stay Pursuant to Title 5 USC Section 705 due

to leneth of time elansed in case. Leneth of tine elansed was due to willful non-

prosecution by Plaintiff and prejudicial error.

17. Case was set for trial at least 17 tires ané delaved at Jeast 3 tires bv

Plaintiff with no written justification arrearine of reeore,

1S. Fact that trial was de nova evidences defendants rivhe cto tudieial review

oursuant to Title 5 USC Section 706 Subsection (7) (FF),

19, Court wrongfully refused to review adrinistrative action unlawfully

ies

20. Coure did not take due account of the rule of nrejudicial error.

( 21. Rule of prejudicial error was basis for pleadine styled “Ohjections to

Complaint". Court ordered sai¢ liberally construed as "answers" and refused to hear

objections based on pleading involved in the predjudictal error,

WHEREFORE, pro se defendant Terry Lynn Schuchman prays:

1. For the declaration of a mistrial.

2. An administrative review at all SRA levels as is right by law.

| 3. Judiciai review and new trial if warranted after adcministrative review.

4, Leave to present new evidence developed with regard to collusion.

5. Other relie®€.,

j : \ .

ao Sp IL NL

Terry Lynn Schuchman

pro se cefendant

122 Fast Shore Drive

Belleville, Illinois

612-277-4089

L- ww, past

a ft pf pends , ages

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT courT FEL EXD

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

JUN 5 1984

A. MARVIN HELART

CLERK U.S. DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN O!STRICT OF iLLINOIS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ALTON OFFICE

Plaintiff,

-Vs- No. 88 5143

THOMAS L. SCHUCHMAN, ET AL

ee Re Red ee ee et ee

Defendant.

ORDER

This matter was tried to the Court with judgment for

Plaintiff after a three day trial. The court is uncertain how to

detail the obfuscated history of this litigation. Defendants

herein have proceeded pro se, although apparently Terry Lynn

Schuchman has done all of the paper work and arguments for the

family members who are defendants. In an effort to permit

Gefendants to place before the court all potentially relevant

material, this court allowed Mrs. Schuchman to present voluminous

materials which were not properly admissible and to present

irrelevant arguments. After all Gefendants' material was

presented, the evidence that plaintiff was entitled to judgment

was overwhelming.

A brief history of this case reveals that proceedings herein

Mave not run a smooth course. Defendant, Schuchman, in order to

operate a barber shop, executed a note in 1977 to the S.B.A.

secured by a mortgage on the home of Thomas and Terry Lynn

Echuchman. The S.B.A., after a long involved series of

transactions, was assigned a mortgage, note and claim held by

APPENDIX ay

Appendix i.

Mascoutah Savings and Loan Association (now First Federal Savings

and Loan Association of Mascoutah) on the home of the Schuchmans.

Mrs. Schuchman's mother, Lois Schau, has a mortgage recorded

against the subject property on October 20, 1978. Eventually,

for failure to make the payments on the barber shop loan, the

S.B.A. instituted foreclosure proceedings and the home property

was sold at a judicial sales A series of errors then became

apparent. On December 14, 1982, this court set aside and vacated

the decree and order directing sale of the mortgaged property

entered February 23, 1982, the U.S. Marshal's sale of April 20,

1982 and the U.S. Marshal's deed issued October 20, 1982. This

was done after it was shown that plaintiff had published the

notice of Marshal's Sale only three times, not four as required

by law, and that defendants had filed "Answers" to the complaint,

but only with the U.S. Attorney's Office which letters

constituting "answers" were merely placed in the government file.

A bench trial was then had where defendants, appearing pro

se, entered a great deal of material into the record and

explained the materials at length. Judgment in favor of

plaintiff was entered on July 12, 1983. Sale of the property did

not proceed immediately, however, because, as evidenced by a

letter dated July 28, 1983 from Edwin T. Holloway, a review of

the complete loan file of the Colonial Barber Shop was to be

conducted by staff officials from the Administrator for Pidunce

and Investment and the Office of General Counsel. With hope

that the entire situation could somehow be resolved, matters

awaited the outcome of the review of the file.

fa?

EI IE LIE ee ee Fe ee

In tne meantime, Mrs. Schuchman has continued to file

materials with this court. It 1s difficult to be certain we are

not overlooking something that could be liberally construed as

having merit. Wwe believe the papers filed fall into two general

categories. The first group can be considered as counterclaims,

while the second may be taken as motions to alter or amend the

judgment and for a new trial. We will address first what we are

construing to be counterclaims. Mrs. Schuchman urges that j

portions of the letter which was taken to be an answer to the

complaint were sufficient notice so that counterclaims filed

after judgment could be said to relate back. Even construing

those letters as Mrs. Schuchman urged us to, we doubt that there

was any counterclaim of which plaintiff had notice. The material

filed after the judgment was entered and titled Counterclaims

consists of 2808 numbered paragraphs citing many laws and

Gocuments and setting forth wide ranging legal conclusions. In

the memorandum filed in support of the counterclaims, defendants

allege an incredible array of legal defenses and theories: accord

and satisfaction, contributory negligence, duress, failure of

consideration, fraud, estoppel, libel, violation of Fair Credit

Reporting act, violation of Economic Opportunity Act, breach of

contract, invasion of privacy and failure tc join necessary

parties. This court believes this portion of defendants’

pleadings are appropriate for dismissal pursuant to Rule 8 F.R.

Civ. Pro. As the court statedc in Rechsteiner ve. Madison Fund,

Inc., 75 F.R.D. 499 (D.C. 1977), “yet despite the liberality

envisioned by the rule, even a pro se complaint is subject to

Aopendix GB L-|

44smissal if the pleading fails reasonably to inform the adverse

party of the asserted cause of action.” Ordinarily, pleadings

dismissed to Rule 8 are dismissed pursuant with leave to amena.

However, this court believes that at some point there must be an

end to the litigation before it. Many of the paragraphs set

forth by Mrs. Schuchman concern matters that she raised at trial.

The rest consists of little more than demands, charges and

conclusions. The record reveals that the Schuchman family has

occupied the property for a number of years now without making

payment on the mortgace on which they were obligated. Surely at

some point there must be an end to the materials filed by the

defendants. Accordingly, the court will dismiss the

counterclaims with prejudice. There are also motions for

mandamus and for default against defendant Mercantile, neither of

which are appropriate nor make sense as pled in this cause. Both

those motions will also be dismissed with prejudice.

The other motion to be considered is the Motion to Alter or

Amend the Judgment or for a New Trial. That motion is so verbose

and rambling that this court believes it too could be dismissed.

However, this court believes the matter would be better disposed

of by ruling on the motion. This cause was tried to the court.

While there was no discernible pattern in the presentation of

defendants’ evidence, we believe that the factual matters raised

in the motion were all before the court at the time of trial.

The matters were considered and the court found the evidence

overwhelmingly in favor of plaintiff. Nothing offered in the

motion affects that decision. Defendants also urge several legal

L~!

Aopendvy @ 5

conclusions as grounds for ordering a new trial. Even

considering those conclusions in the light most favorabie to

defendants, we do not believe they would constitute grounds for a

new trial. Finally, defendants urge that the court's conduct

prevented defendarts from receiving a fair trial. A review of

the record reveals that this court's conduct was directed solely

to the ends of permitting defendants to present their case as

fully as possible. If our conduct in allowing such latitude was

prejudicial, the harm was to plaintiff, not defendants. While we

sympathize with defendants because of the position in which they

now find themselves, plaintiff is entitled also to its rights.

We hope we have now ruled fully on the motions filed by Mrs.

Schuchman. Because we considered her motion for a new trial as

also being a motion to alter or amend the judgment, the time for

appeal of this matter wiil commence to run from the date of this

Order. Accordingly, all motions filed by defendants following

the decree and order directing sale of July 12, 1983 by this

court must be and the same hereby are denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: This P 3-3 day of NOgin gg | , 1984.

“WILLIAM hs BEATTY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

NOTE: CLERK TO SEND COPIES TO ALL PARTIES.

Appen di a a |

OE TE, ORT TES ——

IN THE USITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED

SOUTHERN PISTRICT OF !TLLINOTS

FIL

i le tr we FILED

: a id ' ART

/ eit SRT

Pecintif:, “gvihl-aap a3, 4 gg tie

} - ‘

-V$- ) AIAN SAR;

cop Hes Us. LIS FRIGT eb Jet

mitid Pole)

A 3) te UE LLINGIS

THOMAS L. SCHUCHMAN, FT AL., }

}

]

Before the Court is the pro se def=ncants’ motions styled as

Czujyections tc Complaint, Amendec Moticzn for Summary Judgment,

Motion for Rehearing on Motions for Sumrary Judament and Judgment

on the Pleadinas, Motion to “ake More DNefinite the Position of

tne Parties, Motion for Rehearina on Mc7=ion to Compe] Compliance

with Decree and Motion for PNectéeratorv Yudoment, The arauments

of the respective parties were heard ars the motions were taken

Inder advisement.

The Court has extensiveiy reviewed all of the documents

submitted by the pro se defendants in th:s matter keeping in mind

the admonition that the federal] judiciary must be especially

Szclicitous of the oroblems of the non-liwyer seekina to litigate

im his own behalf. See Haines v. Kerner, 405 U.S. 948, 92 S.Ct.

9€3 (1972). Such pro se pleadings as these are held to less

stringent standards than forma! pleadinzs drafted by lawyers and

Vv. Gamble, 429

Ay)

are to be given a liberal construction. Es

Dune meee Sr 8.0. 2es t197C1, Morec..er, Pule 8 (f) of the

SO construcc as tc

The defené2eantc' reticr

ntéeilns nun !

rrespona: °¢ oY :

> } , arf ‘

complaint. In each of these

“object to", “allow” or

paragraph in the plaintiff's

“deny”

ss Stantia XUuSsStiIce,

e*¢ ‘ S. Or 3~ rTi10ns. €6 Comp int

< + + . ane } fice } ly ae: fer ana

Vervrecrarns in the wi erRntigt’s

Daragraphs the acefendants

the averments of the corresponding

complaint. A liberal construction

of the contents of this docurert !eads the Court to conclude that

the Gefendants intendec :: tc serve as an answer to the

plaintiff's compleint and t-=t Justice would best be served if

the cocument s taken as suth Therefore, the motion of the

sefencants entitled Objecticns tc Compléint wil] be téken ane

enterec on the docket es an Answer to the plaintiff's corpleint

on behalf of the defendan= Terry Lynn Schuchman ané as a

SunDd:imental] knewer or er=if af the efendarts Th-rase f

WF ah | hr n anc I ( =f r cs writt r FECT 1 OF By, L03S

action 1S receivec from these defendants ¢ the Court within ten

(1@) Gays of the entry of this Order.

A motion fcr judgment cn the pleadinas pursuant to Rule 12

amotion for sur Trent wher a movin Daertv asks tr Court

to consider matters ovtside tre p.ieadinas as the daefendarts have

done in this case. Seacer Glove Corporation v. Aetna Insurence

Compeny, 317 F.26 439 (7th Cir. 1963). 2 summary jecament

Pursuant to Rule Sf of the Feceral Rules of Civil Procedure may

mae en

pe Cranted 4 party only wnen it appears that there is no gqenuin

issue aS tO any materia: fart. Fitzsimmons v. Best, 528 F.2c 6¢

submitted by 4]l of the pzertiesto this action make it very clea

that questions cf materia: fact do remain on the issue of whethe

the defendants, Thomas Lt. and Terry Lynn Schuchman, were in

Gefault on the indebtedress in guestion here. Therefore, th

cefendants' motions styled as an Amended Motion for Summary

Judarent and Motion for Fehearing on Motions for Judement on th

PleaGings and Summary Judcment are denied.

Rh Motion for More Definite Statement pursuant to Rule

l2(e) of the Fecerai Rules of Civil Procedure may be aranted onl:

if tne pleadinc to which it is @Girected is so vague or ambiauovus

that a party cannot reasonably respona to it. Chest v. Rome

Incustries, Inc., 48@ F. Supp. 387 (D.C. GA. 1979). After é

review of the vleadings tz which the defendants’ Motion to Maké

“ore Definite the Positior of the Parties is @directed, th:s Court

finds that al of the infcrmation necessary for the defendants tc

frame a response 1s presert inthe pleadings in question and tha

they are not so vague or ambiguous that the defendants cannot

reasonably rescond The cefendants

motion is therefcre deniec.

The defencants' motion styled as a Motion for Renearing or

Motion for Compliance with the Decree Vacatince Marshal's Sa}

seeks an order directing the Small Business Administration t

return certain monies received by them from a third party

pursuant to a marshal's saie of the property in question here.

~~, on

AEPE NDI YX (C;

‘

The Court nad previously denied the defenlants' motior on the

ground thet the defendants had nc standine tc assert the relief

Praved fcr. Not=ina has since heen presentec to the Court

indicatinc that tne defendants gre now suffering an ir.jury in

fact which results from the Smal! Business Acri:inistration keeping

the monies in question. The defendants' motion must therefore

again be denied,

The Gefendants' motion styled as a Moticn for Declératory

Judgment on the Leze! and Equitable Issues cf the Compleéeint can

be liberally construed either as a motion for summary judcment or

a complaint for a ceclaratory judgment pursuant to Titl=2 28 of

the Unitec States Tode, Section 2201. If taken as a motion for

Summary judgment, it must be denied for the reasons set out

above. If taken as & complaint pursuant to Section 220:, this

Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the pleadinc in the

interest of judiciel ecoromy. In either event, the relief the

defendants seek in their motion is denied.

Lastly, it is evident from a review of all the documents

Submitted by the pro se defendants that they are desirous of

assertinc certain counterclaims against the government. kKowever,

no sincle document submitted by the defendants can be interpreted

as a pieacins asserting such claims. This Cour: does not feel it

must cut and paste a dozen or so documents together for the

defendants so they miaht frame an acceptable pleadina asserting

their claims. If the defendants feel they have justiciable

Claims against the sovernment arisina out of the facts a+ issue

here they must subm:t a pleadina which wil! allow this Cozrt and

mtn

, APPLND'S ‘

the piety. if! + re asseces the Tracts € nae I cf those

claims.

Recer cinely, the pro st Geter ree motions for Amencec

Summary cCcoterent, Motion for Reheur:nce or Moticns for Summary

Judgment enc cugament on the Pleacinas, Moticn tec Make More

Definite the Position of the Parties, Motion for Rehearing on

Motion tc Compel Compliance with Decree end Motion for

Declaratory Judgment are denied. Tne motion of the defendants

entitled Crhjections to Complaint will be taken ans entered on the

Gocket as an Answer on behalf of the defendant, Terry Lynn

Schuchmeanr ane as a Supplemental] Answer on behalf of the

Gefendants Thomas L. Schuchman and Lois C. Schat unless written

een

objections to this action are received hy the Ccurt within te:

(1@) days of the entry of this order.

IT IE £0 OSNERE! 5

4 - ; f

r rr - se ee 7 ¢ af?

} — a C1 a= ae bo fh

\ j

P in

z — aS

/ ae Ps T

/ fo “ Ji 2, J

PP y pi ee

WILLIAM L/ BEE&TTY \

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE J

NOTF: CLER® TO SEND COPIES TO ALL PARTIES.

APPLKDIXK CO

f 2p

United States District Court, Southern District of manor any

oy awe Ou

aor 2O23 PAASBL “i

Unstioel Ueki. 383 DEC 26 Fit 4:

sg Plaintiff 02623 Fate gh No. rae “S/

A “Lynn muse phi shercen ORDE R FILED

eV ETS VITO DA OL |

Defendant JAN 1] -. 1983

PV OF ad Qv

A. MARVIN: KHELART

CLEiK Us. CasTRILT COURT

. SOUIHLniv OSritiCl OF ILLINOIS

ORDER ALTON OFFICE

hte Aba. gure ths stags C pene Omg

| | , ,

O, ied el!

4 pAAAIA DOK LA AOS AM LA Goel

2 | ae Lich

z Sd» CAL. LAN, | QUO WAKENA A OT lu

> /\QA) A- | 74) a Led KA i £9, A Hi os Lbu.25

: ; AD, Sem. AP sfho Unitor

= NVAIACLAM) : a * [VAAL EY: AKIO AMLAALA

Y f er

3s SVey Dei our Le ZARA Lathe ,

a A A . 4)

BS bHAQGAVMLA BLAVUL iA Re Vo 42 MW VO

* Boxe WO and uta pa

Toa 30S eB AA AMA OA gpa fact (A WALLS 2440 (> LM

H0no, Oarluno ra, GAbAGA \oow Jer Tru

Be_Levot0tD ft fen Appenitrr= th—pagc (oF |

4 Oca me recorded KF 1532 . Ps 70s- 706- 7o7

THE COURT: Do you have anything to say, Mrs. Schau?

MRS. SCHAU: Some things that I don't understand, Terry

has a college education and I don't and there are some things I

do not understand. I am doing the best I know how. I have the

mortgage note on the property and that is the claim that I “an

that he should be disqualified.

THE COURT: All right, that motion will be denied. Now

what's the next motion you want to take up?

MRS. SCHUCHMAN: Summary judsment.

THE COURT: Your amended motion for summary judement.

MRS. SCHUCHMAN: May I ask if the judge has read this?

THE COURT: I have read all the papers you have filed.

All richt, what do you ‘have to say about that? (

MRS. SCHUCHMAN: Well, before we argue this, I would ask

that Mr. Proud address himself to your order of January 14th

that he file a motion for summary judgment and a memorandum. I

cannot argue this until I have that, and ten days we had ses

you ordered him to do that and then I would have ten days to

file an answer, and it has not been filed.

THE COURT: I ordered him to file a motion for summary

judgment?

' MRS. SCHUCHMAN: Summary judoment and memorandum.

THE COURT: January 14th?

MRS. SCHUCHMAN: Yes, sir, it was a handwritten order.

THE COURT: They haven't filed a motion for summary judomnent.

even respond to the offer of payment. They turned that six

thousand dollar loan into a forty whatever thousand dollar loan

by buying the house, when they could have just received the SBA

disability check every month and take care of it.

MRS. SCHUCHMAN: This is allowable under law.

THE COURT: All right now urs. Schau do you have anything

to say on your motion for judgment on the pleadings?

MRS. SCHAU: I am the innocently injured third party.

They took these actions against me and had this summons and all

and embarrassed me in front of a great number of people, and

then I also put up other money to take care of the thing, and

this was lost, but it's just because they have been shuffling

the thing around and the people did not even want to take the

oney after I got it.

THE COURT: If anybody has been shuffling things around

here it isn't the United States Government.

MRS. SCHUCHMAN: They failed to answer.

MRS. SCHAU: They have for three years and now we have

just decided to shuffle them back.

MRS. SCHUCHMAN: By the docket itself, Your Honor, on

October 18th, October of 1961 this was to come to court, and

the U.S. delayed, said they were waiting for an opinion. They

filed suit in June of 1980. That's a year and a half prior.

at were they waiting for, and again I state the law that says

equity is to those who protect their rights and not to those who

G2.) Pari 4% a) Py.

ogee” SUPYSU oe

nd oe

wv) “a THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

yp of “a a FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS | L E D

32 ’ se

MY NEC 14 Jor

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

: exthe us miner couat

Mwy Plaintiff, SOUIMLM EL tine? UP ILLINOIS

ALION orfice

vs.

CIVIL NO. 80-5143

THOMAS L. SCHUCHMAN, TERRY LYNN

SCHUCHNAN, LOIS C. SCHAN, ee Sena

BELLEVILLE CROWN FINANCE, ent 21 ey Fae

MERCANTILE TRUST COMPANY, FIRST wie wee ER SE oe

NATIONAL: BANK OF BELLEVILLE, Cie ei

FAIRVIEK RELIABLE LOAN CO., INC., MTEC TG pene

a/k/a ASSOCIATES FINANCIAL 0 eae fe

SERVICES, and BANK OF BELLEVILLE, | S| f&

Ce ae een E22" sae, — 5 &

Defendants. ae pan is

ww = “=>

ORDER VACATING DECREE DIRECTING * -| &

SALE OF MORTGAGED PROPERTY, SETTING ASIDE | &

UNITED STATES MARSHAL'S SALE AND MARSHAL'S DEED oC EL &

$ 5: 2

“_ Ge &

Now on this 29th day of November, 1982, come on for hearing

the motions of defendants Thomas L. Schuchman, Terry Lynn Schuchman

and Lois C. Schau to set aside the decree directing sale of

mortgaged property, the United States Marshal's Sale and United

States Marshal's Deed. The defendants all appear pro se and the

United States appears by Clifford J. Proud, Assistant United States

-_R—e rm

Attorney. The Court proceeds to hear argument from all parties.

An examination of the Court file reveals that defendants are in

default and no answers are on file. Defendants argue that although

the Court files reveal no answers, they all had sent "answers" to

the United States Attorney's office prior to default. The United

——

States Attorney admits that his office received "answers" from

defendants consisting mainly of copies of correspondence between

~~ nee were ae wm -

defendants Schuchman and the Small Business Administration. The

— ——_ _-_—__e ——. ) a o

Court notes that all defendants were properly served by personel

service cr publication; however, the notice of Marshal's sale was

LY AA Py LE, Ne — AI

published only three times in the St. Clair County Reporter

instead of four times as ordered by the decree of this Court.

The Court also notes that defendants' motions are made within one

year of the entry of the decree of sale in this cause. Therefore,

this Court, being fully advised in the premises, finds the motions

should be g¢ranted and it is, therefore, |

ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that, in accordance with Rules |

55(c) and 60(b)(1), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Decree

and Order Directing Sale of Mortgaged Property, entered February 23, |

1982, the United States Marshal's sale of April 20, 1982, and United

States Marshal's deed issued October 20, 1982, are all set aside and

vacated. Answers that have been tendered by defendants are Ordered

filed and the Clerk is directed to reset this matter on the Court's

docket. |

Ddecembes id 1982) |

ENTER: Hovember- «1982. |

A True Cony we

Atiost: y i eee

9 Mascon ebet (i AR Rae >

Ciark. U. dep ict Court

outharn Dit. of llinois )

a, J oo | f

ate aa f< i

United ates District Jud

PUTY CL LRK

OE VET A Oe ae eee

—— mre em

— ae -—aay —— *

still in effect, vou aren't here. A-

MRS. SCHUCHMAN: We have filed a freedom of information

request with the District Attorney's office and we might ask

him about that now.

THE COURT: Did they file such a request?

MR. PROUD: Yes, they did, Judge.

MRS. SCHUCHMAN: Have they complied with it? Why don't

we ask Mr. Proud that.

MR. PROUD: Did we comply? We're not going to comply ~~"

this thing is still in litigation.

MRS. SCHUCHMAN: I contend their lien for noncompliance

they have in their file answers that were filed properly in

accordance with the summons and they were asked to forward

those to the court and they did not.

THE COURT: But you didn't file anything with the Clerk

of the Court.

MR. PROUD: Judge, I think I can clear this up and Mrs.

Schuchman is partially correct with what she says. I have

poured through a second file that contains some documents that

I believe Mrs. Schuchman sent down to our office, and what they

are is they are mostly correspondence between her and/or her

husband and the SBA. Up at the top it's written, answer with

the file number, with the correct cause number. The file stamp

shows they came to our office.

MRS. SCHUCHMAN: And there should be in that file stamped

A-38

—-

in 1973 the First National Bank accused us of hiding checks.

That's why the lawyers won't represent us.

THE COURT: Mr. Proud, I think the best thing to do with

this case, I think we should set aside the default, go back

to square one and we will set the thing up for hearing.

MRS. SCHUCHMAN: May I ask the Court that we could, before

the hearing is set, go to the SBA because they did say--

THE COURT: All I am going to do is set aside the default

I'm going to set aside the decree ordering the sale. I am

going to take the documents that you filed in Mr. Proud's

office as either entries of appearance or as answers for the

three of you, but I am going to set this thing down again on

the 17th of December and we're going to, in fact we're start-

ing over again. Do whatever you warit to do with the SBA,

MRS. SCHUCHMAN: If we make it current with them before

then, that's no case then?

THE COURT: That's up to the SBA. I'm going to set it

for one o'clock on the 17th of December. That's a Friday.

MRS. SCHUCHMAN: Would it be possible to set it for a

Monday because he has to close the shop?

MRS. SHAW: I have a doctor's appointment on this Friday.

MRS. SCHUCHMAN: We also are trying, we haven't given up

with finding a lawyer, because they are in, you'll get to hear

all of it then, they should have accepted the VA checks. They

had no cause to buy the first mortgage, because that check—

et eee OEE TATA NAT OE —

6 pir 2623 rci1332 f-37

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS FILED

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, a KARVIN HELART

K US. DISTRICT Ch NoIs

vs. SOUTHERN OS OFFICE

THOMAS L. SCHUCHMAN, TERRY LYNN

SCHUCHMAN, LOIS C. SCHAN,

BELLEVILLE CROWN FINANCE,

MERCANTILE TRUST COMPANY, FIRST

NATIONAL BANK OF BELLEVILLE,

PAIRVIEY RELIALLSE IOAN C$O., INC.,

a/k/a ASSOCIATES FINANCIAL Y

SERVICES, and BANK OF BELLEVILLE,

CIVIL NO. 80-5143

mr me ee ee ee ee eee ee ee ee

Defendants.

PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE

Now comes Lynne Murphy, by her attorneys, Gomric and Kurowski,

and respectfully petitions the court to intervene in the above |

numbered case and for her reasons states as follows:

1. Petitioner is the assignee of the Small Business Administration

having received an assignment from the Small Business Administration of

any and all interest in the real estate which is the subject of the

above foreclosure.

2. Petitioner has expended a sum of money in exchange for the

assignment.

3. Petitioner is presently the recipient of a warranty deed from

the Small Business Administration and is in fact the owner of record

of said real estate.

4. The period of redemption is passed substantially.

5. Petitioner was in the process of arranging a sale on said

premises.

WHEREFORE, any order entered by this Court in the above numbered

cause would substantially affect the rights of the petitioner herein

fan LP : Append: K—e—page lof 2

a L623 11333 $Y

who is an innocent third party and the title holder to the property

by means of a warranty deed which property is subject of the dispute

in the above numbered case.

Respect fully~submitted,

aus 1

coma Gomric

Mies KUROWSKC, Pee

6 East Washington

Belleville, IL 62220

(618) 234-2768

U.S. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON BUILDING

. FOUR NORTH OLD STATE CAPITOL PLAZA

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 62701

January 27, 1983

Mr. and Mrs. Schuchman

122 East Shore Drive

Belleville, Illinois 62221

Re: Colonial Barbershop and

United States vs. Thomas L. Schuchman, et. al.

Civil No. 80-5143

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Schuchman:

Thank you for the Notice of Hearing on February 18, at 9:30 a.m. at Alton,

Illinois. I have checked with our Chicago Office and Chicago Title Company

and have determined that the foreclosure has wiped out our first two

mortgages, they no longer exist and that we have no authority to purchase a

house from somebody without a court order. I have not spoken to Mr.

Gomric but I do not believe that he will give us title without a court

order also, Therefore, our previous offer to you is conditional upon

obtaining a court order as I previously stated.

Very truly yours,

| J bain (h Vee EC

William x. Krajec

Branch Counsel

WAK/sc

cc: Clifford Proud

Assistant U.S. Attorney

East St. Louis, Illinois

“OOEEE2 1000;"

Fey, TE ;

ES. OBETObTEOs WbhEIBEOwW

ZESTOTSPGCA IAT TLGEY-

Psec9 WO 2 an

j’2 nag “PEAY “So [EWS “wawAcd

+ “USN DIA 429} OO * “' = 4. ep

2 IST Pans on }o 23

fe ) spay SUSE R ies 10} ASE}

rsa0ag ‘yah Jo “sas a4 Avy Ady

ett, MSTTIANIET GLEE on Y od pan?

‘ atest. tan ome e- -~wwe -

' 3 : ws oa One® > . Meo He.

h : ~ , 4 7h Ee

wih Wo sc 4 = (AD G& Bas f

) si : ih

iy 3 ia .; ’

Go Kenai oO _* 0 CH

222 ) se) A a peremdoras an ge 4?

deye 72 ss aha | j¥IMO]9 J y o

ivi

618

BENS OTT HOHLNY SE1-0L

$ “y77400"

00° ett ~ vot yeISTuUIMpy sseuTcng [Tews 20 HIGYD

\ YY . : 5 t St =i OL

; *

SLOP OUI UY Co Ce TPE AAAs ave

: bat SE Pe te he Me Gd Merete 23d

“QTIWOH *W ouTTeENbIer pue UTIAZ2 woe

; : s7711A37132 AO UNS TWNOWLWN LSMit > BLN

ANNIABI739 SO YY

ZB6T ‘YT 4899390

YIGNO AINOW INV whe as

Xie

SIONITN *371A3TI3

MNYEl | Agnes aN

’

potion arises from innate confusion on the part of Mrs. Schuchman.

a : A-43

THE COURT: All right, there was no sale.

MRS. SCHUCHMAN: They ante accept money for the sale of

my property and they have and they still have that money, so I

think I am in default, and I state that in this motion. The

plaintiff made no appeal. They have not replied to anything.

They have not filed a motion for summary judgment or memorandum

that was ordered on January 14th.

TEE COURT: Do you have anything to say about the motion,

Mr. Proud?

MR. PROUD: it's basically directed to Mr. Gomric's com-

plaint, Your Honor, and maybe perhaps the SBA.

MR. PROUD: Do you mind if I talk? Thank you. Whatever

is going on between Small Business Administration and Mr. Gomric

is of no concern of these defendants.

MRS. SCHUCHMAN: I object.

MR. GOMRIC: The only, in behalf of the intervening party

[I would indicate to the Court, I believe this argument and this

phe is confusing the point of the sale and the foreclosure with

Any assignment or any transfer between my client and the SBA.

rhey are not one and the same. Your order of the 14th had

hothing to do with any assignment and only cealt with the suppose

FOreclosure sale. In light thereof this motion has absolutely

ho merit whatsoever.

ae:

MRS. SCHUCHMAN: This is the SBA. oe

It looks like this.

THE COURT: Motion for rehearing on motion to deny petitia

for relief to intervene?

MRS. SCKHUCHMAN: By Mr. Gomric and Mr. Krajak and Mr.

Proud's admission, anything now is between the SBA and Mr. Gomri

his money, his client's money is in disposition between the SBA

and Mr. Gomric, and his client, and it has nothing to do with

this case, and therefore he should be severed as a third party

so that this case can come to trial, and this states so. He hag

no claim on the property. He has no cause to be in this. The

sale was set aside so any money he has coming to him is between

the SBA, and that's what you said on the previous motion so you

are agreeing with my motion. I would like at this time to have

him severed from this case.

THE COURT: Mr. Gomric?

MR. GOMRIC: The Court heard the argument in regard to

the intervention and there is quote an assignment of interest

of the SBA, the fact that the J.S. government is still herein

and the fact that there is an assignment does in fact give us a

substantial interest in the outcome. In light of this, I think

your prior ruling on the motion to intervene is correct.

THE COURT: Do you have anything to say, Mr. Proud?

MR. PROUD: I agree with Mr. Gomric.

MPS. SCHUCHMAN: You have stated that any money is between

him and the SBA. The SBA should return it. They have no sale.

ST Fa OT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS ~

JUN 15 1983

A. MARVIN HELART

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, [ LERK U.S. DISTRICT OO NOLS

SOUTHERN ONS TO FRICE

Plaintiff, [

-vs- No. 8@ 5143

THOMAS L. SCHUCHMAN, ET AL.,

Defendants.

ORDER

The Court having heard on June 3, 1983, the following

motions of the pro se defendants and being fully advised of the

premises by all the parties holds that:

l. The motion of the pro se defendants filed May 5, 1983,

to vacate this Court's order dated May 28, 1983, is without merit

and is therefore denied;

2. The motion of the defendant Lois C. Schau to strike the

defendant nPicanttie Trust Company as a party filed May 5, 1983,

was Orally withdrawn by the defendant at the motion hearing;

3. The motion of the pro se defendants to dismiss the

complaint for lack of jurisdictional amount filed May 16, 1983 is

without merit and is therefore denied;

4. The motion of the defendant Lois C. Schau to strike the

defendants Belleville Crown Finance and First National Bank of

Belelville as defendants is without merit and is therefore

denied;

5. The motion of the defendants Thomas L. Schuchman and

_ cur Reime COURT

Ss ie APPENDIX Y (2)

Lois C. Schau to strike the defendant Fairview Reliable Loan

Company and Bank of Belleville as defendants filed May 16, 1983,

is without merit and is therefore denied;

6. The motion of the defendant Thomas L. Schuchman for

summary judgment filed May 19, 1983, is without merit and is

therefore denied;

7. The motion of the defendant Lois C. Schau for summary

judgmer.. filed May 19, 1983, is without merit and is therefore

denied;

8. The request of the defendant Lois S. Schau for

declaratory relief filed May 19, 1983, is without merit and is

therefore denied;

9. The request of the defendant Thomas L. Schuchman for

declaratory relief filed May 19, 1983, is without merit and is

therefore denied;

16. The request of the defendant Lois C. Schau for

declaratory relief filed May 26, 1983, is without merit and is

therefore denied;

ll. The request of the defendant Thomas L. Schuchman for

injunctive relief filed May 26, 1983 is without merit and is

therefore denied;

12. The request of the defendants Thomas L. Schuchman and

Lois C. Schau for relief from untrue allegations filed May 26,

1983, is without merit and is therefore denied;

- APPENDIX

supreme COURT

(3)

13. The motion of the defendants, Thomas L. Schuchman and

Lois C. Schau to strike the amended complaint filed May 26, 1983,

is without merit and is therefore encbinis

14. The motion of the defendant Thomas L. Schuchman for a

continuance pursuant to Title 28 of the United States Code,

Section 2487 filed May 26, 1983, is without merit and is

therefore denied;

33. The motion of the pro se defendants for a default

judgment against the Mercantile Trust Company filed June 2, 1983,

is without merit and is therefore denied;

16. The request of the defendant Terry Lynn Schuchman filed

June 2, 1983, to vacate the order of this Court dated May 25,

1983, is without merit and is therefore denied;

1’. The request of the pro se defendants for the signature

of the current attorney of record for the plaintiff to appear on

the complaint filed June 2, 1983, is without merit and is

therefore denied;

18. The request of the defendants, Thomas L. Schuchman and

Terry Lynn Schuchman to divest the claim of Belleville Crown

Finance filed June 2, 1983, is without merit and is therefore

denied;

19. The request of the defendant Lois C. Schau for a

SUPREME COUT

7 APPENDIX YU)

rty

contempt of Court order against the plaintiff and third pa

intervenor filed June 2, 1983, is without merit and is therefore

denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: This [3% aay of

WILLIAM L. BEATTY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

,A.D. 1983.

NOTE: CLERK TO SEND COPIES TO ALL PARTIES.

: SuPereme Couey

s af 2 APPENDIX YS)

——

n-44

vOl7? North Illinois Street

Fuirview Setghts, Lllinogs

april 24, 1 980

rhil #®umos, orunch Munuyer ‘Tp :

‘Ura. omull ousiness naoministrution

INWb Center, outite 4l¢ yp

One North Vla wtute Capitol Pluzu wv

Sprinygfteld, Illinois 02701 p

Deur sir: | ae ib tan’. et te)

Fleuse resp, ong unc uckNowlea,e My requcst,for deferment until August,

L930 busea oa finunciul dutu Surnishen to yOu previously. Wo reply

hus been forthcoming from you reyuratiny this mutter.

It Aus Glso0 veer brouyht to your uttention thut I hAuve not received

puyment curas duted luter thun October ls72. JI mentivunec this to Mrs.

Cusey on her lust vistt on March 28 1980. Your orompt attention to

the mutter would be yrestly upprecitated.

Upon yranting of asferment until Auyust 1980 I plen to propose guaruntvee:

repayment by assigning payment of my VA Compensation check payuble to

me on the first of every month to you, the SBA loun }} 778685-10-07, begt:

with the Auyust 1, L9d0 check. I[t is currently g¥8.90 monthly und due

to be increased come October 1930. This shoule bs sufficient to assur

timely repayment ubility.

Shoule there be any problem in ussiyning the VA Conp check to the SBA,

pleuse cetutl tmmediutely. Your prompt courteous reply will be yreath

Upprectuted.

vincersly yours,

Shiaereard aD Fe Oe

Thomus L. Schuchmun/DBA

RECEIVED Coloniul furber Shop

BY SMALL BUSINESS Reece

ASA ISTRATION—SPRINGFIELD .a%

APR25 I98U

78,9 ,10)11)12;1)2,;3,4,5,6

—

hi byt a —* 4 tat 3 Ae, *. _ ja

$.0.P. REV

SECTION no.

$.0.P. CONTINUATION SHEET 50 | 50 3

QO g. Guarantors/Standby Creditors. Notice of the Agency's intention to

allow an extension should be sent to each guarantor and standy

creditor. It is desirable to get their consent but this may not be

practicable in all cases - especially in those involving smaller

balances. It is necessary to, at least, assure that they have the

knowledge and enough time to object (a period of time should be stated

in the letter). In some cases, the firm may be so credit worthy or

the loan so collateralized that there is no need for any further

reliance on the guarantees or standby creditors to support the loan.

In such instances, the 327 action should document these facts and may

authorize the extension without further consideration of its effect on

guarantees or standbys.

h. Additional Collateral. If additional collateral is taken as

consideration for granting a renewal or extension, it must be

recognized that the Agency's lien may be invalidated in the event the

borrower files a petition in bankruptcy within ninety days.

i. Perfecting the Action. Counsel shall be responsible for the

completion, filing, etc. of any new instruments (i.e. Note, Allone,

etc.) which he/she deems necessary to verfect the transaction.

51. DEFERMENTS

The Pf4 supervisor may authorize deferment of loan installments (whether

( \ monthly, quarterly, semiannually, or annually) to the maturity of the

loan. Such action may be taken at the request of the borrower and/or the

recommendation of the loan officer when, in the opinion of the supervisor,

it is an appropriate adjunct to a workout effort (i.e., those instances

where a deferment will more realistically reflect the loan condition on

the Agency's records but notice to borrower of the action taken may hinder

collection efforts). DEFERMENTS WILL NOT BE: INITIATED FOR THE SOLE

PURPOSE OF STATISTICAL REDUCTION OF THE DELINQUENCY RATE. The basic

purpose of a deferment is to enhance the borrower's cash flow, trade

credit, etc. and thereby improve the likelihood of further payments to SBA

in the long run - a short run penalty for a long run benefit.

allowed for the entire period of delinquency -- especially if a new

payment plan has been worked out. Deferment of future installments y

should generally be held to a six-month periods = timed to expire upon /

receipt of new year-end financial statements. No single deferment / (

a. Limitations. Deferments of delinquent loan installments may be j

action shall exceed one year of future installments. Consideration

may be given at the end of a deferment period, to additional relief

based on the then existing financial situation teneSg: £6. Lene

statements--etr-7.~

b. Borrower Requests. Borrowers requesting jeferment of installments

| sresocaets| re

“ng? a es —

SBA FORM 9884 (3-75) REF 00232 REPLACES PREVIOUS FOI TIONS AND SBA FORE S090

NITED STATES

OISTRi

Pen te CT Court

Es SOUTHERN OISTRicT OF 1erenicA

‘TORS, ET AL ey

*SPondants

8 Sereaing Offuo Ne OS}.

a ¢

Carrer = Cone Cot. Pur &)

Re. in oe cre. oF

here; 7. Oetinavencien Ne Pevmenn LJ)

Tet Ac

2. 7 ©. Leer Getence

courr

dated be

. Oere

3. 8 ty Whom:

et al VQ. Vehows (8000);

and du ~All Cod, 0r Cat, Pet, cee

ne 2 Prien Liens

@trici ; 11. Maturity Octe:

Exhibit - are. 808 CHANGES ONLY —

4. at Risk Ish = vee At

® ainti Creme} nanan. Cun ame «6.8 Bt Bde ws secesesevece ea e

hc tng » A xX ° a1 ae. [MTel-lal@]o]2Talslolxio

Order ox SECTION B-INSTRUCTIONS TO OF&TUl “For ihe Acton oomveony | TP LILILI LLL Ls9

copy y = | ET cc Revie tmatal, Ammeunt «eee es wa]

° ; ae ot nea 410 : = a ~ leale Rovian Nent tinsel. Cue Core... sees cecececce o-|

MA eg ee Fo tB-

court wi; ed tne Fer V eniyi ith Sits, fe | sym | tt eoeee revi sath we

in violat «|= ‘ 2S oe ee

st x sa n o i SREREE ae wecedee SC EESEES fi z TT —

and dist, et = 4 Ce = Yamee Now Mana, cards to Gor, (Enter OO)........ cers eee ae

‘wes bea . eo: 181 — ? Trenster Loon te in-Liquié. (Enter 436). TETTTTL TT TT = %

@s of 2-6 “ase < oem er > : s Tam an rm nw ain me 20 sevens . we

Res. S84 Sm by =. — wr

meee Orne: os! B. Dore Loan Trams, te tmLitigeti@g oer eres aan ee

pera 4 183 > rn = Crve Oste Loon Removed From ini, ... est

: ata. nab. 3008 ~ t

te A Nags" ¢ %

85 appears Page 2A L winil “da fier « of, Advance 4 “Eepentes = $46,082.60 to

. I did + ; WS ‘ ‘ Lynne Murphy and James J. Gomric,

¥ counsel Te Sy ae ve. a her attorney

is etter da ee } . *) ' . . .

Ss wart = —_—-<

my const RECTION € - AISTIFICATION AND APPROVAL SIGNATURES - For this Action 80P__ 30-31 pana — 19-40; 150 2

Furr ROE s+ ee soe wt) Tt

MER Apr CANE ep arene: To repay the porchecer of a Certificate of Purchase of collateral real

estate otal amount of bie purchase price plue 92 interest from the date of payment

to the date the check will be received. It is aleo the purpose of thie 327 to reverse the |

acquieition of the COLPUR to « regular Liquidation account, to reinstate the principal

balance and to accrue oe at her vegeler loan rate until the loan ie paid.

Subscribed . y ye hethe® seyee |

of Febr en . The Selletorel real nei ‘Cesustes the eubject loan was foreclosed by the U.S,

very , is ffice and the property purchased by the SBA at 4 U.S. Marshal sale on April 20,

1982 for a purchase price of $41,100. After the purchase at the sale, the Agency vas given

« Certificate of Purchase by the 0.8. Marshal's Office in lieu of a deed to the property.

This Agescy sold the Certificate of Purchase to Lynne Murphy-all of ite right, title, and

interest, in and to the U.S, Marshal's Certificate of Purchase for $42,949.50. This money

was forwarded to Denver on October 18, 1982 to be credited to the COLPUR account and coded

367, It fe our understanding chat the money is being held in abeyance. hed

The owners of the property, Mr. Thomas and Mre. Terry Schuchman d the foreclosure

- 4 aetto It appears that the U.S. Attorneys Office advertised the sale only three times

‘rather than the “four times required by federal law. Ure. Schuchman also sent her Answer co

the Complaint to the U.S. Attorneys Office rather that to the court. She was subsequent ly

declared in default. The judge, after numerous hearings and pleadings and mtione, declared

the previous judgment invalid and the sale set aside. On June 27, 28, and 29 « eubsequent

por ge Sipe held and # sumeerx. judgment was received by the Agency. We now have orders to

sell the property again.

tt will be neceseary to repay Lynne Murphy and her attorney, James Gomric, the amount of

money paid for the Certificate of Purchase plue interest at the rate of 92. A copy of Mr.

Gouric' . letter ‘requesting repayment ie attached to the 327, ;

Pay te Lyane Murphy and James J. Gowric, her attorney. $42,949.50

Interest from October 18, 1982 - August 10, 1983 at 92 3,133.16

Pay total of $46,082.60

The $42,949.50 will bé a refund of the payment made on the COLPUR account, The $3,133.16

will be an unrecoverable expense. 5

L ExHisiT A 2-6 -s6

. COPY) FIFLO CASE PIL

SHA FORM 377 GOP PO 2161 RMP) FOL TION OF FON LY BE USL UNTIL Er ausTE®

5 2.

RICA

CourT OF AME

TATES DISTRICT oF eients

, MITED S abe © oF

on THE S pisTRicT

; VED

rors, ET AL ; RECEI

Respondants ) 80-514 6 1986

é } A MARVIN JAB FT sae —

Man Cav isinnars————

IFICATION OR ADMINISTRATIVE 2. Lee Asorors “ts Serwame Otine We | —__9$43__

- me tae seman hatte tien Oni ss? : water — he O

~ te mm Cnn.

Am 2 sores mere aaa Lees Pree rs 5 Ait sepa

:—? rat ~ 4 . - * toms her tas .

; |= at ee, a Less

hw § ete | Str , Ol 1G OFC |e Leen telenen SE ey”

/ *s

2 gu LA

y Poe 3 4 2 pS EY a =

on ~ > jms “ 2 . .

xe 4 i = 19. Mametey Ooo

Mee o% ) 7 1 | #0" CHANGES OWLY =| =

it e , Come es ab poles

we : - _ - — ws fot Weve Tomak, Yves (tinier ?, 0:07 Ki- soneee) vb 6 od PS

“= < Report Conet P¥e min * Ran inet. Pram, meme 86, 0.8.6, or HI occecedcvccede -

- ones OSs . a ge, | muooonnonoun

re SECTION © - INSTRUCTIONS TO OFEFM - For thu Acton. . . "rare ust omer ae eee ft 8. =

nae [FOFERUREN ABB EwamGtB OMY T=] Rem nee so on

on - aoe F

| __ Pome = oo

AAO: ~— - ;

+B —| = ~

Pe aaje-<

‘ a a ‘

: a4 5a

| es -- oat

Sction< = =

. —_ : loa « Gets Leen Trane, op tnt ieigesion cool eee eenee = =

: 7 = Soe Gore Leen Removed Fram inte)...

CADSE 7

estate Fe . “4 “o & gn 2:

to the « 20% ea Pi. ‘sie * *

balance | pote? reste “4 iy & - nf.

ieee x 7 5° a em & pees -’? - kom

COMMENTS ~ es tf ;

5 SECTION C - ae aaa ST For this Action SOF. APA "

1982 for”, The COLPOR account’. will be closed out and the soncash scquisition of April 20, TT nm

& Certific reversed and the sccougt reinstated under liquidetion status. The interest should accrue on

nie Asese, thet loan st the interest rete of 6 5/82 per sonum. “- :

*rest, ;

. Tt is imperative thet all of this is done quickly as the second sale for the property bes

+ Te le been ordered by the court for August 18, 1963.. I must know the emount of the loan plus

interest through that date in order to enter « protective bid at the sale. The property bas

The ovners been appraised st approximately $65,000 so that there is sufficient equity for me to bid the

SS, . full qmowst of the loss. - ie ; : sees:

ather ~~ >. / =—

the Complefat RECOMMENDATION: it is recommended that the amount of $46,082. 60 be paid to:

Lyane Murphy and James J. Gomric, her attorney

A ea ye

Property ages James J. Gomric Law Office

r 96 East Washington

€ will be Secessary ; . Belleville, riltsote 62220

a AY paid for the Ce, A , 03 &°.

*s letter Freques It is further recowmended thet the acquisition ot the COLPUR property of April 20, 1982 be

reversed end the Colonial Barber Shop le~n 778785 10 07 be reiasteted in Liquide ion status

Pay te Lyone Murp | 404 the interest accrued from the. date of agri ee! 3982 at ‘ 5/82 iaterest.

est from Oct, +

Pey total of $46. Our Breoch Counsel's, tera “onitag ot i the epermese a fr ‘suvhece’ of the Certittcate of |

Purchase > ee foterest is thie, 327.7 Lahep ett a? » i

tit 42?949-50 will be TF te bale * Sa ~ a Ce aii Atet

vill be on “arecoversb!] Ree wae rs - Fiat | »

©]. “ pti Sy a /

564 1 O86 379 56> 90 F129 had in LUD FINAL ACTION aan:

D. I. » Assistant Breach Meneger

EX#/217 B 2 4: -S

SH me 1 OMA ITT SOY 20 24-4 (9-07) FONTIO% OF CBE HL. OE USED UNT CeMAUSTTO " yr

1 THE COURT: All right, the motion filed July 16th to compel

a 2 |\disqualification of Judge Beatty signed by Thomas L. Schuchman

3 and Terry Lynn Schuchman is denied.

| 4 MRS. SCHUCHMAN: You did say I would have ten minutes for

| 5 ||a closing statement. You did say I could have ten minutes for

6 2 closing statemont.

> THE COURT: No, I did not say you could have ten minutes.

: g ||\You said you could have ten minutes for a closing statement two

g |jhours ago. I will give you three minutes.

10 MRS. SCHUCHMAN: We are depending on Skeels (phonetic)

1, | Versus Universal C.I.T. Credit Corporation and Bigquill (phonetif)

12 | Versus Associated Hardware and our cases, and I do object, I do

) 13 ||Claim yeu are prejudice, extremely 60, because you have not even

: F 14 ||e¢xamined the exhibits showing your prejudice. You have not

18 ruled on the defect in the record, and you have conferred and

- given Mr. Reppert time to go out and make a copy and make an

- cral motion and this is the conduct that Mrs. Shaw claims in

18 her letter of July 12th, it is extremely prejudicial. You can't

19 possibly make a decision without having seen the material

“ admitted, and it's brand new. You haven't seen it before, but

“ you have made a ruling, and I believe that is extremely preju-

“a dicial, and it’s the way you have ruled throughout this case.

THE COURT: Now Mrs. Schuchman, and both of you, I think

os I have told you this before and I think it's in the record but

ss? a. I want to tell you again that I have ruled on this matter. f

eugr

arr

have ruled on it a long time ago. Most of these pleadings ard

documents you have filed since then have been addressed to the

issve of whether or not I was right or wrong in my rulings and

I may have been wrong. I am not perfect. I may well have been

wrong, but that has to be decided, if I am wrong, then that's

up to the Appellate Court to say so. You have a right to an

appeal. If you want to appeal. do it. You are aware of that.

You have talked about it. You know what the times are. You

have read all the rules. My part in this case is through now

and I mean this property is going to be sold when Mr. Reppert?

MR. REPPERT: I don’t know the date, Your Honor. I can

aget that for you.

THE COURT: I am not through.

| MRS. SCHUCHMAN: I would like to make an oral motion.

THE COURT: You're not going to make an oral motion.

MRS. SCHUCHMAN: You're prejudiced.

THE COURT: You may think I am prejudiced, and I have

Genied that motion. I don't think I am prejudiced. Again, een

can raise that in your appeal.

| MRS. SCHUCHMAN: You are. I would like to make an oral

request for leave to file a writ of mandamus.

THE COURT: Please keep in mind your right to an appeal

and if you want to take advantage of it, do so. That's all.

MRS. SCHUCHMAN: May I have an oral motion on a writ of

mandamus to compel disqualification? May I have leave to file

( n-5>

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS [95h OV IS Pp" &: 36

6.8 RPL FART

CLORE 8.2. oe

SOOT Res «FFs 2S BF ocd tes

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

-VsS- No. 88 5143

THOMAS L. SCHUCHMAN, ET AL.,

Defendants.

ORDER

On November 13, 1984 the clerk of this court received the

Original and a copy of a document from the defendant Terry Lynn

Schuchman entitled “Proof of Service” with a penciled notation as

follows “please filemark original and this copy and return copy

to me". This cause is presently on appeal to the Seventh Circuit

Court of Appeals but despite that the defendant Terry Lynn

Schuchman persists in attempting to file documents in this court.

IT 1S THEREFORE ORDERED that the clerk of this Court receive

such documents but not file them. The clerk shall mark said

documents received and the date they are received and place them

in a separate folder to be retained but they shall not be file-

marked or included in the official court file.

DATED: This 1G* day of Lpyem le , 1984.

a aa

: WILLIAM L. BEATTY &

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

NOTE: CLERK TO FORWARD COPIES TO ALL PARTIES.

A ppeix G Rage 2 and Brief

ea ee ee | eee wer ee Oe oe, s | -

PRLOF OF SERVICE iy NOV 15 1984 =

| ‘A MARVIN HELART

On February 7, 1983 I oe file, among others, a poibntkiti gs haar. PANY trae:

ALTON OFFICE

Answer" signed by Thomas L. Schuchman with district court deputy clerk.

Patsy Frew in the Alton District court clerk's office at 501 Belle Stree

Ailton, Illinois 02002. I did have with me coptes of all pleudings filed

that dcy for service upon U.S. Assistant Attorney Clifford J. Proud. Thie

was obvious to district court deputy Patsy Frew who very nicely told me

that Mr. Proud was in the building that day and she would see that he

got his copies if I left them with her, which I did. JI do believe that

PRE FTE Be a ae WI

is a valid service. However after the confuston today 11-8-84 when I

tried to leave.a copy of Memorandum with said attached with employees of

. pete

the U.S. attorney's office and I was told Janet Henkey was on annual leave |

pene. ee

and since I hua typed her name I woulda hove to wuit until her return.

nezt week, I want to be certuin I have valig service. Therefore I am

placing a copy of pleading styled "Reiterative Answer" signed by Thomas

L. ochuchman Glon; with affidavit made 7-12-82 by Terry Lynn Schuchman

attachea tn an envelope addressed to U.S . attorney Frederick Hess, 750

Missouri ave., £&. St. Louis, Illinoos oz201 and marked Return Receipt

kequested and Deliver to Adaressee Only and stumped certified mail recipt

# P460 935 872. with correct poaeee offized and depositing suid in the

out of town depository of the main Belleville Post Office at 2nd & Zashingt |

tn Belleville, I;linois on this 8th day of November 1984 and Likewise I am |

placing coyies of Kketterative Answer signed by Thomas L. Schuchnaon and

affidavit made 7-12-G2 by Terry Lynn Schuchman in an envelope addressed

to william a, &£rajec, Ska Counsel, Four North Ola State Capitol Plaza, |

Washington putidias, Springfield, Illinois 02701 and marked Heturn Receipt

mequested and Deliver to addressee Only and stumped certified mail receipt

# P 460 935 873 with correct pestuye offized and depositing satd in the

out of town depository of the main Belleville Frost office at 2nd & Washingt:

St. belleville, 53 inots on this 6th day of Novender 1964. A7ACHMIENT 5

(22 é, sho CF 32) (sie Tir ys89F Ee Oe ve One

pe -- - -- eo. f od

: : : on

: Lee f ee ; rape bs PS ais les SiLGo

. , }

doin LH - ~—_ - —_—_-7_"- -

— TT eT

+ LILTIEFS DIFEMOLNTES

STATES OF AMERICB . (1) SCHUCHIAN, THOMAS L.

(2) SCHUCHIZN, TERRY Lok

ey) ¢. are

(4) BELLEVILLE CROWK FINANCE

wb i)a CH _

~ \ (5) SS ROARTIE SRESSE-COMP ANY

IONAL BANK OF

rpay Finenciéi Sexyices

CAUSE

28 USC 2368 Foreclosure of Mortcage

= - -_s “a > 7 = * = _——_

cere nd r+ (4) hi Gary Al o1éEen

ee eee ae ‘ ;

e3 : : in 7 : ° Ss :

Unites fretes zAttornes He lyon Ross & Funk

: 4 "ayrh Mes

ft s+ oe . -_ no” -“ Tro \ Nu y)

SHEOCSTE Co F.sCvOnaLiC, JF., AUSA i10 North ager

vac Migecers. AVenuE £. St. Lovis, iL 62201

Seem Co cf amte T% £39907 §75-€°06

-_-—_—-= ~ -~ -- -~ — aa —_——_ ~_ ee

28 Seger

ae * he oe fs =yre- * =2*-"6e°°

ae ee Pe Fe Se ey ee :

+e. we a Si a a

30 Puelic Scusre

PeLievi lie, 2x. 62220

Wi a2ssar A. Rreiec - :

=<—=+77 Meet -e cece PAm ert er rstaicren

ar ossam a> a eo wetascveee a OSS Le oGeaGes

ee : A Sn ae er ae Pee et

INE Center, Euite $14 DEFTS i, « & = FF. EE

SevinnwZiesits ¢* £2701 5/€/62: Kesues= Tor s.otices:

ers elDeli ces, se C</

a = pad aee r ee | CS a-<,:, =~

227/482-4223: Terry Lyns. £c::schmar:

122 East Encore orsve

' POs COVEL16. ca Ceedc

ieee esr eerie

€1e « ecee

rt eit = te = = rr 3

- —— - f.>) = O--se

ae peepee iojie ©. Schsec

o &. FE Su. -. ee a ae ne

©. 2a8t.. Caer. 22s vdabhalit aca > asblee Srae 3

: Ba: ate rca pa iptate

nee ° inn hm Se. eva is@, EL Giada?

we seve 2,4 ¢

PGceeviiak, ia ee ons

tk i ae Fee

~_- _ = ‘ sd . —

en : Thormes LT. Senucnmar.

- ‘ “S _-—-e

a ee et ~~ i ~@8t Snore [rive

viet Oitase 2-E, Tos E* , * Cée e825 SN .

Wp eye ~romse aw - ram, tal Se: ev: S30) Ti Gere

- = -_ - - = - = _

a =~ C- x : a 1 --

— . ~ oan a -_- — ~ - —_* & -

¢ “~ — -

$t.. tate 2 :8°R ee Bet. ee

gf- Ot.tf 6°sir

A. Fis: Tue ee ss 82 ae

a a a Te a oe -reerc:

ECO). % eee tae we son we vee

SHEERS 2 Ste tee, Leases

tefee€€ Ft 4esves Ceurt Gl ASeeeis

Fer ¢££F:6€ Ee vets? €s7¢u2t

"© €crrkh Deerbers. StsT€€t, ROSE Zi2z2d

ee ef ae ee €0Ee Gs

ee Unitec Sitetes of America Vs.

<--«

Thomes L. Schuchman and Terry L. Schuchman .

-sie: Ceovre Docdet Ke: _ 80-5143 :

T.£.C.h. Bbockhet Ke: _€4-2422 .

2/>

; er ae

= ‘ew =< os - Soar é.

scree fe _ - & Ff-awa mt = ion eo -

AG) acon Se euen £O Feresiose MEr -sa7e

Summers :68uec anc Swe co U.S. Mare>s: =

" eacse = ~~ 4 ° 4 oe _— =.2 es a

( ~ ) aNSNER (Belleville Crouwm Finance)

det Pe a aeed acs —_ - “s+ aA A

/So°-“"ONS returned exec. on FN3B Bellevitte §/24/35

Fs a n= 7 seek 4 4 ort tT — a hk De & “

exec on Beiieville Crow Finence 6/ 22;39

exec on Associated Finenciai Serv. a/x/a Fairview

~ r sae n

Reliable Loen Co. 6/24/89

a: a s -” ° ef < 4

exec on Mercantile Trust 6/26/53

' . in ESOT / ED

exec on Thomas Schuchmen §/27/59

exec on Lois Schan 7/1/80

unex on Terry Lynn Schuchman

¢ ~>S FOR JUNE, 1981 mailed to attornevs of record.

q) MOTLON for order for service bv publication

(SU aitidcavic for service by publication

- Prcposec créer for service by publication

‘Proposed notice of publication (USA)

Oe ORDER (WLB) for service by publication

) NOTICE of publication issued and forwarded to USA

FESUEST to Clerk for Entry of Default by Pitf.

AFFiDAVIT of Failure to Piead or Otherwise Defend in Support of Application for

ZA Entry of Default by Richard H. Lloyd (Asst. U.S. Atty.)

(GZ DEFAULT ENTERED acainst the DJefts, Thomas L. Schuchman, Terry Lynn Schuchcan, Lois ©

Schan, Mercantiie Trust Comcany and Feirview Reliable Loan Co. a/k/a

Associates Financiai Services, nerein srusuant to Rule 25/2) of tne FRCP

for failure to plead or otherwise cefend. By 8. D. Hudcens, Clerk.

‘ ! * « “a “AA - 7. -

DATED: April 2, 7231. Copies to 211 parties. Sms

' ; ri

On UNCLAIMED, letter to Thome: L. Schuchman -- Letter to Lois C. Scn2n --Letter to

>| Terry Lynn Schuchman

| '7 NOTICES mailed for non-jury cocket call set for June 19, 1981 at 1:30 p.m. with

| trial set for the zenth of July.

1 ‘

MOTION to Amend Compléint with proposed order.

(foreclose a lien of Bank of Belleville)

@ OPDER (WLB) Leave is granted Pltf. to file amended complaint. Covies. pb

(=> MENDED COMPLAINT filed. pb

| 2 su =mons issued on amernced complaint and forwarded to Marshal. pb

.# RETUPN of service on Bank of Belleville, June 15,1981.

we eer.

S3Sr5 hE ME Tot 1. Fs ES >

ae eat 5 pigs is See )

P - &

ss ahaha ae a ‘Sc PO

Pars et t )

7.7m) Crew; gest

ue a ee ‘a P i a OF PLGES

KS - Gis

vom

ae | ! PROCEEDINGS

‘

= |

ss (4D axseeR to amended comiaint (FB Belleville) rb

‘TPS mailed to Badgley

NOTICES maileé for non-jury docket call set for October 21, 1

trial set for the week of October 26th.

3] | °81 at 12:00 noon

with

gery!

“— CS PEQUEST to Clerk for Entry of Default (Bank of Belleville)

C1) | AEficGavit of Failure to Piead or Otherwise Defend in Support of Application for

iD) Entry of Default

=EFAULT Entereé this Gay, copy to all attorneys of record.

NG SALE OF MORTGASED FROFERTY (WLE) cories to

torneys of recorc. r)

tanh. Setj er:

ot we , SELIEN = €,

‘ JP

‘ Na RF SBAL*SE Reters. ef Baie, costae tt. 3€

thy

crager or ¢ is cése.

-- / a4 ——- +, : . : “+ a rc c sc

- (at §=6FZLINSE By Meg. Sehussces, 26 cacee cZ cecies cf varicet papers. Ez

ne So FILCNSE by Mrs. Echuctzer., Exhibit iist, A thst Z and other papers rv

22 Dm) MOTION _fer_resensigerstior (gre.se. Jerry _lynr schpcrren - letter) ez

rectonsaceTéiiorn ror noth Stcnuchnern ant Lois Schen

2 qs: ICES meflied icr neering on pre se motion for reconsideration set for 9/9/E&2

ez 12:00 rsor ce: ettvs and ty path cert.meil & reg. mail to Schuchnans

ané Schac ee

= on wSenayianz Ene 3/8/29 ¢ ee Pe

373 SCHUChimAn, SG@AELNS Cr 9/7, G2 2B Bears

Wa nman, treatec as Motion for Centinuance

none nearing nas been cancelled.

- 5 =-sliloar A i eee ee % = -s 1.

3/2 callecé UCSAttornev’s office, Mr. Apoian'’s

. r

aa ae

OV af

exhibits AAA, 553, and Cro

RA-ESEB-CC-DD-fE-FP-GS-HH-LI-GS-KK-LL-MM-N-00-FF-

sisne2 sv Lols Scnau. .

=, o 2 ames = ww oe S$ -~—eSe rR as - St al - -

i ecsree confirming -.5. “Marsnal s rescrt of

f s 2 f Aa:

11/29/82 (Scnau)

—_— J i i °

at 10:00 a.a. (mmn/in bock and parcies

ov 29 C28), EXHIBIT FR -- See Statement of Facts filed Nov 22, 1982 by Mrs. Schuchman c

1 e wonnatea £1* 24 Bo Tmie ae Ceres Se

as oe SEARING (23) Case called for motion to vacate fi.eG sv Lols schau. CrSi -ine

- . . - oo - . r = ‘oT =

7. HOnwods to toin in motion to vacate by Thomas & Terry Schuchman; allowed (WLE

Hearinc neld and motion to vacate is allowed. ‘crder to pe submitted <=

~ ed nes ~ . = . si vs 5 @ @-

Clitforg troud. Cause to be set for non-jury trial on December 20, 7:

| at 93:30 a.m

oy 7 ee ee ee + = -=-7 cr “ _ Neen -- weer, = =~

LER SS sctaees maiseé fcr sen-tury trial on Des. 2Z0Gh at 2icv a:

: ~ ;

izf; f wcTICES -siled for ren-jurv trial reset for Janvary 14th 2t 9:79 a.m.

ses is (34> “FIER(WL3) serting aside and vacating Marshal's sale of April 20, 1982 and

a, =

Px - '. = ag e@: ; 7 . ~“s = %

‘arshal's deed issued Octoper 20, 1982. .. . Answers tencered by

! - ° ° =e . . .

Dezencants are ordered file and the Clerk is directed to reset this matter

H +> ‘i '. Yor sse-=> ; ~ ; AS Aas

on the Court's docket. ===== copies mailed this date, copy to Mrs. T.

huchnman CERTIFIED. Ps

“" 5; = = . . <a So . =~ o ~ S sos ze -

sec 15 Dec 14 OFDER, in compliance with last sentence of Ureer, see filings

5 /6 | o° $% (95 7059» dy | /e*7 =

5/6/32; $/17/82: 7/12/82; 11/22/82; and 11/29/82. pt

TION for leave =o intervene(lynne Murphy) (propesed order to be mailed in

to vacate ané nullify the Court's Order of December 14, 1982. (to be he-

on January isth with non-jury trial). (REF. 1-14-93)

aeons

zor Leave

TOME

‘2

Signeé by Thomas L. Schuchman.

from Terry Lynn Schuchman with

intervene signed by Lois C

“ese

eat == ccc > ey = Swe © —— owe with -se Se 6-3 a . re

Jan 10 360) MOTION to Deny Petition for Leave to Intervene by Lois Schau

Jan 12 x PROPOSED Order

: mocmet WO BOe£214:

-- ' wpe cal _- . - . e Py

-= eS oe Mera, Es Ge PAGE < OF PAGES

DATE NR PROCEEDINGS

Pas 32 MOTION for Summary Judement (Lois Schau) (REF. 1-]4-€3)

MOT1O:; for Summary Judement (Terry Schuchman) (REF. 1-14-83)

MOTION for Summary Judoment (Thomas L. Schuchman) (REF. 1-14-@€3)

(Proposed Conclusions of Law, 1 set ---PROPOSED Findincs of Fact, 1 set)

MOTION to Deny Petition for Leave to Intervene by Thomas and Terry (REF. 1-14-€:

Scnuchman and Lois Schau with proposec order for Judee's sianature. pf

sé HEAPINS HELD (WLS)

oe zervofB7) ORDEE (WLE) Motions in the instant cause come on for hearing, all parties beinc

rresent. The motior. to intervene of Lynn Murphy hearé and alloweé. The

motion of Lynn Murphy to set aside this court's order of December 14, 1982

heerc Genied. The motions of Thomas Schuchman, Terry Schuchman anc

or summary juéoment hearé and denied, as factual issues remain.

£ the United States for summary jvdcment, presentec orally, is

tc Le rresented formeliy with supportine memorandum. The cause is ordered

set for trial. Cories. r

yuk CC® MNOT1O% ior rehearing on motion to deny petition for leave to intervene(Lois

Schéeu,Terry & Thomas Schuchman) eg

- +r 7 y- © £ * 2 * * la cr ,

hee {Notice of setting of motion to deny petition set for 2/18/83 at

6:30 é.m. rb

. C54 J AMENDED MOTION for summery juccnent (Terry Schuchzen) ec

0) ' PROPOSED Findings of Fact

AL PROPOSEN Conclusions of law (Terry Schuchman) eg

AL MOTION for Judement on the pleadings (Thomas Schuchman) er

PLITERATIVE ANSWER (Thomes Schuchman)

Mid) PROPOSE: findings of fact (")

CES FROPCSE: Conciusions ef lav (")

ZG MOTION for judgment on the pleecings (L.Scheu) ec

z4 DMPLICATE enswer (L.Schav)

PROPCSEI findings of faci (L.Scnar i :

é PROPOSES conclusions cf lex "

‘SO ' MOTION te compel compliance with order vacating decree cirecting seie of

mortgeereé property, setting asice U.S. Marshal's saie enc Marshal's deec

| (Terry Schuchman) es

ale «EB Propesec conclusions of lew (Schuchman)

eae 2: ORDER (LB) thet cefts' motion to compel complience with order

vecating decree, motions for jucgments on the ;-eecings,

amended motion for summerv iucements end motion for reneering

on orcer grentine motion to intervene were hearc ena DENIED rd

cc & cert to pro se de

CS.°13A REV syste i

- ’ a oe Pe Ss *,.

-2 296 ae * — eo ~ a

~ — = > - eer .*— &

ao = SF ROUCEEL wwe

st --= — —$—- - EE = = a — << = =_—— $$$ —$—— ==

eer P~ S32) oa ee = +A ~~ s:e _ Awe, se =s* =2-+:

ae ~ ~ = = « ~~ ~~ - ~ - = -— —— «= = _— -<

CYP SSFroavIt sf Treras L. fchuctmer

— mtorr ptr BS meee - = as chiens

at “pntn * 2 a »

—. a 2 Pe a oe

eee AR SR cette Re Sete eRe Se RNC Tmt: FO ppm re freer ot FAO? A Tee

22 4° == 5 = Se SNS = SAP = awe { "Ee? A

“ewe & W/L = ~~ ee eee eas ose ow o coe Few nw eo oY —— = owed ew oN ee -.* Nee ee et

eee meee Se cey fue ner oee-tooy fees ite nmesoecy RAMDTO SAIN wtIDpoOweoYT

ae acoocee FARMS atlietNS Ged faatis Feesek ATowrtL YS Swieardee Sates AUAUWOSLSL

aace Amis mmnrpeoue - oree*esn fee tir of 4

c= 2 merry \ c = { : ( 5

Fata Gace ATTC tae & We fe le woe Wid act alec bd

warrsa top ~ HOCTIPAMSY ene teed Usa aan en. 7s 2° Terme se CraArrtrasra -Ssco--rt

SF) Me eae CM A em eRe SRS 6 weet et ae a a SOLES AWW OC Ve eM LE :SSUES

Ac rir -awcratee

Wwe 1m ee wee ae IN

Aare TON CAD PoUwTADTYNT A Morte mM Ayutot PCMcrTayer wrru nreoce Venlaale at fom

ED : N FOR REHEARING © CTiCN TO COMP COMPLIANCE WITH DECREE VACTING

a < nr TRECTING SATE OF waPTSASES SDADCDTV AYN sremTris een

acating) ORDER DIRECTING SALE OF TGAsSD PROPERTY AND SETTING ASaDE

eA Beousrt te Sarr aes ow © yt aSe5

“ARSHAL'S SALE AND IRSHAL*S JEED

J. ame te ~ occa — —_ + = Se

—" -

Oe el sale ens — creamer OY “me eee ee a dé

@@wst « * 21 i w a ea we @

/ La Tes =F Spseesienr TY =o Ma em & = ,e2 >+ . 7 ~ . we nas

‘ 4 = wee - w= Se = wast 9 “es ewan’ 9 oe « ~ —— G « ; N * - =? =

—-an® SESaoTrTer Pers ‘ F Cea r San - “nara e 241) e

(£5) CEAcTcS cso Trarseript ef SBA Account (Sy cnomas ScAaAucnman) pr

4 u

= _? Ser nr, A Sue J =~ 4 Wea ,& Ss ~~ . | -

ar a & PRECTOSGRAPES Federally Funded Ew ‘53 Construction (by Mrs. chuchman) or

res *“e2nPre — — are - e ~- e@ sees . cover sea on“ r -=or setts caoman* “>

: 4 #! : er ; re FS tase ; by acvisement

2 S39 ANS OST) = a cum — So te

33 (Co) AMENDED motion for summary juéoment (certs)

spree

Go 7 = 4

sas &

~~} & eas —

ss Een > fobs S=STA2(WILS) rylis ~ ¢* OtT1OnS StVleG aS-oeRseczseSoRe-te-

- ~ — — ao we ww + _— + -~—asi Waa ‘ we me wre - = ee —

ih a Ae.eten € — sacme >) eee ee @-= Iot

aS SeStaseteasbslEbe on tor Summary Juaemenc, DEITD lotion

= = * Ps = ° Pe. —_— -_ = = oT e —s -* > a= -_—-—

fcr sehearing on “ot: ary Juaetent and Jucemest om che #1leacinages

—— + eo » in o = . _ wes - ae _—

wise Mh MOTION CO Ma-.< eve DSefisite the Position cf the) Farties, GENIco==

- * Say abs ool eS eT ae” iets Send - ne

Motion cor Rehearing cr. iiction to Comcel Compliance wi ~2cree, DENTEL D--

Motion for Declaratory Susgment, DENIED -<Objanhisiss Eon 1 ain aa

etaken.anayenteredion the cocket as ‘@n ZANSWERGon—behalfsort the | cannes

MEIEPRY .LENN“SCHUCHMAN anc as-a “SUPPLEMENTAL “ANSWERTON “behalf 2OF ‘thevde fendant:

eTHOMAS De. SCHUCHMAN AND LOLS_SCHAU_unless written objection to this action

tved from these cefendants by theCourt within ten (10) <

this Order - - - -Copies of this Order mailed to each

Terr

y L. Sehuch=man, Tnomas L. Schuchnan anc Lois Schau... .

-83 and 2-24-83

fendant, TEPRY LYNVY SCHUCHMAC ~¥820

ANSWER of Sefendant, T::CMAS L. A:

TAL ANSWrR of cefencant, LOIS SCAU -

~ ee

e CVAMFRSe matitlad faw nana sees &wes , ese fav ehea wneve’ vf 17 e@ sb

- a) Ore Gar Q2is4@G .0OF NON ms wc ahi SOL a= ‘see - O. wo UNG. 2

a RE “ss

DATE NR PROCEEDINGS

MOTION to Strake Mercantile Trust Co. as & Namecé Defendant in Original

Complaint by Gefencant Lois C. Schau

MOTION te Szrike Orjections te Complaint es Answer to Complaint and Vacate

Order Datec 4-2€-E2 by Tnomas L. Schuchmarn, Terry Lynn Schuchman ané

Lois C. Schau

NOTICE of settine of both motions, Friday, Sune 2, 1963 at ¢:30am, copies

to book, mm... pf

«}fn€3 OY REQUEST to Clerk for Entry of Default by Lois C. Schau, entry of default

cirected to First National Bank of Belleville, with AFFIDAVIT in support

of Reguest attached

q2 MOTION TO STRIKE by defencant Thomas L. Schuchman ané Lois c. Schau (as

to Gefendant Fairview Reliable Loan Co., Inc., ake Associates Financial

Services an3 Bank of Belleville)

a) MOTION to Strike by defendant Lois C. Schev (as te defs Belleville Crowr

Finance ané First National Eank of Bellevilie)

i> MOTION to Dismiss by defendants Thomas L. Schuchmar., Terry Lynn Schuchman

ans Leis C. Schau

WD FOYVEST to Clerk for Entry of Default by Lois C. Schau, entry of default |

Cirectes te Belleville Crown Finance, AFFIDAVIT attacheé ir Support of.

CID FOQVEST to Cler} for Entry of Default, entry-ef-deseulte-cireeces-ce---- -2ee

prsimetéf-Clhy-SSh7-RESEPAYET-atteehee-in-sepeerc-efs- by Lois Schau,

a entry of defeult cirected to USA, SBA, AFFIDAVIT atiached ir eurport of.

Go) FESVEET te Clerk for Intry of Writ of Assistance by Lois C. Schex

( § l Pogeets te Clerk for Enury ef a Writ of Execution ry Leis C. Ecnay ----

Foy-markes Rkeceivecé, FILED es instructeé by RE. No notice of settine. pt |

a? Ss menses MOTION for fwmery Jusoment by deft (Thomes L. Schuchmar). sms

"14

") ,

it ‘

‘

’

iP)

‘@

{

‘|

‘

| i |

‘

{

)

“y

‘ j ors de 4 wiete Sts |

ras a Sib aia es ae . a m |

cx “Sawes. eCF SOT. aratery Rkeliel Sx c2f2 (leis ©. Ecrav}. sms

e as diplanties ide Re erate fal - a ae

Lee “f,JhE- 2Or Seclaretery Reliel ry tet: (Tnomase L. Echuchman) ss |

—_

(7 /* nw} Cr _ = = 7 - . = - ‘

=5 Cae, CLERK S cenieél of entry of writ of execution (exec 5/20, eod 5/23)

Gs CLERK'S ceniel of entry of writ of assistance (exec 5/20, eod 5/23) i

(SiG) TLERE'S cenial eof request for entrv of Gefavlt(exec 5/20, eoe 5/22) |

Ln’ -sihinS ceniel of request for entry of cefeulc(exec 5/20, eod 5/235)

ii) --=Re'S ceniei of recuest for entry of cefeult(exec 5/20, eo¢ 5/23) }

Oey -Ccpy of letcer te Mrs. Schau from Clerk co 8 80=b

= uetter to Cierk from Mrs. Schau

fe OFDER (WLB) concerning papers filed which ere directed to Clerk, |

i.€., that C:erk or ceputies ere not to act upon all matters

without first submitting to Court for eppropriate disposition

(eoe 5/25) cc rb

vik . ‘

a =

, Ge :

—

\. “

> OF CAS

se5.¢ 3

OATE NAR PROCEEDINGS

~ 962

-— + ae a

- A+ " TROITNAT er => —— ao a weteq 2 soantt Lateran aw -

5,29 ORIGINAL ANSWERS tendered Jul zi, L830 (dertts oa: se)

_ —_—-_ ed o- ~ | ’ = a ' pam on on = 7 ~ * *. ~_-

"CLARIFICATION oF original eaenmsxers crencered Juiv il 1970

HOoK7IT CS ; aw =- 7 { «, 7 — ~- ~ catwe”™ a - - aw “” 77 a AF

Sih ee te awed & Oo BO. Gia vY SGwuasun we Baeat'€a 42mswé=s cence rea i Su

tage : << ee wa :

as compiaint ror reiiez= rrom untrue silegations

~ <= — nm 7 oe ng mae Tes, - a) Aung e on ee Yate ,* aA

REQUEST to liberailiv construe orizinse: answer’ tencered 8/1/50

* . = - 2

as a complaint ror injunctive rete:

ArT? =m | h «2 @ _s ~ & — : egwea 7 1, me oa oe ** — = = ~~ 7 2

REQUEST to liberaliv construe origina! “answer' ctencered 7/3/30 as

a complainc fer declaratory reliet

AT Pn — ie . ; ~~ / =)

OODrR! GINAL "answer tencered 7/3/80

AT ee, ncem ceannAasa oO / nh

(Te LD ORIGINAL answe= rendered: 8/1/80

(tx * MOTION ror conrinuance

=TON - eee emoenssad am-=lsin-e Sole r ) ~

4iVar FO SEFTLKSCO B2rmencea Cuil ~Eeinet Lae. cs oro se Ps

tsrnce

AFEITUAVIT Sesr ar: I. Sanéstrem, Asst. General Counsel Nerwes: Snancial

-s 4 — - Fam ~~ - yy - ~ b | Ta = -

REQUEST for Default and Default Judgment against Co-Party Mercantile Trus

a e

ase 2 - . :

in Favor of Pro Se Defencants ibv al an

oLcarrcer " ; ~ e *.7% » a Ro an fence »,c "oc Ck. - : ** * 9

REQUEST to Show Cause Why Crder Dated May 25, 1983 Should ‘Niot be vacated and

Gefault entered acainst Plaintiff for failure * olead or cefend--

(sv pro se gefenéant Terry Ly" Sek “ar )

9) enitcer ¢ Mr re _ et aid ‘ ak’ die —e . :

qi 7 EQUEST for Signature of Current > op re Plaines: to Appear

~~ we ~~ tn<s = - ’ - ~ ete

—s wet COnm eBamceed - - pas € eSe Sie

a mm, ss ana > ff nner oe

ym a 4nomées G@rna ierryvy scnucnnsn)

=> rycen D? a ~ o—- = 2 Th. . T+ mle “ee « n“.;F

[ REQUEST to Cite Plaintifs and Third Party intervener uoynne “urr and her

ee avec =~ a ~ = - — ~- ar. e ~~

attornevs SGomric and Kurcewski for Contempt of Court Orcer (by

™)\

}

{

}

)

‘

LEE)

}

Ss of pro se def

n 5, 5/10, and

d. See order S

oq ™

e/l1¢ NOTICES mailed for non-jury trial ser for June 27th at 9:30 a.m. =

et he REAR SAE RAERSRAERAAAAARERARATRAEREERA AREA AEAAARAERAAAAAAT REET EKER ET RA EATER AKER Eee RS

23-83. I1¢ | AMENDED MOTION FOR INVOLUNTARY DSMISSAL by all defts. -

-24-83 ps DEFTS' STATEMENT OF FACTS

(Lb = AFFIDAVIT of Deft. Lois C. Schau

|'AFFIDAVIT OF Deft. Terry L. Schuchman

'AFFIDAVIT of Deft. Lois C. Schau

| | \

C'vVie DOSCHET COMIN ATION SHEES tt —wetme” 14-8. The 4aee

a df 4 dT UR.

/ -~ & =

“— RRR pocxerno S -SN%

2 r. SCOHICHYAS., FTESAAE = , € ea G

| PAGE “1 OF PAGES

DATE NE PROCEEDINGS

€%s.0 114 MOTION to compel tc produce (Defts)

[LAO MOTION to withéraw objections to complaint (defts) pt

@ ‘3° NOM.-JURY TRIAL (WLE) Case calies for non-jury trial. Govt. present by C.

Horwoo2 Prove enc Defts. Thomas L & Terry 1L Schuchman & Lois Schau present Pre

S MOTION for involuntary Gismissél by Gefts. argued ané denied.

ORAL MOTION to Cismiss by Gefts. arcueé ané Genied. MOTION to withnéra»

objections to complaint by Gefts. arcues ané Genied. MOTION to compel

tc prosuce by sefts arcuec ans allowes. Evidence presented on behalf of

the Fitt. Césse is recesseé until 6/26 et $:30 a.n.. pb

Wont woms Shame (KLE evisence presentes or behalf of the Pitf. Fitf. rests.

Def2., Serry iss.r. Schuchman, presente eviéenc Cause is recesseé until

€ ‘22 at $:3C a..z. p>

2 Le oURY TRIAL (Wi Evisence presentes on behalf of the Geft., Terry L.

Se usts2s Teft. Resets Fvicence presentes or, behalf of the é6eft.,

oem e crt fate (V3 Ciceins arcuments presentes. The Court finas in favor

GS F2ts. ant asasnst Deltts Govt. te prerare Gecree t oréer of sale. m

: PROPOSE: Decree anc Créer Girectine sale of mortgacec property. (Pitf). pr |

on 2 | “ps-+e -- ° s teste e-*i¢4 - _ ~- Ces (Cawe 1 a - tc “+ = +e

- o~ ee ~~ Se —" ~~ vwew “Ce # -~- *- - - — ~* ~-&—> ‘7 we eee ~ Sw we « ~ --@> eed j

czGer sresencet ceo VJ ld ed eesree anc Créer ciicrizztesd F

. oe & ame + eoce e _ + = . - oe > &

* *

— (ir DETFEE Als> CFOER DIFECTING SALE OF MOPIGASED FROFERTY-----(v iE) djudéoment

soc Ss eetss a:5 agains: ft Getce =e Ou of £42 "ess EER

44. ex's leet ans cours costs wich, itawful interes: ‘r<- this date,

3 se |

oo 3.2% pase wett.ds. 2 Gays Marsha: 2:2. Give ncotice a: b22 to the

ricnest ricser for cast, subtiect tc taxes, ceneral or s:zciael - - - - )

See Urcer ---- copies to all deftse., T. Schuchma., Jerry Schuchman | |

anc 2. Scnéu, copy ry resular ané cerz=ifieé mail, aié “erenal's office. &

“ =oee, pee =e . = . 2 . s -

p= = ae o¢ o — ~- ai ae ; E44ha £

jaYy rata? Wee, SE.SINES Mot.cr co Stay” by Gefc. Terry Ecnuchg:z €2@ [iiine cz

»*23°8S, copies saites to all Gefes. jd

wr ;

. iv - —— - — on . eo a |

-t2? fe tweres 33286 cr. ES “225€ Si¢cnes Sy Terry icnr. SEchuchmas., ectacsheé twe

titers from isis Esau, one sioneé ané one unsicneé, EOD 7-18-83 | Ps

S-E: fab wOTICE OF MAFSHAL'S FhiE, Aucust 19, 19&3 Fetzeral Court House, ESL, sale

cl property es <réeret on 7-12-83. Fe

PPENDIX L~2 pace ¥

’

a ff 6 4k. o am - -_ a. i | an =_ fl Tae i 4 ee Leet ee

——_ oes ao - caemmiine, “oad ~ thir ae

ot *$°ts 4h

2-t a

o ee St ; ~CCAKET NC = cae"

Secr-ac: erase £2 Se

Sa aT

[Zle,

z-2-8s2 9D

FPECESVES Sesom Coca, Leccer,wich letcers 4:rescet c2 tT. Steutte acd Sudécze

~arsm.ings crom icis Scha:, may be “notice sf arresl” s== Sudse 8. saié

ait bus check cates wish his. ~eiensas s62c. 3. 1933 :

MCTICN FOR MISTRIAL AND A NEW TRIAL ty Tersy 2. Echuchmar

NOTICE of nearins, Friday, Sest. 2, 1963, Sook, mon ;

cOFITES of letter co Mr. and Mrs. Schuchman submicced bv USAtcorney'’s office

et) hati hen | ied | “4% 4 ~ Vee se < ‘ ad = ; 4

MEADPANOUM (William Juergens, Senior cudcejex parte hearing was held to

Setermine whether or nct a stay orier should be cranted as requested by zh<

motion therefcsr submictces to chis court by the plaintiff. ... Scver:.mer.

mas stated that it will delay she saie 66 davs .... and if necessar’, .

reeruriish <5 sive che actice rezuireé by che erder for sublication are 2:

e e s2r8= publicaczes, if necessary, tecié ace be sricr so 9-19-33. .

Copies sf this “emcrar.éur mailed co 211 sarties. (Pics. 424 nct file

MOPS -seard-and-tasen-amder-cdviserent --Fef---2-24-5347-4eer-se

CFOER(WLB) motions neard ané taken under advisement (ref: 7-21-83

handed copy of Crder

MOTION styled EMERSENCY MOTIQN TO STAY Sy 2érsy &. Schuck an, a

srocses =wter, res sestec

7-21-83 Motion Brief (submitted in Cours Beam 7?)

29-12-85 {33 MEMOPANDUM (Motions taken under advisement om 2-2-33)

13 Y MEACRASDUM (Motiagn taken under adviser>

/3S° | MEMORANDUM (deft, Terry Lynn Schuchzan)

136

(37

(138

139

MEMOPALDUM (deft. Terry L. irz-uckman)

MEMORANDUM (deft Terry Linus Echuchman) filed in ESL, EOD 1-984.

MEMORANDUM( deft. Terry L. icnuchtan) filed in ESL, EOD 1-17-24

MEMOPANDUM (deft. Tersy L. ichuchman) filed in ESL, EOD 2-6-84

MEMORANDUM (deft. Terry L. SEchuchman) filed in ESL, EQ 2-10-84

-sendesé-

d, Mrs.

NOTICE of setting for 3/2/84 but to be re-set at future date after Terry

Schuchman lets clerk's office which date she can be here.

NOTICE of Setting mailed to all carties of record, Thursday, March 29, 1984

at 12:00 noon. book ard 7m

APPENDIX L-2 pac S

O7ERaA

o wms 14

72 see@.3¢°°

| DocKET wo 60-5142

pace +2 oF

PAGE

PROCEEDINGS

poor in support of

STATEMENT of Facts &

MOTION to Gamaces

HEARING (WLB)

Arguments

(im

(T. Schuchman)

cae Perclaim (T.

Schuchman)

motion a0 fault filed on 6/2/83 (T. Schuchman)

. 3

led for motion for default acainst Mercantile Trust Co.

ft ai and motion is taken under advisement.

(Sacel to Answer by T. Schuchman (see motion filed 3-29-84)

CE of setting for notion to. to

De Beau e Bets?

HE HORANODE ¥ a ats Yo

G ané taken

asgrent 9s against Pier.

sorta Mg: al

to, cageges & tclai

Man

"ebb°°-

no agony Bom ’

44 the oh B8e of

nterec on anna

MEMO (Terry L. Schuchman)

AFFIDAVIT of Terry L. Schuchman

MOTION to Show Cause (Terry L. Schuchman)

NOTICE of Motion Setting, Fricay, June 15, 1984, 9:30am.

WOPDER(WLB) . .

. Schucihman.

@ motion to alter or amend the ‘ion. the time for appeal of this

will commence to run from the date of this order.

fume

we hope we have now rulec fully on the mot

Because we considere= hex motion for 2 ne:

’ 1983 by this court

in a Civil Case, Book 6, page 39.

Copies of Order and Clerk's Judsgnent mailes to all parties

SI-1 for Chicagy.and x820

EVERSENC: MOTION TO

6-8-84, EOD 6-68-84

NOTICE

ORDER(WLB) denying "Emergency Mot

Pro Se defendant on 6-7-84 Z

ORDER (WLB) denying Motion to Vacate Or®

Pro Se defendant on 6-7-84,

ORDER(WLB) denying “Motion to Vacate Decr BE.

copies mailed.

(Terry L. Schuchrman) fie

MOTION to Vacate Decree Entere

by Terry

ato Stay” filed by Terry

Dated June 5, 1984

entered 7-12-83",

mpel for 5/4/84 at 9:30 a. fl.

11ed’ in

ies nanaeo

vergens.

m file 3-29--64)

ions filed by

‘¢xiel es also

hecordingly ,

L. Scnuchmzan, filed in ESL, reca in Alton

in ESL, recG. in Alton 6-13-84

y 12, 1983 (Terry L. Schuchman) BOD 6-13-64

L. Schuchman

6-13-84, copies mailed

filed by

6-13-84, copies mailed

EOD, 6-7-84,

Co ttte MCV. (9/78) |

(cczmsn/in book

Poy i6- -21-t

nn esti Cl i OS * Sr > tS

So ee

amar mee

Suwlee esate, C% eae ' PAGE -- OF

PROCEEDINGS

of (43 “te bare a. ¥c > = f rf 7 arnae Ss —T >

- ge —reJJeST for Writ of Manaams py Geft. T. L. Scnucman, copy returned to

wv te ——-a5

—_-t~- mee Suppo

cf metior: for Gefauvlt filed on 6/2/E2 (T.

ETATEMENT of t

Facts &6 Afficavit (T. Schuchman)

MOTION tc Cameges & Cour:terciaim (T. Schuchman)

KEARING(WVLE) Case caliecé for motion for Geféult acainst Mercantile Trust Co.

hroyrents heerc anc motion is taken under advisement. ;

Cara

MOTION to Camel to Answer by T. Schuchman (see motion filec 3-29-8<)

"rt

NOTICE cf setting for mction to compel for 5/4/64 at 9:30 é.n. (cc:mmn’in bock)

ALVES) metior: to hearg ano taken underedvisement, coDvies nmandes

- ‘For P

wi)

§)

mers

“rs. —- no notice, states copy sent to J. Juercens.

Scnuctmer

‘ee

erry L. Schuchmean

MEMO (Terry L. Schuchmen) er

AFFIDAVIT of Terry L. Schuchman €

MOTI. co

WOITICE cf

Snow Cause (Terry L. Schuchman)

Motion Settins, Fricey, June 15, 1964,

ee b ae - a See , a eee

OFOER(VLE) . . . we hove we have now ruiec fully on tne motions fates Dy

2 Cam ae ee ~ - me o <= eases seve“ 7 pomnes ae Exner & may’ *~55". = :

MESS. Sensors... Sec22se we consiceres ner mowlcr. tor & mee ersé- &

jusagmet,

= é

e> will Gate of this order. accorcin

- o ~

ster will commence to run fram the orcinsly,

i ritions filec by defendants foliowins the decree anc craex cirectins

szie of July 12, 1963 by this court mest be anc the save heresy Ane Dovizo.

wusee. & COGENT ir: e Civil Case, Boor €, race 39.

Eies 252 Cudcags ans x626

~Eer Cc NeT

— EASEiTi MOTION TO STAY, Dy Terzy L. Schuciman, filec in ESL, rece in; Aiton

E-£-t4, DID €~f-8é

SID: tc Vacate Order Dated June =, 1954 by Terry L. Schuchman, files in

ES.., TésS is. #itor: €-f-64, EOD €-£-E;. :

foam Cc0SEY &. Soros) fiiet ic. ES, rece. is: Aiton E€-15-64

— “Zid. <2 Vacate Decree Entereé Juiv 12, 19€3 (Jerzy L. Schuctman) EOD €-1s-84:

rae iS) Genyins “inersency Motion to Scay" filed py Terry L. Scouse.

Pre Se celencant or. €-7-84 E:2D 6-12-84, cories meiles

[SS —FDAWE) Genying Mozion to Vacate Order Detec Jume 5, 1984 filec by

/ - Bre Se éefenSant on €-7-64, EOD €-12-84, copies meilec

FE (WE! Cemvine “Hotior. tc Vacate Terres entered 7-12-63", BOD, 6-7-8,

o5;-¢8 =e ed. =

. “- ee epee NP ead StcKEer NS. EGes.5

PaS=E_~OF Pac

SATE NF PROCEEDINGS

-15-33 /S] MOTICN <0 Correct th

= « -_ - ms e .

record anc REGUEST for “Epoen ANT

aC ti 5

as & ® gn eens + es - = a>

‘ hances to tirs. Schuchmen amie NAL

une l, 1983 £ by ceft., cory

i vérties. EXD 6-15-34

~i12-s4 159 MOTION to Vacate Croers enteres Jume 13, 198: ans MOTION to Recuse by Terry

L. Schuchtan with affidavit cof Terzsvy i. Schuchtan --- EOD 5-18-34

(filec in =SL sitice, rece 5-lé-54

/¢co MOTION to Vacate Decree en cered June 5,

6-18-84 (filecé in ESL office, recée 3-15-24)

Proposed Notice of Setcing, for ali mcticns filed 6-15-64, Friday, July 6, i2c-

(check with Juése)

s=2C-84 ADVISED U. S. Atty and Mrs. Schuchn nan Dy teieshorie of setting sor oral armomer:

of motions filed 6-15- -84, FRIDAY, JUS 22, 1964 at 1:30am. Sent xotice <o

Mr. Schuchman, copies to other varties.

22°36 lol CLERKS CEyiAl eH) Of Request for Entr, of Sefauit (as so Get. Terry L.schucc

copies mallec. 50D - 6-21-84 Feit: 5-4-3834

.-21-34 NOTICE OF MARSHAL'S SALE ————- on the 7th Gay of Aucust, 1984, East St. Louis,

at 12:00 noon (issued by Marshal Nettles) filed in ESL, RECD 6-22-84,

EOD 6-22-84.

-~22-Ss OTICS CF MOTION SETTIG, (Motions filed 4-15-84), Friday, 7-6-34 at $:3Can

a 22 ALtOn. DOoox anc mmm (<hcs+ were tc De .Nearc, 6-22-54)

— a" HEARING(WLS) Arguments heard on pencins mctions. Written orser to be subcmiccte

Pape =

-Aew “Zz

.~ 25-25 IG ' REQUESTS to Clerk, filecé in ESL, rece in Anco 6-26-84, DOD 6-26-34

(Fr WEST for Writ of Mancamis, filed in ESL, recd in Alton 6-26-84, EOD, 6-26-$-

[62 MOTION To Vacate Orcer Made June 15, 1984 and To Vacate Order Rntered June 3,

1984 , ( Item 25 states Exhibits attached, Exhibits were tendered by

Ce=t. at hearing cn 6-22-84, in Exhibic file, dete. asxe

cy telephone that they be remcved and attached to this maction) = iled

in ESL 6-25-84, recd in Alton, 6-26-84, BOD 6-26-84 :

-27-54 [¢3 ORDER (LE) ruling on motions presented June 22, 1984 at oral arfiment ---

“ition to Correct the Record anc Fesuest for Appointment of Sr. Pres.

filed 6-15-84 - - - DENIED

Motion to Vacate Orders Entered June 13 ané-gene-25;5-2564 DENIED

Motion to Vacate Decree Entered June 15, 1984 --DEVIED

MOTION to Vacate Decree Entered June 5, 1984 -- DENIED

MOTIONS to Make More Definite and Certain, being Exhibit 8B and G --D=EVIEr

MOTION to Recuse -- DENIED Copies mailed to all parties of

record

—(¢ 9, opDERWwLB) that Motion filed 6-25-84, “otion to Vacate Order Made June 15, 198:

; to Vacate Order entered June 5, 1984 has been considered and it is now

DENIED. Copies mailed to all sarties of

' See Next Page

record. >

. Civ'c DOCKET CONTINUATION SHEET

—- DEFENDANT ;

| bec KETNO _60-514:

= sce Cuetes Cf Americée Tnames L. Schucrman, et al.

| Pace | PAGES

PROCEEDINGS

MOTION to Compel Discualification of Judge Beatty by deft. Thamas L. Schucimen

Affidavit attached (7-5-84)

MOTION to Camel to Product Written Rulino on Administrative Review Conductes

by Geft. Thomas L. Schuchman (7-12-84)

Fileé in ESL, Recd in Alton 6-29-84 - EOD 6-29-84

ORDER (WLB) DEVYING Motion to Camel Discualification of Judge Beatty by deft.

Tnomas L. Schuctmen, copies meilec. EOD 7-5-84 ps

MOTION for Rehearinc, Reconsideration and to Vacate by Tnamas L. Schuchman

n> notice, no proposed order (Recé in Alton 7-6-84) (7-12-84) od

BIT IDAVIT

eos oS

MOTION to

of Tnavtes L. Schucnme.

of Faeccs by Tiras Le

Camel to Vacate to Lezal Error anc Fai

mn: o-

ee bee i ee

ilure to Discuelify bv

Thomas L. Schuchrman

AFFIDAVIT by Terry L. Schuchman (Ref: 7-12-84, all pleadings)

Kotice of Motion Settins by T. L. Schuchman, Aus 3, 1964 --- not motion day,

no motions hearé in Aucust ps

ORDER (KLE) Genyine "Motion to Cacmpel to Produce Written Rulinc on Acministretive

Review Conducteé."Fileé b. T. L. Schuchman, copies meilec, EXD 7-12-84

ORDER (VLE) Genyins "Motion for Rehearing, Reconsiceretion ana to Vacate” files

by T. L. Schuchwen on 7-5-84, copies mailed, BOD 7-12-84

ORDER (WLS) Genyinc all motions filed on 7-11-84, copies mailec, EOD 7-12-85 fF

timely made 10 compel disqualification of Judge Beatty

(pltfs Schuchman) (FEF. 7-27-84)

MOTION

w/efificevits in support rt

Kotice to Gefts, oral axgmment, Friday, July 27, 1984 et $:30am pf

ees FF; MOTION for the awardine ef attorney's tees enc costs (Vin, ‘

[78 REDUEST te Stipvlete (Terry Schuchne:.) pr

ery HIAFRINZ(WLE) USA's Motion for the eweré of attorney fees hearc anc taken uncer

Hseuses eévisenent. ORAL MITION to exteré epreal time (Terry Schechman) DENIEc.

MITION timely meade tc compel Eiscue.ificetion of Jccoe Eestty heere exc

SENIED. OnAL MOTION fcr Security for ccsts pursuant to Tice] Fuie ze ish)

(tc be sutrittes is: wricing) Pr

nr Ye 79 NITICE of Appeal by Tnoves. L. ané Terry Lyn Schuchmar. (fran final jusment

#2<te is, Cany ing BOLI On for soon ané new trial, Eistissinc with prejudice

salle cox esuest for writ of mancamus for abuse of aiscretion

-_— 2 —- oc -?. = , - £ = 2

F. ev OF SUPESSEDEAS SINS pv aefts -—-—n El

’

CIVIL DOCKET CONTINUATION SHEET

FL *.TiFF DEFENSANT oa) i Sega

| DOCKET NO. _SU7=-

CSA Tnomas L. Schuchman, et al. |\pace L4cr___

DATE NR PROCEEDINGS

17507284 Letter to all parties about Notice of Aprceal (Transcript form for Gefts)

SHOPD RECORD to CCA ---— Record cue on 8-10-34 x820

3-1-84 ($| PLTF’S Response to Defts’ Motion to Stay and Waiver of Supersec<

Bond and Memo in Support of

8-35-64 heed ee Mction filed 7-27-84 for stay and to waive a Supersedeas bond

a 2 ee eS

5-6-3

143

wile

See velow

is DENIED, as requested by WLB, called CCA, USA and Mr. & Mrs. Schucime:

at 9:30am to inform of Jucge's ruling, neither deft. at home, person

answering telepnone identified herself as Mrs. Schuchman's daucnter,

hag ne sne Gid not know where her mother wes, her father was at work énc

my recuest saic she would call her father anc tell him I would lixe

ak to him as soon e? ag ible. ccpies mailed at 12:00 noon és

nto WLB. 8-3-8384

ro a B a ee wv a .

or filincS by defts in weed on 8-3-84

;

-2

Appearance and Certificateof Interest to the U. S. Court of Appeals for the

Seventh Circuit (copy submitted for filing by mail) (sicned by TLS, 6-4-:

DESIGNATION OF RECORD by Terry L. Schuchman (recd in mail, Styled Request to

Cierk Specifying Items Required to Be Included in Record, Exhibits, All

Misceilaneous Procecural pag

ESIGNATION OF RECORD by Terry L. Schuchman (recd in mail, styled Recuest to

Clerk Previcine Exhibits to be Lodced on -Azsseal)

LcocT

in ESL)

INTERMOTION to the Motion of the USA for the Awarding of Attorneys' Fees

and Costs (Ref: 7-27-84 by USA) with MEMO

RIYLEST for nian to Prevare Statement cf Evidence and Correct Crmissicns énc

Misstatements (2-14-30

REQUEST to Transmit Entire Oricinal Record and Praag Exhibits Minus Transcripts

(See Desicration of Fescra filed 3-é-84 in Alton)

DEFTS' Ressonse to Pltf£'s Fesocrse to Defts Notion to Stay and Weiver of

Su Der secea s eine anc ‘70 in Support

and Terry Schuchman, filed in ESL, RECD in

iS mpencdix and Permit Appeal to Be _Heare on Original

Record at Cost to Seis, -iled in ESL, BOD, 8-7-84, STRICKEN anc RETR

to Deft - pleacinss should be mailed directly to Oca.

SRIEF Special Severately Desi ted Part, filed in ESL, BOD 8-7-84, STRICKEN

and RETURNED to Deft - cleadincs should be mailec directly to CCA.

APPEARANCE and Certificate of Interest to the United States Court of Acpeals

for the Seventh Circuit, fi in =SL, DOD 8-7-84, STRICKEN AND

RETURNED to Deft -- pleadin nould be mailed directly to CCA. ;

STATEMENT OF ISSUES, FILED IN ESL, DOD $-7-34, STRICKEN AND RETURNED to Dert.

pleading should ce mailed directly to CoA. — ye

ERAN, RR Ri > le J _ Sins i £SL,-5oD Sni=S+,

SGr- «see first listed fil-inc.

OT oe

CIVIL DOCKET CONTINUZTION SHEET

pie . >; i an —

< Pak OEFERSA ST

DOCKET No 80-5143

BUR 9143

Unites States of Americe Tnaomes L. Schuchman, et al. ; ‘

Pace 15 of PAGES

DATE = i NR._ PROCEEDINGS

~20-f. i RECORD Prepares, ¢ volumes of pleadings, // envelope of Exhibits, original

recora On appeal is retained in the Clerk's Office pursuant to

| Fed. R. App. P l(c) pi

TRENT kee wake

~C-8s | MARSHAL's Return of Sale |

+ rete eekeneay NOTICE of Designation of Record by USA (entire record on ADpeal) pf

~i3-6- Copy of Appearance Form fran CCA, Docketed €-6-84, No. §4-2322 pti

~ S084 _ FED copy of ORDER of CCA, Gated 8-7-84 Dewinc Emergency Motion to Stay ana |

tor Waiver of Spersedeas Bond, EOD $-10-84 pt |

Pe" oT, nits ee = = +s : ~ ms mest 1 = +7 - * = c &hA £

-s"t= ott. TO Comel wit éttaciments, cory meileé to TLS with Teceipt for $.50. os

~ aE Fo copy of ruling by CCA entered on 9-53-84, see order pi

=5-8- FODUEST to interlocutory ADDeal and To Correct the Record with Memorenaun,

ctechment, copy of affidavit of claim Submitted to CCA) with propose4

(ez

order

ITICE of settins, Fricsy, Oct. 19, logs pr}

-is Be eee Face SENSES Feruest to interlocutor, Asses ena to Correct the

Recore with Mane : les Sa gi ai te. 4

mecored with Memorandum filed on 9-21-84. copies mailed bi

at ' NOTICE ef Motion Sete; 3, Motion to comel, files 7-27-84 and Motion to

Comel filed $-5-84 set for oral argument on Fricay, 11-2-84, book ang

nretis) pil

- is rey ta nuchman pi

- 2 no 243 Join és hecessary Parties y Terry i. S

(Jucce's Office instructed, since this case is a

mo 4 estes mews 3 ee om Re a =

are ~~ “ese GiocetEit, aavises ?.’»

Jusge will

-£V€ Jurisdiction to oréer that our court reporter nct

tne trenscript es it has been requested by Geft. . '. . Court

€ri Hopwood is therefore ORDERED not to transcribe the

Tequested by deft. on October 22, 1984. copies to all

Ferties, Teri Hopwood ana Cc2. I

-E¢ ~-°. Transcriz+ -".2Crmation Sheet fron, Ccurt Reporter, request for transcript

Of Eitics “SSring on €-2-§3 will y+ be furnished, no court reporter

Present ir. Courtroom at heéring. pt

| CCA Transcript Informetion Sheet received from Thomas Schuchman, not completed

by Court Reporter. pb

=4 | | COMPLETED Transcript Inf. Sheet recg from Ct. Reporter, see 11-2, no record made

i Die ; ° j

i4 | CRDER (TLE) thet the clerk of this Court r-ceive Cocurents but not file them.

hE Clézs e421) mark Séic Gcocuments :ecé ané the Cste they ere recé

énc plice therm ine s Pereté iclder to be reteines Dut trey sha)l

Ot be s€-%8r°26 or inc}.. -“¢ in i s[icial SC fa.¢ costes

DOCKET NC S2=2-=:;

PAGE __- OF PAG

PROCEEDINGS

ORDER(CCA) . .. . appellant shall comply with the designation of record

ané transcript requirements on or before

shall be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

Appellant shall file a status report with

11-26-84 indicating that the required

of record and request for transcripts

Gistrict court. ....- -«

-3°84 or tniS afsesi

entormaticon sneet

& eo aa 2A

(for trial, €-30-

nis court on or before

Ss, & designation

n submitted to the

ca COUZE REDOTTEr 2-3

2; 2-18-83 & 3-ie-55) .

Eiroct GOUSt MOCcSscer 4:4

resuested Closing stzicexmerts

FOOD transcripts from Court Reporter, hearings on November 29, i362 anc

roe

June 30, 1983 (2 each)

-= -- - ene SS = -_—

s=cl trasscripts from Court serorter, nearing

eas -

on February 18, 1963

- = a - = — Lael T ~

‘stice cf Sefect in Resore (frem T. L. Schucan

;REDD trom Court Reporter, Correction of trans

“9 a amma» + —_

UNITED STATES MARSHAL'S REPORT OF SAL=

PETITION for Order Directing Clerk to Issue a Writ of Assistance wit

oréer and writ of assistance ---- Copy of Petition sent ibs, pees

and copy sent regular mail to Terry Schuchm

(added to record) a

ichtan, hearing on 7-27-84, Court

e -, a= .

osyrrn 12 LSe =--7 + a ee 5 ee oe

GSewes oly VF Boow eS Siw ooce

see om > oe -= - --.

——— - —— -_*+ --_ -~-s ~~"

orf Sele, copies

rter, Zor recuest of

eporter will file 3-ly-=5.

jitn proscsec

siail

Tage gO

Telephone call to Terry Schuchmén, as instructed by “w3, tO inform her

WLB would hear arguments on 3-é-35 at 12:00 noon. -4s.

she can not appear withcut 10 days notice of hearing.

1HOTICE of xe

- ’

FILED BY SPECIAL ORDER (WLB)

ring, Friday, 2-8-5, 12:00 noon, copies to aii rartie

MOTION to Fecuse J. Beatty made prior to Hearing ordered 3-28-85 and

a oe

{

partial, findings of fact and conclusions of law on 7-27-54

: ¢ - -

atsiws ~ = hostvienw #2247 - = momen te 5 ques Sen: <

SC aBartatls if wear. S wSees eG > aa conn. nue cenia 5f

° -- - . a s a > > “*347 ,

ses ryvroc-t4 -~-= 2 e-yrera -* 7 2354 a. “3 -o-

- es ome =: - meee - -— --

~ =,7--? — = = A pA -_

=23ate wy Seto a ee are oF aot - “se

o~ - = - -

se « — ee - ** = wera - — - = :-t “H=-a-s- = o - wtes

bi oe de wae ae gene | eee ys Pe a eS et as

- .- —

Ae a etna oN

GiVis: BOC

DATE

PROCEEDINGS

- es

oS a

-i5-£5

a one 4

“ae” Ea

I ~_ a

- 15-85

™

7. wy

from Lois Scheu sdéresseé to Jim Tnomoson, Director, SBA with

achnents. SESTED in open court eat hesrinc

SEARING on Govt's FETITION for Order Directince Clerk to Issue é Writ of

Assistance, C. Proud for USk, Terry L. Schuchmar, pro se and Lois Schau,

pre sé sresent, Judse wili rule or, Fetiticr 2-15-85 rs

Seventh Circuit nigeeng ay Information Sneet fiie: by Court acieniaiaee transcript

of Trial, 3 Gays to de completes 5-z0-E=2, copy to CCA. =

Focacaus SOF AG Oréer esting Cierk to veny Fiziscitfezspelles 4 Writ of

Resistesce Penting Ruling OO: Estiss. te VESete DOSTSO Vonrtsreie

Marsnal’ Esie Allesing Failure cc ccontcr=. to Fair Séie sews of Iiiinois

f22e¢ cosy returnees to TiuSchuch=as

OFDER(WLE) to issue Writ of Aszistan

the xc i rc a

cvossestion. copies tc é.1 parties anc Us-.2rs..é- £:3-5-685)

1 > 239 = -=-)5 - « - 3 = —

WRIT OF ASSISTANCE issues to Mersnai, ccries to éll parties

Sot 5 SAE PN ke 5 Wes leo ey Ro Stes ears o bagi f 4 a how ame eae

\ -

Gocketedé 3-l&-€5, Writ DENif> Sy CCA

woOTION TOC VACATE D

éilure to Conform to tre Truth.

f ee fe :

a Se MOTI OL ed ce

af watt, a se — 3 77e¢°2 -~ —_ - - - - = - -~ -

wriGs. to compel USK to gsrovide pro se trenscript (free cf chéree}j - pe

oe saa wae a ee vita -

\WUSee SEC GO rot Slice, serked Recd. | pf

alte peng of BoD cury

2 Pde

Len

LAY)

Loa)

o’

la)

}-4

aa)

tN)

es exceed ee - ee _ Yott pf Beetenwaeae -x¢

cKoJes OF SEMVYSCE CF PETELEL, PETSOELEL FE ViCe Cs arart OF Ftc cax..ce <

a “ /ES (¥ap-we t Pn Ee, S|

i . a 2 or

3/21/65 (Taemes L. Echuchren!}

— Sr Pe + anes ee ee . anil 32» ft a eS ae

ne r= i~- - o~_- ‘

557 Es ee RT ai,

Ga” & A «Ce.-y ae & woos aheosoas y) t

NOTICE of Hearing, Thursday, July 25, 1965, 11:00am

TRANSCRIPT of deft’s exhibits

ETITION to reopen end grant sumaary judonent(Schuchmans)

NOTION to cencel & 5 -oduce (Terry Schuct~in) (Deniec on recerd) pb

SZARING(WLE) Seerins celled on “scument *+.CEIVED 7-7£-85. Mstion is cenied.

—

PLAINTIFF DETSENDANT

i Da -

. ae . - DOCKET NO. Sv";

United Stetes Of aTmericé Schuchmen, Tnomas, et él

| PAGE 18 OF_i6 PAG

PROCEEDINGS

| 7-33-85 RECD ORDER from CCA, pursuant to Rule 4(a1)the record is to be transmittec

to the Clerk's Offices of this Court immediately, dated 7-26-85,

' =

' recd 7-31-85, £0D 7-31-85 x820

RECORD mailed to CCA, 4 volumes Pleadings, 8 volumes Transcripts and

4 envelopes Exhibdits

10-22-25 SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD co its (filing of Mrs. Sch. on 5-4-8284, Memorendu-!

;

Poypet-8S Zn¢ SUPPLEMENTAL RECO2D to CCA (filings of 9-25-84 and 9-28-84)

-2- 25 $r¢ SUPPLEMENTAL SECORD to COA (filines of 6-25-84 end ¢-4-&- f ng. 2*

Merch 29, 1984 MOTION TO DAMAGES AND COUNTERCLAIMS inclucez in origine

Zecord, VOL III, number 7140. x226

| 11-38-85 O2DER(CCA) court on its own motion VACATES thet part of its orcer of 10-31-¢

ee ee 2 a tree ek

eSecw i ee ee > ®

| 11-86-85 C2DEP SICA} =$4-2322 anc =85-2348 ----- AFFIRMED IN PART AnD DISMISSED

{ SanT, dated 11-6-85, £20 11-8-85 x@20

Hi-21-65 PER MR. HELART THIS DAY --- al? correspondence to Mrs. Schuchman sha!! be

by certified mai.1, addressee only with Return Receipt Requested.

> | |

S| |

FOOTNOTES

1/ Appelle Brief served June 20, 1985 in 84-2322 page 6

paragraph three begins: "In their answer to the complaint, the

appellants failed to deny any of the allegations contained therein...".

Certified copy of “Reiterative Answer" of Thomas L. Schuchman

filed Feb 7, 1983; "Objections to Complaint" by three defendants

Thomas L. Schuchman, Terry Lynn Schuchman and Lois C. Schau filed

February 24, 1983 and ordered filed as answers in Court order

entered April 28, 1983 clearly evidences denials made and are

appended hereto as Appendices A, B, and C respectively. Exhibits

referred to in “Reiterative Answer" were admitted 11-29-82

(TR /Oct seg ,/¥et sey ) and appear in file July 12, 1982 certified

to 7th Circuit as District Court Document #22. "“Reiterative

Answer" certified as district court document # 43, Objections

to Compliant" certified as district court document # 53, Court

Order April 28, 1983 certified as district court document # 68.

Relevant portions of Appellee Brief served June 20, 1985 in 84-2322

appended hereto as APPENDIX D for purview of falsity to conceal

lack of substantial evidence in district court case 80-5143.

Listing of the parties pursuant to Supreme Court Rule

21.1.(b) follows:

Thomas L. Schuchman individual SBA borrower

Terry Lynn Schuchman wife of individual borrower

Lois C. Schau Senior Mortgage Holder,

by written permission

SBA, mother of Terry

Lynn Schuchman

USA by AUSA Clifford J. Proud

U.S. ATTORNEY Frederick J. Hess

SBA Administrators, Et Al by William A. “rajec, SBA

Counse]

First National Bank by Attornev Braii A. Badglev

of Belleville

St. Louis Telephone by Attorney H. Gary Apoian

Employees Credit

Union

Mercantile Trust by Debbie Foreman, Attorney

Lynne Murphy third party intervenor

by Gomric & Kurowski,P.C.

Attorneys at Law, also

secretary to James J. Gomric

Attorney at Law

Martin Gomric unnamed, plaintiffs, joint

Jacqualine Gomric tenants, purchasers of SBA |

direct loan to Thomas L.

Schuchman/DBA Colonial Barber

Shop, builder of disputed

property, residence of Thomas

L. Sechuchman, Terry Lynn

Schuchman, and minor child

Tracia Lorie Schuchman, said also

securing indebtedness to

Lois C. Schau by reason of

SBA request and inital refusal

to grant statutory allonge on

SBA direct loan of borrower

-———-Thomas L. Schuchman, aunt and

uncle to attorney James J. Gomric,

original sellors, by contract

prepared by Attorney James

J. Gomric in July 1970, to

buyers Thomas L. Schuchman and

Terry Lynn Schuchman, joint

tenants, possible assignees, two

mortgages in question, by bearer

document, said document executed

by Third party intervenor Lynne

Murphy to obtain Marshal's Deed

issued October 26, 1982 and

then set aside by district court

at hearing 11-29-82, order

issuec 12-14-82, and duly

recorded 12-16-82 in St. Clair

County Recorder's Office, Said

Marshal's Deed possible basis

for initiating state action

FE &D 82-LM-1278 if parties

are the real parties at interest

money mortearge July 1970

paic in full, but never

released.

2/ Plaintiff's Exhibiz I is includec in Appellee Brief

served June 20, 1985 in 84-2322 and is appenced hereto as

a portion of APPENDIX D. [It is the letter of acceleration

and demand alone with no formal authority included as required

pursuant to SBA SOP Section 50 No. 50 Rev 2 pages 72, 73

and 74 with its 2 page Appendix 16, pages 251, 252. For

full details see note 3 below.

3/ Devendant's Exhibit il at trial L.ciuu+3 all

SBA Standard Operating Procedures. (Triai Transcript )

Te ee eae ee

Pitae. ct ‘throughout! by.page numbers which appear ‘in.

E at Df NDIX.E,.in this instance ~~

SS 732, and 74 with its two nage ~

ate ce,

Tae ae eae

fpages:

5 25200.

ps A pice

lyi"calls'the loan® and is an act of liquidation.

letter. official!

It should not be issued until formal authority to liquidate

has been obdtained.*

4/ Illinois Revised Statutes Paragraph 23.6-2 $ 7.2 was

in effect on date (6-23-80) plaintiff's complaint was

filed and is appended hereto along with paragraph 57. $ 7

as APPENDIX F.

5/ See note 3 above. APPENDIX E appended hereto page 74

paragraph 57. e. et seg . Borrower requests additional deferment

—— en er tn 8 2379: Loster-eappended=hereto~-aseAPPEDNIX H-page-2 (TR-P.

acknowledges reciept and advises borrower he will receive written

notification pursuant to 5 USC $ 555(e). After no response

to 2-20-80 financial statement (DEF EX M at trial (TR /¥3, 2745 ))

borrower again makes request in 4-24-80 letter, Plaintiff's

Exhibit K at trial (TRS, &, 346) appended hereto as APPENDIX H.

Plaintiff fails to produce loan report showing due consideration

(TR AOS,YY9 ) Motion to Show Cause appended hereto as

APPENDIX I. Motion to Compel to Produce filed prior to trial and

granted June 27, 1983 is appended hereto as APPENDIX X.

6/ Defendant's Exhibit N at trial (TR 92!,3%%¥%37) identified

on Exhibit and.Witness list as 4 pages--payment of 16-20-79

(Note & Money Order) contains letter 7-25-79 advising requested

deferment granted, signature of Marjorie L. Casey appears with

initals S. L. underneath, states: “Your requested deferment has

been approved by this Agency..." 327 authorization states:

“Borrower ...have (SIC) had problems beyond their (SIC) control.

their (SIC: road is an access road to Highway 159. Highway 159

has been under construction and getting to the borrower's place

of business has been somewhat obstructed. Because of this access to

their (SIC) business, the severe winter weather (President

declared disaster area), ice storms, the borrowers (SIC) are

requesting a deferment of 6 months payments of principal and

interest." Letter 7-25-72 makes no statement as to beginning

and ending dates of deferment or date as to when repayments

should resume. Borrower is under impression 2 month deferment for

Nov and Dec 1978 was 6 months. See Plaintiff's Exhibit H (TR page 39

lines 21, 22, 23) second page, which states: "Payments on loan have

been deferred until early December." and is signed by Thomas E. Poole

Regional Financial Analyst 10/27/78. Third page states: "I

feel that there is a chance they will make it with some managemert

assistance. In any case we seem to be adequately secured and they

do need the additional money to keep above the water." and is

Signed by =egional Director for Finance and Investment Larry

Cherry. Copies of Plaintiff's Exnibit H provided to defendants

at trial are appended hereto as APPENDIX G. Defendant's Exhibit N

/A-o-

—_

at trial is appended hereto as APPENDIX G-l pagers 1, 2, 3, 4.

It should be duly noted counsel for plaintiff was allowed to

remove original plaintiff's exhibit H and substitute copoies

therefore (TR page 58 lines, 12, 13, page 63 line 9, page 75,

page 78 line 11 et seq ad finim). Said copies being illegible.

District court at hearing June 22, 1984 to correct the record

Claims it can readily read said copies. See reply brief filed

7-2-85 in 84-2322 Statement of Errors page 32 # 31 & # 32 et

seq.

7/ Portions of Appellee Brief served June 20, 1985

in 64-2322 appended hereto as APPENDIX D. See also notes 1 & 2

above.

8/ 7th Circuit panel in its order Nov 6, 1985 page 3 last

8 lines of second paragraph is clearly erroneous. It states:

"The SBA was clearly authorized to declare Schuchman in default,

accelerate the maturity of the note and foreclose on the second

mortgage where it held both first and second mortgages."

SBA did not hold both the first and second mortgages on 2-14-80

when it allegedly accelerated the maturity of the SBA note. See

portion APPENDIX D hereto page 4: "On May 23 1980, SBA purchased

the first mortgage on the Schvchman property (home) from First

Federal Savings and Loan of Mascoutah for $24,252.58 and received

an assignment of First Federal's note and mortgage.” Complaint

alleges default thereon but offers no proof at trial. Nor did

plaintiff offer any proof of formal authority to issue said demand

on 2-14-80. District court in its VERDICT (TR page 5 lines 19, 20)

admits: “there was no substantial evidence to support their (SBA)

decision.” 7th Circuit panel is also clearly erroneous, in its

Nov 6, 1985 order page 5 Footnote 4, on the date of submission of

"Motion to Allow Correction of Ommissions (SIC) and Misstatements".

Said was originally filed in district court on August 3, 1984

after district court took same under advisement September 2, 1983

and delayed no less than 9 months, then made no ruling whatsoever,

Claiming only Motion for Mistrial and A New Trial is “verbose

and rambling” in its June 5, 1984 order from which appeal is

taken. # 3 said motion conclusions seeks “judicial review" and

said was included in short appendix to Appellant's Main Brief

filed 9-19-84 in 84-2322. Certified District court document

# 12%. Request to Supplement the record with transcript by

affidavit re 9-2-83 hearing is denied by 7th Circuit as CCA

plays “word games” and carefully avoids supplementing record

with said 3 page affidavit, appended hereto as APPENDIX L.

Order 6-5-8684 is appended hereto as APPENDIX L-l1. Motion for

Mistrial and a New Trial is appended hereto as APPENDIX L-2.

Appended hereto as APPENDIX W is a copy of page 449 Black's

Law Dictionary re due process clause et seq and it is signed

by Thomas L. Schuchman and appears in both district court

and 7th Circuit court file numerous times appended to various

requests.JR PAGG 467 LIME WY ET SER)

/4-b

. Se +S ee

Asi

; w Vie, g vy ;

lee note, S...-3OP Sectton 50. Ho. SO Rev 3 page 61 paragraph 2a»)

ie. et seg. “appended hereto as portton of APPENDIZ E. | bated

e basic purpose of a deferment is to enchance the borrower's —

flow, trade credit, ete, and thereby tmprove the ltkelihood

rther payments to SB A'..tn the long run--a short run

mpenelty for a long run benafit." SBA was argumentative and

eaprictous tn its consideration of deferment requests. See

‘Pappended hereto APPENDICES G et seq, H et seq, inter alia.

Of Platntiff'’s Exhibit k (TR 59, 60) borrower's letter

24-80 to SBA, requesting what happened to his deferment,

requested tn writing August 23, 1979, and acknowledged tin

letter 10-11-79 from SBA stgned by Shelta M. Valdez, ts

appended hereto as APPENDIX H page 2. It was also defendant's

eghtbit G at trial but misplaced by clerk, exhibit and witness

list has scratched out. 10-11-79 letter is ap pended here

as page two APrENDIX H. (TR page 346 line 25, page 347 line 7 et se¢

Seenotes-~3and~9,~—~-S80L..deotton.50. No.-50-Rev- 3.pages-6l1,-———...

62 et seq appended hereto as APPENDIX E.Borrower made written

request 8-23-79 and sought reconsideration at nezrt level 10-8-79

when Springfield SBA made no writtvn response. 10-11-79 letter

appended hereto as APPENDIX H page 2 is only whitten response.

2-20-80 (TR 208, 209) borrower agatn submits request and

again no written response thus 4-20-80 letter appended heretto

as APPENDIX H page 2 and also Plaintiff's Exhibit k at trial

(Tk 59, 60).

18 Plaintiff's Exhibit L at trial. (Tk 205 line 1 et seq.

60) which ts 4-28-80 létter copy chowtng no affidavit, or

sworn testimony offered tn support of the ertstence of any

327 loan authorization en such determination, Plaintiffl(s

Erhtbit K appended hereto as AFrkWDLL H has wttitten note

acknowledging receipt of response 2-20-89,

13/ 327 loan authorization #4 apparently considered by 7th

Circuit in its order Nov 6, 1985 page 3 lines 24 and 25

"added two months to the second deferment” but not a part of

Plaintiff's ortginal trial exhibits. Defendants did attach

tt to vartous pleadings and at one time identified itt as

BZrhibit HHHH. Satd copy ts appended hereto as APPENDIX I,

Signed answers to written interrorgatortee claim borrower

was advised by phone that satd deferment was granted, but

5 USC 555(e) requires dental to be in writing and august 23,

1979 written request was for 6 months, and response letter

10-11-79 states borrower will recetve an answer in writting.

See appended hereto as APPENDIX a-2 borrower's motion for

reconstderation to CCA dented for non-compliance wtth Standard

Operating Procedure of CCA. See kublic Law 489, 92nd

Congress, 2nd Sesston, 8 6 STal 807 which sets forth general

princtpals and minimum standards to be observed tn formulating

any local rules. The record te not suffictent in that

transcripts of proceedings October 21, 1961, June 3, 1983,

and September 2, 1983 were not settled and aproved by district

court at hearing 7-25-68 5 pursuant to Federal Rules of Appdlate

Procedure Rule 10(c) and district court refused to even

file motion fof same submitted July 18, 198 5. See appended

hereto APFENDiL L et seq, affidavit by transcript of proceedings

September 2, 1983 tnter alia. All the evidence should be .

Gllowed. United states vs Nizon.

14/ sce notes 1 and 2 above. saPPENBEX D appended hereto,

5 page 4 of APPELLiL b.IEF served June 20, 1995, relevant

porttons appended hereto as APPENDIX D for purvtew of falstty

and lack of substanceicl evidence.

15/ Defendant's Exhibit U at téd#al (TRp 225 line 18, p 226

et seg} p 216 line 3) appended hereto as APPENDIZ K et se

was alec submitted attached in motion for constderation of

jurisdiction of dtstrict court resulting in CCA order Janaary

30, 1985 appended hereto as APPENDIX J.

1 Lefendant's gxrhibit V (Ta pal? 199, line 22, page 202

tne 4 ect seg, admitt?’ line lo , paye 228 line 17 et seg,

een nnn == DEA" BI6- line-#5 et—eeq/ at trial. (TR 435-line 17) appendal —— wonde

hereto @s APLENLIL 4h cleurly siowe O balance owtng S&S4.

17/ Plaintiff's Erhibit G at trial (TR 40)58) appended hereto

as 4 PRENDIX M. Satd loan authrizaution at 5.(e) tncorporats

SUr's into agreement. (TK 217 line 10). watd SUP's

Defendant's grhibtt I at trial. (Ta page 440 line 22 et sec

page 345 line 21 et seq. puege 331 line 4 et seg therein.

page 108 line 15, paye 110 line 12 et seg) appended herctto

ae portion of a PYENLIX E see note S adove.

18/ Plaintiff's Erhibit Ff at trial. (Ta 65, 66) See also

notes 1 and 2 above. Appenced hereto as part of APPENDIZ D

see footnote 3 page 3 et seg therein.

19/ Plaintiff's Erhlbit H at trial (Ta 40). wee cl.» note

C above. (Ta 53 lines 12, 13, 14, et seq. appended heretO

as atiadlLik G et seg. See also note 3 above. SOP Section

SarWNonrairnsarninzgayerhZ26rhsnetraegrazymencadnzermr 50 No. 50

kev 3 pug es 155, 15c, 157, 158, 159, 160. Manugement

A ssistcnce ch241ld be considered on refinanced and/or additional

loans. faze 3 Fluintiff's grhibit H appended hereto us arPENLIi

v clegrly prescribes man-,2nent assistunce but Springfield

oon lines it out und refuses to provided Proyram 403 to borrower.

(TR 83 line 16 et seg) Court ts cleurly erroneous (Tk p 457

line 14. authority to uccelerate ts required to tssue ¢cenand

letter und it hus everytnipg to do uith thts cause, tf tt (2-14-80)

ts tncorrect, has ommissions, and does not follow procedure

then the decision ts insufficiently supported by the evidere.

20/ Plaintiff's Exhibit K (TR 60) a-pended hereto as APPENIa a

pae l.

21/501 Section 50 Wo. 51 Kev J payes 126.9 and 126.19

appended hereto as part of APPENLIA &. See also note 3 abowe.

Page 27 of the June 1985 Moneymcyjaztne states: “Among the

most debated points in the A agan Administration budget

cutting plan ts its plan to abolish the 22 year old Small

2 |

¥ ‘ta ‘

@tness Administration or ot lesst=r

Seerantee loans to s truggling entreprenéurs. Last y ear tthe ~

et ot BB A dtapensed $3. 2 dbtliten in leans to0°82,000 new and im

‘quotes former Ob Director Devid Stockman’4n a closed door

eech to New Y ork Stock Exchange’ directors June 5, 1985

eckman also critized government accounting practices, sqy ing

“bf the SEC had jurisdictton over the executtve and legislatute

branches, (see also accounting article appended hereto as

APPENDIX O page 2) many of us would be tn jail." A Belleville

New mocrat nevus article in early May 1985 with dateline

AP) reiterates declared policy of Congress "to

aid, counsle, assist and protect small business" and quotes

Stockman's reference to the Si a as a "rat hole”. Documested

cases of SBA "rat hole" are contained in Memorandum filed Reb 9, 1984

dtctrict court 60-5143 documant # thoase being an award winning

sertes of newspupers articles in the Golve Democrat in Octaber

of 1968 1. Satd memorandum also notes the notation on Docket

, 4 Lia

{ Lge > geet

A PLES, , Agios bg

1 4¢8 authority » |

—?

£Q-5143..in0ctober—of—-L98-l—“carry-on-non-jury--w oket--~ - —

U.8. ph opinion.” Publick Law 97-72 enacted November

3, 1981, 95 STAT1056 at (e)(1) states: "upon application by

@ veteran's small business concern..." et seg. See also

A?PENDIZ EB hereto appended pages 89 and 90. News articles

on FHA and H UD mortgage fraud appended hereto as APPENDIZ O

(such happenstance alluded to in pro se statement of case

on granting of second loan application, but not with his

knowledge) tncluding article on “tllegal conduct by Justice

Department attorneys under the RBfhics in Government Act.

Appended hereto as aPPENLIX O page 3 is news article on

staff memeber of U.S. Justice Department collection staff in

Bast St. Louis, Illinois.

22/ 7th Circuit Court order entered January 30, 1985 appentied

hereto as aAPFENLIZ J and Motion filed Nev 27, 1985 in state

court case & 8 LM 1278 re Motion for Discovery filed May 20, 1983

but never allowed to be heard, bother appended as APPENDIXZ P

et seg. 62-LM-1278 was continued for question of gederal

jurisdiction see order appended hereto as APPENDIX P puge 3.

23/ Right of secission with s& A pursuant to 15 Use § 16 35

et seq (Ta page 537 pine 143 page 539 line 15, line 24;

page 540 line 29, 21, court reporte@ repeatedly types recess

instead of recission, but makes no correction when udvised in

writing) ts dented by ynn med parties who purchased SBA direct

loan to foreclose and make a profit and NOR to "aid, counsel

assist and protect” small business of borrower in question

APPENDIX K hereto and APPENDIX E hereto, specifically SOP

SEction 50 No 51 Rev J page 126.9, et seg. See also APPENIK Q

appended hereto and being quit claim deed for amount of 67 k plus.

See also 13 CFR 122.15-3(c) and 12 CFR 220 et seq.-220.'3

24f District court repeatedly admonished pro se UCC, Article

9, tnter alia, did not apply in this case because the Unitet

States a party. see also note 1 above and APise.WDIX A-1 hereto

# 7 and # 8 and # 9 inter alia. APPENDIX E hereto, Section

50 No. 50 Rev 3 page 64 paragrazh 53 et seq. Distrtet cours

1/9 -FfpP

is clearly erroneous in Genygng constitutional right to a

h earing before Ska setzure of "collateral" claiming real

property tnvolved does not constitute collcieral under the

terms Of wba security agreement cited.

24a/ CCa order entered January 30, 1985 refuses to consider

jurisdictional question before the merits. Said order is

appenced hereto us arPewDI£ J. see also uppended hereto

aAblhhillIi K et S@g-

25/ Case set for trial 3 times cnd delayed three times by

U.S. attorney for insufficient evidence. Defendant's Erhibit

Z (TR 218 line 9) contains copies of settings arc continuances.

CVompromice offer of May 28, 1931 not forwarded to U.S. A ttiorney

for considerution,. wee note 5 above, SOF Section 50 No $51

kev J paz,e 120.Met seg peeagraph 139 b. et seg appended

hereto as part of a PPENDIZ EJ also letter 5-28-8 1 appended

hereto us paye 5 AFPENDI£ E .

26/ See i0te 3 above. Ur Section 50 No SC aev J page 126.9

et seq appended hereto as part of a PPENDIX E. "The Government

shouldn't, by its actions, make a pauper oft

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.