David: Cocroft, Agent for Defendant

DAVID COCROFT, Defendant

c/o 4852 Turner Court

Country Club Hills, Illinois [60478]

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION

CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA)N.A.

) CASE: 09M1134470

Plaintiff, Et al,
) DEFENDANTS’ PETITION FOR
INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER RELIEF AND
vs
) FOR COURT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO
PRODUCE AND COMPLY WITH
DAVID COCROFT DEFENDANTS’ DEMANDS
)

Defendant
)
______________________________________
_

DEFENDANTS’ PETITION FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER RELIEF AND FOR

COURT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF(S) TO PRODUCE AND COMPLY WITH
DEFENDANTS’ DEMANDS

COMES NOW, pursuant to fact, Statute, Illinois Supreme Court Rules 213, 214, and 216,
Illinois Rules of Civil Procedure 1.220(b),(c),(d-1,2,3),and(f), the Constitution for Illinois, the
Constitution for the United States, the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA) 15 U.S.C.
§§ 1601, 1692 et seq, and the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) 3-601, 3-602, 3-603, 3-604, 3-
605, and all applicable law in all applicable jurisdictions, only to:

1
1. Demand injunctive relief and/ or other relief which will effectively stop any and all of
Plaintiff(s) collection activities against Defendant until Plaintiff(s) have validated and
produced, disclosed, and complied with Defendants’ Discovery Demands (EXHIBIT B,
C, and D);
2. Plaintiff(s) do not have any verifiable, articulate facts to rely upon from which to furnish
negative, unverified, inaccurate, erroneous information to this honorable court in bringing
this frivolous and vexatious complaint, which is a simulation of legal process, deceptive
business practices and fraudulent presentments,
3. Plaintiff(s) do not have any verifiable, articulate facts to rely upon from which to furnish
negative, unverified, inaccurate, erroneous information to the Credit Reporting Agencies
in violation of the provisions set forth in the “Fair Credit Reporting Act” [15 USC 1681d,
1681i, 1681n, 1681q, 1681q, 1681s, 1681s-2]; “The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act”
codified [15 USC if 1691 9(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(i)(j)(k) and, The Unfair or Deceptive Act or
Practices in Commerce in violation of 45(a) of the “Federal Trade Commission Act”
codified [15 USCG 45(a)(b).
4. I, David: Cocroft, am injured by this matter called Case No 09M1134470. I have
suffered financial, emotional, physical, marital, and consequential damages from this
matter called Case No. 09M1134470 in which Plaintiff(s) have no verifiable, articulate
facts to rely upon from which to furnish negative, unverified, inaccurate, erroneous
information to this honorable court in bringing this frivolous and vexatious complaint,
which is a simulation of legal process, deceptive business practices and fraudulent
presentments,
5. I, David: Cocroft, Request this honorable court to Report that Plaintiff(s) are in default
and that Plaintiff(s) have committed crimes against Defendant.
6. I, David: Cocroft, Request this honorable court to award Defendant treble the amount
demanded by Plaintiff(s) in their complaint totaling to($32,574.69), for actual, statutory,
and punitive damages against the Defendant for bringing this frivolous and vexatious
complaint before this honorable court.
7. To date, Plaintiff(s) cannot or refuses to produce and/ or disclose and / or comply
according to Defendants’ “Interrogatories Request, Production Request, and Admissions
Request”
SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH AND STATEMENT OF PROBABLE CAUSE

1. On the 15th day of January 2010, Defendant filed into court records “Defendants’
First Interrogatories Request to Plaintiff” and mailed a copy thereof via US
certified mail with return receipt, to Plaintiff(s) attorney of record.
2. On the 11th day of March 2010, Defendant filed into court records “Defendants’
First Request for Production and, Defendants’ First Request for Admissions” and
mailed a copy thereof via US certified mail with return receipt to Plaintiff(s)
attorney of record.
3. On 11th day of March 2010, Defendant filed “Motion to Compel”

2
 4. On 7th day of April 2010, Defendants’ petition was heard “Petition for Injunctive
Relief and other Relief and Motion to Compel”. Judge ruled that Defendant must
first satisfy Plaintiff witness expenses of $500.00 dollars from 1-28-2010 trial
date in which Defendant was not present, and then refile discovery requests.
Defendant complied with court order and instructions.
5. On 13th day of April 2010, Plaintiff(s) motion to request a extension of time to
comply with Defendants’ Discovery was granted. Plaintiff received a 28 day
extension to comply with Defendants’ discovery demands. (Exhibit A)
6. On 16th day of April 2010, Defendant as directed by the court, refiled into court
records “Defendants’ First Interrogatories Request to Plaintiff, Defendants’ First
Request for Production and, Defendants’ First Request for Admissions”. (Exhibits
B, C, and D)
7. On 4th day of May 2010, Plaintiff filed a 2nd request for extension of time to
comply with Defendants’ discovery demands. (Exhibit E)
8. Plaintiff later withdrew their 2nd request for extension of time to comply with
Defendants’ discovery demands.
9. On 11th day of May 2010, Plaintiff(s) filed an objection to each and every
discovery request for Production, Admissions, and Interrogatories, by Defendant,
in violation of Court Order dated 13th day of April 2010 (Exhibit A) ordering
Plaintiff to comply with Defendants’ discovery demands within 28 days,
8. Plaintiff(s) have refused to comply and are now in violation of Illinois Supreme Court
Rules 213, 214, 216, Illinois Rules of Civil Procedure 1.220(b),(c),(d-1,2,3),and(f), and
“The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act” codified [15 USC if 1691] 9(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(i)
(j)(k), “Fair Credit Reporting Act” [15 USC 1681d, 1681i, 1681n, 1681q, 1681q, 1681s,
1681s-2]; The Unfair or Deceptive Act or Practices in Commerce in violation of 45(a) of
the “Federal Trade Commission Act” codified [15 USCG 45(a)(b).
9. PLAINTIFF CLAIMS THAT DEFENDANT HAS A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION
TO PLAINTIFF: That is why Plaintiff claims that Defendant owes a debt to Plaintiff.
This is contract law. Full disclosure from both parties to the contract must occur or the
contract is ultra vires (void since inception). Still, to date, Plaintiff refuses to produce and
to comply in violation of Court Order dated 13th day of April 2010(Exhibit A), Illinois
Supreme Court Rules 213, 214, 216, and Illinois Rules of Civil Procedure 1.220(b),(c),(d-
1,2,3), and(f), and “The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act” codified [15 USC if 1691
9(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(i)(j)(k). If Plaintiff(s) claims that there is a contractual obligation
between Plaintiff(s) and Defendant through an alleged contract referred to as “the card
agreement”, then Plaintiff(s) has (pursuant to contract law and common sense) the
contractual obligation to produce and disclose and comply according to Defendants’
“Interrogatories Request, Production Request, and Admissions Request.” (EXHIBITS B,
C and D).

3
10. If Plaintiff(s) claims that Plaintiff(s) has no contractual obligation to produce and/ or
disclose and / or comply according to Defendants’ “Interrogatories Request, Production
Request, and Admissions Request” (EXHIBITS B, C and D), then Defendant claims that
there is no contractual obligation between Plaintiff(s) and Defendant. If there is no
contractual obligation between Plaintiff(s) and Defendant, Plaintiff(s) has no legal right
to continue any collection activities against Defendant. Defendant demands the court to
compel Plaintiff(s) to produce and comply with Defendants’ discovery demands pursuant
to April 13, 2010 Court Order (Exhibit A),
11. Plaintiff(s) has to date knowingly refused Defendants’ request to verify purported debt,
and comply to Defendants’ discovery demands pursuant to Court Order dated 13th day of
April 2010, Illinois Supreme Court Rules 213, 214, 216, Illinois Rules of Civil Procedure
1.220(b),(c),(d-1,2,3), and(f), “The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act” codified [15 USC
if 1691 9(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(i)(j)(k).
12. Plaintiff has to date knowingly failed to comply with Defendants demands to produce as
stipulated by Illinois Supreme Court Rules 214. (EXHIBITS B) Plaintiff has been duly
noticed that”“Your silence is your acquiescence”. See: Connally v. General Construction
Co., 269 U.S. 385,391. Notification of legal responsibility is “the first essential of due
process of law”. See also: U.S. V. Tweel, 550 F.2d.297. “Silence can only be equated
with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left
unanswered would be intentionally misleading”, however, Plaintiff remains silent and
refuses to produce and validate their claims and has no legal right to proceed with
collection activities against Defendant.
13. Pursuant to Court Order of 13th day of April 2010, Illinois Supreme Court Rules 213,
214, and 216, Illinois Rules of Civil Procedure 1.220(b),(c),(d-1,2,3), and (f), the “The
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act” codified [15 USC if 1691 (b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(i)(j) (k),
the “Fair Credit Reporting Act” [15 USC 1681d, 1681i, 1681n, 1681q, 1681q, 1681s,
1681s-2]; and, The Unfair or Deceptive Act or Practices in Commerce in violation of
45(a) of the “Federal Trade Commission Act” codified [15 USCG 45(a)(b); the Uniform
Commercial Code (UCC) 3-601, 3-602, 3-603, 3-604, 3-605, and the alleged contract
between Plaintiff(s) and Defendant (the alleged card agreement), and all applicable law,
Plaintiff(s) are now in default and without claim. Absent validation of Plaintiff(s) claims
and production of the documents, Plaintiff(s) answers to Defendants’ questions /
demands, point by point, as demanded in EXHIBITS B. C, and D.

4
THEREFORE

Defendant hereby respectfully demands the court:

1. Compel Plaintiff(s) to produce and to comply and to disclose according to Court

Order dated 13th day of April 2010, to Defendants “Interrogatories Request,
Production Request, and Admissions Request” (EXHIBITS B, C, and D),
pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rules 213, 214, and 216, Illinois Rules of
Civil Procedure 1.220(b),(c),(d-1,2,3), and (f), the “Fair Debt Collections
Practices Act” (FDCPA) 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601, 1692 et seq,, “Fair Credit Reporting
Act” [15 USC 1681d, 1681i, 1681n, 1681q, 1681q, 1681s, 1681s-2]; and, The
Unfair or Deceptive Act or Practices in Commerce in violation of 45(a) of the
“Federal Trade Commission Act” codified [15 USCG 45(a)(b); and, the Uniform
Commercial Code (UCC) 3-601, 3-602, 3-603, 3-604, 3-605, and
2. Immediately award injunctive relief and/ or other relief which will effectively
stop any and all of Plaintiff(s) collection activities against Defendant, and
3. Order Plaintiff(s) to issue a release to, and remove, all negative, unverified,
inaccurate, erroneous information to the Credit Reporting Agencies in violation of
the provisions set forth in the “Fair Credit Reporting Act” [15 USC 1681d, 1681i,
1681n, 1681q, 1681q, 1681s, 1681s-2]; “The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act”
codified [15 USC if 1691 9(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(i)(j)(k) and, The Unfair or Deceptive
Act or Practices in Commerce in violation of 45(a) of the “Federal Trade
Commission Act” codified [15 USCG 45(a)(b).

COMMERCIAL OATH AND AFFIDAVIT.

DAVID COCROFT, Defendant

By: David: Cocroft, Agent for Defendant

______________________
_______

County of Cook )
) SS
State of Illinois )

Before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State on this
____ day of May, 2010, personally appeared David Cocroft to me known to be the
identical person who executed the within and foregoing instrument and
acknowledged to me that he executed the same as his free and voluntary act. Given
under my hand and seal the day and year last above written.

____________________________

5
 Notary Public

CERTIFICATION

The foregoing was mailed postage prepaid via US Certified Mail #7009 0820 0001
9202 2183 on 05/18/10 to the following:

Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker & Moore, LLC

125 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 400

Chicago, IL 60606