Child Support Judge Misconduct

Ohh so in other words, the child support George was not supposed to shrug. her shoulders and verbally state is not. my fault. What your attorney did?

I'm asking you once the judge was informed. that the attorney for the petitioner in the case struck a deal with opposing party's attorney while in the judges chamber without the clients knowledge. is the judge supposed to verbally state afterwards? to the petitioner shrugging her shoulders? that it's not her problem. What the petitioners attorney struck a deal without the clients knowledge on behalf of the three children involved in this case. It's a yes or no question.

Also. If the judge made her ruling for the amount of child support payments that should be paid for * children based. on false misleading statements made in a pretrial memoranda. and presented with documented evidence afterwards proving that opposing party lied and misled the court. should the judge ignore that and continue with her ruling or stick to her ruling made on false information

Is a child support judge supposed to look at all documented evidence presented, or only at pretrials or hearings?

Does that include fire? ing core? papers such as a motion or an objection and attached documented evidence? to the objection or motion during open during open court presentation of that motion or objection, the judge also supposed to be looking at that evidence yet? or no

The judge stated multiple times that she does not look at evidence and stated that I should stop attaching, because she does not look at them. and that I'm wasting my time filing all those papers.

I also want to know yes. or no so if the opposing party Falsely claim in their pretrial memorandum that this case was taken off call. and that retroactive child support payments should only. be. ordered From a Pacific time. But there was no. retroactive ordered by this judge based on that false claim.

And after the judge makes that ruling on that retroactive and I provided copies of the actual court files, to the judge, clearly showing my second. when I file for child support through the state, which was. on April *. * and despite all that documented evidence to judge states to me That the retroactive has already been handled, even though there's no court order indicating that. And that helped the non custodial parent. Larry evade being ordered paying. retroactive child support dating from April *. *

I'm asking, is the judge supposed to stick to her ruling made based on false information, that the case was removed from call when it. was not so now the judge is refusing to change her ruling, even though presented were overwhelming documented evidence such as copies of the actual court files

At this point. it's mind boggling. that discharge is even a charge handling. a child support case. Not only mine, but other child support cases.

I tried everything. nothing has helped. for this judge to make her rulings in the best interest of my children or the well being of my children or their educational needs. as this case has been going on since January * * as I initially filed for child support through the state of Illinois on July * * Although it took the state nine months for some reason to send the papers out to me for my signature The court copies court file copies show clearly show my signature dated April * * now even though this judge was presented with those Copies. she did not order the response. to pay any retroactive child support payments. which has cheated my children. out of financial support that they are owd

So really my question here is, and I need you to answer me just by simple yes or no. So When the Opposing party falsely claimed, and their pretrial memorandum, that this case was taken off call. When it was not. and the judge continues. to stick to that ruling she made based on false information. and not look at the document that evidence or just ignore it. Or overlook it. Is she supposed to be doing that? Yes or no?

The judge also falsely claimed that she was not in the chamber when my previous attorney and the non custodial parents, previous attorney, struck a deal without. my consent. Now I was not allowed in the judges chambers or the two attorneys were. my attorney at the time stated that the judge Verbally stated that. she will be making her ruling based on the memorandum presented by the other party. Turns out everything stated in that pretrial memorandum was false and misleading and not true. and it was proven with documented evidence afterwards. But this judge is having a hard time changing her ruling where she does not want a bunch and is not considering any document that evidence presented to her. She's just overlooking it.

So if I go to the daily center in Illinois in a request, copies of the. court file once again. wouldn't it be in those copies if this case was at some point taken off call?

And if that is not. in the court copy files And the judge continues. to stick to that ruling for the retroactive

At this point, it is not. worth filing anything with this judge, as she has ordered me not to file anything without the courts permission. or to request any discovery for the non custodial parents actual income, which is concerning

So my plan is to file a complaint and provide. each and every single objection motion I have filed with this court I also plan to provide each and every documented evidence I have presented to this court. I also plan to provide each and every court order with this judge's ruling that are clear evidence that none of her rulings are in the best interest of my children and the best well being of my children or educational needs of my children. All her rulings are in favor of the non custodial parent and the court orders that she has signed are clear evidence of that.

yes

And how long would you say that this would take? This process takes for the board. to question one, investigate the judge.

So now. in your opinion how would you describe this type of child support judge

Other question is. if the board sees the clear evidence of everything and for any chance that they don't follow the laws of Illinois and investigate this judge a question the judge then what?

And who would be. higher authorities?

So now if I file for child support through the state on July, * * And it took the state nine months for some reason to send these documents out to me. for my signature, which I received nine months after I filed which was April * * because that's the date of my signature that are in the court file copies. and the opposing party falsely claims and their pretrial memorandum that retroactive should be ordered from the date My then hired attorney filed his appearance, which was December * * I believe and the court files Does not have any evidence that this case was removed from call at any point. And the judges refusing. to order the respondent to pay retroactive from the date of my signature that are in the court files.

No, I'm asking. because the judge stated to me that my retroactive has been handled already. when none of the court orders reflect that She stated that after I filed a motion requesting that the response. that the respondent be ordered to pay retroactive starting from April * * but is refusing and made her decision based on the false misleading Information provided in the pretrial memorandum by the opposing party that. this case was taken off call and retroactive should be ordered only from the date. December * * but the judge waved all retroactive as the respondent was not ordered to pay any retroactive. So now that it's evidence in the court file that this case was not even. removed at all from Carl isn't it odd that the judge is refusing? to change her ruling based on false information? after presented with the court file copies? That's what I'm trying to understand here. Once the judge seen the documented evidence with my signature, they did April *. *. In the court files and also. no evidence that this case was removed from Carl at all. Isn't the judge's job? to order the respondent to pay retroactive child support from the date of my signature that are clearly in the court files? Yes, or no.

So will the board question that. if I provide them with all of that evidence also

So now in your opinion. if you can answer my questions with your own opinion and your thinking, So if a judge. is presented with all documented evidence but doesn't look at them or overlook stem or dismisses them. and continues with her ruling based on false misleading information that was proven. to be a lie. and the judge refuses to order the respondent to pay retroactive child support for our * children. Isn't that cheating the children involved? What in this case be ruled unfair at that point?

Also. in this situation. what did you say in your opinion? that the judge is wrong. and also ordering me not telling me that I am not allowed to do anymore discovery or file anymore motions or objections. Wouldn't that make this case also unfair? And make it Mistrial or however you would properly call this. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT - DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION IN RE THE PARENTAGE OF: A.K., J.K., S.K., minor children, LULA KOROTKOV, Petitioner, Pro Se v. No: 2021D051242 NASER BEGANOVIC, Respondent. MOTION TO ORDER RESPONDENT TO PROVIDE GIRLFRIEND’S BANK RECORDS AND FOR SUBPOENA IF NECESSARY NOW COMES the Petitioner, Lula Korotkov, pro se, and moves this Honorable Court to order the Respondent, Naser Beganovic, to produce the bank records of the Respondent’s girlfriend, Lisa Calderon, and to issue a subpoena if necessary for these records from Huntington Bank, pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule * and the Illinois Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (* ILCS */). In support of this motion, the Petitioner states as follows: *. Relevance and Necessity: I have evidence showing substantial payments made to Lisa Calderon, who also uses the alias Lisa Beganovic, through Apple Cash and Zelle, amounting to $*,*.*. This includes $*,* Naser sent to her attorney via Zelle: $*,* in March * and $*,* in April *. These payments are relevant to this case as they have affected and continue to affect Naser’s financial ability to support his three biological children’s well-being and needs. *. Attempts to Resolve: I sent an email to Naser and his attorney asking if Naser was willing to provide his girlfriend’s banking records to the judge. In response to my email request, I received an extremely abusive and threatening reply. The tone of the email was highly aggressive, confrontational, and disrespectful, clearly intended to intimidate and discourage me from pursuing my legal rights. This response confirms that Lisa Calderon is hiding Naser’s income, especially since they had no issue providing her credit card statements from Bank of America to the judge. Evidence of Fraudulent Transfers: I have Naser’s Chase bank records from * to *, which show Apple Cash payments from * through February *. Significant monthly expenditures continued until all Naser’s money disappeared. Frequent, consistent Zelle payments were made from * to *. Some of these bank statements were provided to the court on June *, *. All those transfers were and are being made with the intent to hide Naser’s money to avoid paying retroactive child support, the proper amount of child support, and education expenses. *. At the end of May *, all of Naser’s money disappeared from both of his Chase accounts. He then started falsely claiming that he is making $*,* less than he did in * and also started falsely claiming that Lisa Calderon is financially helping him. Coincidentally, that is also the same time Lisa Calderon quit her job and has been unemployed since *. *. In *, Naser again falsely claimed that he is making $*,* less than he did in *. *. Naser’s Chase bank statements reveal direct patterns of income concealment. The following instances serve as a few examples: a. On January *, *, Naser transferred $*.* via Zelle to Lisa Calderon from his second Chase account ending in *. On the same day, Lisa transferred the same amount to Naser’s first Chase account ending in *. Subsequently, Naser sent the same amount back to Lisa on the same day. b. On August *, *, Lisa Calderon sent $* via Zelle to Naser, which he then sent to me. c. June *, *: Naser deposited a check for $*,*.* from his second claim against NCR Corporation. d. July *, *: Naser withdrew a cashier’s check for $*,* made out to Lisa. e. On August *, *: Naser transferred $*,* from his first Chase account ending with * to his second Chase account ending with *. On the same day, he received $* via Zelle from Lisa Calderon and subsequently sent her back the $*, along with an additional $*. This is also meant to create the illusion that Lisa Calderon is financially helping Naser. *. Interference in the Case: Lisa Calderon has been and continues interfering in my children’s well-being and needs since July *, *, and in this case since January *, *, for her own benefit at my children’s expense. *. Legal Basis: Under Section *(a) of the Illinois Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (* ILCS */), any transfer made with the intent to defraud, hinder, or delay a creditor is prohibited. As the custodial parent, I am considered a creditor, and Naser is the debtor. *. Request for Subpoena: I request that this Honorable Court issue a subpoena to Huntington Bank to produce Lisa Calderon’s bank records of checking and savings accounts for the period of April *, *, to September *, *, to determine the extent of the fraudulent transfers and Naser’s hidden assets. I ask that this subpoena be issued only if there is a refusal to voluntarily provide these records to the Honorable Judge without a subpoena. *. In support of the motion, I’ve attached the following documents: Exhibit A: Emails written by Lisa Calderon, both as herself and impersonating Naser, along with two text messages from Naser, will help the court understand that all the emails are authored by Lisa Calderon, not Naser, clearly demonstrating her interference in this case and in the children’s well-being and needs. *. Naser’s Chase bank statements also clearly reveal Lisa Calderon’s interference with his finances. These statements show consistent Zelle payments made to her from both of his Chase accounts. His * and * Chase bank statements also revealed the amount of money that was going out of his account, ranging from ten to fifteen thousand dollars per month, while he’s been and continues to falsely claim to the court that Lisa Calderon is financially helping him because he does not make enough income, knowing she has been unemployed since *. This demonstrates that Lisa Calderon is hiding Naser’s money, interfering with his ability to support his three biological children for her benefit and her five sons, further proving her interference in this case and in the children’s well-being and needs. WHEREFORE, the Petitioner, Lula Korotkov, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant the relief sought herein: a. Order the respondent, Naser Beganovic, to provide the bank records of Lisa Calderon.for the specified period. b. Issue a subpoena for Lisa Calderon’s bank records from Huntington Bank. c. Grant any other relief that this Court deems just and proper. Respectfully Submitted, Lula Korotkov Lula Korotkov */*/* Lula Korotkov * N, Central Park Ave Chicago IL, * *-*-* Alisagiana@yahoo.com PRO SE PETITIONER’S VERIFICATION I, Lula Korotkov, acting Pro Se, under penalties as provided by law pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule * and Section *-* of the Code of Civil Procedure, certify that I have read the foregoing and within the motion. I further state that the allegations contained in the foregoing, and within the motion, are true to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. I further state that I have provided information which, to the best of my knowledge and belief, is true and correct. This motion is being filed with my consent and as part of my required duties in representing myself. I understand that by signing this verification, I am acknowledging that I am acting with my consent and at my direction and that I have based my actions and statements on the factual information provided by me. Lula Korotkov Pro Se Petitioner * N, Central Park Ave Chicago IL, * *-*-* Alisagiana@yahoo.com Lula Korotkov Lula Korotkov */*/*

So if I present all this evidence to. the complaint board what day deem it as a mistrial? If that's the proper word to use in this case,IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT-DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION IN RE THE PARENTAGE OF: ) A.K., J.K., S.K., minor children, ) ) LULA KOROTKOV , ) Petitioner, ) ) No.: 2021D051242 and ) ) NASER BEGANOVIC, ) Respondent. ) MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER DENYING DISCOVERY OF RESPONDENT’S HIDDEN BANK ACCOUNT RECORDS FROM BANK OF AMERICA Now Comes the Petitioner, Lula Korotkov, pro se, pursuant to the Illinois Civil Code of Procedure, and respectfully moves this Honorable Court to reconsider its order dated August *, *, denying the Petitioner’s request for discovery of the Respondent’s bank records from the recently discovered hidden bank account at Bank of America. In support of this motion, Petitioner states as follows: *. This case involves ongoing child support proceedings aimed at ensuring accurate child support payments and full coverage of educational expenses in the best interest of my three children. I have diligently sought discovery of Naser’s financial records from his recently discovered second hidden bank account to ensure precise calculation of child support payments and comprehensive coverage of educational expenses. This is to guarantee that my three children receive the proper support they deserve for their well-being and educational needs. *. Being fully aware that Naser was earning under-the-table income and hiding his true monthly earnings, I persistently informed the court. I presented documented evidence demonstrating income cycling, diversion, and concealment, along with proof of inconsistencies in his financial explanations and documentation of the two known sources of his under-the-table income. Despite this, the evidence was dismissed as insufficient on June *, *. *. On June *, *, while at the Daily Center for our pretrial, I properly obtained a stamped subpoena from the circuit clerk, which I then served on Bank of America. *. On July *, *, I became aware that I did, in fact, find Naser’s second hidden bank account at Bank of America. *. As emphasized by Illinois statute and rules, in an ongoing civil case, especially a child support case pertaining to child support payments and full coverage of educational expenses, I have the right to obtain a subpoena from the circuit clerk for Naser’s hidden bank account records. *. The court's ruling, first made on July *, *, LULA is granted leave to issue a Subpoena Duces Tecum to the Bank of America conditioned on the following: a. Said Subpoena shall be returnable to the Court, thus, all the documents in response to the Subpoena shall be sent only to the Honorable Judge Aimen, Courtroom * of the Richard Daley Center, * W Washington St., Chicago, Illinois *; and b. LULA shall provide proper notice to NASER through counsel. and reiterated on August *, *, regarding granting LULA leave to file a subpoena to Bank of America with the following conditions, remains in full force and effect: a. Said subpoena shall be returnable to the court, thus, all the documents in response to the subpoena shall be sent only to the Honorable Judge Aimen, Courtroom * of the Richard Daley Center, * W Washington St., Chicago, Illinois *; and b. LULA shall provide proper notice to NASER through counsel. *. This ruling is in contradiction of Rule *(a), which generally allows for the issuance of subpoenas without needing the judge’s permission, ensuring transparency and review opportunities for the issuing party. The order breaches Rule *(a) by requiring the judge’s permission for a subpoena. *. Additionally, the order contradicts Rule *(b) by implying that I should notify the respondent and his attorney. The responsibility for notification generally lies with the bank, not with the issuing party. *. Furthermore, the order violates Rule *(a) by directing that bank records be sent only to the judge. This contradicts standard practice as per Rule *(a), which calls for transparency and review opportunities for the issuing party. *. I was supposed to receive these bank records on July *, *, to ensure that the child support calculations were based on Naser’s actual monthly income and to guarantee full coverage of educational expenses for the boys, prioritizing their well-being and educational needs. However, these court orders have only helped Naser evade his responsibility. *. Yesterday, August *, *, I spoke with the legal department at Bank of America and was informed that the subpoena for Naser’s hidden bank records has been stalled. They are unable to submit physical records to the court, as they have never encountered such a request in a child support case. *. I also spoke with an attorney who expressed concern about the judge’s orders. He pointed out that these orders seem to place an undue financial burden on the children while preventing me from accessing crucial financial information, as the primary goal of child support is to ensure the well-being and educational needs of the children are met. He also noted how unusual it was for a judge to order that the children apply for student loans while simultaneously denying access to relevant financial records. According to the attorney, these orders appear to be an attempt to prevent me from obtaining necessary financial information and place a financial burden on the children. This clearly indicates that the children’s welfare and educational needs are not being prioritized. He also stated that the children should not be applying for student loans before Naser’s actual income is determined. *. The court orders listed in Ms. Abellar’s drafted order dated August *, *, confirm the accuracy of what the attorney stated to me. *. It’s surprising that the court has overlooked the opposing party’s intentional efforts to deceive, create confusion, and stall the proceedings. They have distorted the judge’s order from June *, *, and secured an emergency order of protection in Kane County based on false and misleading claims. This was done to avoid submitting applications for the Parent PLUS loan, as Naser falsely claimed to have bad credit and to be sixty thousand dollars in debt. *. It’s surprising that this court has not noted that Naser is being investigated by the IRS for falsely claiming the children on his tax returns and manipulating his W2 forms. The same W2 forms that were justified by this court on June 27th, *. *. August *, *, was intended to be our continued pretrial from June *, *, for my motion for reconsideration of child support payments and the inclusion of Naser’s $*,*.* into his income. However, this did not occur. It was not even mentioned, nor is it referenced in Ms. Abellar’s drafted court order. Instead, the date became a hearing for the withdrawal of Ms. Abellar, which also did not happen, although it is mentioned in her drafted court order. *. The court should also note that Naser does, in fact, have the boys’ Social Security numbers on his old copies of his tax returns. It is concerning that this court accepts everything stated by Naser and his attorney without question and without any actual documented evidence. *. As both Ms. Abellar and Naser attempted to blame me for Naser’s failure to submit the Parent PLUS loan application. They falsely claimed that he couldn’t complete the application because I did not provide the boys’ Social Security numbers and school ID numbers. It was quite fascinating to watch their attempt to shift the blame onto me. as the court rules listed in his attorney’s drafted court order clearly demonstrates that Naser is the only one being prioritized. *. The court should also note that the only reason Naser suddenly wants access to school and medical records is because he has been falsely claiming that the children live with him and providing false school fee receipts to the IRS. This means Naser needs the children’s actual birth certificates, Social Security cards, and school enrollment records, which he does not have. The IRS is well aware that he does not have any of these documents in his possession. As I have previously stated, if he were to suddenly provide these documents to the IRS, they would know they were either falsified or illegally obtained. *. As shown in the attached documents, the intention is to impose further financial hardship on the children by forcing them to apply for student loans. This is also evidenced in the documents attached to my motion for clarification. The claim that he will pay *% of the expenses when the boys graduate in four years is false and will never happen. This burden will fall on the boys, as Naser has never been reliable and never will be. This is based on 17 years of experience. Unfortunately, this court is aiding him in achieving this goal. *. I am deeply concerned that the actions of this court have consistently favored the opposing party, to the detriment of my three children. This has led to a significant lack of trust in the court’s ability to prioritize the well-being and educational needs of my children. *. These are my children, and I will continue to fight for their well-being and best interests. *. According to * ILCS */* of the Illinois Compiled Statutes, the duty of support owed to children includes the obligation to provide for the reasonable and necessary physical, mental, and emotional health needs of the children. This statute emphasizes that child support should be based on the needs of the children. *. According to * ILCS */* of the Illinois Compiled Statutes, the court may award sums of money out of the property and income of either or both parties or the estate of a deceased parent, as equity may require, for the educational expenses of any children of the parties. Educational expenses may include, but are not limited to, tuition, fees, housing, medical expenses, reasonable living expenses during the academic year and periods of recess, and the cost of books and other supplies. *. In support of this motion, I have attached the following documents. Exhibit A: Contains an email I received on July *, *, that I forwarded to Ms. Abellar. A text message I received, also on July *, *, through the Talking Parents app. An email I sent to Ms. Abellar on August *, *, with pictures of the police reports. Exhibit B: Contains two text messages received through the Talking Parents app, one on August *, *, and the other on August *, *. WHEREFORE, the Petitioner, Lula Korotkov, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court: *. Reconsider its order dated August *, *, denying the Petitioner’s request for discovery of the Respondent’s bank records from the recently discovered hidden bank account at Bank of America. *. Order that the Respondent’s bank records from the hidden account at Bank of America be sent directly to the Petitioner. *. Ensure that the Respondent’s financial records are made available to the Petitioner to accurately calculate child support payments and ensure full coverage of educational expenses for the children. *. Provide any other relief that this Honorable Court deems just and equitable. Respectfully Submitted, Lula Korotkov Lula Korotkov */*/* Lula Korotkov * N, Central Park Ave Chicago IL, * *-*-* Alisagiana@yahoo.com PRO SE PETITIONERS’ VERIFICATION I, Lula Korotkov, acting Pro Se, under penalties as provided by law pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule * and Section *-* of the Code of Civil Procedure, certify that I have read the foregoing and within the motion. I further state that the allegations contained in the foregoing, and within the motion, are true to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. I further state that I have provided information which, to the best of my knowledge and belief, is true and correct. This motion is being filed with my consent and as part of my required duties in representing myself. I understand that by signing this verification, I am acknowledging that I am acting with my consent and at my direction and that I have based my actions and statements on the factual information provided by me. Lula Korotkov Pro Se Petitioner * N, Central Park Ave Chicago IL, * *-*-* Alisagiana@yahoo.com Lula Korotkov Lula Korotkov */*/*

So what happens after the judge Let's say she gets disciplined or whatever happens. Will the judge start making different rulings based. on the evidence presented in this case. as she actually sees as I did, clearly verbally state to her that I will file a complaint against her. because this case has been everything but fair, especially to my three children.

What about this? What is your opinion on this? What will the board think about this? Is a child support supposed to be doing this?IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT - DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION IN RE THE PARENTAGE OF: A.K., J.K., S.K., minor children, LULA KOROTKOV, Petitioner, Pro Se v. No: 2021D051242 NASER BEGANOVIC, Respondent. OBJECTION TO JUDGE'S RULING REGARDING IRS IDENTITY PROTECTION PIN NOW COMES the Petitioner, Lula Korotkov, pro se, and respectfully objects to the judge's repeated rulings ordering the Petitioner to provide the IRS Identity Protection PIN (IP PIN) of her daughter to the Respondent. In support of this objection, the Petitioner states as follows: *. a. The court has ordered me to provide my daughter's IP PIN to Naser for tax purposes, as noted in the orders dated, February *, *, July *, * and November *, * *. Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (* ILCS */*): a. Section *(a): Governs child support, emphasizing the child's/children’s best interests. b. My compliance with IRS advisories aligns with my child's best interests and aims to protect her identity and financial security. *. Federal Tax Law (IRS Code): a. Section *: Governs the use of Identity Protection PINs to prevent tax fraud and identity theft. b. The IRS has advised me not to provide my daughter's IP PIN to Naser to protect her identity and prevent Naser from committing any further tax fraud. c. The IRS investigation into Naser’s false claims is ongoing. *. Child's Best Interests Standard: a. * ILCS */*.*: Defines the child's/children’s best interests in parental responsibilities, considering factors like the child's/children’s emotional well-being and stability. b. Naser has neglected our daughter and twin sons for over three years, providing no support or involvement in their lives. c. Providing the IP PIN to Naser, who is under IRS investigation, will further compromise my child's well-being and security. *. Federal Law Precedence: a. Federal tax law governs the proper claiming of dependents and the use of IP PINs. b. A state court order cannot override federal tax law or IRS advisories, which are designed to protect individuals from tax fraud and identity theft. *. Concerns Regarding Judicial Actions: a. Despite the overwhelming evidence and the IRS advisory, the judge has repeatedly ordered me to provide the IP PIN, threatening contempt for non-compliance. b. This repeated order raises significant concerns about the alignment with federal guidelines and the protection of my child's rights. c. The judge’s actions appear to favor Naser despite substantial evidence of financial misconduct, which undermines the principles of justice, and the best interests of the children involved. WHEREFORE, I respectfully request that this Honorable Court: *. Reconsider the repeated orders to provide my daughter's IP PIN to Naser. *. Recognize the advisory from the IRS and the precedence of federal tax law in this matter. *. Provide a clear explanation of the procedural and substantive reasons for any continued order. *. Grant any other relief that this Court deems just and equitable. Respectfully Submitted, Lula Korotkov Lula Korotkov */*/* Lula Korotkov * N, Central Park Ave Chicago IL, * *-*-* Alisagiana@yahoo.com

No, I wanna know. Your opinion If the board sees this.

The judge stated that this is hearsay. but the actual hearsay false statement without a single documented evidence presented by the opposing party. which all her rulings were based on. She didn't consider as hearsay, which is concerning.