in light of the Complaint’s agency allegation referred to earlier
(see Complaint §26), an allegation that under Rule 8(c) must be
accepted as true for such purposes--see Appendix §5 to State
Farm. For the same reason, AD 5 is also stricken as inconsistent
with Complaint 424.

As indicated earlier, the entire Answer will be stricken
because of the defects identified here. Even though not all of
its paragraphs are problematic, it makes better sense to have a
single self-contained responsive pleading than a patchwork
response. Leave is granted to file a self-contained Amended

Answer in this Court’s chambers on or before June 28, 2001.

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

Date: June 18, 2001


~ :
Minute Ord Form (06/9)

United States District Court, Northern District of Iinois

Name of Assigned Judge i Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge Milton I. Shadur than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 01 C 2930 DATE 6/19/2001
CASE Lovie Fisher-Townsell, et al vs. Christopher Syregelas, et al
TITLE
[in the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, eg., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.}
DOCKET ENTRY:
(dd) oO Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) oO Brief in support of motion due
(3) Oo Answer brief to motion due . Reply to answer brief due
(4) o Ruling/Hearing on set for at
(5) o Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at
(6) Oo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for___ at :
(7) oO Trial[set for/re-set for] on at
(8) oO [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at
(9) im This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OOFRCP4(m) (ClGeneralRule21 O FRCP41(a)(1) [ FRCP41(a)(2).
ao) [Other docket entry] _ Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. As indicated earlier, the entire
Answer will be stricken because of the defects identified here. Even though not all of its paragraphs are
problematic, it makes better sense to have a single self-contained responsive pleading that a patchwork
tesponse. Leave is granted to file a self-contained Amended Answer in this Coutt’s chambers on or
before June 28, 2001.
aid [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order. ]
No notices required, advised in open court.
No notices required. number of notices.
wv | Notices mailed by judge’s staff.
Notified counsel by telephone. JUN 29 2001
Docketing to mail notices,
Mail AO 450 form. “ETI docket depaty init
Copy to judge/magistrate judge. “ETING
n engr001
“ounon O1 JUN 20 AM 7:34 senate
SN deputy’s SN
initials
Date/time received in
central Clerk's Office mailing deputy initials



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS.
EASTERN DIVISION

LOVIE FISHER-TOWNSELL, et al.,

JUN 2 9 2001

Plaintiffs,

)
)
)
)

v. ) No. 01 C 2930
)
CHRISTOPHER SYREGELAS, et al., )
)
)

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Attorney Nicholas Syregelas has filed an Answer on behalf of
persons whom he labels as “Defendant Trust Beneficiaries” and who
are some of the targets of this action’s housing discrimination
Complaint based on alleged anti-African-American conduct in the
nonrental of an apartment at 12 East Division Street, Chicago.
Because that responsive pleading is flawed in a number of
respects, this Court sua sponte strikes the Answer, albeit with
leave granted to file a proper Amended Answer promptly.

To begin with, attorney Syregelas cannot properly shield the
identity of his clients (who are the beneficiaries of the land
trust that holds title to the real estate in question), as he has
sought to do in the Answer. Land trusts have long been a useful
instrumentality for conveyancing and related purposes, but the
anonymity of their beneficiaries (the real-world owners of the
real estate) is stripped away when (as here) law-violative
conduct is charged. Accordingly the Amended Complaint must name

the beneficiaries, information that would in any event have to be


the subject of disclosure under Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Rule”) 26(a).
Next, attorney Syregelas’ usage of the meaningless concept
of “strict proof” (Answer 493, 4, 7, 8 and 10-23) adds nothing to

the litigation (see Appendix 41 to State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

v. Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276, 279 (N.D. Ill. 2001)). Additionally,
the Answer’s repeated invocation in those paragraphs of the
disclaimer permitted by the second sentence of Rule 8(b) does not
entitle the disclaiming party to deny the other side’s
allegations in those respects. Rule 8(b) treats such a
disclaimer as the legal equivalent of a denial, but by definition
anyone who lacks the necessary knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to any allegations has no basis
for an outright denial.

Relatedly, given the asserted disclaimers that have
been advanced in the Answer’s paragraphs referred to above, there
is no way in which the trust beneficiaries can then deny the
allegations of Complaint 4926, 27, 29, 31, 33, 35, 36 and 41-44
in the objective good faith that is demanded by Rule 11. That is
so both because of the litigants’ claimed absence of sufficient
knowledge or information regarding the Complaint’s substantive
allegations and because of the Complaint’s further allegation
that defendant “John Doe No. 1” is the agent of the
beneficiaries.

Finally, Affirmative Defenses (“ADs”) 1 and 2 are stricken