citations by agents of the City of Elgin, and his cases have been assigned numbers 01 TR 41259
and 01 TR 7443.

The Complaint proceeds to allege that the Ilinois Traffic Courts provide support “for
a specific religious sect, namely, the Masons.” (Id.at 26). From there, the Complaint descends
even deeper into a bizarre conspiracy theory that does not merit reproduction.

One general background assumption of Plaintiffs’ Complaint is that the traffic courts
in Ulinois operate illegally and are ultra vires. The Illinois Motor Vehicle Code authorizes
municipal corporations to adopt and enforce any or all of the Motor Vehicle Code. 625
LL.C.S. 5/20-204. Consequently, the traffic courts in Elgin, Elmhurst, and Hanover Park are
all legitimate entities under state law.

This Complaint does not state a claim upon which relief could be granted as to any of
the Defendants it names. The most coherent theory that the Court could draw from this
Complaint is that Wingate and Enoch Sato are being harrassed on the basis of the exercise of
their First Amendment rights. As to Wingate, the right would be freedom of speech in
association with his political activities in ARM. As to Enoch Sato (who is not alleged to be a
participant in ARM), it is unclear what the unconstitutional basis for the harrassment would
be.

For either Plaintiff, the Complaint does not allege any specific relationship between
their traffic arrests (or their daughter’s traffic arrests, as in Wingate’s case) and Wingate’s
political activities in ARM. Based on a fair and thorough reading of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, it
does not state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The conclusory allegations of
conspiracy in this case are not sufficient to provide fair notice to any of the Defendants that

4



and baseless litigation in this Court as Sato, they are not without culpability in Sato’s flagrant
disregard of this Court’s prior sanctions. The Court hopes that an award of costs and
reasonable attorney’s fees against all three Plaintiffs should be sufficient to deter Wingate and
Enoch Sato from participating in Sato’s litigation abuses in the future.
CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth in this opinion, the Plaintiffs’ Complaint is dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; Plaintiff Sato is ordered to paya
sanction of $1,000.00; and the Plaintiffs, jointly and severally, will be required to pay the
Defendants’ reasonable attorneys fees and costs associated with this action. Defendants shall
file a bill of costs and fees within 14 days of the date of this order. Plaintiffs shall have 30 days

from the date of filing of the bill of costs and fees to file any objections thereto.

Enter:

David H. Coar
United States District Judge

Dated: March 31, 2004


obey public policy constraints” (id. at 9-10); Plaintiffs“right to the protections of the
separation of powers doctrine” (id. at 10); and Plaintiffs’ right to religious liberty (id.). Few, if
any, of these allegations are supported with any specific factual allegation in the Complaint.

The Court can find (with some difficulty) the following factual allegations in Plaintiffs’
Complaint. Wingate is a founding participant of an organization known as the American
Rights Movement, or ARM. Wingate organized ARM in January or February 2001 “for the
purpose of articulating [Wingate’s] political vies and to exercise his right of association with
like-minded persons.” (Pl. Comp. at 19). Wingate, through ARM, became involved in efforts
to expose alleged political corruption in the State’s Attorneys Office in early 2002. In July
2002, Elmhurst Police “trumped up a charge” against Wingate’s daughter Anne. (Pl. Comp. at
22).

Several years earlier, in 1996, Wingate was issued a traffic citation for driving while his
driver’s license was suspended. The case number assigned to the incident was 96 TR 148974.
When Wingate refused to identify himself to the Court, a bench warrant issued for his arrest.
The Complaint alleges that this bench warrant imposed “the artificial status of ‘driver’” upon
Wingate and justified “restraint of his liberty.” (PI. Comp. at 22).

As regards Enoch Sato, the Complaint alleges that Defendants have all been using
Enoch Sato “as a means of applying extortionate leverage” against Sato to “cease and desist in
his campaign to expose the criminality” in the State’s Attorneys Office. (Pl. Comp. at 23). The
Defendants allegedly conspired to “inveigle Enoch Sato in the Traffic Court Enterprise.” (Id.)
Defendants have also “falsely imposed upon Enoch Sato the status of ‘driver’... as a means of
blackmailing his father [Sato].”(Id. at 24). Enoch Sato has apparently been twice issued traffic

3


have been haled into court under this Complaint. The Complaint will be dismissed in its
entirety.
IL DEFENDANT BIRKETT’S MOTION TO STRIKE

Defendant Birkett’s Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Complaint under Rule 12(f) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is based entirely on former Plaintiff Sato’s history of
frivolous litigation and disobedience to orders of this Court. As the Court has already
stricken the allegations from the Complaint that relate to him, the question arises whether
Sato’s past and present misconduct justifies striking the Complaint in its entirety. The Court
does not find that the relationship between Sato and the other two Plaintiffs justifies striking
the entire Complaint. There has been no showing that Plaintiffs Wingate and Enoch Sato
have engaged in the same type of frivolous and vexatious litigation that Plaintiff Sato has
plagued upon this Court over the years. Consequently, Defendant Birkett’s Motion to Strike
is denied.
Ill. SANCTIONS

This leaves only the matter of the Defendants’ requests for sanctions. Defendant
Birkett filed a separate Motion for Sanctions, while Defendants City of Elgin and Village of

Elmhurst included their requests for sanctions in their Motions to Dismiss. Rule 11 of the

‘Defendant City of Elmhurst’s Motion to Dismiss for failure to effect proper service
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) is also well-founded. Rule 4()) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure sets forth in plain and clear terms the rules for service on a municipal
corporation, and Plaintiffs clearly did not comply with the requirements of the rule. As Plaintiffs
have offered no valid reason to permit them to skirt the process service requirements set forth in
Rule 4, if the Court were not dismissing the Complaint in its entirety, the Complaint would be
dismissed against the Defendant City of Elmhurst for failure to effect proper service.

5


Minute Order Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

David H. Coar

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER

02 C 7846

DATE

3/31/2004

CASE Wingate vs. Birkett
TITLE
Lin the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, eg. plaintiff, defendant, 3d party plaintiff, and (b) sale briefly the nazure
MOTION: of the motion being presented, }

Motions to Dismiss

DOCKET ENTRY:

Trial[set for/re-set for] on at

[Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at

(1) QO Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) a Brief in support of motion due

(3) Oo Answer brief to motion due Reply to answer brief due

(4) oO Ruling/Hearing on __setfor_ at _.

(5) o Status hearing[held/continued to} [set for/re-set for] on setfor at

(6) QO Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on setfor at.
o
O
oO

This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

OOFRCP4(m) OLocat Rule 41.1 OG FRCP41(a)(1) O FRCP41(a)(2).

(10) a [Other docket entry] For the reasons in the attached opinion, Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss
Plaintiff's Complaint [Docs. 19, 26, 29] are granted; Defendant Birkett’s Motion to Strike (Doc. 20] is
denied; Defendant Birkett’s Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 21] is granted. Plaintiff Mark Sato is ordered
to pay sanctions in the amount of $1,000.00 to the Clerk of the Court. The Complaint is dismissed in its
entirety. Defendants to file their bills of costs and fees within 14 days of this order; Plaintiffs have 30
days from the filing of the bills of costs to file objections thereto. Thi

(11) wf

No notices required, advised in open court

[For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

Document
Number

No notiees required

g.9.), 200

docketing itt

date mailed notice

Notices mailed by judge’s staf",

Notified counse! by telephone,

Y | Pocketing to mail notices

Y | Mail AO 430 form

2

Copy to judge/magistrate judge

courtroom
jar(le) deputy’s
initials

Date/time received in

éentral Clerk's Office nailing deputy initials



Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes sanctions for improper litigation practices. Rule
11(b)(1) forbids parties from presenting motions “for any improper purpose, such as to
harrass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.” Rule
11(b)(2) requires parties’ claims to be “warranted by existing law or by nonfrivolous
arguments for extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.” Rule 11(b)(3) requires the
allegations to have evidentiary support or be likely to have evidentiary support after
discovery. In this case, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs’ Complaint violated the
requirements of Rule 11(b)(2) & (3). The claims in Plaintiffs’ Complaint, particularly as
relates to the jurisdiction of this Court and the traffic courts of Illinois, were not warranted by
existing law or a nonfrivolous argument for a change in the law; and the allegations of
Plaintiff's Complaint are so far-fetched that the likelihood of their having evidentiary support
approaches zero.

Former Plaintiff Sato has demonstrated a surprising resiliency in the face of severe
sanctions that have been meted to him in the past. Between this Court and the Seventh
Circuit, Sato has been ordered to pay sanctions of over $10,000 before filing another case in
this Court. His participation in this frivolous action demonstrates anew his unmitigated gall
in flaunting the past sanctions of this Court. This Court orders Plaintiff Sato to pay sanctions
in the amount of $1,000.00 payable to the Clerk of this Court for the benefit of the United
States. Because past history suggests that it is unlikely that Sato will pay this amount, it will
be added to the previous sanctions imposed, and he is barred from filing another case until this
sanction (as well as the previously imposed amounts) is paid.

While Plaintiffs Wingate and Enoch Sato do not have the same history of vexatious

6


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
TIMOTHY WINGATE, et al., )
) No. 02 € 7846
Plaintiffs, )
) HONORABLE DAVID H. COAR
v. )
)
JOSEPH E. BIRKETT, et al., )
)
) 50,
Defendants. ) ChETEp

MAR 3 2004
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This is a multi-defendant case originally brought by three plaintiffs: Timothy Wesley
Wingate (“Wingate”), Mark Sato (“Sato”), and Mark Enoch Sato (“Enoch Sato”). Wingate,
Sato, and Enoch Sato filed their Complaint in November 2002 against several Illinois
municipalities and officers of the State of Illinois. On June 5, 2003, the Court dismissed
Plaintiff Sato from the Complaint and struck all allegations therein that were specific to him

in keeping with prior litigation sanctions. See Skolnick, Sato & Andreuccetti v. Doria, No. 94-

3238, Order of April 4, 1997 (7th Cir. 1997); Sato v. Plunkett, 94 C 60, Order of May 2, 1994
(N.D. Ill. 1994) (Easterbrook, J.); id., Order of March 15, 1994 (N.D. Ill. 1994); Sato v.
Kwasny, 1993 U.S. District Lexis 15693 (N.D. Ill, Nov. 5, 1993).

The case comes now before the Court on several Motions filed by the Defendants.
Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to state a claim have been filed by the
Defendant City of Elgin; Defendant Village of Hanover Park; and Defendant City of

Elmhurst. Defendant City of Elmhurst has also moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint for

y



failure to provide effective service of process. Defendant Joseph Birkett has filed a Motion to
Strike Plaintiff's Complaint under Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and a
Motion for Sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs
received permission from the Court to file a consolidated response to these motions. The
motions are all fully briefed and ripe for decision,

I. MOTIONS TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

In ruling on a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the
Court “must accept all well pleaded allegations as true. In addition, the Court must view these

allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Gomez v. Illinois State Board of

Education, 811 F.2d 1030, 1039 (7th Cir.1987). A party’s claim should only be dismissed if it is
clear that no set of facts in support of the claim would entitle the party to relief. Ledford v.
Sullivan, 105 F.3d 354, 356 (7th Cir.1997) (quoting Hishon v. King & Spaulding, 467 U.S. 69,
73 (1984)).

Plaintiffs’ Complaint is inscrutable. The Complaint first alleges that this Court is not
organized under Article Il of the Constitution. (Pl. Comp. at 6-8). It asserts that the District
Court “is a political and constitutional oxymoron.” (Pl. Comp. at 14). It goes on to blankly
assert violations of the following of Plaintiffs’ rights: Plaintiffs’ right to freedom of speech
under the First Amendment (PJ. Comp. at 9); Plaintiffs’ “innumerable rights under the 9th
and 10th Amendments dependent upon the right to travel” (id.); Plaintiffs’ “4th Amendment
right of sanctity of home and/or person against unwarranted search and/or seizure” (id.);
Plaintiffs’ “common law right to pursuit of happiness free from unlawful interference” (id.);

Plaintiffs’“common law right to due process” (id.); Plaintiffs’“right to have public servants

2