Daniel J. Kubasiak is a well-connected judge of the Cook Judicial Circuit Court of Illinois. He was appointed to this position on October 25, 2012, (effective November 30) to replace retiring Judge James D. Egan, thanks to his personal beneficial connections with Justice Anne Burke, a wife of a well-connected politician Edward Burke whom Daniel J. Kubasiak and his law firm “donated” $32,926.00 ($1,426.00 went to Justice Burke’s campaign). Justice Anne Burke is one of IL Supreme Court Justices who are responsible for Judicial appointments. Without any doubts, Kubasiak’s oath was administered by his beneficiary, Justice Anne Burke. Kibasiak payments to Burke’s family
Another Daniel Kubasiak’s best friend is Mr. Michael Madigan and his daughter Lisa Madigan IL Attorney General, whom Daniel J. Kubasiak “donated” $67,700.00. Mr. Madigan regularly uses his connections to help his protege to obtain judicial positions, specially those who pay him “donations” to stay in power; while Lisa Madigan always turns a blind eye to rampant corruption in IL Courts and public offices. Daniel Kubasiak payments to Michael Madigan
Kubasiak graduated from the Loyola University School of Law in 1981.
- 2012-2020: Judge, Cook Judicial Circuit Court
- 1994-2012: Founding partner, Kubasiak, Fylstra, Thorpe & Rotunno, P.C.
- 1987-1994: Counsel, Illinois State Treasurer
- 1983-1987: Chief administrative officer for the Chicago City Council Committee on Finance
- 1974-1981: First deputy comptroller and First assistant budget director, City of Chicago
Average people did not supported Judge Kubasiak’s election campaign. All his donors were well-connected lawyers (who would stop at nothing to place their hand-picked candidates to the bench) ; and wealthy corporations who obviously benefit from having a loyal and reliable judge, like Daniel J. Kubasiak.
Judge Kubasiak’s Campaign Chairman was Gerald Kubasiak, a well-connected lawyer who represents wealthy corporations and high-net individuals.
Judge Kubasiak’s Campaign Treasurer was Mark E. Resnik, a well-connected financial advisor.
No surprise that as a judge Daniel J. Kubasiak only serves his parties of interests, deprives average citizens from civil rights in his Court, specially ProSe; and readily fix most fraudulent cases for predatory collectors (aka “racketeers”) based on forged documents, favorably accepted by Judge Kubasiak without any questions asked.
Here is one of most glaring examples how Judge Daniel J. Kubasiak supported and enabled fraud upon the Court in Municipal Division while acted in excess of all jurisdiction and violation of all applicable laws included but not limited to FDCPA, RICO, Hobbs Acts, and many other statutes
On 12/26/2008 Arrow Financial Services LLC (“AFS”) lawyers Freeman Anselmo Lindberg, LLC (“FAL”) filed Breach of Contract case where they claimed that a defendant indebted to plaintiff AFS by virtue of certain Agreement dated April 15, 2005 where originally owed to FIA Card Services (Bank of America). The complaint filed by FAL lawyers was in violation of section 735 ILCS 606 and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Sec. 5/2-606 states that if a claim is founded upon a written instrument, a copy of the Agreement must be attached to the pleading as an exhibit. FAL didn’t attach a copy of Cordt’s original Credit card Agreement with MBNA; failed to provide the original amount of the debt; failed to prove that all defendants payments were credited; and how interest was calculated. The amount of debt sought was about $13,000.00 – without any documents in support how it was calculated.
Defendant objected amounts demanded by AFS. Due to this objections and plaintiff’s lack of evidence, judgement entered on May 27, 2009 was never enforced by AFS.
On October 31, 2011 AFS sold its interests in “the Receivable File” identified as “Assets”, to Sherman Originators III LLC, who subsequently sold it to Sherman Originators LLC, who sold it to LVNV Funding LLC. According to this document, AFS “Receivable File” included “Transfer Group 208565” from “Portfolio 16929”. Here is ZERO evidence that my 04/15/2005 loan was a part of “Transfer Group 208565” or “Portfolio 16929”.
On 8/20/2012 FAL tried to enforce the judgement on behalf of LVNV Funding LLC, once again, without evidence in support. Sec. 735 ILCS 5/2-403(a) and FDCPA require that an assignee must prove how it obtained an ownership of assets and verify correct amounts for each collection. Defendant objected LVNV citation.
LVNV was not able to prove that Defendant’s loan was a part of “Transfer Group 208565” or “Portfolio 16929” and didn’t proceed with further collections.
On June 29, 2012 AFS was liquidated and its registration with Illinois was withdrawn. Freedman Anselmo Lindberg LLC was dissolved on January 21, 2015 and now operates as Anselmo Lindberg Oliver, LLC.
On January 7, 2016 lawyer Miller, from Missouri law firm Miller and Steeno, P.C. acting on behalf of a long-time defunct AFS, filed a Citation for Wage Garnishment based on the Order of May 27, 2009, where he demanded a payment of $20,829.17 for $13,013.17 judgement AND put freeze on Defendant’s account – without any Notices to him.
According to the letter from JP Morgan Chase, the bank placed hold on the account after FAL lawyer Jared Duke served JP Morgan with Summons, Affidavits and Interrogatories on January 7, 2016.
Defendant first learned about lawyer Miller’s Wage Garnishment Summons when he was not able to use his debit card due to unexpected hold, placed in violation of FDCPA, which resulted in failed direct payments in his utility bills; an penalties.
Once Defendant learned about a sudden hold on his checking account, he contacted lawyer Miller on January 11, 2016 and demanded explanation of this collection activities and a full validation of debt.
In respond Miller emailed a copy of Assignment dated November 19, 2015 and notarized by South Carolina Notary Johnathan Summers whose commission expired on October 14, 2004, which was obviously another forgery and fraud.
In addition, lawyer Miller emailed a copy of his Appearance on behalf of LVNV Funding LLC, while the Wage Garnishment was filed on behalf of defunct AFS.
Defendnat reported Miller’s violations to ARDC. On January 29, 2016 Miller responded and claimed that he has personal knowledge that in 2004 Sallie Mae acquired a majority interest in AFS and thereafter sold the judgment inventory of Arrow. Lawyer Miller failed to explain which relationship had Sallie Mae transaction in 2004 to Defendant’s 2005 credit card agreement with MNBA. As mentioned above, neither AFS or LVNV were not able to provide a copy of this Agreement with amounts owed of other valid proof of their ownership of this debt.
On February 12, 2016 lawyer Duke responded to Defendant’s complaint to ADRC and provided completely opposite explanations. According to Mr. Duke, he has absolutely no involvement in this collection. Duke said that he is not employed by FAL since September 2013 and had not done any work for them since that time. Duke further testified that he did not send anything to JP Morgan Chase on behalf of FAL in January 7, 2016; and he has nothing to do with Miller and Steeno P.C.. Duke verified that FAL is no longer operating under this name, and he is doubtful that FAL is responsible for service of wage deduction or any other documents in this case. According to Duke, all collection matters owned by FAL were taken by Blitt&Gaines Duke also advised this Committee that his file has been closed for two years.
Here is no doubt that Lawyer Miller filed this unlawful collection to defraud Defendant and this Honorable Court on merits of his request. Miller’s unlawful activities are subject to punishments under FDCPA, 225 ILCS 425/1; forgery under 720 ILCS 5/17-3; perjury under 720 ILCS 5/32-2(a); RICO Act 18 USC 1961-1968 (racket), Hobbs Act 18 USC 1951 (extortion); and IL Rules of Professional Ethics, including but not limited to Sec. 1.2 and 8.4.
Lawyer Miller is engaged in unlawful collection activity and fraud upon the Court when he intentionally made false statements, material to the issue or point in question
Defendant, acting ProSe, filed a Petition where he respectfully requested to dismiss wage garnishment filed my lawyer Miller; order him to produce a copy of the Original Agreement with Bank of America; full validation of debt as required by FDCPA; a valid Assignment of interest; and prove that Miller and Steeno P.C. have legal right to collect in case 2008 M1 201276.
This Petition was presented before Judge Daniel J. Kubasiak, who looked at the forged documents, acknowledged forged “assignment” – which he called as “very interesting” – and ultimately ruled in favor of the predatory collector and their lawyer Ronald Miller in a clearly fraudulent collection case, in violation of all applicable laws, hitting a ProSe Defendant *who is a disabled Chicago firefighter) with $21K++ unlawful debt.
Which suggests that Judge Daniel J. Kubasiak was unduly influenced by the Plaintiff and likely received a payment (aka “bribe” for his favorable verdict.
Another notable case by Judge Kubasiak was in Law Division when he dismissed “soda tax” case and ruled against the Plaintiff.
It is well-known that Daniel J. Kubasiak worked for the City of Chicago financial departments for many years; and extended his lenience in the time of need.
“Soda Tax” was later cancelled in the wake of public outrage, but it is a good illustration how Judge Kubasiak supports his favorite parties from the bench.
In 2016 Judge Kubasiak was involved into a case 16MC600179 where Plaintiffs challenged his Order for indirect criminal conspiracy with their Defendants, predatory collection lawyers Kovitz Shirfin Nesbit PC. According to Stroller :”A Judge’s Order which is the subject of the indirect criminal contempt violation may not precide over the contempt hearing”. After conducting the hearing, Kubasiak denied the Motion, which tells a lot about Kubasiak’s personal integrity,
I am absolutely confident that I will never find any justice in Judge Kubasiak’s court and he will always stand for his parties of interests – well-connected lawyers, wealthy corporations and predatory collectors.
 According to § 809. Validation of debts. 15 USC 1692g] (a) Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall send the consumer a written notice containing (1) the amount of the debt; (2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed; (3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector; (4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and (5) a statement that, upon the consumer’s written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor. (b) If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector. (c) The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer.
 (a)A person commits forgery when, with intent to defraud, he or she knowingly: (1) makes a false document or alters any document to make it false and that document is apparently capable of defrauding another.
 720 ILCS 5/32-2(a) “A person commits perjury when, under oath or affirmation, in a proceeding or in any other matter where by law such oath or affirmation is required, he makes a false statement, material to the issue or point in question, which he does not believe to be true.