JAMES ZAGEL, District Judge.

DEFENDANTS' FRCP RULE 54 MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT [REFILED]

Respondent Victor M. Crown, Pro Se, as provided under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, FRCP 54 (c)(d)(1), herewith now moves for entry of judgment in this civil case as follows:

This motion is technically a request for reconsideration of the docket entry from August 13, 2015, is timely filed under a specific legal mandate by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals [Docket No. 15-1734 — USA v. Victor M. Crown, et al] on August 14, 2015 was backdated to June 22, 2015 — or 10 days after the filing of a correction under FRAP 10 on June 12, 2015 ordered $90333 in post-judgment statutory interest to the defendant [Victor M. Crown] for a Shakman 2 claim that was timely filed on May 12, 2008 and intentionally defaulted by the City of Chicago.

This motion is filed by Victor M. Crown and the Lourdes Theodossis Estate under FRCP 54 [judgments], FRCP 70 [a] [enforcing a judgment for a specific act — EFT — electronic funds transfer]; [d] writ of execution or assistance; and FRCP 71 [enforcement against non-party]

The 7th Circuit mandate in this case in my favor has therefore legally established a "non-frivolous" basis for filing individual amended tax returns for the period of 2001-2010; as provided under 26 USC 1311-1314 which includes statutory interest under IRC 6601. [IRS rules]

This motion is therefore being filed under FRCP 54 (c)(d)(1) and FRCP 70/71 to permit immediate enforcement of a General Order[s] which then directs Bank of America Legal Order Processing to process, with electronic funds transfer [EFT] the amount of $354537 in statutory payments [fed with/FICA] which in accord with the 7th Circuit mandate and the Rule of Law.

As provided under FRCP 54 (c)(d)(1) the hourly rate of $56.80 which has been established by the Internal Revenue Service [IRS] with my 2014 federal tax return [Form 1040] and the 2012 and 2013 federal amended tax returns [Form 1040x] that were submitted after Shakman defendant[s] [City of Chicago, County of Cook and State of Illinois failed to obtain a legal stay of the 7th Circuit legal mandate on 9/4/2015 — which has now created a legal basis to terminate the civil injunction case on tax preparation against the Lourdes Theodossis Estate [2011] and Accurate Accounting, Inc. [2012] entirely since the 7th Circuit ruling changed an incorrect legal misclassification of tax claims by Lourdes Theodossis Estate and Accurate Accounting, Inc. from "frivolous" to "not-frivolous" — which affects the injunction on tax preparation filed 7/16/14.

The "prevailing party" [Victor M. Crown, pro se] was asked by Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Gilbert to re-file this motion on 9-17-2015 with the District Court in order to provide for specific release [by EFT — electronic funds transfer] of statutory payments that were affirmed by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals [Docket No. 11-1546, Docket No. 13-1962, Docket No. 15-1745] and defaulted by both the US DOJ [plaintiff] and the affiliated 3rd party [City of Chicago] covered under FRCP Rule 70 [enforcing a judgment for a specific act] and FRCP Rule 71 [enforcing a judgment against a nonparty (which, in this case is Bank of America Legal Order Processing). Bank of America Legal Order Processing, who acts as the legal trustee for the City of Chicago bond issue of February 2014, was/is designated [legally appointed] by the District Court to therefore perform a "specific act" under FRCP 70 — which is electronic funds transfer [EFT] affecting the judgments that were entered in the petitioners' favor by the District Court and the 7th Circuit.

The "prevailing party" [Victor M. Crown, pro se] is therefore asking the District Court Clerk, as provided under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to provide for immediate entry/enforcement of federal orders under General Order [09-014] on court modernization/administration which affirms, upon entry of this motion an automatic "waiver" of the court's signature requirement which is currently being used by City of Chicago [including Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Corporation Counsel Stephen Patton] and other outside legal counsel who represent the City of Chicago in the Shakman case to "delay" and/or intentionally interfere with the administration of justice as it affects myself [Victor M. Crown] and the Lourdes Theodossis Estate as a separate entity by therefore directing over the phone — Bank of America Legal Order Processing [legal] to stall delay and obstruct compliance with federal court general orders by failing to comply with orders entered/docketed in this case after April 7, 2015 and by intentionally defying the federal court and the 2009 order entered by Chief Judge James Holderman [modernization] which removed the signature requirement for orders/judgments.

The others involved in obstructing justice would then include the City Council [City Council Finance Committee — which, through direct involvement of Alderman Ed Burke and the City of Chicago Corporation Counsel [MGeorges/SPatton] has delayed and obstructed compliance with federal legal mandates], the City Clerk, the City Comptroller and the Chief Financial Officer [Lois Scott/Carole Brown] who, while this case was docketed have directly and indirectly tried to misclassify the Shakman case with 1425 victims as "frivolous" and to then mislead the Internal Revenue Service [IRS] into initiating improper collection actions against award recipients with levy's, liens and incorrect civil penalties. To further this scheme the city committed intentional violations of federal law by submitting an incorrect Form 1099-MISC to award recipients in 2008, then failing to correct the record after 5-26-2009 by finally having the City of Chicago filing demonstrably false reports with IRS [Forms 940, 941 and 945] from 2008 forward.

The City of Chicago has therefore, as part of a municipal policy and continuing "enterprise corruption" [criminal] directed intentional violation[s] of the Shakman Accord [2007] by failing to comply with its legal notice requirements on my own Shakman 2 claim of 5-12-2008.

THEREFORE, Defendant Victor M. Crown, the Independent Administrator of the Lourdes Theodossis Estate, respectfully requests entry [compliance] with this order which applies to 7th Circuit legal mandates in petitioners' favor on 9/20/11, 9/9/13 and 8/14/15 which now allows a "waiver" on the signature requirement and legal basis for release of statutory payments.

This motion includes an agreed or general order [09-014] which was filed under 28 USC 1651 directing Bank of America [as trustee for the City of Chicago — Bond Issue of February, 2014] to process with electronic funds transfer [EFT] an amount totaling $552159 into the designated account of Victor M. Crown which includes: [a] $92359 for an IRS Form 941C filed with the City of Chicago City Clerk on 9/18/14; [b] $90333 in statutory interest under the procedural correction order filed by the 7th Circuit on 6/12/15; and [c] an "expert witness" fee of $369467 from a mandamus order filed by the 7th Circuit on 12/27/2011 [Docket No. 11-1546].

This motion includes an agreed/general order [09-014] directing the Social Security Administration [SSA] to immediately process all earnings corrections affecting the period from 1988 to 2006; and for the Internal Revenue Service [IRS] to process all corrections under 28 USC 1311-1314 affecting the 1988 to 2009 tax years for Form 1040x prior to 11/1/2015, with a "non-frivolous" designation or classification for Form 843 claims for refund/abatement — which would then permit removal of incorrectly imposed civil penalties.

This motion also includes an agreed or general order [09-014] directing the Internal Revenue Service [IRS — Fresno, California] to process all corrections as under 28 USC 1311-1314 affecting the 2010-2013 tax year which not includes and validates a "non-frivolous" designation or classification for Form 1040x returns from 2010-2014; and a "non-frivolous" designation or classification for Form 843 claims for refund/abatement — which would then permit removal of incorrectly imposed civil penalties.

This motion, brought by Victor M. Crown and Lourdes Theodossis Estate, is therefore timely filed under 35 USC 281 [infringement of patent — damages], 35 USC 282 [infringement of patent — pleading and proof], 35 USC 284 [infringement of patent — damages] and 35 USC 288 [infringement of patent — when specification is too broad] and USPTO Customer Number #109200/#109529 which were assigned on 09/28/2012 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office [USPTO]. This filing is therefore timely since it complies with the 3-year deadline for enforcing patent rights which were then obtained by Victor M. Crown, Crown and Franklin Accounting, Inc. and the Lourdes Theodossis Estate.

This motion, also brought by Victor M. Crown, pro se, is timely filed and brought under FRCP 54 (c)(d)(1) which affirms that "costs — other than attorneys' fees" — should be allowed to the prevailing party, with the clerk [allowed] to tax costs on 14 days' notice [which would be legally valid since this motion is being filed prior to the 10-1-2015 deadline established by the entry of the judgment affecting an award of statutory interest filed in District Court on 9-17-2015 and entered on 9/18/2015 [at 9:43 AM]

The petitioner is therefore requesting mandatory judicial notice of 28 USC 1927 since the filing bar of 5/26/2009 is clearly being applied [enforced] against defendant[s] [City of Chicago, County of Cook, State of Illinois] by the District Court and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals because of fraud [and constitutional violations] against petitioner [Victor M. Crown, Pro se] by licensed attorneys [who received money from the City of Chicago] and were involved in unethically changing the initiation date of my Shakman 2 claim from timely filed on 5/12/2008 to untimely filed on 11/4/2008, an illegal eviction by the Cook County Sheriff [a party to the Shakman Decree] on 7/16-17/2009 in direct violation of 3 federal protective orders obtained by petitioner, the process server who filed a fraudulent [Proof of Service/Return of Service] in the civil case seeking a permanent injunction on tax preparation on December 16, 2014 [Document #11 notated an incorrect [fraudulent/false] date of legal service on 10-6-2014].

AFFIDAVIT

1. Victor M. Crown, the independent Administrator of the Lourdes Theodossis Estate [open 9/5/2014] and owner of Crown and Franklin Accounting, Inc., now affirm that I have the legal aid statutory authority to submit this motion under FRCP, FRAP and Local Rules, and, ac such, affirm the following

[1] The statements in the Defendants' Motion entering iudgrnent under FRCP Rule 54 (c)(d)(1) are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

[2] The defendant [Victor M. Crown] therefore affirms the procedural requirements under rules of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court of Federal Claims, with a zero balance [full payment of taxes] and a "right to sue" letter from IRS on statutory interest claim from IRS on 10-2-14

[3] The answers filed under Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Circuit Rule 11(b) are filed timely pursuant to an order entered by District Judge James Zagel.

[4] This motion to transfer and dismiss the civil case under FRCP Rule 54 (c)(d)(1) is timely filed within 14 business days after the plaintiffs' default at the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals on 9/14/2015; and 30 calendar days after the 7th Circuit mandate on 8/14/15; and backdated to 6/22/15 on 8/17/15.

EXHIBITS

1. GENERAL ORDER 09-014 — 28 USC 1651/28 USC 1652 [mandamus] — order directing Bank of America (as trustee for City of Chicago] to transfer [EFT] $552159 by 9-18-2015, [filed 9-11-15]

2. GENERAL ORDER 09-014 — 28 USC 1651/28 USC 1652 [mandamus] — order directing Bank of America [as trustee for City of Chicago] to transfer [EFT] $354537 by 9-18-2015, [filed 8-21-15]

3. GENERAL ORDER 09-014 — 28 USC 1651/28 USC 1652 [mandamus] — order directing Internal Revenue Service [IRS] to Process corrections under 26 USC 1311 by 9-18-2015, [filed 9-11-2015]

4. UNITED STAFFS DISTRICT COURT — Consent to exercise jurisdiction —filed 8-31-2015

5. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT — Notification of docket entry — Filed 8/13/2015.

6. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals — Notice of issuance of mandate — filed 8/14/2015.

7. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals — order filed on 8/14/2015 backdating dismissal to 6/22/2015

8. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals — Motion entering corrections under FRAP 10 — filed 6/12/2015

9. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Notification of docket entry — filed 5/26/2009 [legal sanction]

10. Department of Treasury/IRS —Account transcript [redacted] [2012] with zero balance on 4-6-15

11. Form 1040x — amended US Individual Tax Return [2012] — includes hourly rate re-set at 556.80/h

12. Department of Treasury/IRS — Account transcript (redacted) (2012] with zero balance on 5-4-15

13. Form 1040x — amended US individual Tax Return [2013] — includes hourly rate re-set at $56.80/h

14. From 1040 — US individual Tax Return [2014] — includes hourly rate set at $56.80/h

15. Illinois Department of Revenue Form IL-1040 [2014] — includes hourly rate set at $56.80/h

16. Department of Treasury/IRS — CP24 letter from 8/13/2015 — notating adjusted refund [$24898]

17. Department of Treasury/IRS — 5071C letter from 9/8/2014 — 2014 identify verification notice.

18. Department of Treasury/IRS — 941C correction [2008, 2009, 2011] filed 9/18/2015 — City Clerk

19. United States District Court — BILL OF COSTS — Case Number 1:69-CV-2145 — filed 9/3/0S [$27486]

20 United States District Court — BILL OF COSTS — Case Number 1:69-CV-2145 — filed 9/3/08 [$14950]

21. United States Patent and Trademark Office [USPTO] — Notice of customer number assignment [#109529] which validates compliance with 28 USC 1928 on 9/28/2012

22. Letter to Internal Revenue Service [Cincinnati, OH] by petitioner under 26 USC 1311-1314 [corrections], 26 USC 7214[a][unlawful acts] and 26 CFR 301.7433-1[a] [civil cause of action for certain unauthorized collection actions] in response to CP49 [penalty noticel of 8/31/2015.

23 Letter from law office of Shakman Monitor Atty. Noelle Brennan [signed by Atty. Beth Davis] dated 5/4/2009 which falsely stated that I filed a Shakman Accord complaint on 11/4/2008.

24 Complaint filed with City of Chicago Commission on Human Relations [stamped on 5/12/2008] which correctly reported that I filed a discrimination complaint on 5/12/2008.

Note: the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals [Docket No. 15-1734] backdated the mandate to 6/22/2015 which was 10 days after it entered a correction affirming post-judgment statutory interest [on 6/12/2015] for the petitioner [Victor M. Crown, pro se] from the period of 5-26-2009 forward. The order entered on 5-26-2009 imposed a "filing bar" and legal sanction affecting detendant[s] [City of Chicago. County of Cook, State of Illinois] which affects fraud committed against the "prevailing Party" Petitioner [Victor M. Crown] and a timely filed Shakman 2 claim on 5-12-2008.

Note: the false letter by the federal monitor with jurisdiction in the Shakman case was/is therefore a direct violation of 28 [JSC 192] as rules governing the Shakman Decree.

GENERAL ORDER 09-014 — BY DISTRICT COURT EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

This order specifically applies to the Notice of Patent Claim filed on 4/7/2015 by defendant [Victor M. Crown, pro se] and applies to an Executive Committee order entered 5/3/2007 which provides authorization for an extraordinary Writ of Mandamus under 28 USC 1651 and 28 USC 1652.

The modernization order entered by Chief Judge James Holderman on 6/5/2009 affirms that the filing and entry of this General Order [09-014] provides the legal basis and authority for legal compliance by the affected parties, including Bank of America Legal Order Processing.

The "prevailing party" [Victor M. Crown, Pro se] was asked by Bank of America Legal Order Processing on 9/4/2015 to therefore request the original signature of the magistrate judge [Hon. Judge Gilbert] to release statutory payments after 6122/2015 that were affirmed in the 7th Circuit legal mandate of 8/14/2015 [City of Chicago legal default on 9/4/2015]. The request for an original signature is therefore timely filed within 14 calendar days of the defendants' legal default.

VI. ENTRY OF COURT ORDERS

[A][1] — All orders, decrees, judgments and proceedings of the court will be filed in accordance with this General Order and will constitute entry on the docket kept by the Clerk of the Court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 and 79 and Fed. R. Grim. P. 49 and 55. All signed orders will be filed electronically by the court or court personnel Any order filed electronically by the court or court personnel without the original signature of a judge [or, where applicable, the Clerk of the Court] has the same force and effect as if the judge or the Clerk of the Court had affixed the judge's or Clerk of the Court's signature to a paper copy of the order and it had been entered on the docket in the manner otherwise provided

[2] — The Clerk of the Court may establish additional procedures for filing, creating and storing electronic versions of orders, decrees and judgments.

[a] — 28 USC 1651 — [WRIT OF MANDAMUS — PEREMPTORY] ordering BANK OF AMERICA [as trustee for the City of Chicago — Bond Issue of February, 2014] to process on or before NOON on SEPTEMBER 9, 2015 through electronic transfer [EFT] into the designated account 07 Victor M. Crown an amount totaling $552159 which includes [a — $92359 for IRS Form 941C filed on 9/18/2014 with the City of Chicago City Clerk; b — $90333 in statutory interest pursuant to an a procedural order entered by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Docket No. 15-1734 on 6/12/2015; and c — an "expert witness" fee of $369467 from a mandamus order entered by the 7th Circuit in Docket No. 11-1546 on 12/27/2011].

[b] — 28 USC 1651 — [WRIT OF MANDAMUS — PEREMPTORY] ordering BANK OF AMERICA [as trustee for the City of Chicago — Bond Issue of February, 2014] to process on or before NOON ON SEPTEMBER 4, 2015 through electronic funds transfer [EFT] into the designated account of Victor M. Crown an amount totaling $24200 in rental payments [credits] designated for LPGP Management for the period of July, 2014 to December 2015 — which applies to Crown-Franklin Accounting, Inc. and Victor M. Crown, Pro Se.

ROUTING # xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

ACCOUNT # xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

XI NOTICE OF COURT ORDERS AND JUDGMENTS

[A] Immediately upon the entry of an order or judgment in a case assigned to ECF, the Clerk of the Court will transmit to E-Filers in the case, in electronic form, a Notice of Electronic Filing. Electronic transmission the Notice of Electronic Filing constitutes notice required by Fed. R. civ. P. 77[d] and Fed. R. Crim. P 49[e]. The Clerk of the Court must give notice in paper form to a person who is not an E-Filer or represented by an E-filer in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [FRCP], Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and local rules of this court

GENERAL ORDER 09-014 — By DISTRICT COURT EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

This order Specifically applies to the Notice of Patent Claim filed on 4/7/2015 try defendant [Victor M. Crown, pro se] and applies to an Executive Committee order entered 5/3/2007 which provides authorization for an extraordinary Writ of Mandamus under 28 USC 1651 and 28 USC 1652.

The modernization order removing the signature requirement entered by Chief Judge James Holderman on 6/5/2009 therefore affirms that the filing and entry of this General Order [09-014] provides the legal basis and authority for mandatory legal compliance by affected parties, including the Internal Revenue Service [IRS]

This general order is therefore also brought under 26 USC 7430 and 26 USC 7433.

VI. ENTRY OF COURT ORDERS

[A][1] — All orders, decrees, judgments and proceedings of the court will be filed in accordance with this General Order and will constitute entry on the docket kept by the Clerk of the Court under Fed. R. Civ, P. 58 and 79 and Fed. R. Crim. P. 49 and 55. All signed orders will be filed electronically by the court or court personnel. Any order filed electronically by the court or court personnel without the original signature of a judge [or, where applicable, the Clerk of the Court] has the same force and effect as if the judge or the Clerk of the Court had affixed the judge's or Clerk of the Court's signature to a paper copy of the order and it had been entered on the docket in the manner otherwise provided.

[2] — The Clerk of the Court may establish additional procedures for filing, creating and storing electronic versions of orders, decrees and judgments.

[a] WRIT OF MANDAMUS [PEREMPTORY] — ordering IRS [Fresno, California] to process, on or before 9-18-2015 — Form 843 abatement of civil penalty [2010] which was sent by certified mail on 9-8-2015 [USPS #70112870000033830510].

This is based upon legal mandates of the 7th Circuit CA on 9/20/11 and 8/14/15 which affirms the "prevailing party' position of Victor M. Crown on Shakman 2 and the legal right of petitioner to post-judgment statutory interest from 5/26/09

[b] WRIT MANDAMUS [PEREMPTORY] — ordering IRS [Fresno, California] to process, on or before 9-18-2015 — Form 843 abatement of civil penalty [2011] which WFS sent by certified mail on 9-8-2015 [LISPS #70142870000033830503]

This is based upon legal mandates of the 7th Circuit CA on 9/20/11 and 8/14/15 which affirms the "prevailing party" position of Victor M. Crown on Shakman 2 and the legal right of petitioner to post-judgment statutory interest from 5/26/09.

[c] WRIT OF MANDAMUS [PEREMPTORY] — ordering IRS [Fresno, California] to process, on or before 9-18-2015 — Form 843 abatement of civil penalty [2013] which was sent by certified mail on 9-8-2015 [USPS #70142870000033830534].

This is based upon legal mandates of the Circuit CA on 9/20/11 and 8/14/15 which affirms the "prevailing party" position of Victor M. Crown on Shakman 2 and the legal right of petitioner to post-judgment statutory interest from 5/26/09.

[d] WRIT OF MANDAMUS [PEREMPTORY] — ordering IRS [Fresno, California] to process, on or before 9-18-2015 — Form 843 abatement of civil penalty [2013] which was sent by certified mail on 9-8-2015 [USPS #70142870000033830480]

This is based upon legal mandates of the 7th Circuit CA on 9/20/11 and 8/14/15 which affirms the "prevailing party" position of Victor M. Crown on Shakman 2 and the legal right of petitioner to post-judgment statutory interest from 5/25/09.

[e] WRIT OF MANDAMUS [PEREMPTORY] — ordering IRS [Fresno, California] to process, on or before 9-22-2015 — Form 843 abatement of civil penalty [2013] which was sent by certified mail on 9-8-2015 [USP5 #701428700000338301473]

This is based upon legal mandates of the Circuit CA on 9/20/11 and 8/14/15 which affirms the "prevailing party" position of Victor M. Crown on Shakman 2 and the legal right of petitions" to post-judgment statutory interest from 5/26/09 This claim affects removal of improper penalties for "failure to file" from 2013.

[f] WRIT OF MANDAMUS [PEREMPTORY] — ordering IRS [Fresno, California] to process on or before 9-18-2015 — Form 843 abatement of civil penalty [2013] which was sent by certified mail on 9-8-2015 [LISPS #701428700000338301473]

This is based upon legal mandates of the 7th Circuit CA on 9/20/11 and 8/14/15 which affirms the "prevailing party" position of Victor M. Crown on Shakman 2 and the legal right of petitioner to post-judgment statutory interest from 5/26/09. This claim affects removal of improper penalties for "failure to pay" from 2013

[f] WRIT OF MANDAMUS [PEREMPTORY] — ordering IRS [Cincinnati, OH] to process, on or before 9-11-2015 — the removal of civil penalties for 2010, 2011 and 2013 pursuant to 26 USC 7214[a] and 26 CFR 301.7433-1 (a) which was sent by certified mail on 9-8-2015 [USPS #70142870000033830527]

This is based upon legal mandates of the 7th Circuit CA on 9/20/11 and 8/14/15 which affirms the "prevailing party" position of Victor M. Crown on Shakman 2

XI. NOTICE OF COURT ORDERS AND JUDGMENTS

[A] Immediately upon the entry of an order or judgment in a case assigned to ECF, the Clerk of the Court will transmit to E-Filers in the case, in electronic form, a Notice of Electronic Filing. Electronic transmission the Notice of Electronic Filing constitutes notice required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 77[d] and Fed. R. Crim. P. 49[e]. The Clerk of the Court must give notice in paper form to a person who is not an E-Filer or represented by an E-filer in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and local rules of this court.

GENERAL ORDER 09-014 — DISTRICT COURT EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

This order specifically applies to the Notice of Patent claim filed on 3/23/2015 and 4/7/2015 by patent-holder (Victor M. Crown) and covers an Executive Committee order entered on 5/3/2007 providing legal authorization for a Writ of Mandamus under 28 USC 1651/1652.

The petitioner/plaintiff [Victor Crown and [Theodossis Estate] has LEGAL STANDING to file and now request enforcement of this general order due to DEFAULT by the CITY OF CHICAGO on the timely filed SHAKMAN 2 claim that was submitted on 5/12/2008 by Victor M. Crown.

VI. ENTRY OF COURT ORDERS

[A][1] — All orders, decrees, judgments and proceedings of the court will be filed in accordance with this General Order and will constitute entry on the docket kept by the Clerk of the Court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 and 79 and Fed. R. Crim. P. 49 and 55. All signed orders will be filed electronically by the court or court personnel. Any order filed electronically by the court or court personnel without the original signature of a judge [or, where applicable, the Clerk of the Court] has the same force and effect as if the judge or the Clerk of the Court had affixed the Judge's or Clerk of the Court's signature to a paper copy of the order and it had been entered on the docket in the manner otherwise provided.

[2] — The Clerk of the Court may establish additional procedures for filing, creating and storing electronic versions of orders, decrees and judgments.

Case No. 1:14-CV-05402 — General Order 09-014 — Document #52 [filed 6/22/2015] — includes mandamus order directing the Social Security Administration [SSA] to apply the maximum wage pase limitation for petitioner affecting a $3.1 million financial judgment [default] filed by the Clerk of the 7' Circuit Court of Appeals on 9-20-2011; and earnings credit of $1.15 million for petitioner [patent-holder] Victor M. Crown for 1991-2006 and related IRS corrections under 26 USC 1311 for the entire period 1988-2006.

Note: [a] the mandamus order under 28 USC 1651/1652 being enforced by the designated magistrate judge [REDACTED\] would direct the federal agencies [Internal Revenue Service, Social Security Administration] to process the corrections under the applicable federal law/rule: [1] 26 USC 1311-1314 affecting the Internal Revenue Service, and; [2] SSA Program Operations Manual System. [Social Security Ruling 83-7][RS 01140.140 — allocating back pay][IRS 01402.410 court award/judgment — 2010][RS 01405.001 — earnings record correction — 2012]

Note: [b] the mandamus order under 28 USC 1651/1652 being enforced by the designated magistrate judge [REDACTED\] would direct the Bank of America [as trustee for the City of Chicago — bond issue of February, 2014] to process, on or before September 4, 2015 electronic funds transfer of $354537 in credits [federal withholding, FICA/Medicare] in accord with the 9/20/2011 financial judgment and the city's default on the 6-12-15 ruling on statutory interest.

Note: [c][1] the mandamus order under 28 USC 1651/1652 being enforced by the designated magistrate judge [REDACTED\] would direct State of Illinois Department of Revenue [IDOR] to timely process a US Form 4852 and/or applicable Form IL-4852 with the correct withholding amounts for the period of 1991 to 2015.

Note: [c][2] the mandamus order under 28 USC 1651/1652 being enforced by the designated magistrate judge [REDACTED\] would direct State of Illinois Office of Comptroller to then timely process [prior to 9/3/2015] a hardship petition [warrant] [ROWN-4842-103014] applied to statutory back pay [Illinois Secretary of State — Special Government Agent Position] for the period of 2003 to 2011 covering a "post-trial review" of a criminal case [1:99-CR-0047 NDIL] and certification of Rule 404B evidence by State Comptroller Judy Baar Topinka on 7/26/2013,

The Attorney General [Lisa Madigan] "and any legal counsel from the Office of Illinois Attorney General is therefore legally precluded from any involvement [direct or indirect] on this issue due to a "conflict of interest" involving one of the testifying witnesses [House Speaker Mike Madigan] and the legal mandate affirmed by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals on 8/14/2015 [Docket No 15-17341 and legal order on 8/22/2015 backdating the petitioners' mandate to 6/22/2015

Note: [d] the mandamus order under 28 USC 1651/1652 being enforced by the designated magistrate judge [REDACTED\] would direct the Social Security Administration to timely process earnings corrections affecting petitioner/plaintiff [Victor M. Crown] for the 1991-2014 period

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the legal right of the petitioner/plaintiff [Victor M. Crown] to post-judgment statutory interest from the period of 5/26/2009 forward in a correction that was filed 6/12/2015 and defaulted by plaintiff [USA] on 8/14/2015.

The legal doctrine of Res Judicata/Collateral Estoppel applies to the legal/financial mandate in the Shakman 2 employment discrimination case [closed][filed on 9/20/2011] and the related BILL OF COSTS legally served upon City of Chicago on 9-30-2013. It also applies to the legal sanction entered on 5/26/2009 by District Court [Judge Andersen] after defendant [City of Chicago] improperly and unethically (rigged) the filing date of the claim by changing it from timely filed on 5-12-2008 to untimely filed on 11-4-2008 [General Election Day] and after the related defendant [County of Cook] directly violated filed protective orders [7-10-2008. 7-31-2008, 4-3-2009] with an illegal eviction on 7/16-17/2009 by the Cook County Sheriff.

XI. Notice of Court Orders and Judgments

[A] immediately upon the entry of an order or judgment in a case assigned to ECF, the Clerk of the Court will transmit to E-Filers in the case, in electronic form, a Notice of Electronic Filing. Electronic transmission of the Notice of Electronic Filing constitutes the notice required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 77[d] and Fed R. Crim. P. 49[e]. The Clerk of the Court must give notice in paper form to a person who is not an E-Filer or represented by an E-Filer in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and local rules of this court.