Opinion
5-20-0397
03-09-2022
STEPHANIE GLASSMEYER, Petitioner-Appellee, v. JACK CALDWELL, Respondent-Appellant.
This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Madison County. No. 20-OP-1069 Honorable John B. Julian, Judge, presiding.
JUSTICE VAUGHAN delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Boie and Justice Moore concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
VAUGHAN, JUSTICE
¶ 1 Held: The trial court's plenary stalking order is affirmed where no justiciable legal argument regarding the trial court's order was provided.
¶ 2 Respondent, Jack Caldwell, appeals from the trial court's order granting a plenary stalking no contact order against him. On appeal Caldwell contends he cannot get justice and lists numerous complaints directed to both the trial and appellate courts. For the following reasons, we affirm.
¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND
¶ 4 On September 11, 2020, petitioner, Stephanie Glassmeyer, filed a verified petition requesting an emergency and plenary stalking no contact order pursuant to the Stalking No Contact Order Act (Act) (740 ILCS 21/1 et seq. (West 2020)) against Caldwell. The petition requested relief for Glassmeyer, her husband, Kyle, and their four children, at their home and places of employment. In support, Glassmeyer claimed that Caldwell would call their places of employment and try to get them fired. Glassmeyer further alleged that Caldwell would drive past their places of employment to see if they were there, drive slowly past their house, chant, take pictures of their children, put things behind their driveway, and yell at the family members whenever Caldwell saw them. Glassmeyer claimed that she could not go out of her house without Caldwell watching or saying something.
¶ 5 After reviewing the petition, the trial court issued an order on September 11, 2020, finding that the allegations were insufficient to enter an emergency order without notice and directed the clerk to issue summons and set the matter for hearing on the next available docket. Caldwell was served with the summons on September 17, 2020.
¶ 6 The matter proceeded to hearing on October 1, 2020. Following the hearing, the trial court issued a plenary stalking no contact order pursuant to the Act for Glassmeyer and three of her children against Caldwell that would remain in effect until September 30, 2022. The order required Caldwell to refrain from stalking or contacting the protected parties through any written, oral, or third-party communication, stay at least 300 feet away from the protected parties, and not enter Glassmeyer's residence or employment premises. The order also prohibited Caldwell from possessing a firearm owners identification card and possessing or buying firearms.
¶ 7 On October 7, 2020, Caldwell filed a motion requesting an appeal, a new court date, and a different judge, which was supported by a seven-page letter setting forth Caldwell's complaints regarding the hearing. On October 14, 2020, the trial court issued an order classifying Caldwell's motion as a motion to reconsider and set the motion for hearing on November 5, 2020. Following the hearing, the trial court issued an order denying Caldwell's motion to reconsider. Caldwell appealed on December 2, 2020.
¶ 8 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 9 On appeal, Caldwell filed a 12-page letter that claims inter alia court reporters should be required for every hearing, this court and the trial court are conspiring against him, the Illinois Supreme Court procedural rules are stupid, hiring a lawyer is too expensive, he should be appointed an attorney to clear his name, he has been discriminated against because he is a white man, and the courts, including this court and the trial court, are racist. The submission requests FBI investigations of this court and the trial court but claims the FBI is biased and prejudiced against him, too. No argument related to the plenary stalking no contact order is provided.
¶ 10 Instead, Caldwell's submission expresses derision for the Illinois Supreme Court procedural requirements for proper briefing, specifically addressing the color of the covers and the page limitations. However, Caldwell's disdain for the requirements is an insufficient reason to ignore the rules. The procedural rules governing the content and format of appellate briefs are not suggestions, they are mandatory. Rosestone Investments, LLC v. Garner, 2013 IL App (1st) 123422, ¶ 18. The fact that a party is pro se does not relieve that party from complying as nearly as possible to the Illinois Supreme Court rules for practice before this court. Peeples v. Village of Johnsburg, 403 Ill.App.3d 333, 335 (2010).
¶ 11 Despite knowledge of the requirements, Caldwell intentionally disregarded the rules, even those that might have assisted him, on appeal. For example, while Caldwell spends over two pages complaining about the filing fee, he failed to consider or review Illinois Supreme Court Rule 313 (eff. Jan. 1, 2020), which specifically addresses waiver of the appellate court fee. Similarly, Caldwell's lament regarding the lack of a court reporter at the hearing has little merit on appeal when he failed to take advantage of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 323, which allows an appellant to provide a bystander's report or an agreed statement of facts, when no verbatim transcript of the hearing is available. Ill. S.Ct. R. 323(c), (d) (eff. July 1, 2017).
¶ 12 Caldwell's scorn of the cover colors and page limitation reveals his knowledge of the requirements set forth in Rule 341 (Ill. S.Ct. R. 341(b)(1), (d) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020)). However, other than compliance with the page limitation, Caldwell chose to ignore the remaining requirements set forth therein. "A reviewing court is entitled to have the issues clearly defined and supported by pertinent authority and cohesive arguments; it is not merely a repository into which an appellant may 'dump the burden of argument and research,' nor is it the obligation of this court to act as an advocate or seek error in the record." U.S. Bank v. Lindsey, 397 Ill.App.3d 437, 459 (2009) (quoting Obert v. Saville, 253 Ill.App.3d 677, 682 (1993)). Here, Caldwell's submission is merely a litany of complaints with no legal argument, no citation to a record, and no citation to any authority. Further, the submission fails to address the underlying order and requests relief this court is unable to provide. As such, any argument that could have been presented is forfeited. Ill. S.Ct. R. 341(h)(7) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020).
¶ 13 It has long been held that "an appellant has the burden to present a sufficiently complete record of the proceedings at trial to support a claim of error, and in the absence of such a record on appeal, it will be presumed that the order entered by the trial court was in conformity with law and had a sufficient factual basis." Foutch v. O'Bryant, 99 Ill.2d 389, 391-92 (1984). "Any doubts which may arise from the incompleteness of the record will be resolved against the appellant." Id. at 392. As such, we affirm the trial court's plenary stalking no contact order.
¶ 14 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 15 For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the trial court's order.
¶ 16 Affirmed.