If Gonzalez does decide to run against Newsom again, will the Guardian once again betray its self-proclaimed role as representing the progressive interests and voice of San Francisco and, instead of endorsing Matt — who was clearly the most progressive candidate running against Newsom last time, and would be again — throw its support behind the city's old guard Democratic machine candidate, last time in the personage of Angela Alioto, who lost badly to Matt in the actual election (because real progressives know who represents them, and it ain't Angela "Hillary Pelosi" Alioto) and who in turn sold out her own supporters by endorsing Newsom instead of Gonzalez in exchange for his promise that he would name her his titular "advisor" on homelessness; the Guardian itself has written disparagingly of the resulting shell-game known as "Care Not Cash)... Nice going, Bruce. You can continute to pontificate on public power, bait Gonzalez about tidal power, and then sell out your readers yet again when it's time to back a real progressive candidate in this year's mayoral election ...

Dynegy Mkg & Trade v. Multiut Corp, Nachshon Draiman et al 1:02-cv-07446.
Multiut Corp and Nachshon Draiman dba Future Associate of Skokie, IL. are withholding evidence of fraudulent activities in the Energy industry and inflated Medicaid billing to the government for Nursing Home patients. Also Bank fraud against their bank by presenting fraudulent and inflated receivable reports in order to get and keep a credit line, Nachshon Draiman was a large stock holder of the bank. Draiman Nachshon • SC 13G • Success Bancshares Inc • On 2/17/98
Filed On 2/17/98 • SEC File 5-53545 • Accession Number 950137-98-586
Court: United States District Court Northern District of Illinois -
Case Title: Dynegy Mkg & Trade v. Multiut Corp, Nachshon Draiman Future Associates et al
Case Number: 1:02-cv-07446
Judge: Hon. John A. Nordberg
Filed On: 10/16/2002
SUMMARY
Case Number: 1:02-cv-07446
Referred To: Honorable Michael T. Mason
Jury Demand: Defendant
Demand: $9999000
Nature of Suit: Contract: Other (190)
Jurisdiction: Diversity
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Case Updated: 01/20/2005
NAMES
Party Name: Multiut Corporation an Illinois Corporation,
Party Type: Defendant
Attorney(s): Paul Thaddeus Fox
(312) 456-8400
Firm Name: Greenberg Traurig, LLP.
Firm Address: 77 West Wacker Drive
Suite 2500
Chicago, IL 60601
Alan Jay Mandel
847-329-8450
Firm Name: Alan J Mandel Ltd
Firm Address: 7520 North Skokie Blvd
Skokie, IL 60077
Ira P. Gould
(312) 456-8400
Firm Name: Greenberg Traurig, LLP.
Firm Address: 77 West Wacker Drive
Suite 2500
Chicago, IL 60601
Ronald F. Labedz
(312) 456-8400
Firm Name: Greenberg Traurig, LLP.
Firm Address: 77 West Wacker Drive
Suite 2500
Chicago, IL 60601
Steven C. Coberly
(312) 456-8400
Firm Name: Greenberg Traurig, LLP.
Firm Address: 77 West Wacker Drive
Suite 2500
Chicago, IL 60601
Party Name: Nachson Draiman an Illinois Resident
Party Type: Defendant
Attorney(s): Paul Thaddeus Fox
Firm Address: (See above for address)
Alan Jay Mandel
Firm Address: (See above for address)
Ira P. Gould
Firm Address: (See above for address)
Ronald F. Labedz
Firm Address: (See above for address)
Steven C. Coberly
Firm Address: (See above for address)
Party Name: Future Associates an Illinois General Partnership
128 01/10/2005 MINUTE ORDER of 1/10/05 by Honorable Michael T. Mason : As stated on the reverse of this order, plaintiff’s motion to compel financial documents [124-1] and for sanctions is granted in part and denied in part. [124-2] Defendant’s request for reconsideration is denied. (See reverse of minute order.) Notices mailed by judge’s staff (hp) (Entered: 01/10/2005)
Order Document for Later Delivery
126 01/04/2005 BRIEF by Dynegy Mkg & Trade in opposition to defendants’ motion for reconsideration and in support of Dynegy’s motion to compel [95-1] (Attachments). (vmj) (Entered: 01/06/2005)
Order Document for Later Delivery
125 12/23/2004 MINUTE ORDER of 12/23/04 by Honorable Michael T. Mason : Plaintiff’s reply to its motion to compel financial documents [124-1] and in response to defendant’s motion for reconsideration to be filed by 01/03/05. Mailed notice (hp) (Entered: 12/27/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
124 12/20/2004 MOTION by plaintiff to compel financial documents and for sanctions (Attachments); Notice. (hp) (Entered: 12/27/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
86 06/22/2004 RESPONSE by defendants to Dynegy’s motion to compel [85-1] or for sanctions [85-2] and motion for protective order (Attachment). (hp) (Entered: 06/23/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
85 06/17/2004 MOTION by plaintiff Dynegy Marketing and Trade, to compel or for sanctions for failure to respond to discovery (Attachments); Notice. (hp) (Entered: 06/23/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
79 05/13/2004 MINUTE ORDER of 5/13/04 by Honorable Michael T. Mason: Status hearing held and continued to 9:00 a.m. on 6/29/04. Plaintiff has until 6/4/04 to answer or otherwise plead to defendant’s first amended counterclaims. Fact discovery cutoff is extended to 7/19/04. Defendant’s disclosure of expert and expert report by 8/2/04. Deposition of defendant’s expert to be completed by 9/1/04. Plaintiff’s disclosure of expert and expert report by 10/1/04. Deposition of plaintiff’s expert to be completed by 10/15/04. Dispositive motion filing deadline of 8/16/04 is stricken. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is granted in part and denied in part [78-1]. Defendants are ordered to respond to plaintiff’s discovery requests by 5/27/04. Plaintiff’s request for attorneys fees is denied. Mailed notice (air) (Entered: 05/14/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
77 05/12/2004 MINUTE ORDER of 5/12/04 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied. [44-1] Defendants’ motion for leave to file the first amended answer is granted. [72-1] (See reverse of minute order.) Mailed notice (hp) (Entered: 05/13/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
76 05/12/2004 RESPONSE by defendants to plaintiff Dynegy’s motion for sanctions [59-1] [65-1] (hp) (Entered: 05/13/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
78 05/10/2004 MOTION by plaintiff for sanctions (Attachment); Notice. (air) (Entered: 05/14/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
68 03/18/2004 MINUTE ORDER of 3/18/04 by Honorable Michael T. Mason : Motion hearing held. Plaintiff’s second motion for sanctions is granted in part and denied in part. [65-1] Defendant is ordered to turn over any unproduced damage requests, invoices and related volumes for 2002 by 03/22/04. Plaintiff’s request for dismissal of defendant’s affirmative defenses and counterclaims and request for attonrey’s fees are denied. Mailed notice (hp) (Entered: 03/19/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
67 03/15/2004 AMENDED NOTICE of motion by plaintiff regarding motion for sanctions [65-1] (Attachments). (hp) (Entered: 03/19/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
64 03/08/2004 AMENDED NOTICE of motion by plaintiff regarding second motion for sanctions (hp) (Entered: 03/09/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
65 03/05/2004 SECOND MOTION by plaintiff for sanctions (Attachments); Notice (hp) (Entered: 03/11/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
61 02/17/2004 MINUTE ORDER of 2/17/04 by Honorable Michael T. Mason : Status hearing held and continued to 03/09/04 at 9:00 a.m. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is granted in part and denied in part. [59-1] Plaintiff’s request for an order dismissing the defendants’ affirmative defenses and counterclaims is denied. Defendants to respond to outstanding written discovery regarding the breach of contract claims by 02/24/04. Defendants to respond to outstanding written discovery regarding the fraudulent transfer claims by 03/08/04. Plaintiff’s request for attorneys fees incurred in bringing the motion for sanctions is granted. Fact discovery to close on 05/07/04. Expert discovery to close on 06/21/04. Dispositive motions to be filed by 07/21/04. No further extensions. Mailed notice (hp) (Entered: 02/18/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
60 02/13/2004 ADDENDUM by plaintiff to their motion for sanctions (Attachments) [59-1]; Notice (hp) (Entered: 02/18/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
59 02/12/2004 MOTION by plaintiff for sanctions against defendants for failure to comply with discovery (Attachments); Notice (hp) (Entered: 02/18/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
Dynegy Mkg & Trade v. Multiut Corp, Nachshon Draiman et al 1:02-cv-07446
WHEREFORE, Dynegy requests entry of a judgment in its favor and against Multiut, for $12,504,912.51, plus interest, through the date of judgement, in an amount in excess of $593,997.74, and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.
-4-
COUNT III
(Fraudulent Transfer In Law- Multiut)
27. Dynegy repeats and reasserts the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 26, inclusive, as paragraph 27.
28. At all relevant times, Draiman has been a director, officer and/or control ling shareholder of Multiut.
29. At all relevant times, Draiman has been a general partner in Future Associates or otherwise had authority and/or control over the business affairs of Futures Associates or an entity that had authority over the business affairs of Futures Associates.
30. Since at least January 1999, Multiut failed to make timely payment, when due, for some or all of the natural gas delivered by Dynegy.
31. On March 7, 2001, Ginger Wright of Dynegy and Lenore Kamien of Multiut ‘ agreed that Multiut owed Dynegy approximately $11,000,000, excluding interest.
32. On September 5, 2001, Dynegy representatives Pete Pavluk and Mark Ludwig met with Multiut representatives Lenore Kamien and/or Nachshon Draiman at Multiut’s offices to discuss the amount owed by Multiut.
33. At that meeting, Mr. Draiman said that Multiut did not have funds sufficient to pay the debt owed and that Multiut would propose a payment plan by September 17, 2001.
34. In a September 17, 2001 letter, Multiut proposed a payment plan by which it would make monthly payments, from October 2001 through March 2002, in order to pay down the amount owed to Dynegy. The proposed payments ranged from $600,000 in some months to $1,800,000 in other months. According to Mr. Draiman, Multiut was, “insurefd] [sic] an additional annual profit of $2,000,000″ and that, “in the meantime, [Multiut] was working on bank financing as well as funds from private sources for capital infusion.”
-5-
35 . In an October 4, 2001 letter to Multiut, Dynegy responded to Multiut’s September 17, 2001 proposal by asking for “a detailed formal plan by no later than Wednesday, October 10, 2001 that outlines bringing your account balance current by no later that [sic]-January 15, 2002.”
36. In an October 12, 2001 letter, Multiut responded to Dynegy’s October 4, 2001 letter by proposing “weekly payments for October through January.” The weekly payments proposed by Multiut totaled $7,700,000.
37. Multiut did not make all the weekly payments described in its October 12, 2001
letter.
38. Multiut’s check , dated August 23, 2001, made payable to Dynegy for $300,000, was returned for insufficient funds.
39. Multiut’s check, dated October 26, 2001, made payable to Dynegy for $150,000, was returned for insufficient funds.
40. Multiut’s check, dated November 9, 2001, made payable to Dynegy for $200,000, was returned for insufficient funds.
41. Multiut check no. 1946, made payable to Dynegy for $200,000 and deposited on December 7, 2001, was returned twice due to insufficient funds.
42. On January 8, 2002, Multiut claimed it could not pay the amounts owed to Dynegy because of slow payment by the government in connection with Mr. Draiman’s nursing homes.
43. On January 31, 2002, Multiut told Dynegy that it would make a $200,000 payment while it worked to raise cash through a factoring company and while it attempted to arrange a line of credit with Bank Leumi.
-6-
54. Multiut did not receive reasonably equivalent value for the transfer described in paragraph 53.
55. In the years 1999 through 2003, Multiut transferred cash or other assets to Future Associates, Draiman and/or other entities, including Draiman’s nursing home, hotel or other business interests when Multiut was indebted to Dynegy.
56. Multiut did not receive reasonably equivalent value for the transfers desciibed in paragraph 55.
57. When Multiut made the transfers described in paragraphs 53 and 55 (the “Transfers”), Multiut was insolvent and/or became insolvent as a result of the Transfers.
58. The Transfers were fraudulent conveyances in violation of applicable laws.
WHEREFORE, Dynegy requests entry of an order granting judgment in its favor and against Multiut, for $12,504,912.51, plus interest, through the date of judgment, in an amount in excess of $593,997.74; voiding the fraudulent transfers and returning the Transfers to Multiut to be used to satisfy the debt to Dynegy; and such other relief as this Court deems appropriate.
COUNT IV (Fraudulent Transfer In Fact- Multiut)
59. Dynegy repeats and reasserts the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 58, inclusive, as paragraph 59.
60. The Transfers were made with actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud Dynegy, a creditor of Multiut and as-such constituted fraudulent conveyances in violation of applicable laws.
WHEREFORE, Dynegy requests entry of an order granting judgment in its favor and against Multiut, for $12,504,912.51, plus interest, through the date of judgment, in an amount in excess of $593,997.74; voiding the fraudulent transfers and returning the money to Multiut to be
-8-
used to satisfy the debt to Dynegy; punitive damages and such other relief as this Court deems appropriate.
COUNT V
(Fraudulent Transfer in Law- Future Associates)
61. Dynegy repeats and reasserts the allegations of paragraphs 1 thorough 58, inclusive, as paragraph 61.
62. Future Associates accepted the Transfers of the assets without having provided adequate consideration for the Transfers.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT - CHANCERY DIVISION
FILED
JACK GORE on behalf of himself and all ) NOV 28, 2002
other persons or entitles similarly situated, |
•
vs. No. 01 CH 19688

DOROTHY 8ROWN CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT

MULTIUT CORP, an Illinois corporation, } Judge Stephen A, Schiller
Defendant ) Courtroom 2402

RESPONSE TO §2-619.1 MOTION TO DISMISS J/
Plaintiff JACK GORE (“Gore”). by his attorneys LARRY D DRURY LTD., hereby responds to the Motion to Dismiss 2nd Amended Complaint, pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-615 and 619, brought as a combined 2-619.1 motion by defendant MULTIUT CORP. (“Multiut”).
Introduction
Multiut is trying to time-bar this case by transforming express a written agency-service contract drafted by Multiut into a contract for sale of goods, and by disputing Gore's allegations as to concealment and discovery of the wrong – but without submitting any Rule 191 affidavit or documentation. This is a class action arising out
of a written contract drafted by Multiut, attached here and to the 2nd Amended Complaint as Exhibit A and B collectively referred to herein as the "contract" or "agreement “ unless otherwise indicated by context): (1)
(A) A service contract to act as Gore's "purchasing representatives" in obtaining natural gas from “off system" suppliers. This contract, entered into on or about December 1990, was titled “Agreement," Exh. A 1, 3-6, 10. And,
{B} A series of supplemental agency contracts to act as Gore’s agent, in so doing with respect to various Properties. These were entered into contemporaneously with the service contract and thereafter, and titled "Natural Gas Purchasing and Agency Agreement.” Exh.-B. (2)
(1) Similarly Multiut refers to them collectively as “the agreement” in its brief (Mem. p. 2, fn. 1). Although the documents are on separately filed pages, they are mutually inclusive and one could not be entered into without the other; e.g. the service contract refers to and incorporates the agency contracts, wherein Multiut refers to itself as Gore's 'exclusive natural gas purchasing agent'. See Exh. A, third introductory paragraph and 16-17; Exh. B 1,

(2) Exh. 8 one of the series, is dated 1998, Exh. C is Gore’s §2-806 affidavit as to the others. Gore has stated he does not have a copy of each, they are inaccessible to him i.e. no longer in his possession, whether missplaced or otherwise, and cannot be located or returned. 2nd Amd.. Compl. {4; Exh, C, in the 1st Amd. Complaint, Count 4 for breach of oral contract was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice after Gore's deposition of May 8,- 2002, when the service contract and the 1998 agency contract were produced by Multiut and adequately established, Exhs, A-B are the same Exhs. 1-2 attached to the Gore transcript, excerpts of which are attached herein as Exh. D, Similarly the missing agency agreements are likely in Multiut’s possession and will be produced in discovery.
The contract was drafted by Multiut, it unequivocally defines Multiut's role in the transactions, and shows that this case is not governed by the UCC. What is at issue here is not the "good" that Multiut obtained for Gore, but the service Multiut provided as his purchasing agent. Gore is suing upon the service and agency contract – not the natural gas - and has alleged that Multiut breached its duties in two respects;
{1} By falsely and intentionally charging and retaining for its own use funds that were to be applied to a City of Chicago 8% gross receipts tax (“Tax”), which it had promised would be placed in escrow and forwarded to the City. Between December 1990 and January 1995 (after the City of Chicago changed the Tax), Multiut collected approximately $14,000 from Gore and at least $1 million to $1.5 million from the Class, for this Tax that was not actually imposed upon Multiut. 2nd Amd. Compl. 7-9, '3! Multiut not only failed to inform Plaintiff and
the Class that the money collected was not so applied or escrowed, but also failed to escrow, account for, and refund the funds with interest.
(2) By overcharging for the service of providing natural gas. Multiut was to charge for natural gas actually supplied to Gore and the Class on a set per therm cost basis, plus an amount equal to 1/2 of their respective per therm cost savings per month, instead, Multiut overcharged and billed Gore at least $100.000 and the class millions of dollars and refuses to provide an accounting and refund with interest. Id. 10-11.
Gore has further alleged that Multiut prevented him from discovering the wrongs by intentionally concealing them until at least December 2000, when he discovered the truth and could not reasonably have done so earlier. (Gore testified at his deposition on May 8, 2002 that he first discovered the discrepancies in his bills, the overcharges, the taxes, and failure to escrow the taxes, in December 2000. See Exh, D, pp. 25-28,) Thereafter he was unable to obtain any refund and based thereon, terminated Multiut’s services on or about June 2001, However, the wrongful acts are continuing to date, in that Multiut continues to 'refuse to provide an accounting and refund with interest to Gore and the Class, all to their detriment and damage. They seek imposition of constructive trust (id. 22), an accounting and damages in not less than the foregoing amounts plus interest (id, 9-13, 23).
Gore filed the original Class Action Complaint on Nov. 20, 2001, and in lieu of responding to a motion to dismiss, filed the 1st Amended Class Action Complaint Feb. 14, 2002, setting forth 4 counts for (1) breach of
3-: The City did not and will not collect the 8% Tax, presumably because of U.S. constitutional restrictions as to the interstate commerce clause and exceptions for interstate pipelines and out-of-state suppliers. As a result in 1994 the City changed the tax from an 8% gross receipts tax to a flat rate tax of 1.4 to 1.5 cents per therm. 2nd Amd. Comp. P 8. in Multiut’s response to First Request to Admit {attached hereto as Exh. F), it has admitted the following statements about this Tax; (8) that Multiut collected approximately $14,000 in Tax from Gore between 1991-1994; and (9) that Multiut spent its customers Tax payments on business expenses.. Yehuda Draiman testified to the same effect in his deposition 1-10-02 See transcript excerpts attached hereto as Exh. E, at pp, 36-37,40, 68, and Exh, 6 thereto.

Activity Date: 8/15/2007 Participant: GORE JACK
CASE SET ON STATUS CALL
Court Date: 8/29/2007
Court Time: 0930
Court Room: 2402
Judge: BRONSTEIN, PHILIP L.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COCK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT CHANCERY DIVISION

JACK GORE, on behalf of himself And all other persons or entities similarly situated,
Plaintiff
FILED
MULTIUT CORPSORATION, an Illinois
Corporation,
Defendant,

FEB. 14, 2002
BROWN

CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT

FIRST AMENDED
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
NOW COMES Plaintiff, JACK GORE, ("GORE"), on behalf of himself and all other persons or entities similarly situated, by and through his attorneys, LARRY D DRURY LTD. And complaining against the defendant, MULTIUT CORPORATION (“MULTIUT”), states as follows;

COUNT I
BREACH OF WRITTEN CONTRACT

1. Plaintiff is a resident of Lake County, State of Illinois, and owns numerous buildings throughout Cook County, Illinois, which use natural gas as part of their daily operations.

2. Defendant, Multiut, is a a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Illinois, does business in the State of Illinois, is believed to use interstate pipelines and acquire natural gas from outside Illinois, from suppliers such as Dynegy Corporation, to supply said gas to the Plaintiff and the Class within Illinois including, but not limited to Cook County, Illinois. .
3. that on or about January, 1989, Plaintiff entered into a written contract with the Defendant, which was provided to plaintiff for signing by Yehuda Draiman, Multiut’s employee/agent, to purchase natural gas from the Defendant to be Supplied to the Plaintiff’s buildings in Cook County, Illinois. A signed copy of said contract is not available however, a copy of Multiut’s form "Agreement," believed to be the same as the contract signed by the plaintiff, is attached hereto as Plaintiff Exhibit A.
4. Pursuant to the aforesaid contract, the Plaintiff paid
the Defendant for natural gas from on or about January, 1989 to
the present, and from March 1, 1991 to on or about March 1, 1994,
said payment included an eight percent (8%) City of Chicago gross
receipts tax per the municipal code of Chicago ILCS Ch. 132,
Sen. 3, totaling approximately Fourteen Thousand Dollars ($14,000).
Pursuant to Exhibit: A, paragraph 5, the Defendant was
not to impose the eight percent (8%) City of Chicago gross
receipts tax on the Plaintiff and the Class unless said tax was
imposed upon the Defendant by the City of Chicago, which it was
not.
5. The City of Chicago did not and on information and belief, will not collect the aforesaid eight percent (8%) tax
5
paid by the Plaintiff and the Class to the Defendant, presumably because of United States constitutional restrictions with respect to the interstate pipeline clause and exemptions for interstate pipelines and out-of-state suppliers. As a result thereof, the City of Chicago changed the tax in 1994 from an eight percent (8%) of gross receipt tax to a flat rate tax of 1.4 - 1.5 cents per therm. Prior to January, 1995, the Defendant collected at least $1,000,000 to $1,500,000 of the eight percent (8%) tax from the Plaintiff and the class, and rather than refunding said tax, with interest, to the Plaintiff and the class or placing the taxes in an escrow fund, which should be so ordered by this court, the Defendant commingled the taxes with its general checking account(s) and held, spent, misappropriated , and/or disbursed said taxes on its own behalf to the detriment and damage of the Plaintiff and the Class.
6. The Defendant breached its contract with the Plaintiff and the Class in that the taxes were not paid to the City of Chicago, but were held, spent, misappropriated, and/or disbursed by the Defendant on its own behalf. Further, the Defendant breached the contract with the Plaintiff and the Class when, in fact, the Defendant was not assessed or charged said tax by the City of Chicago.
7. Plaintiff and- the Class have paid the Defendant the eight percent (8%) City of Chicago tax which has not been paid to
the City and although often demanded, the Defendant refuses to refund said taxes, plus interest, to the Plaintiff and the Class, all to their damage and detriment.
8. Pursuant to paragraphs 3 and 4 of Exhibit A attached hereto, the Defendant was to charge the Plaintiff and the Class for natural gas actually supplied to said persons and entities on a set per therm cost basis, and in addition thereto, charge the Plaintiff and the class an amount equal to one-half {1/2) of their per therm cost savings per month.
9. in fact, the Defendant did not charge the Plaintiff and
the Class as set forth in paragraph 8 above and, in breach
thereof, excessively overcharged the Plaintiff and the Class
millions of dollars for the purchase of natural gas from the
Defendant, and refuses to refund said overcharges, with interest,
to the Plaintiff and the class, all to their detriment and
damage. .
I0. Defendant's aforesaid conduct is continuing and Defendant's records and documents are voluminous and Plaintiff fears that unless enjoined, Defendant may destroy same. Defendant should account for the Plaintiff’s and the Class' overcharges and eight percent (8%) tax money, with interest, and determine the rights of the parties with respect thereto.

Posted by: Jay Drai | August 29, 2007 at 12:45 PM

Nachshon Draiman, Chicago – nursing home administrator license (044001323) revoked and fined
Illinois Department of Financial and
Professional Regulation NEWS
IDFPR
Disciplinary Actions for January 2008 SPRINGFIELD
The Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (IDFPR)
announced today that the Directors of the Division of Professional Regulation, Daniel E. Bluthardt, and Insurance, Michael T. McRaith, signed the following disciplinary orders in January. Orders for the Division of Banking were authorized by Director Jorge Solis.

NURSING HOME ADMINISTRATOR

Nachshon Draiman, Chicago – nursing home administrator license (044001323)
revoked and fined $2,000 for misrepresenting information in his application concerning postgraduate education degree, to obtain nursing home administrator licensure from the Department.