05-3473

LUPCO STERIEV
(PLAINTIFF)
VS.
WILBUR WRIGHT/CCC/WAYNE WATSON/CHARLES GUENGERICH
(PATHETIC DEFENDANTS)
 
                        MOTION TO RECONSIDER TO REOPEN THE CASE

        The Plaintiff has received an order from 3 judges on May 18th 2006.
This motion is an appeal from the May 17th Order.
Unfortunately Appellee's Motion has been allowed, HERE ARE MANY REASONS
WHY THE COURT SHOULD RECONSIDER... AND GRANT PLAINTIFF HIS RIGHTFUL RIGHTS:

1. It's a great injustice and travesty of the law,
even during the lower court hearing, Judge Patrick McGann asked the
Defendents..."Where will he go to, since your college has lowest rates
and since he lives in Chicago and very close to you?"
That means, Chicago Public Colleges (see my file, my brief and motions
from the past, I expressed everything in detail, every minor detail) 
have lowest price.

2. THE PLAINTIFF IS TAX PAYER OF THE COOK COUNTY, THEREFORE HE MUST
BE ALLOWED BACK TO HIS COLLEGE AND GET CORRECT GRADES.

3. The Motion to reconsider and allow the Plaintiff to go on with the case
is a must and according to the law, with legal interests allowed by
the law to the Plaintiff. THE PLAINTIFF NEEDS TO CONTINUE HIS EDUCATION
SOMEWHERE, IT IS HIS RIGHT AS A RESIDENT OF CHICAGO AND COOK COUNTY
TO BE ALLOWED TO TAKE AT LEAST SOME COLLEGE COURSES AT CCC.

4. A great harm will come and it's already happening to the Plaintiff.
The Defendants used fuzzy logic to get their points across, citing bunch 
of laws which have nothing to do with this! (Check Plaintiff's Motion Reply)

5. ON APRIL 7th THE JUDGES ALREADY RULED (CHECK THE COMPUTER FOR RECORDS,
IT'S THERE) THAT THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE CASE HAS NOT BEEN ALLOWED.

6. THE PLAINTIFF FILED MOTION BY DEFAULT, THE JUDGES SHOULD GRANT
THE PLAINTIFF THE COMPLETE VICTORY IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THE DEFENDANTS
DID NOT REPLY WITH A REPLY BRIEF ON TIME, THEY ONLY FILED BUNCH OF MOTIONS AND
THE COURT EVEN ALLOWED TIME EXTENSION.

7. THE PLAINTIFF HAS NO OTHER COLLEGES OR UNIVERSITY TO GO TO
(especially those he can presently afford)
                                                                
8. The Plaintiff is a PRO SE, the court must also take that into consideration,
account and spend more time on certain issues.

9. The Defendants did not notify the Plaintiff that they have a new lawyer
representing them. (see reply to the motion).

10. The Defendants never gave the Plaintiff a chance nor the application
to reapply to college, clearly against their rules, that information
has been filed and evidence is there. Feb 24 2006 file shows the exhibits
and explains the manual. The manual of rules could also be found on www.ccc.edu

11. There were judges changes, as mentioned. Patrick McGann was replaced
by James Henry who was not affiliated or familiar with this case at all.
It would have been futile to file any motion. There was a motion to
be heard on October 25th 2005, but CCC's attorney did not show up.

12. Lupco Jan Steriev was never allowed to be heard by WILBUR WRIGHT/CCC, he was never heard
on his grade change procedure, and HE WAS NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO CHECK, INSPECT
HIS RECORDS. THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT ALLOW THE PLAINTIFF TO CHECK ON HIS
RECORDS AND THEY DID NOT KEEP HIS RECORD PRIVATE, WHICH IS A VIOLATION
AGAINST PRIVACY ACT AND FERPA RULES AND GUIDELINES ESTABLISHED BY CONGRESS
AND U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. The FERPA POLICY MANUAL CLEARLY STATES:
(and this has been mentioned in Plaintiff's file from 2 24 2006)
(This law is 1974 & 2006 FERPA law, still valid)
  " IF UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS POLICY A STUDENT HAS REQUESTED ACCESS TO THE
REC0RD HE MUST BE ALLOWED, NO DESTRUCTION OF THE RECORD SHALL BE MADE BEFORE
ACCESS HAS BEEN GRANTED TO THE STUDENT. PERSON IN CHARGE OF RECORDS SHOULD
ENSURE THAT ONLY PERTINENT ITEMS ARE RETAINED IN A STUDENT FILES. "
STUDENT HAS THE RIGHT TO MEET & DISCUSS HIS/HER PROBLEMS
WITH SCHOOL'S PRESIDENT & TOP EXECUTIVES OF THAT SCHOOL BUT
NOTHING EVER HAPPENED, MY CALLS & MESSAGES TO CCC HAVE ALWAYS BEEN 
IGNORED 102%!!! I WAS TREATED BY CCC/WILBUR WRIGHT STAFF & TEACHERS AS ABSOLUTE HUMAN REFUSE!!! :(

13. THIS CASE DEALS WITH MANY MORE SUBJECTS... 1. GRADES. 2. TRANSCRIPT
3. STUDENT RECORD, 4. BEING ALLOWED BACK TO SCHOOL, 5. TRUTH AND JUSTICE
AND THE COURT CAN NOT REJECT ALL OF THESE THINGS SIMPLY ON TECHNICALITY.

        Wherefore and therefore the Plaintiff asks that this Appeals
court grants Plaintiff his demands which are rightful in accordance with 
the law (as many others were allowed under present circumstances) and
allows Plaintiff's case to live and continue to live and to legally go on.
It is the only way to serve and uphold justice.
                                Respectfully Submitted:


                                Lupco Steriev
                                5/18/2006

 
8.8.08

Dear Ms. Foster Patricia, today we spoke for 7 minutes.
I Lupco Steriev am requesting copy of my transcript.
I am including my essential attachments which I want you to put towards
your permanent records with my grades, original you keep with transcript, 
make copy and attach to my official transcript. 
These papers must be on permanent ccc/w. wright records
per ferpa rules, I am including attachment on legality as well!

Sincerely/Seriously
Lupco Steriev