AFFIDAVIT prepared for the civil and/or criminal courts of Lake County or other appropriate State of Illinois or United

States courthouses as deemed appropriate from findings made post deposition: The undersigned, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: The matter at hand is as follows: On August 5th of 2010 this year I was scheduled to attend a doctor's appointment with Dr. Yoginder Kumar whose office is located at 2504 Washington Street Suite 100 in the Waukegan, IL city limits, in order to attain furthered care for an oral fungal infection. The appointment was scheduled more than two weeks in advance and the doctor's office was informed that I have two types of insurance: Illinois Publicaid Medicaid and Medicare. On the date of the visit I arrived on time, and as I have had numerous issues recieving my replacement (as my wallet was lost/stolen) Medicare card I only had a copy of this months Illinois Public Aid Medicaid insurance card. The receptionist asked for copies of my insurance cards and I gave her the card which I had, and informed her of the situation regarding the replacement Illinois Public Aid Medicaid card. At this point she told me that my Illinois Public Aid Medicaid card was not an accepted insurance and I asked her for what reason she asked for both of my medical cards (because if she was aware that Illinois Medicaid PublicAid pays my premium is the only reason she should even suggest to look at an insurance card her office does not accept, in my opinion). At this statement she became irritable and we exchanged civil words about my appointment regarding whether or not Dr. Yoginder Kumar's office would accept the insurance type (also knowing that I do have --or at least being concretely informed that I have, Medicare as well). She began to tell me that the doctor's office would not accept the Illinois Public Aid Medicaid insurance type, and to this statement I told her that it was fine, I would pay out of pocket (knowing that I could file an insurance claim with both Illinois Health Connect Public Aid Medicaid & Medicare post-date of the appointment). She told me, that as I had shown her my insurance cards, and the doctor's office was informed that I had medical insurance, they could not accept an out-ofpocket monetary payment to which I replied that refusal of United States Tender is an illegal act (to this it should be noted she seemed to be discriminatorily --or Yoginder Kumar's office, refusing me service vs. telling me, "Our office does not accept cash payments & this was never a statement made to me after offering a cash payment versus using my insurance cards). I informed her I would notify the police department, and she told me that she would speak with Doctor Yoginder Kumar about the issue and I relayed that I would wait in the patient lobby.

Her confidant, a worker behind the front desk, returned to tell me that the insurance nor monetary payment would be accepted (at this point it did seem the doctor wanted to refuse services and not prior to niether during the scheduling of the appointment, nor prior to my informing her office that I had only the Illinois Medicaid Public Aid insurance card). I reiterated that the refusal of United States Tender was an illegal action and this second person relegated that she would speak with Dr. Yoginder Kumar and I could wait for an additional period of time. She then returned and asked me if any local hospital might have my information on file and which hospital that might be; to this question I replied, "yes". I informed her that both the Vista Medical Center's East & West would have my insurance information on file and she said she would contact them and requested that I wait further. She addressed me by the name Richard (my Uncles name), to which I informed her my name was Andres. She then told me that the Vista Medical Centers stated that I had not been seen at their facilities since 2007 and as such, they had no record or file pertaining to my insurance information. As a result, the Doctor's office would definately not see me despite my persistence that I would pay out of pocket, in order to recieve a private doctor's consultation and furthered care for the oral fungal infection. I attempted to file a police report regarding the matter with Officer #614 of the Waukegan Police Department who replied that the substance of my intended report was not a crime (he was informed both that I believe the refusal of United States tender to be illegal, and that I was alleging an act of discrimination involving the refusal of medical assistance), and therefore he would not file a report. I insisted that the refusal of United States Tender was a crime, and that a report should be filed regarding the matter if he would be unable to make a report as a criminal pursuit (versus a civil pursuit) regarding discrimination. I did tell Officer #614 that he could look up the statute in order to assure himself that I was correct (regarding the refusal of United States tender as this appeared to be the only leg I had to stand on at that point-in-time, having read the act regarding Federal Reserve notes as the use of tender for public/private debt I resume that I have a strong position of merrit for the fact that the way in which Dr. Yoginder Kumar's office refused the monies was an act of discrimination and a refusal of United States tender, even if the right to reserve one's own discretion in the handling of cash payments is not illegal). On his continued refusal to take the report he became uncivil, making faces and basically laughing me out of the police department. In answer I went to file papers with the courthouse, and attained the proper

paperwork. I did not file the papers immediately, in order to assure I provided an accurate account of the happening I decided to take the affidavit to my home and fill out the paperwork there. I also returned to the police station in order to file a complain against Officer #614. He continued to insist that my complaint was illegitimate and so I requested to speak with his supervisor. He left the room for a few minutes, exchanged words with another officer regarding the issue in a backroom of the police station (I could hear the discussion ongoing as the room is adjoining to the lobby via an exit). The substance of the conversation was a basic reiteration of his position on the matter. He told me, on returning, that no supervisor was available and that the complaint would not be taken. I began to leave the police department as such (deciding that I would simply bring the matter into the courtroom). I saw an officer entereing the premises at that exact time, and asked for his assistance. He asked me the nature of the issue, I gave a brief explanation and he asked me to wait a minute. The officer did not return very promptly, or at all. The desk officer (Officer #614) then said he would take the complaint regarding the matter at the Doctor's office but at this point, having been mocked and laughed from the police station I informed him that I did not want to file a report with him and that I would do so with another officer. He insisted none was available and persisted to attempt to get my side of the story. My response was simple, having had this negative interaction with the officer I did not wish to speak with the officer as I believed it would have been unethical and as such I asked him to stop speaking with me and waited for another officer. Near the time in which I informed the desk officer I did not wish to file a report with him, another officer emerged from the interior of the police station and asked me the situation. I informed him. He insisted that what I described was not a crime. I told him that the police department did not have to take a report regarding my complaint if they did not wish to but that I would like to file a complaint against the desk officer #614. He was hesitant, and attempted to dissuade me from that action. After a few minutes of discussion, he brought me into the back room with 2 other officers in order to have me write out a statement, one of which brought in his two daughters and asked me to move from where the previous officer requested I sit in order to make my statement (if only briefly). I asked him if the complaint was supposed to be made against the officer or the business, he stated the officer. I had to include the information regarding the business in either case,

because otherwise my complaint against the officer would have no real substance. This third officer (fifth if you count not only the gentleman the desk officer initially spoke with and shared a laugh about the nature of my complaint or the gentleman he spoke with behind the aforementioned door adjoining the interior of the police station with the lobby as well as the officer which did not return or the present officer who was taking my statement) read the statement when I had completed writhing it out. He begant to question me regarding the nature of the doctor's visit and I informed him why I included the information in my complaint as well as brought him to speed with what I felt at the time and presently, is a crime. He then said that I didn't mention the refusal of treatment when he asked me in the lobby. I insist that officer asked me nothing regarding the refusal of treatment in the lobby beyond what I described to him as the situation (which was done in relative full as I did intend a measure of discretion in filing my police report & was still in the front lobby of the police station), and he prompted and continued his attempt to dissuade me from filing a complaint against the desk officer #614. The report was taken, and this final officer with whom the matter was addressed to my observable knowledge took the original copy of the complaint and gave me a form to have the complaint signed in front of a notary public; he informed me that the signed copy of this report was to be returned to the police station. I took the paperwork and left the police station. The complaint herein is that the office of Yoginder Kumar; M.D. discriminatorily refused services for an ongoing medical condition which has presented itself as an ongoing health concern to myself. I believe that the cooperation of the Doctor's Office up until they realized I did not have copies of both of my insurance cards and then subsequent refusal to accept out-ofpocket payment with United States currency is evidence of discrimination as they were ready to oblige the appointment not only when it was scheduled over the phone knowing my insurance types but also in person until they realized that I did not have copies of both cards, and upon realizing this fact they did not say they do not accept cash payments but said that my cash payment would be refused because "they had seen my insurance cards" (quotation relative but non-verbatim). Whether their refusal of the Illinois Public Aid Medicaid insurance type has furthered legal implications is something about which I am not knowledgeable but I do believe their refusal of United States tender to be unlawful as such this affidavit exclaims, and criminal. Pertaining Officer #614, I believe his actions also to be discriminatory as well

as unbecoming of a civil servant or peacekeeper and officer of the law. I have no lawful bearing over what consequences should be administered in the matter, I simply believe his actions to be unlawful and most certainly would have preferred that Officer# 614, desk officer of the Waukegan Police Department, would have taken my complaint and filed it appropriately, so that it could be investigated appropriately. The final officer of the law (who took the complaint against officer #614), I believe to have acted unethically as well in attempting to dissuade me from filing a complaint against the desk officer. I also find his action of attempting to remove from the substance of our mutual conversation and add to his efforts toward assisting me by suggesting that not only did I not fully inform either him or the desk officer of the situation, enough that it merrited the attention of executive or judicial branches of the local or other government, unbecoming of an officer of the law. Again I have no legal bearing as to what consequences are appropriately administered in these types of situations. I did approach the matter with a certain amount of discretion but I did not withhold vital portions of my complaint; as the officers conducted themselves as prescribed above(as well as attempt to derail my efforts at explanation enough that I had to numerous times, simply inform him that if the police department did not wish to take the report they did not have to but that I woud like to file the complaint against the desk officer and that that could conclude our "business" together) there was relatively no time to fully disclose details while simultaneously persisting that a report should be filed both regarding the health professional and the desk officer. In short, my time in the police station from beginning to end was spent in conversational exchange with the officers to the effect of trying to convince me of the invalid nature of my complaint until my persistence lead the final policeman to escort me into the back of the police station and at that time present me with the forms for filing a complaint against the desk officer. As a further note, the officer who took my complaint against desk officer #614 removed from my person without supplying a copy (stating that the police department did not just [non-verbatim] take complaints or reports and then provide them to civilians (although he agreed I had a right to a copy of the complaint) the original complaint that should now be on file with the Waukegan Police Department (*a fact that I was assured via a mailing from a ranking officer with that department is true). As mentioned he did provide me with a blank copy of the complaint that I could re-record and bring to a notary public to have signed before a witness. I might add that if the officer wishes to perform a psychological evaluation of my capacity to recall facts as they occur or otherwise assess my behavior or motivations, that he do so in a forward and ethical way by informing me of

his intentions --a fact that he may likely refute in public court but that he and I know to be wholly honest and true. To do so without my knowledge jeopardizes the integrity of whichever legal strategy law enforcement might be attempting to employ. If he's concerned that my literary skills are insufficient either he might read up on technology as well, for instance: http://www.vistax64.com/system-security/282043-explanation-lengthy-startsparagraph-4-a.html (a strange phenomenon that occurred after I forgot to turn off all remote access to my pc by chance). (I suggest that I've had to replace the words in this statement alone numerous times so that I might not sound so "krazy" or incoherent --while it provides for an exaggeration; etc.). These two main allegations are the matters which this affidavit is meant to address. However, it should also be said that this affidavit should not have been pushed so far as to include a complaint against uniformed officers but instead, I might have been permitted to resume my original complaint against a health provider. That being so, it does seem far too coincidental to me that this is the second health provider to refuse me services for this particular ailment. The first being a Dr. Adjay Jain in Cook Co. Illinois, referred by the St. Alexius Medical Center and the second being Dr. Yoginder Kumar's office in Waukegan. The relevant issue did not stop there though. As I went to Vista Health to follow up my care, the original physician set to diagnose me in the hospital (and I specifically requested Dr. Kumar not be permitted to oversee any care given to me given the circumstances), maintained immediately that the "thrush was all cleared up". It is noticeable now, and was on that date that the thrush has not yet subsided. In addition, the prescription for a vaginal yeast infection which I recieved from the Hospital for a candida variety fungal infection, Fluconazole, was prescribed by one doctor on the presciption note, and noted as another doctor on the prescription bottle. While I saw two people at Vista East on Sheridan Rd. The, "Licensed at this hospital" physician that actually explained the candeda variety fungus; etc. to me and noted that he was going to prescribe the medication recieved is no the one who originally saw me (that'd presumably be Amee Patel) or the one who gave me my prescription. While a physician does not have to disclose their identity to me, I do feel that that hospital has also removed from me, my right to choose or at least approve a physician giving me medical treatment (despite who's professional opinion it is that I might see another as was the implication given by the caucasian "licensed physician at Vista [this] hospital". Especially if in employing tactics that seem mighty covert for medical professionals (as I haven't threatened any of my

Doctor's that didn't threaten me, for instance by forcefully administering Haloperidol which has serious side effects both short and long term, despite my right to refusal and refusal in fact, such as the nurses at Northwestern Community Hospital and their goon squad of security guards during a court ordered involuntary admission) I don't see any reason that they shouldn't ethically allow me the relief of knowing who they are, especially if by chance we have had some ill contact in the past and I should wish to terminate treatment with such a professional. Referring again to the variance in names on the hospital discharge papers and the prescription bottle: I have had issues with Walgreens on the corner of Cedar Lake Road and Rollins Road not wanting to fill my prescriptions in a timely fashion before, such that they had said in response to my request to refill an ammonium lactate topical creme for Keratin Pilaris (a skin disorder which I was told is genetic but resembles docile forms of German measles) that they were out of stock, but after harassing some of the local suspects and returning to Walgreens promptly, the lotion was suddenly back in stock. On the date that I picked up the vaginal yeast infection prescription the Asian American pharmacy technician was consistently motioning toward the African American "pharmacy technician" in what I would duly describe as a suspicious way. These portions are absent the original complaint because at the time of that complaint they had not yet occurred in full as I went to Vista after my interaction with the Waukegan Police Department. Secondly it is far too coincidental that while the officer with which I spoke after my persistance which has lead to the actual filing of this complaint seemed to be snooping about my psychological state, as well the Social Security Administration saw it fit to add into my monthly SSI payments an additional sum of money (hundreds of dollars). To this fact, attempting to have that matter resolved proved fruitless after two attempts, and on a third I was met by a gentleman who likewise seemed overly interested in my psychological state to have been a regular clerical employee of the Social Security Administration (to whom I most excitedly refused to speak given his pernicious attitude). These payments did cease after some degradation and harassment by the Social Security Administration such that they extended their efforts to force me to go to their office by refusing to adjust my records via telephone so long as a password remained on them, by not taking off that password after requesting it be removed; etc. I then got in the mail a letter from Social Security suggesting I owed them $18,000+ dollars in back payment which I only owed them $6,000+. I called to rectify this issue with them, and was told that their records indicated the correct amount despite the mailing I had recieved. That these monies were placed directly into my TCF bank account, and funds

were illegitamately removed from that account such that I was consistently placed in a negative dollar amount balance (either by playing switcheroo with pending clearances or doble charging for single purchases) and forced to pay excessive amounts of money to maintain, reopen, or otherwise further use my bank accounts with TCF National. That the behavior of Social Security employees (although less so than --even if it only shows my knowledge of the experience and technical expertise required by law officers...) and likewise the officer of the police department who took my complaint seemed overly interested in my psychological state and maintained an insistance to harass me does not seem coincidental. This information might have been in the original report, unfortunately too much commotion was stirred in the process of officers trying to tell me that I had what occurred either wrong or backwards according to legislation or an inability or outright omission of fact provision, let alone the fact that I now had to go sit in a hospital for an unknown period of time at the time in order to recieve medical attention at this point. While I do not wish to suggest a mind state that is destined to say, "I am being persecuted." The tactics as such are considerable for my complaint, and inconsiderate of governing entities and typical of criminals and power freaks. The relevance of this is clear to me, although it might be held to scrutiny in the courtroom or among relevant bodies associated with the police department. As a final note to this claim, I had suspected that I was in contact with law enforcement via my computer console numerous times in the past and while you may immediately suggest this fact as a delusion (such that I jokingly don't want to sign that portion of the affidavit below that states "I believe this to be wholly honest and true"); my answer to law enforcement was always (at least until I felt pestered enough), to the effect of..."you know the address." When I recieved my 'reminder' letter from the Waukegan Police Department about this affidavit, someone had kindly written my address, 2172, in pen across the face of the envelope despite it being clearly printed in the return address area. Such a comment to the police via my computer as relegated above, was made only two days prior to the reciept of this letter. This would have been in the original complaint, except that it occurred after the original complaint (and don't get me started on my issues with the mail ---newspapers not showing up, I refute the charges, they all appear at my house in a big bundle or the Medicare card which has been requested thrice and not recieved --I'm waiting on that fourth let down). I would like to state, for personal and thing universal reasons among good

hearted people in society, that depriving a person of adequate and timely healthcare for ailments which persist to develop symptoms and cause side effects is terrible. It is criminal, and that is whether it be at the behest of an inexperienced police officer/officers, other official branch, department, bureau, or professionals office. It is unethical and contrary to the hypocratic oath unless you have either a sadistic form of dyslexia or are a radical. It is not remedial for the physical symptom or the mental health state of the person or persons involved, students would know better, if in fact they took their ambitions in a field such as criminal justice or medicine seriously and didn't wish to simply be educated thugs. I've already stated my peace about the police department in this matter and regret having to do so as much as despise being refused adequate healthcare promptly. Any information regarding details of events outside the complaint against officer #614 or Yoginder Kumars office (as I have attempted to contact the FBI and local Lake County officials regarding the matter before, for a number of years, only to be told [and this quote is verbatim from more than one official on more than one occassion] "We don't investigate that.") may be inquired personally. I don't mean to get beside myself when saying that managing to get one letter to my house that isn't fececious (as is owing the SSA $18,000 w/o the rightful adjudication of fines), means to me that you can get another one here, or manage a knock on the door. My apologies for the forthright nature of this affidavit, but I need to brush my tongue. Under penalties as provided by law pursuant to Section 1-109 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the undersigned certified that the statement set forth in this document is true and correct, except as to matters therein stated to be on information and belief, and as to such matters, the undersigned certifies as stated that the undersigned verily believes them to be true. Signed:

2172 Prairie Trail Round Lake Heights, IL 60073 (a.k.a the tinderbox or fire house, right down the road from Warrior Street; take that left after the westside of Rollins stop sign)

Signed & Sworn to Before (print name of the notary public):

on this day:

of the year:

at the Notary Public's place of business, street address listed below:

in the municipality of (city/village;etc):

in the county of:

in the state of: (Signature of the Notary Public):

postal ZIP-code:

_______________________________________ my commission ends: _______________________________________

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful