‘Atty No. 26828 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION IN RE: MARRIAGE OF ) ) JESSE JACKSON, JR., ) ) Petitioner, ) ) No: 16D 6506 and ) ) SANDRA JACKSON, ) ) Respondent. ) REPLY IN SUPPORT OF OBJECTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS ACTION FOR DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE DUE TO LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION ANI LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION NOW COMES the Respondent, SANDRA JACKSON (“Sandra”), by and through her counsel, SCHILLER DU CANTO & ELECK LLP, and for her Reply in Support of Objection and Motion to Dismiss Action for Dissolution of Marriage Due to Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, states as follows: REPLY IN SUPPORT OF OVERVIEW 1. Sandra denies the affirmative allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of the Petitioner's, JESSE JACKSON JR. (“Jesse”), Response to Objection and Motion to Dismiss Action for Dissolution of Marriage Due to Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (“Response”) that as of the time of the filing of Jesse’s Response, Sandra had been personally served with both a Praecipe for Summons and a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage. Sandra affirmatively states that she was not served in Illinois with a Praccipe for Summons or a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage. Sandra denies that she submitted to the jurisdiction of Illinois pursuant to Section 5/209- (@)() of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure by committing numerous acts which gave “tise to 1 2281681the cause of action” while present in Iinois and denies that any such acts led to the imetrievable breakdown of the parties’ marriage. Sandra denies that pursuant to Section 2-209(a)(5) of the Code, this Court has personal jurisdiction over her. Sancira states that the case law and statutes cited in Paragraph I of Jesse's Response speak for themselves and denies any characterization inconsistent therewith. Sandra lacks personal knowledge sufficient to either admit or deny the allegations that despite a period of temporary period of physical absence from the state due to his incarceration, Jesse has always considered Illinois to be his permanent residence and therefore denies same and demands strict proof thereof. Sandra denies that Jesse’s residency is evidenced by his historic and continuing connections to Illinois, including, but not limited to the following: i) Sandra admits that Jesse graduated from the University of Illinois College of Law but denies that Jesse has lived in Illinois since childhood, Sandra affirmatively states that Jesse has resided outside of Mlinois for middle school, high school, college, and professionally following his graduation from law school. ii) Sandra lacks personal knowledge sufficient to either admit or deny whether Jesse is a prominent and well-known figure in Ilinois politics and therefore denies same and demands strict proof thereof, iii) Sandra admits that Jesse was a United States Congressman for the Second Congressional Distriet of Ilinois from 1995 until his resignation from office. iv) Sandra admits that Jesse maintains property in Illinois, including but not limited to the residence located at 2559 E 72nd Street in Chicago, Illinois, and personal property, Sandra denies that the residence located at 2559 E 72nd Street in Chicago, Ilinois constitutes the marital residence. Sandra denies that she 2281681maintains property in Illinois. Sandra lacks personal knowledge suficient to either admit or deny the allegation that Jesse maintains a car in Ilinois and therefore denies same, v) Sandra admits that Jesse has family who reside in linois, including his father. Sandra denies that Jesse's father is elderly, Sandra affirmatively states that Jesse’s father also resides in Washington, D.C. vi) Sandra lacks personal knowledge sufficient to either admit or deny the allegations that Jesse is registered to vote in Chicago and voted in Chicago during the last presidential election and therefore denies same and demands strict proof thereof. Sandra affirmatively states that Jesse is registered to vote in Washington, D.C, where he was registered during the last presidential election. vii) Sandra denies that Jesse receives his monthly bills at the residence in Chicago, Illinois and further denies that said residence is the marital residence. viii) Sandra lacks personal knowledge sufficient to either admit or deny the allegation that Jesse has an Ilinois driver’s license and therefore denies same, ix) Sandra denies the allegations that she and Jesse signed a pre-marital agreement which contained a provision stating that the laws of Illinois would govern any potential litigation relative to the agreement, Sandra lacks personal knowledge sufficient to either admit or deny the allegations that Jesse is a resident of Illinois whose presence will have been maintained for ninety days as of the time of entry of 2 Judgment and therefore denies same. Sandra denies that Jesse was a resident of Illinois whose presence had been maintained for ninety days preceding this action. Sandra 2281681denies that in light of Jesse's residency, Section 401(a) of the IMDMA confers this Court with jurisdiction over these proceedings regardless of Sandra’s own residency status. 2, Sandra denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of Jesse's Response that the children have resided in Mlinois since their birth, Sandra restates and realleges her reply to Paragraph One above as if set forth verbatim herein, 3, Sandra admits the affirmative allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of Jesse’s Response that her Complaint for Legal Separation, Absolute Divorce, Child Custody, Child Support, Alimony, Suit Money, and Other Relief (‘Complaint’) was filed in Washington, D.C. on November 3, 2016. Sandra denies that her Complaint represents an attempt to escape the jurisdiction of the Illinois courts in this matter, Sandra affirmatively states that she filed her Complaint in Washington, D.C, because Washington, D.C, has jurisdiction over this matter and the parties, Sandra’s Complaint in Washington, D.C. was filed and served on Jesse before Jesse filed his Petition for Dissolution of Marriage in this matter. Reply in Support of Factual Background: 4, Sandra admits the affirmative allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of Jesse's Response that the parties’ marriage took place and is registered in Chicago, Ilinois. 5, Paragraph 5 of Jesse’s Response contains no affirmative allegations requiring a reply. 6, Sandra denies the affirmative allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of Jesse's Response that the marital residence is located in Chicago, Illinois. 7. Paragraph 7 of Jesse’s Response contains no affirmative allegations requiring a reply. 22816818. Paragraph 8 of Jesse's Response contains no affirmative allegations requiring a reply. 9, Sandra lacks personal knowledge sufficient to either admit or deny the affirmative allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of Jesse’s Response that Jesse currently resides in Chicago, IMinois at 2559 E. 72nd Street, Chicago, Illinois and therefore denies same. Sandra denies that said residence is the marital residence. Sandra denies that the parties’ Washington, D.C. residence is a secondary residence and hhas never been Jesse's permanent residence, Sandra affirmatively states that Jesse resided in the Washington, D.C. residence while Sandra was incarcerated from on or about October 2015 through September 2016. Jesse’s intent to make Washington, D.C. his permanent residence is further evidenced by the fact that on or about 2013 he relinquished his Illinois driver’s license and obtained a Washington, D.C. driver's license. On or about March of 2015, Jesse registered to vote in Washington, D.C. Sandra denies that the parties initially utilized the Washington, D.C. residence to facilitate Jesse's career as a United States Congressman representing the Second Congressional District of Ilinois. Sandra admits that during this time, the parties divided their time between the Washington, D.C, home and the Chicago residence for a number of years. Sandra admits that during this time she lived in the Chicago residence approximately 3 days per week and Jesse lived there 2-3 times per week. Sanclra denies that she resided in the Chicago residence 4 days per week. Sandra admits that she resided in the Chicago residence in order to facilitate her job as an alderman for Chicago's 7th Ward and as the 7th Ward’s committee member for the Democratic National Committee. Sandra denies that the Chicago residence constitutes the marital residence. Sandra affirmatively states that the time period referenced in this paragraph 2281681above ended by early 2013 when both she and Jesse had resigned from office. Commencing on or about 2013 Sandra has been a resident of Washington, D.C., where she resided with the exception of the time she spent incarcerated in Alderson, West Virginia from on or about October 2015 through September 2016. The children have resided in Washington, D.C. since birth. Sandra denies that beginning in 2013 the parties utilized the Washington, D.C. residence to a greater extent to facilitate visitation between the parties and their children while Jesse and Sandra served their respective prison sentences, Sandra affirmatively states that she chose to reside in the Washington, D.C. residence where her children always resided and where she intended to permanently reside, Sandra lacks personal knowledge sufficient to either admit or deny the allegations that the Washington, D.C. residence was never intended to be Jesse's permanent domicile as it was always his intent to return to Illinois and therefore denies same. Sandra admits that following a plea agreement reached in February, 2013, Jesse involuntarily resided in a Federal Department of Corrections complex located in North Carolina, a separate complex in Alabama, and a halfway house in Baltimore for a period totaling 23 months ending August 2015. Sandra denies that she began her own prison sentence on or about September 2015 and affirmatively states that she began her prison sentence on or about October 2015. Sandra admits that the parties agreed that Jesse would remain at the parties’ Washington, D.C. home after Sandra began her incarceration, Sandra denies that the sole reason was to facilitate visitation between her and the parties’ children. Sandra lacks personal knowledge sufficient to either admit or deny the allegations that on or about September 2016 following Sandra's release from prison Jesse returned to Illinois and has resided at the Chicago residence since that time and 2281681therefore denies same, Sandra denies thal the Chicago residence constitutes the marital residence, 10, Sandra denies the affirmative allegations contained in Paragraph 10 of Jesse's Response that Sandra's decision to reside in Washington, D.C. beginning in 2013 was made solely to allow the parties to remain closer to each other while Jesse was in prison. Sandra affirmatively states that she chose to reside in the Washington, D.C. residence where her children always resided and where she intended to permanently reside. 11, Sandra lacks personal knowledge sufficient to either admit or deny the affirmative allegations contained in Paragraph 11 of Jesse’s Response that Jesse is curently registered to vote in Chicago, Illinois and that he cast his vote in Chicago during the 2016 presidential clection and therefore denies same. 12, Paragraph 12 of Jesse’s Response contains no affirmative allegations requiring a reply. 13. Paragraph 13 of Jesse’s Response contains no affirmative allegations requiring a reply. 14, Paragraph 14 of Jesse’s Response contains no affirmative allegations requiring a reply. 15, Sandra denies the affirmative allegations contained in Paragraph 15 of Jesse's Response that the marital residence is in Chicago, Illinois. Sandra denies that the parties’ ‘Washington, D.C, home is, and always has been, a secondaty residence used to facilitate Jesse's congressional responsibilities and, subsequently, visitation between the parties and their children during each party’s period of incarceration, 228168116, Sandra lacks personal knowledge sufficient to either admit or deny the affirmative allegations contained in Paragraph 16 of Jesso’s Response that Jesse’s primary sources of income are from Social Security and the Department of Labor/ Workers Compensation, neither of which are taxable, and therefore denies same. Sandra lacks personal knowledge sufficient to either admit or deny the allegations that in 2015 there was no income eamed by Jesse in Illinois which would require him to pay Illinois state taxes and therefore denies same, Sandra admits that Jesse paid the real estate taxes for the Chicago residence in Ilinois but denies that said residence constitutes the marital residence. Sandra affirmatively states that Jesse also paid the real estate taxes for the Washington, D.C. residence and Washington, D.C. condo, Sandra further affirmatively states that if Illinois were the parties’ state of residence in 2015, they would have been required to file an Ilinois \come tax return, However, they filed a Washington, D.C. return because they resided in Washington, D.C. Sandra lacks personal knowledge sufficient to either admit or deny the allegations that the primary reason Jesse was not living in Illinois in 2015 was because he was imprisoned for the majority of the year and that following his release from prison, in accordance with the parties’ plea agreement, Sandra began her own prison term and therefore denies same, Sandra denies that the primary reason Jesse was not paying Illinois taxes in 2015 was because he was imprisoned, Sandra denies that Jesse was required to stay in Washington, D.C. in order to take care of the parties’ children and facilitate visitation between the children and Sandra. Sandra lacks personal knowledge sufficient to either admit or deny the allegation that it was always Jesse’s intent to return to Illinois following the completion of Sandra’s prison sentence and therefore denies same, Sandra denies that Jesse was and is a resident of Illinois. 2281681Sandra affirmatively states that she and Jesse had many conversations regarding their intent to reside in Washington, D.C. following their resignations from office, In 2013, Sandi and Jesse both obtained driver’s licenses in Washington, D.C., showing their intent to permanently reside in Washington, D.C. Sandi and Jesse’s conversations regarding their intent to reside in Washington, D.C. continued throughout 2015 and 2016 prior to Jesse filing his Praeeipe for Summons in this case. 17. Sandra lacks personal knowledge sufficient to either admit or deny the affirmative allegations contained in Paragraph 17 of Jesse’s Response that at the end of 2016, pursuant to the recommendations of his parole officer, and with the permission of the United States Department of Probation for the Northern District of Illinois, his probation will be transferred to and supervised by the relevant branch of the federal government in Illinois and therefore denies same, Sandra denies that Dan Webb who is located in Chicago, Illinois is her defense attorney. 18. Sandra lacks personal knowledge sufficient to either admit or deny the affirmative allegations contained in Paragraph 18 of Jesse’s Response that Jesse conducts his online banking and writes checks from his account while residing in Chicago and therefore denies same, Sandra affirmatively states that Jesse’s primary bank is located in Washington, D.C. 19. Sandra denies the affirmative allegations contained in Paragraph 19 of Jesse's Response that he currently receives all his bills at the Chicago residence in Illinois, Sandra denies that the Chicago residence constitutes a marital residence. Sandra affirmatively states that the Chicago water bill is still directed to the Washington, D.C. residence. Reply in Support of Procedural History: 20, Sandra admits the affirmative allegations contained in Paragraph 20 of Jesse’s Response that on December 12, 2016 he filed a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage. Sandra 228i6s1denies that she was personally served with the Petition on December 12, 2016 and further denies that such service was in a manner as required by Ilinois law as Ilinois lacks personal jurisdiction over Sandra, 21. Paragraph 21 of Jesse’s Response contains no affirmative allegations requiring a reply. 22, Paragraph 22 of Jesse’s Response contains no affirmative allegations requiring a reply. 23, Paragraph 23 of Jesse’s Response contains no affirmative allegations requiring a reply. 24. Paragraph 24 of Jesse’s Response contains no affirmative allegations requiring a reply. 25. Paragraph 25 of Jesse’s Response contains no affirmative allegations requiring a reply. COUNT REPLY IN SUPPORT OF OBJECTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS ACTION FOR DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE DUE TO LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION 26. Sandra restates and realleges her replies to Paragraphs 1-25 as and for Paragraph 26 herein, 27. Sandra denies the affirmative allegations contained in Paragraph 27 of Jesse’s Response that both Sections 209(a)(5) of the Code and Section 401(a) of the IMDMA confer upon this Court jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. Sandra restates and realleges Paragraphs | and 2 of this reply as if set forth verbatim herein, 28. Paragraph 28 of Jesse’s Response contains no affirmative allegations requiring a reply. 10 228168!29. Paragraph 29 of Jesse’s Response contains no affirmative allegations requiring a reply, 30, Sandra denies the affirmative allegations contained in Paragraph 30 of Jesse's Response that she committed acts in Illinois which gave rise to this matter or that because of such acts she has submitted to the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to Section 2-209(2)(5) of the Code. Sandra denies that personal jurisdiction over her has already been established. Sandra denies that Jesse is, and always has been, a resident of Illinois, Sandra denies that this Court has jurisdietion to grant a Judgment for Dissolution of Marriage pursuant to Section 401(@) of the IMDMA. Sandra denies that her assertion that this Court lacks jurisdiction in this matter is without merit and further denies that said assertion is wholly conclusory. Sandra restates and realleges Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this reply as if set forth verbatim herein, 31. Sandra denies the affirmative allegations contained in Paragraph 31 of Jesse's Response that Sawant is wholly inapplicable here, Sandra states that RW. Sawant & Co. ». Alllied Programs Corp. speaks for itself and denies any characterization inconsistent therewith. As stated in Sandra’s Objection and Motion to Dismiss Action for Dissolution of Marriage Due to Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Lack of Subject Matter Juris ction (“Objection and Motion to Dismiss”), Sawant is cited solely for the proposition that “the burden of proving a valid basis for the assertion of jurisdiction over @ nonresident defendant rests with the party secking to impose jurisdiction.” RW. Sawant & Co, v, Allied Programs Corp., 111 Il1.2d 304, 310 (1986). Said proposition is applicable to the instant case. Jesse’s recitation of the facts of said case is a mere red herring intended to distract from his burden of proof in this case with respect to the jurisdictional issues, which burden he has failed to meet. Sandra denies that she submitted to the jurisdiction of Illinois Courts pursuant to Section i 22816812-209(a)(5) and further denies that she engaged in numerous acts in Illinois with individuals located in Illinois which would subject her to the jurisdiction of Illinois Courts pursuant to Section 2-209(a)(5), Sandra denies that the acts which led to the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage were committed by Sandra in Illinois and further denies that personal jurisdiction is proper. Sandra denies that Jesse is an Illinois resident and further denies that Section 401(a) of the IMDMA confers this Court with jurisdiction, Sandra states that Section 2-209(a)(5) of the Code speaks for itself and denies any characterization inconsistent therewith. Sandra states that Section 401(a) of the IMDMA speaks for itself and denies any characterization inconsistent therewith 32. Sandra denies the affirmative allegations contained in Paragraph 32 of Jesse’s Response that this Court has jurisdiction over this ease pursuant to both Section 2-209(a)(S) of the Code and Section 401 (a) of the IMDMA. 33. Paragraph 33 of Jesse’s Response contains no affirmative allegations requiring a reply. 34, Sandra denies the affirmative allegations contained in Paragraph 34 of Jesse’s Response that Hartson is inapplicable to this case. Sandra states that Hanson speaks for itself and denies any characterization inconsistent therewith. As stated in Sandra's Objection and Motion to Dismiss, Hanson is cited solely for the proposition that “in determining whether an linois court may assert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant, Ilinois courts employ a two-prong analysis to evaluate whether the facts of the case meet the requirements for (1) personal jurisdiction under the Ilinois long arm statute and (2) due process under both the United States and Illinois Constitution.” Hanson v. Ahmed, 382 IllApp.3d 941, 943 (Ist Dist. 2008). Said proposition is applicable to the instant case. Jesse's recitation of the facts of said 12 281681case is a mere red herring intended to distract from the legal requirements to prove this Court has personal jurisdiction over Sandra in this case, which requirements are not met Sandra denies that she has extensive contacts with Illinois or that any such contacts are sufficient to confer jurisdiction over her person. Sandra denies that Jesse has “extensive contacts” with Illinois based on the vague and unsubstantiated nature of the statement. Sandra personal knowledge sufficient to either admit or deny the allegations that Jesse has numerous historical and current contacts in Illinois and therefore denies same. Sandra denies that Jesse's contacts with Illinois are relevant to the issue of this Court’s jurisdiction over Sandra’s person or subject matter jurisdiction over this action, Sandra denies that she has strong connections to and contacts with Illinois sufficient 10 confer this Court with jurisdiction over her person, Sandra lacks personal knowledge sufficient to either admit or deny the allegation that she has an interest in various property located in Ilinois, other than by virtue of it constituting marital property, and therefore denies same, Sandra admits that she served as an alderman for Chicago’s 7th Ward in Chicago, served as a Democratic Central Committee Member for the 7th Ward in Chicago, served as a political consultant via her solely owned consulting firm J. Donatella & Associates, and served as a campaign manager and political strategist for numerous Illinois politicians, Sandra affirmatively states that her consulting firm, J. Donatella & Associates is based in Washington, D.C. Sandra's service as an alderman for Chicago’s 7th Ward ended on or about January of 2013 when she resigned and her other connections to Ilinois as stated herein ended prior to this time and as such do not constitute a basis to confer this Court with jurisdiction over her person as this cause of action did not arise from any of said connections, Sandra denies that she has sufficient minimum contacts with Ilinois to comport with due process. 228168135, Sandra states that Section 411 of the IMDMA speaks for itself and denies any characterization inconsistent therewith, 36. Sandra denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 36 of Jesse’s Response that het Objection and Motion to Dismiss fails to cite Section 5/2-209(a) of the Code. Sandra affirmatively states that said Section is cited in Paragraph 45 of her Objection and Motion to Dismiss. Sandra states that Section 5/2-209(a) of the Code speaks for itself and denies any characterization inconsistent therewith Sandra denies that she engaged in acts which directly gave rise to the instant cause of action for divorce and denies that she thereby submitted to the jurisdiction of Ilinois pursuant to Section 5/2-209(a)(5) of the Code. Sandra denies that she submitted to Illinois’ jurisdiction by her acts and further denies that Jesse is not required to demonstrate the applicability of Section 2- 209(b) of the Code to this case, 37, Sandra denies the affirmative allegations contained in Paragraph 37 of Jesse's Response that Sandra has already submitted to the jurisdiction of Illinois pursuant to Section 2- 209(a)(5) of the Code and further denies that in light thereof Jesse is not required to demonstrate that Sandra was served with Summons while present in Illinois. 38. Sandra states that Section 411 of the IMDMA speaks for itself and denies any characterization inconsistent therewith, Sandra denies that she has already submitted to the jurisdiction of Illinois pursuant to Section 2-209(a)(5) of the Code and further denies that in light thereof Jesse is not required to demonstrate that Sandra was residing or domiciled in Illinois. 39, Sandra denies the affirmative allegations contained in Paragraph 39 of Jesse’s Response that regardless of whether Sandra resided in Ilinois at the time she was served the Summons both Section 209(a}(5) of the Code and Section 401(a) of the [MDMA confer this 4 2281681Court with jurisdiction, 40. Sandra denies the affirmative allegations contained in Paragraph 40 of Jesse’s Response that Garrison supports Jesse’s position that Illinois may properly assert jurisdiction cover the parties and the subject matter of this case, Sandra states that Garrison speaks for itself and denies any characterization inconsistent therewith, As stated in Sandra’s Objection and Motion to Dismiss, Garrison is cited for the definition of residence. Jesse’s recitation of the {acts of said case is a mere red herring intended to distract from his burden of proof in this case with respect to the jurisdictional issues, which burden he has failed to meet, Sandra affirmatively states that whether or not this Court determines that Jesse is a resident of Illinois is invelevant to the issue of whether this court has jurisdiction over Sandra's person. Jesse's Response seeks to conflate the issues of subject matter and personal jurisdiction as a means to distract from his failure to meet his burden of proving that this Court has jurisdiction over Sendra’s person, Sandra denies that she committed acts in Ilinois that “give rise to” the instant cause of action, Sancta states that Jn re Adoption of S.S. speaks for itself and denies any characterization inconsistent therewith. Sandra denies that Section 401(a) of the IMDMA and Section 2- 209(a)(5) of the Code both confer jurisdiction to Illinois over the parties and the subject matter in this case. 41, Sandra denies the affirmative allegations contained in Paragraph 41 of Jesse's Response that regardless of whether Sandra is a resident of Washington, D.C. Section 2- 209(a)(5) of the Code and Section 401 (a) of the IMDMA confer this Court with jurisdiction. 42, Sandra states that Section 411 of the IMDMA speaks for itself and denies any characterization inconsistent therewith. Sandra denies that she has already submitted to the 1s 2281681jurisdiction of Illinois pursuant to Section 2-209(a)(5) of the Code and further denies that in light thereof Jesse is not required to demonstrate that Sandra is doing business in Illinois. 43, Paragraph 43 of Jesse’s Response contains no affirmative allegations requiring a reply. 44, Sandra states that Section 411 of the IMDMA speaks for itself and denies any characterization inconsistent therewith. Sandra denies that she has submitted to Illinois jurisdiction pursuant to Section 2-209(a)(5) of the Code by engaging in acts which gave rise to the current action, 45. Paragraph 45 of Jesse’s Response contains no affirmative allegations requiring a reply. 46. Sandra states that Section 411 of the IMDMA speaks for itself and denies any characterization inconsistent therewith, Sandra denies that she has committed acts which gave rise to the instant cause of action while in Hlinois. Sandra denies that Jesse is # resident of linois. Sandra denies that acts which gave tise to the instant cause of action were committed in linois and futher denies that because of same this Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter in this case. 47. Sandra denies the affirmative allegations contained in Paragraph 47 of Jesse’s Response that Sandra’s presence in Washington, D.C. from 2013 to present resulted from her and Jesse’s respective prison sentences, and was therefore involuntary, Sandra denies that as set forth in Paragraph One of Jesse’s Response that Sandra could not have acquired residency in Washington, D.C. during that time period. Sandra denies that Section 2-209(a)(5) of the Code and Section 401(2) of the IMDMA confer Illinois with jurisdiction over this case even if this Court determines that Sandra is a resident of Washington, D.C. 16 2281681Sandra affirmatively states that she chose to reside in the Washington, D.C. residence where her children always resided and where she intended to permanently reside, 48. Sandra denies the affirmative allegations contained in Paragraph 48 of Jesse's Response that she committed acts which gave rise to the instant action while in Illinois and further denies that she submitted herself to the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to Section 2- 209(a)(5) of the Code. 49. Sandra denies the affirmative allegations contained in Paragraph 49 of Jesse's Response that personal jurisdiction over Sandra is established pursuant to Section 2-209(a)(5) of the Code, Sandra further denies that Section 401(a) of the IMDMA also affords this Court jurisdiction over this case for purposes of issuing a Judgment, Sandra restates and realleges Paragraphs 1 and 2 of her Reply as if set forth verbatim herein, 50. Sandra denies the affirmative allegations contained in Paragraph 50 of Jesse's Response that the cases cited by Sandra are inapplicable to this case with respect to the propositions for which the cases were cited in Sandra’s Objection and Motion to Dismiss. Sandra denies that the cases support Jesse’s position that [linois has jurisdiction over this matter. 51. Paragraph 51 of Jesse’s Response contains no affirmative allegations requiting a reply. 52. Sandra admits only that a copy of Jesse’s Affidavit is attached to his Response as Exhibit A. To the extent that allegations are set forth in Jesse’s Affidavit that are not set forth in his Response, said allegations are denied. WHEREFORE, the Respondent, SANDRA JACKSON, prays for the following relief, instanter 22816A. — That this Court enter an order dismissing this action due to lack of personal Jurisdiction; and B, For such other and further relief as this Court shall deem equitable and just. COUNT, REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS ACTION FOR DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE DUE TO LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO 738 ILCS 5/2-619 53, Sandra restates and realleges her replies to Paragraphs 1-52 as and for Paragraph 53 herein, 54, Paragraph 54 of Jesse’s Response contains no affirmative allegations requiring a reply 55. Paragraph 55 of Jesse’s Response contains no affirmative allegations requiring a reply. Reply in Support of Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under the IMDMA 56. Paragraph 56 of Jesse’s Response contains no affirmative allegations requiring a reply. 57. Paragraph 57 of Jesse’s Response contains no affirmative allegations requiring a reply. 58. Sandra lacks personal knowledge sufficient to either admit or deny the affirmative allegations contained in Paragraph 58 of Jesse's Response that despite a period of temporary absence from Illinois due to the parties’ imprisonment, Jesse always considered Illinois his permanent residence and always intended to return to the state and therefore denies same, Sandra denies that Jesse was a resident of Illinois at the time that his Praecipe for Summons was filed and denies that Jesse continues to be a resident of Illinois today. 18 228168159, Sandra restates and realleges her reply to Paragraph 16 as if set forth verbatim herein. Sandra states that the case law cited in Paragraph 59 of Jesse’s Response speaks for itself and denies any characterization inconsistent therewith, Sandra denies that neither Jesse’s 2015 tax return nor his Financial Affidavit are dispositive with respect to his residency for purposes of this action. Sandra denies that the only possible issue pertaining to residence is whether Jesse considered Illinois his permanent residence despite a period of temporary absence. Sandra admits that Jesse was required to temporarily relocate to North Carolina, Alabama and Baltimore in order fo complete his federally mandated incarceration. Sandra lacks personal knowledge sufficient to either admit or deny the allegation that it was always Jesse’s intent to return to Illinois and therefore denies same, Sandra admits that as part of the parties’ plea agreement with the federal government, Sandra was allowed to delay her prison sentence until after Jesse completed his in order to allow at least one parent to remain with the children, Sandra denies that beginning in 2013 the parties agreed that they would temporarily reside in their ‘Washington, D.C. residence in order to facilitate travel and communication for the family while the parties served out their respective sentences. Sandra affirmatively states that she chose to reside in the Washington, D.C. residence where her children always resided and where she intended to permanently reside, Washington, D.C. is also where Sandra’s mother and many of ‘ional contacts reside. her friends and profe: Sandra lacks personal knowledge sufficient to either admit or deny the allegations that the primary reason that Jesse continued to reside in Washington, D.C. following the completion of his prison term was to fulfill that obligation and therefore denies same. 19 2281681Sandra lacks personal knowledge sufficient to either admit or deny the allegations that Jesse has always considered Illinois his “permanent residence” as evidenced by his strong historical and continuing connection to the state as set forth in Paragraph One of his Response and therefore denies same. Sandra denies that Jesse is a resident of Illinois. Sandra lacks personal knowledge sufficient to either admit or deny the allegation that Jesse will have been physically present within the state for 90 days as of the entry of the Judgment and therefore denies same. Sandra denies that Jesse was a resident of Tlinois at the time this action commenced, Sandra denies that this Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to Section 401(2) of the IMDMA. 60. Sandra denies the affirmative allegations contained in Paragraph 60 of Jesse’s Response that Sandra's position is hypocritical, Sandra admits that it is her position that Jesse’s period of absence from Illinois stripped him of his residency as he became a residence of Washington, D.C. during this time, Likewise, Sandra became a resident of Washington, D.C, during her time of absence from Illinois and permanent residence in Washington, D.C. ‘Thereafter, when each party was incarcerated and later returned to reside in Washington, D.C., each party remained a resident of Washington, D.C. Sandra denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 60 of Jesse’s Response. 61. Paragraph 61 of Jesse’s Response contains no affirmative allegations requiring a reply. Reply in Support of Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under the UCCJEA. 62. Paragraph 62 of Jesse’s Response contains no affirmative allegations requiring a reply. 20 228168163. Paragraph 63 of Jesse’s Response contains no affirmative allegations requiring a reply. 64. Paragraph 64 of Jesse’s Response contains no affirmative allegations requiring a reply. 65. Sandra denies the affirmative allegations contained in Paragraph 65 of Jesse's Response that even if it is ultimately determined that Washington, D.C. is the children’s home state for purposes of determining initial jurisdiction under the UCCIEA, this Court still has jurisdiction over the remaining issues in this ease and could obtain jurisdiction under the UCCIEA for child related matters. Sandra affirmatively states that the Superior Court of the District of Columbia has already determined that Washington, D.C. constitutes the children’s home state as stated in the Order entered on February 7, 2017 in the matter pending between the parties pursuant to case number 2016 DRB 004023, and the Washington, D.C. Court definitively has jurisdiction over the children in accordance with the UCCJEA, 65. Sandra states that the UCCJEA speaks for itself and denies any characterization inconsistent therewith. Sandra denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 66 of Jesse's Response that in this instance in light of the totality of the circumstances Illinois represents the more appropriate forum. Sandra denies that even if Washington, D.C. ultimately retains jurisdiction over the child related matters pursuant to the UCCJEA, Illinois nonetheless would retain jurisdiction over all the other matters in this case. Sandra denies that any lack of jurisdiction over the child related matters of this case does not serve as a basis for dismissal of this action pursuant to Section 2-619 of the Code. 21 228168167. Paragraph 67 of Jesse’s Response contains no affirmative allegations requiting a reply. Wherefore, the Respondent, SANDRA JACKSON, prays for the following relief, instanter' A. — For the entry of an Order dismissing this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the IMDMA and UCCJEA; and B, For such other and further relief as this Court shall deem equitable and just. SCHILLER DU CANTO & FLECK LLP Attorneys for Respondent BY: JESSICA BANK INTERLANDI SCHILLER DU CANTO & FLECK LLP Attorney No. 26828 Attorneys for Respondent 200 North LaSalle Street, 30" Floor Chicago, Iinois 60601-1089 Telephone No. (312) 641-5560 Facsimile Telephone No, (312) 641-6361 Service by Facsimile Transmission Will Be Accepted 2 2281681STATE OF ILLINOIS ) COUNTY OF COOK ) Under penalties as provided by law pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/1-109, I certify that the statements set forth in this instrument are true and correct except as to matters therein stated to be on information and belief and as to such matters I certify that I verily believe the same to be true, DATED: SANDRA JACKSON 23 2281681