Leo Stoller
 CHICAGO-(AEAE)-THE BRYAN CAVE LLP LAW FIRM FILED THEIR on behalf of Wells Fargo Bank opposite Stoller in a RICO action that was filed a month ago in Chicago Illinois. Bryan Cave also represents Bank of America in another action is facing Indirect Criminal Contempt Charges for perjury, false swearing and subornation of perjury. It is interesting that Senior Counsel Steven R. Smith name is NOT on the pleading, a new “tough” guy Rodney Perry http://www.bryancave.com/rrperry/ has now stepped up to the plate. But Smith's “bag man” Michael J. Werich has signed the request for an extension of time in the new case. Michael J. Werich has also charge with subornation of perjury in the Bank of America Case. The Americans for the Enforcement of Attorneys (AEAE) a legal ethics attorney watch dog group since 1974 maintains a list of attorneys that are not recommended. Rodney Perry names has appeared on this list for the last several years. The question is whether Rodney Perry is really a “new” Bryan Cave partner who is nothing more than a “front” man for Steven R. Smith pictured below. If any one has information on Rodney Perry, Steven R. Smith or Michael J. Werich and would like to share it you can email ldms4@hotmail.com LEGAL NOTICE: The attorney ratings by AEAE is their opinion, based upon attorney disciplinary reports, complaints received by third parties, and members experiences directly with attorneys. AEAE has maintained a national data base of attorneys who have been rated unqualified or not recommended since 1974. AEAE also list the Firm of Bryan Cave LLP as “not” recommended. 8 Comments  CHICAGO-(AEAE)-A Florida federal judge has denied requests by the nation's biggest banks to dismiss a class action suit by checking account customers who claim they are being charged abusive overdraft fees on debit cards. The ruling keeps alive a closely watched consumer lawsuit that could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars and is shining a national spotlight on what plaintiffs lawyers say are egregious bank practices. Defendants in the suit include Bank of America, Citibank, Wells Fargo, Wachovia, JPMorgan Chase and SunTrust. Overdraft Fees Suit Stays Alive in Federal Court In Stoller's case he was forced to charge Bank of America's lawyers, Brayan Cave LLP and their senior partner Steven R. Smith with perjury. http://www.rentamark.net/3/post/2010/03/bryan-cave-llp-partner-steven-r-smith-charged-with-professional-misconduct-in-a-complaint-filed-before-the-illinois-attorney-registration-and-disciplinary-commission-ardc.html  CHICAGO-(AEAE)-ON FEBRUARY 12, 2010 the Illinois Appellate court issued a Rule to Show Cause regarding a series of appeals that Stoller had filed before the Illinois appellate Court under pauperis petitions. Stoller responded to the Court's Rule to Show Cause. On March 15, 2010 the Illinois Appellate Court issued a decision finding that “Mr. Stoller does not meet the requirement ot proceed in forma pauperis” The Illinois Appellate Court dismissed without prejudice a serious of appeals that Stoller had pending. Stoller has refiled them paying the necessary filing fees. Several divorce appeals had required Stoller to seek leave to re-instate them before the post decree Judge Jordon Kaplan, Stoller has already move for leave to refile his divorce appeals. ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT DENIES LANCE G. JOHNSON MOTION TO HOLD STOLLER IN CIVIL CONTEMPT 03/17/2010
 CHICAGO-(AEAE)- STOLLER FILED A 100 MILLION DOLLAR DEFAMATION AGAINST WASHINGTON D.C. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ATTORNEYS Lance. G. Johnson, David Abrams, Alfred Goodman, and their law firm of www.roylance.com Johnson, Abrams and Goodman were successful “dodging” and “evading” service of summons, convincing Illinois Circuit Court Judge Kathy Flanagan to vacate service of summons, which is now incidentally on Appeal with the Illinois Appellate Court First Judicial District Case No. 09-1868. Lance G. Johnson filed a motion to hold Stoller in “civil contempt and to award sanction against Stoller under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137 for knowingly filing false affidavits of service with this court.” The Illinois Appellate court denied Johnson's frivolous motion on March 11, 2010. Judge Gillespie granted Johnson motion to strike a Motion for indirect criminal contempt Click on to see a copy of the complaint http://www.filefront.com/14756757/Lance-G.-Johnson-Charged-with-perjury0001.pdf which is also up on appeal before the Illinois Appellate Court click to read the transcript of the January 129, 2010 hearing. See a copy of the official transcript http://www.filefront.com/15606995/1-29-%202010%20Johnson%20Contempt%20hearing%20Transcript.pdf  CHICAGO-(AEAE)-The central legal issue in the Hudson County, N.J. case was whether the emotional distress claim was a disguised complaint for parental alienation of affections, a cause of action New Jersey abolished in 1935.For the first time in New Jersey, a judge has recognized the right of parents to collect damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress when their relationships with their children are poisoned by former spouses. Superior Court Judge Maurice Gallipoli ruled on Nov. 21, 2009 that a man can sue his ex-wife and her parents for allegedly turning his children against him by making false accusations that he had committed sexual misconduct. SIDEBAR: The troops are finally landing.  CHICAGO-(AEAE)-DIVORCE JUDGES DO NOT HAVE THE LAWFUL AUTHORITY TO PLACE PRECONDITIONS ON FILING OF POST-JUDGMENTS MOTIONS OR LAWSUITS. Nervey Divorce, control freak type judges who feel the need to impose their will on parties who divorce, long after these parties are divorced by imposing unconstitutional restrictions on divorced parties right to file post decree motions and to sue a divorced spouse have been dealt a blow by a New Jersey Appellate Court. In a published appellate decision issued on February 3rd 2010 , the appellate division issued an important opinion on the limits of the authority of family court judges. One party in a divorce proceeding will always will cry foul when the other party files a motion or lawsuit against them under the guise that the pleading is vexatious, unreasonable, burdensome. Divorce judges have been going along with this nonsensical thinking and issuing unenforceable provisions in divorce degrees baring one party from suing the other party. SIDEBAR: George Bernard Shaw said, "Those that can do, those cannot do, teach." All of the articles on this blog represent legal research for pleadings that are filed in the Circuit Court on issues that judges are being asked to decide in "real" time. This blog is a real time reality based account of legal war fair that is being waged 24/7  CHIAGO-(AEAE)- A mother filed lawsuit against a child representative, opposing divorce lawyer, her x-husband and the court appointed child psychologists. She claimed the had unjustly taken her children in June 2005. The children were ages 6 and 9 at the time. The false accusation against her was that she had shown her children children pornography on the Internet. The children were placed in their father's custody, and the mother was forced to endure the humiliation of supervised visits for a short time before she was .deprived of visitation for several years. The father had “destroyed” the family. But wait! The mother recovered from the injustice done to her enough to file a lawsuit based on violations of Constitutional law. She went after the Ex-spouse, the divorce lawyer, the child representative and, the child representative. In the lawsuit the mother alleged the Defendants intentionally misled the court, fabricated evidence against her, and hid exculpatory evidence. She also alleged that caseworkers withheld information from the judge regarding the emotional distress of the children. On March 3, 2010, after a seven-week civil trial, the jury found the Defendants liable for violating the mother's parental rights and violating the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. She was awarded 4.9 million dollars. The jury also awarded her an additional $500,900 in punitive damages. The large settlement was intended to 'send a message' to Child Representatives, divorce lawyers and court appointed psychologists. It was reported that the child psychologists went bankrupt and lost his license to practice, along with the other lawyers and the Ex. Blogger charged with threatening to kill three 7th Circuit judges, gets a second mistrial. 03/13/2010
 CHICAGO-(AEAE)-In a serious defeat for federal prosecutors, the second trial of blogger Harold Turner, the New Jersey white supremacist charged with threatening to kill three 7th Circuit judges, has resulted in a second mistrial. At the end of their second full day of deliberations Wednesday, the jurors said another day of deliberations would be useless, the third time they reported that they believed a unanimous verdict was impossible. Prosecutors will now have to decide whether to ask the 7th Circuit judges to appear for a third trial. A Second Mistrial for Blogger Charged With Threatening Judges  CHICAGO-(AEAE)-A LAWSUIT WAS FILED IN COOK COUNTY ON FEBRUARY 23, 2010 NAMING THE ILLINOIS COOK COUNTY SHERIFF, THE COOK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. Now it is time to add the necessary parties. In a unenforceable divorce settlement it requires the Plaintiff to seek leave of court to add parties and/ or to sue parties. Such a agreement violates public policy and is unenforceable. There is now a hearing set before Illinois Associate Judge Jordon Kaplan requesting that the necessary parties be added to an existing lawsuit. The Illinois Code of Civil Procedure permits necessary parties to be added as defendants. There is now, finally, a show down at the OK Corral with the hearing next week against these defendants. Stay tuned to find out what Judge Kaplan does. The parties all know who they are but a court order that violates the First Amendment forbids the publication of their names on this site. An appeal pends in that case. As soon as the court order is stricken, the Defendants names will be posted here. The law suit was filed for a false incarceration last February 25, 2009 until March 6, 2009. Another cause of action will be filed against these same parties for the false incarceration from June 8, 2009 until July 15, 2009 (37 days in the Cook County Jail) in the next few weeks. This story continues please click on the attached link http://www.rentamark.net/3/post/2010/02/-stoller-sues-illinois-cook-county-sheriff-thomas-dart-for-false-arrest-false-imprisionmnet-and-violations-of-section-1983-civil-rights.html  CHICAGO-(AEAE)-A DIVORCE SETTLEMENT CONTRACT WHICH CONTAINS A INVALID AND UNEFORCEABLE PROVISION deemed unenforceable by a court dooms the entire divorce settlement when there is no “severability clause”. The divorce settlement agreement contains a self serving, invalid provision banning a party from filing an Attorney Disciplinary Complaint against a named attorney and a professional misconduct against a child psychologists. Such a provision is against public policy or positive law and is unenforceable. In Illinois the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction over attorney disciplinary matters. No Illinois Circuit Court Judge can lawfully ban a party from filing an attorney disciplinary complaint. | Author
Help the Equal Justice Party support conservative candidates. Contribute today! ArchivesOctober 2011 Categories |
RSS Feed