Leo Stoller
 David Abrams PHOENIX-(AEAE)-IT HAS BECOME NECESSARY TO FILE A PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS WITH THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT. The Arizona Appellate Court made a procedural error. When that happens the only relief left is a petition directly before State Supreme Court according to a University of Chicago Law Professor who chose not to give his name. He stated, “every good attorney must be ready to 'pull the trigger' with an appeal or mandamus action the moment that the trial court and/or the appeal court makes a “clear” error. Every day trial courts and appeals court judges make “clear” error and must be appealed in order to correct the error. In a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals case Stoller has moved to ask the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals to request that Lance G. Johnson, David Abrams and the well known patent attorney Alfred Goodman to accept service of process of a “Criminal” Contempt Citation that they have be fraughting the jurisdiction of the Illinois Cook County Courts. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has the “power” to request that any member of the Appeal Bar not intentionally avoid service of process of a serious Contempt charge in another jurisdiction. For lawyers who avoid service of process bring the legal profession into disrepute. There is a hearing that Johnson and his alleged co-conspirators Abrams and Goodman know this week in Chicago Court house and they do not want to have anything to do with the Illinois Cook County Criminal Contempt proceeding. No one from Johnson crowd cared to comment on this story. Several Illinois Appellate appeals hot off the press are being filed this week. Legal Disclaimer: Lance G. Johnson, David Abrams and their partner Alfred Goodman are considered innocient of all charges until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. They refuse to meet me half way http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A_arjPCKXA 2 Comments  STOLLER ON APPELLATE PRACTICE CHICAGO-(AEAE)-STOLLER SET TO RELEASE HIS LATEST BOOK ON APPELLATE PRACTICE. Stoller who has been engage in Appellate work for over 40 years new book strives to demystify the appellate process and assist lawyers in becoming more proficient at filing winning appeals. Stoller's new book providing case summaries, practice tips deals with recognition and preservation of error committed by lower tribunals, and the presentation of winning arguments concerning the clear error of the trial court judges. A practical manual on handling appeals and cases involving review of U.S. Supreme Court decisions LANCE G. JOHNSON ATTEMPTS TO PREJUDICE THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AGAINST STOLLER 12/12/2009
 Where is Johson? WASHINGTON-(AEAE)- LANCE G. JOHNSON, THE ATTORNEY WHO HAS BEEN DODGING SERVICE OF PROCESS OF A CRIMINAL CONTEMPT CITATION PENDING IN COOK COUNTY AGAINST HIM BY STOLLER HAS NOW MOVED TO FILE A JUDICIAL NOTICE BEFORE THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT IN ORDER TO PREJUDICE THEM AGAINST STOLLER. Judge Brown issued a early report in a matter involve Stoller regarding a pauperis petition. Lance G. Johnson has now filed that report before the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in the Form of a Judicial Notice. In Stoller response, he has reminded the Federal Circuit Court that Lance G. Johnson might as well be a fugitive in that he has refused to waive service of process of the "Criminal" contempt citation dispite the fact that his office has received copies of the citation and he has even down loaded a copy of the citation from this blog. Lance G. Johnson knows that he is charge with criminal contempt in Illinois but will not willing face the charges. Any one who has information on where Lance G. Johnson is please email Ldms4@hotmail.com  He is a Good man? WASHINGTON-(AEAE)-THE PROCESS SERVERS ARE CLOSING IN ON LANCE G. JOHNSON, DAVID ABRAMS AND ALFRED GOODMAN. These Washington D. C. Attorneys www.roylance.com have been charged with "criminal" contempt in Chicago, Illinois in October. However it appears that they have been dodging service of process in order to avoid the jurisdiction of the Cook County Courts. According to a recent report the process servers are now closing in on these attorneys and it should not now be much longer when they will be brought to justice. Legal Disclaimer: Lance G. Johnson, David Abrams and Afred Goodman are considered innoncient until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  CHICAGO-(AEAE) WINTER TEMPERATURES HIS 4 DEGREES ABOVE ZERO AND FOUR INCHES OF SNOW. Dispite the cold Stoller fired off two Appeal briefs in response to Court Orders that Stoller is confident in reversing. It is going to be a very cold winter in Chicago which gives those of us "no" guilt who enjoy doing legal research. When it is sunny and warm outside it is slightly harder to remain inside looking up case law. Cold winters make for great legal briefs. Stoller has been involved in over 300 Appeals and two dozen U.S. Supreme Court cases. Leo Stoller is the nations leading Trademark Expert Witness and appellate Expert he can be reached at Ldms4@hotmail.com or 312-545-4554 in Chicago, Illinois 60302  Justice Alito CHICAGO-(AEAE)-STOLLER WILL PETITION THE U.S. SUPREME TO HEAR THE GOOGLE APPEAL. THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ISSUED A FILING BAN WHICH IS BEING APPEALED UNDER A WRIT OF CERT. However there are several Sevent Circuit appeals that will ask the United States Supreme Court to hear directly. Under U.S. Supreme Court Rules, there is a provision which permits the High Court under circumstances like this to entertain appeals directly from a district court. Stoller will use this seldon requested relief for all of his Seventh Circuit pending Appeals. In addition the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued a appealable decision regarding Stoller request to disqualify Attorney Lance G. Johnson. The playing field will now shift from the Seventh Circuit to the U.S. Supreme Court.  CHICAGO-(AEAE)-THE NINTH CIRUIT COURT OF APPEALS GRANTED STOLLER'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. In an appeal filed by Stoller the Ninth Circuit issued an order permiting Stoller's motion for reconsideration. Stoller only requests that the court met him half way http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A_arjPCKXA  Justice Roberts CHICAGO-(AEAE)-FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL IMPOSED A "MACK" FILING BAR OVER A DISPUTE INVOLVING A PAUPERIS PETITION FILED BY A PARTY IN A CHAPTER 7 BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING. Stoller while in Chapter 7 Bankruptcy filed an appeal before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The Bankruptcy Judge Jack Schmetterer had granted Stoller indigent. Judge Virginia Kendell had granted Stoller motion to appeal in forma pauperis. The Illinois Supreme Court had granted Stoller the right 5 times to Appeal informa pauperis. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied Stoller the right to appeal informa-pauperis and was given a week to pay the filing fee. Stoller raised the money paid the filing fee. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals refered the case to Judge Brown to conduct an investigation as to "how" could Stoller could claim to be a "true" pauper if he was able to come up with the filing fee for his appeal? Without concluding her investigation Judge Brown filed a request for instructions before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The $450 appeal fee issue was now a full blow Federal Court inquiry which appeared to involve $100,000.00 of dollars in attorneys fees, court fees to get to the bottom of "How could a pauper come up with a appeal fee when he claimed he was a pauper?" The Seventh Circuit choose not to allow Judge Brown to continue her investigation and on Dec. 4, 2009 issued a "Mack" filing bar against Stoller. Stoller will argue to the United Supreme Court that the "Mack" bar is unconstitutional and a violation of his Fifth and Fourteen Amendment rights and is an excessive punshiment which "never" has been imposed on any bankrupt party in the United States since its founding over the filing of a simple pauperis petition. The Special master Judge Brown was especially interested in "How Stoller was able to pay for the "paper" he use to file his cases with?" The decision was issued by Justices frank H. Easterbrook, Richard A. Posner and Diane S. Sykes on Dec. 4, 2009 . It is important to note that the 7th Circuit "mack" bar does not apply to the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 11th or any other Federal Circuit Court. Stoller is free to sue in every other Federal Jurisdiction, until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the Seventh Circuit decision which is the subject of Stoller Writ of Cert. Ldms4@hotmail.com  CHICAGO-(AEAE)-STOLLER WAS UNDER UNDUE INFLUENCE AND FORCED TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT TO DISMISS HIS MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, FALSE IMPRISONMENT 2007 LAWSUIT AGAINST THE VILLAGE OF ELMWOOD PARK, MAYOR OF ELMWOOD PARK, CHIEF OF POLICE ET AL. Stoller was unlawfully held in the custody of the Cook County Department of Corrections the first time on June 6, 2005 until June 8, 2005 on a "frivilious" domestic battery charge which was latter dismissed in Stoller's favor, giving rise to a malicious prosecution, false arrest and false imprisionment lawsuit. During Stoller latest "false" arrest and "false" imprisionment in the Cook County Jail for the "Crime" of publishing "Speech" on the Internet for 37 days, Stoller was given the opportunity for his "freedom" only on the condition that he sign a divorce settlement agreement and an a agreement to dismiss the Elmwood Park Case. The Elmwood Park Case was later dismissed as a result of Stoller's "coerced" agreenent to dismiss the Elmwood Park. Now the question posed to the Illinois Appellate Court is wheither a person, hand cuffed, in the custody of the Cook County Depart of Corrections, who is forced to enter into an agreement in order to obtain his freedom, can such an agreement be invalid based on the doctrine of "Undue Influence?" What is your opinion? You are invited to leave a comment or email Ldms4@hotmail.com  Ryan refuses summons CHICAGO-(AEAE)-HAYNES RYAN THE YOUNGEST ATTORNEY FROM THE ILLINOIS OFFICE OF GORDON AND REES ON FRIDAY IN FRONT OF ILLINOIS JUDGE DANIEL T. GILLESPIE REFUSED TO ACCEPT SERVICE OF PROCESS on behalf of his partners and clients Lance G. Johnson, David Abrams and Alfred Goodman. Stoller asked Judge Gillespie if he could address Mr. Ryan and request in open court if Mr. Ryan would waive service of summons. Stoller then extended the summons to Mr. Ryan who than broke out in a Tibetan chant asserting in front of Judge Gillespie all of the reasons why he refused to accept the “criminal” contempt summons. Mr. Ryan did waive service of summons for his own service so that if Gordon and Rees had to sacrifice just one of their 300 attorneys to save the rest, Mr. Haynes Ryan was chosen to become the sacrificial lamb. The Seventh Circuit issued a sanction against Stoller today in a dispute out of a paupers petition that had been filed. Stoller will take that issue to the U.S. Supreme Court for their opinion. | Author
Help the Equal Justice Party support conservative candidates. Contribute today! ArchivesOctober 2011 Categories |
RSS Feed