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.

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.

CHICAGO-(AEAE)-LAWYER MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY SUED THE JUSTICES OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT when it does not rule in his favor or does not take up his case. His suits cause recusal problems for the Court, because the justices tend to recuse when they are named targets. Sibley's latest suit named all the justices he claims improperly refused to hear an earlier custody case, leaving only the Court's newest justice to rule on it.
A Supreme Court of 1 Justice -- Sotomayor -- Rules Against Former 'D.C. Madam' Lawyer

  CHICAGO-(AEAE)-EVERY SINCE BROKE BACK MOUNTIAN WAS NOMINATED FOR AN OSCAR in 2005,   Americans have been loosing interest in the Oscars.  Remember, Broke Back Mountain was a  American gay-themed “sick”romantic-drama film that depicts the complex romantic and sexual relationship between two sodomites, “fag” cowboys. Since then, millions of people have  turned off the Oscars. Broke Back Mountain represented the entire moral collapse of Hollywood.
That next year, 2006, the Oscars even featured, another homosexual theme, a lesbian, Allen Degenerate as the host. Since 2006 millions of Americans have turned off their TV's when the Oscars are presented. Today's La and Hollywood are yesterdays Sodom and Gomorrah. Who cares about tonights Oscars?


 

WASHINGTON-D.C.-(AEAE)- APPELLATE COURT DO NOT ALWAYS GET IT RIGHT. The United States Supreme Court issued a decision inREED ELSEVIER, INC., ET AL. v. MUCHNICK ET AL. On March 3, 2010 reversing the THE SECOND CIRCUIT in a copyright case. The Copyright Act (Act) generally requires copyright holders to register their works before suing for copyright infringement. 17 U. S. C. A. §411(a). The complaint in this consolidated, class-action copyright in fringement suit alleged that the named plaintiffs each own at least one copyright, typically in a freelance article written for a newspaper or magazine, that they had registered in accordance with §411(a).. The parties moved the District Court to certify a settlement class and approve a settlement agree ment. The District Court did so over the objections of some freelance authors. On appeal, the Second Circuit sua sponte raised the question whether §411(a) deprives federal courts of subject-matter jurisdiction over infringement claims involving unregistered copyrights, concluding that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to certify the class or approve the settlement. The U.S Supreme Court reversed. The Second Circuit sua sponte committed reversble error. Click on the attached link to read the whole opinion http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-103.pdf Leo Stoller is the nations leading Intellectual Property and Appellate court Expert Ldms4@hotmail.com