- CHICAGO-(AEAE)-ON DECEMBER 4. 2009 the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Justices Frank H Easterbrook, Richard A. Posner and Diane S. Sykes issued a decision re-imposing a “mack” bar on Stoller. The decision stated, “...We discharged the rule to show cause after Stoller responded that his brother provided the funds to pay the sanction. We denied Stoller's motion for leave to proceed in format paupers, however, and Stoller paid the $455 filing. We warned that if we concluded that Stoller had falsely claimed to be indigent we would reimpose a prior Mack bar against him. Stoller insisted he had been truthful, so we referred the matter to a special master to take “testimony” and consider the apparently conflicting evidence. Magistrate Judge Geraldine Soat Brown, as special master, devoted considerable time to the matter, filed a written report and now seeks guidance this court regarding whether additional proceedings are necessary....We accept Judge Brown's thorough report and conclude that no further proceedings are necessary...This is enough to establish that Stoller has been deceptive...the Mack bar against Stoller is reinstated”.
- In Stoller appeal to the United Supreme Court Stoller asserts that the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision was unconstitutional. It violated Stoller's right to a fair trial, to present evidence, to call witnesses, due process and equal protection. Since the Judge Brown was allowed to proceed , unabated, in prosecuting the Seventh Circuit' case against Stoller without Stoller ever being allowed to testify, or present witness or cross examine witnesses, then a “wrongful” conviction is definitely the end result. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, a appeals court, acting as a “super” trial court merely looked a “written” report of Judge Geraldine Soat Brown which was not a final report, just seeking “guidance from this court regarding whether additional proceedings are necessary.” The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals then found, without ever allowing a “real” trial to take place, found “this is enough to establish that Stoller has been deceptive...the Mack bar against Stoller is reinstated”.
- Stoller further asserts to the United States Supreme Court that there are clear grounds why a “Mack” bar is unconstitutional
|
RSS Feed