Leo Stoller
 CHICAGO-(AEAE)-THE AMERICANS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF ATTORNEY ETICS (AEAE), an attorney ethics watch dog group since 1974 has filed a professional misconduct complaint against a Bryan Cave LLP senior partner Steven R. Smith alleging that Mr. Smith made misrepresentation of material fact before Illinois Circuit Court Judge Leroy Martin in a hearing on March 3, 2010. In a conversation on Dec. 23, 2009 Mr. Steven R. Smith had made a statement that he knew “Judge Mary Ann Mason and that she would not put up with your nonsense!” Mr. Smith's conversation was recorded with his permission. Mr. Steven R. Smith provided an sworn affidavit stating under oath that he did not state, “I know Judge Mary Ann Mason and that she would not put up with your nonsense!” Mr. Steven R. Smith repeated on the official transcript in front of Judge Leroy Martin that he did not make that statement. Another ARDC attorney misconduct has been filed against Illinois Attorney Steven R. Smith with the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC) www.iardc.org A petition for Indirect Criminal Contempt has been filed against Mr. Steven R. Smith. Mr. Smith office would not return phone calls. LEGAL DISCLAIMER: Steven R. Smith is considered innocent of all charges, until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. SIDEBAR- The official transcript from the hearing before Judge Leroy Martin on March 3, 2010 was ordered. As soon as it becomes available it will be posted here. Stay tuned for all the action  CHICAGO-(AEAE)-ONE READER OF THIS BLOG FOR MANY YEARS POSED AN INTERESTING LEGAL QUESTION. “ WHY DON'T YOU SUE THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE FOR ALL OF THE MONEY IN THE WORLD?” How would someone go about suing the “entire” human race for all of the money in the world? Is such a cause of action possible? Where could someone sue? Who would we sue? What parties would be named? How would we establish damages? These are the same questions that must be asked and answered before even a simple Civil Racketeering sue can be brought against a single party. This is how I would answer the question. We sue in the Hague with a “class” action lawsuit, under a legal theory that the all the governments in the world that are party of the treaty that gives the International Court in the Hague Jurisdiction over “crimes against humanity suits” have at time throughout their history committed “crimes against humanity” crimes against their own populations. Some type of compensation should be provided to the descendants of victims of crimes against humanity. In the case of slavery for example we demand consideration for the coerced and uncompensated labor their ancestors performed over several centuries. We demand compensation from the governments for their crimes against humanity equal to all the money in the world, and of course we would be willing to settle the case for ½ of what we are asking for. After we got our judgment from the International Court in the Hague, we would then go after all of the governments that are not part of the International Treaty that gives the Court in the Hague their jurisdiction, like the U.S. And others. We may not end up with all the money in the world but we would be happy with 10% of all the money in the world. After all we do not want to be accused of being greedy! BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST CO SERVED WITH $500 MILLION DOLLAR CIVIL RACKETERRING CIVIL LAWSUIT 03/05/2010
 CHICAGO-(AEAE) BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST CO SERVED WITH $500 MILLION DOLLAR CIVIL RACKETERRING CIVIL LAWSUIT. This suit was precipitated by the law firm of Bryan Cave LLP senior partner, Steven R. Smith who was representing Bank of America in an prior filed Illinois Chancery Lawsuit according to the opinion of one legal expert familiar with this case who choose not to give his name. The law professor said,” It is not uncommon for senior partners of large law firms to knowingly and willfully “spark” additional lawsuits in order to reap huge fees and costs from having to representing their clients in an endless stream of litigation.” “It is clear in this case that Attorney Steven R. Smith precipitated the new case brought against New York Mellon Bank and Bank of America to create a additional stream of income for Bryan Cave LLP, in my opinion.” There was filed in Illinois Cook County a Petition for Indirect Criminal Contempt against Mr. Steven R. Smith charging him with perjury. Legal Disclaimer-Steven R. Smith is considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.   CHICAGO-(AEAE)-BRYAN CAVE LLP PARTNER STEVEN R. SMITH BOTCHES CASE, CAUSES HIS CLIENT BANK OF AMERICA (B&A)TO GET SUED FOR $500 MILLION DOLLARS. Due to Steven R. Smith poor lawyering skills, not only has Bryan Cave LLP, client Bank of America got sued for an “new” cause of action seeking over $500 million dollars, but a customer of B & A, Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company its officers and president got dragged into the litigation. On legal expert said, “ I think Steven R. Smith did it to create extra billing for his firm in these tough times.” The above photo evidences Bryan Cave LLP receiving service of summons on Tuesday March 2, 2010 at 3:00PM. The other photo below is a picture of a Bank of America Executive accepting service of summons on March 2, 2010. Once source stated he thought Bryan Cave LLP should fire Steven R. Smith and his “bag man” Michael Werich in order to “clear” the air. Bryan Cave LLP does not want clients to think that their partners will create litigation in order to increase Bryan Cave billings, or do they approve of this conduct?   CHICAGO-TODAY A CIVIL SUIT WAS FILED AGAINST A NATIONAL LAW FIRM OPERATING OUT OF CHICAGO BRYANT CAVE LLP http://www.bryancave.com/ CHARGING THEM WITH CONSPIRACY, AIDING AND ABETTING, FRAUD AND CIVIL RACKETEERING “RICO”. The complaint also charges Bryan Cave partner Steven R. Smith http://www.bryancave.com/srsmith/ and his “bag man” assistant, attorney Michael Werich http://www.bryancave.com/michaelwerich/ who invited and encourgaged the suit to be filed against Bryan Cave because they love litigation, they have over 1000 super lawyers ready to fight. The complaint also names the Robert P. Kelly CEO of Bank of New York Mellon and amount other defendants, Brian T. Moynihan. The new CEO of Bank of America. Calls were not returned from any of the defendants. Steven R. Smith a partner with Bryant Cave was asked whether he would waive service of summons and accept service on behalf of the Defendants. Mr. Smith has not responded. Damages sought exceed 500 million dollars, which according to one insider is chump change to Bank of New York which has a Trillion dollars and Bryan Cave were there partners make over $1 million a year each according to one source. LEGAL DISCLAIMER: All defendants are considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  SMITH CHARGED WITH FRAUD  CHICAGO-(AEAE)-ILLINOIS ATTORNEY LAURA MYERS IS CHARGED WITH FILING A FRAUDULENT COUNTER APPEAL BEFORE THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT ON BEHALF OF RAYMOND H. WEBER. In a probate case Illinois Attorney Laura Myers is charged with attempting to defraud the Illinois Appellate court with making numerous misstatments of material fact and law to the Illinois Appellate Court on behalf of her client Raymond H. Weber a convicted felon. None of the parties could be reached for comment LEGAL DISCLAIMER: Raymond H. Weber, Lausha Weber, Laura Myers et al are considered inocient until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. SATURDAY NIGHT 3:00AM DRAFTING A 100 MILLION DOLLAR RICO LAWSUIT THAT WILL BE FILED MONDAY 03/01/2010
 CHICAGO-(AEAE)- HE HAD INFORMED A VERY LARGE LAW FIRM AND TWO OF ITS ATTORNEY THAT IF THEY INTERFERED WITH THE SUBJECT property that he would "sue them for $100 million dollars. It is 3:05 am. The complaint was being drafted all day Saturday. It will be polished and filed Monday morning. They and there clients are name and will be sue for over $100 million. It should be "clear" that after 35 years of litigation that He "never" threatened litigation. If he says he is going to sue you, he "sues" you. The case will be filed Monday morning. Stay tuned to learn who are the defendants. The same attorneys have an Indirect Direct Criminal Contempt Petition filed against them.  Fifth Amendment Right CHICAGO-(AEAE)-THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAVE FURTHER WEAKENED A PARTIES MIRANDA RIGHTS. The Court on Wednesday issued Maryland v. Shatzer (pdf), establishing new, more permissive rules for police who want to question a suspect for a second time after the suspect invokes Miranda's right to remain silent. The Maryland case came down a day after the justices decided Florida v. Powell (pdf), in which a 7-2 majority Court said that Florida's alternative wording of the Miranda warning is acceptable, even though it does not explicitly state that a suspect has a right to have a lawyer present during questioning. Since jails represent big “business” for the States and the Communities in which these prisons are located, it behooves the court to make it easier to fill these prisons with “dumb” and “dumber” criminals who can “self incriminate” themselves, according to one Prison watching group. One self defense lawyer said, “you never see any deaf people in prison, because they know how to keep there mouths shut!” SIDEBAR-Monday set to file a Rico Law suit against a 1000 man law firm, stay tuned. These are real “tough” guys, who were unable to “keep” their mouth shut and have been charged with in a Petition for Indirect Criminal Contempt! Now the Racketeering suit follows.  CHICAGO-(AEAE)-ON FEBRUARY 25, 2009 STOLLER APPEARED BEFORE ILLINOIS CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE RENEE GOLDFARB. An unnamed attorney and her client made misrepresentations of material fact, committed perjury and subornation of perjury before Judge Goldfarb causing Judge Goldfarb to order Leo Stoller taken into custody for a “BCX” examination in the Cook County Hospital of the Cook County Jail. Sheriff Dart http://www.cookcountysheriff.org/ through his employees are charged with manufacturing a false charge of “contempt” which was used by the Cook County Sheriff to incarcerate Stoller. Who had not been charged with any “contempt” on Feb. 25, 2009. Stoller spend 9 days unlawfully in the Cook County Jail from Feb. 25,2009 until March 6, 2009. Dr. Stine of the Cook County Jail Psychologists stated that the “Cook County Jail Hospital Cermack” does not perform BCX Examinations as well known to the Cook County Sheriff Thomas Dart.. On or about March 5, 2009Judge Goldfarb vacated her commitment order and Stoller was released from the custody of the Cook County Department of Corrections on March 6, 2009 almost one year. Stoller will be amending his complaint to add the additional party defendants, they all know who they are and they have just been waiting for the process service for the last year to show up with their summons. SIDE BAR The Americans for the Enforcement of Attorney Ethics (AEAE) recomends Frederick Collins for election to the Cook Sheriff in the up coming election. http://cookrepublicanparty.com/candidates.aspx   CHICAGO-(AEAE)-IN A HEARING TODAY BEFORE ILLINOIS DOMESTIC JUDGE CAROL K. BELLOWS ON STOLLER MOTION TO VACATE HER JULY 15, 2009 decision which was achieved by having undue influence exerted on Stoller who had been in custody for 37 days and was forced to sign three settlement agreements in order to win his freedom from the Illinois Cook County Jail. Stoller immediately moved to set aside Judge Bellows July 15, 2009 by filing via mail a motion to vacate on August 12, 2009. Stoller also moved to substitute Judge Bellows for cause. In the hearing today, Judge Bellows refused to sent the case out for hearing on substitution, which is required and Judge Bellows denied Stoller's motion to vacate on the grounds that it was not docketed by the Illinois Cook County Clerk of the Court until August 22, 2009. Today Stoller argued according to Illinois Supreme Court Rules he was entitled to receive the date of his mailing August 12, 2009 which would have made his motion for reconsideration timely. In addition, in view of the fact that Judge Bellows order of July 15, 2009 was a coerced settlement, such a court order is void at any time. Stoller filed his appeal and looks forward to reverse on the above several grounds. | AuthorThe purpose of this Blog is to exalt the law, by holding to the fundamental right of “Equal Justice” for all. It keeps “watch” on attorney and judicial misconduct issues, evolving trademark and constitutional law. It assures all people with the “good news” that in American “right” will prevail especially for those who “never” give-up “fighting” to obtain “justice”. This site adheres to the Law and the Constitution as its authority. The author, Leo Stoller is a ArchivesJanuary 2010 Categories |
RSS Feed