Leo Stoller
U.S. SUPREME COURT RULES THAT “ACTUAL PREJUDICE” IS NOT REQUIRED FOR SUBSTITUTION OF JUDGE 02/09/2010
 CHICAGO-(AEAE)-ON NOVEMBER 25, 2008 ILLINOIS CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE CAROL BELLOWS ENTERED AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL ORDER OF PROTECTION AGAINST STOLLER BARRING STOLLER FROM PUBLISHING “SPEECH” ON HIS “BLOG”. On June 8, 2009 Stoller was found guilty of violating this unconstitutional Order of Protection and was incarcerated for 37 days in the Illinois Cook County Jail until July 15, 2009 just for blogging in violation of Stoller's first amendment rights and in violation of Stoller's Civil rights under Section 1983. The case is now before the Illinois Appellate court. As a condition of the Order of Protection, Stoller was to refrain from engaging in any defamatory or demeaning behavior.A Order of Protection that prohibits a party from engaging in defamatory or demeaning communications clearly impinges on the Stoller’s first amendment right of free speech. See, e.g., Garrison v Louisiana, 379 US 64, 75; 85 S Ct 209; 13 L Ed 2d 125 (1964) (“The First . . . Amendment[] embod[ies] our profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”on in setting the conditions of and Order of Protection or a condition of probation. People v Winquest, 115 Mich App 215, 220; 320 NW2d 346 (1982). Stoller is preparing a Civil Rights law suit against all of the parties responsible for the false Arrest, false imprisonment which will be filed within 3 weeks.    CHICAGO-(AEAE)-THE AMERICANS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF ATTORNEY ETHICS (AEAE) an attorney ethics watch dog group since 1974 has brought attorney disciplinary charges against attorney Laura Myers from Paririe State Legal Services Inc., and Michele Killebrew http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/60602-il-michele-killebrew-1201440.htmlfrom the Illinois law firm of Leo and Weber. Charging the attorneys with filing "false" affidavits on Feb. 3, 2010 before the Illinois Appellate Court. Michele Killebrew represents the Great American Insurance Company and she is charged with conspiring to defraud the surety company. LEGAL DISCLAIMER: Laura Myers and Michele Killebrew are considered innocient of all charges until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.   CHICAGO-(AEAE)-STOLLER HAS FILED WITH THE U.S. SUPREME COURT APPEALS OF FOUR SEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ORDER(S) dated, Dec. 4, 2009, Dec. 17, 2009, January 7, 2010 and Jan 20, 2010. Stoller moved to consolidate these four decisions for judicial economy. Stoller argues that these decisions violate his First, Fifth and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. SIDEBAR: STOLLER takes every adverse decision to the highest court in the land, and never stops litigating "until the last court speaks!"  CHICAGO-(AEAE)- THE ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT GRANTED STOLLER'S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE TWO APPEALS IN A PROBATE CASE. The case presents some very interesting legal questions of “first” impression. Stoller issues on Appeal are as follows. Stoller argues that Judge Thomas Dudgeon committed clear error and abuse of discretion by awarding the Ward a monetary judgment against the Guardian. The main issue raised is whether the Probate Act trumps thePower of Attorney Act, in that the Guardian held a Power of attorney over the Ward which was entered into before the guardianship. The power of attorney provided that the Guardian had the authority to manage the monetary affairs of the Ward, and that the Ward had indemnified the Guardian against any financial losses of the Ward. Judge Thomas Dudgeon found the power of attorney to be valid and, in effect, prior to the guardianship, but stated in open Court in his findings that the "Probate Act trumps the Power of Attorney Act" and thus a final monetary judgment was erroneously entered against the Guardian. The Court then erroneously granted judgment against Stoller on behalf of Great American Insurance Company, the surety company, despite the fact that the Court had no jurisdiction over the surety company, in that the surety company had never moved to intervene in the case. Click on the attached link to see a copy of the appellate court's order, the docketing statement and a copy of a official transcript http://www.filefront.com/15498927/Appellate%20Court%20Order%202-2-100001.pdf in order to get a picture of the true flavor of this unique appeal, which Stoller is confident that he will reverse Judge Thomas Dudgeon. Stay tuned SIDEBAR: In appeals the decision normally goes to the “smarter” side as opposed to decisions by trial court judges, which rarely goes to the smarter side, but to the side that judge knows or has been influenced by. That is why the Appeals Court(s) are the great equalizers.  CHICAGO- President Barack Obama's first judicial nominee, Judge David Hamilton, is already disagreeing with his 7th Circuit colleagues, dissenting in the first case he's heard on the federal appellate bench against a majority opinion written by Judge Richard Posner. Posner last Friday wrote for the majority that the sentence in the fraud case of former lawyer and former Chicago alderman Edward Vrdolyak was a "slap on the wrist" and should be remanded to a new judge. Federal prosecutors in Chicago had appealed Vrdolyak's sentence for conspiracy to commit fraud by participating in a kickback scheme. . After Vrdolyak pled guilty, Senior U.S. District Judge Milton Shadur in November sentenced him to five years' probation and a $50,000 fee. The U.S. attorney's office in Chicago had sought 41 months' jail time. The 7th Circuit majority reached its decision on the basis of a "cascade of errors and omissions" by the trial judge. Posner wrote that Shadur, who sits in the Northern District of Illinois, erroneously found no loss inflicted on the school. On the contrary, Posner wrote, there was evidence that the school could have received a higher price for the property absent the fraud and that the loss should have been assessed at least as equal to the $1.5 million fee. Hamilton disagreed with the majority on all points except Shadur's error in calculating the loss to the school, noting that $1.5 million was the proper figure to be used. But that was a "harmless error," Hamilton concluded, because Shadur gave a full explanation of why he would have reached the same sentence anyway. "The defendant committed a serious crime, but there were a number of factors that the district court could and did consider in mitigation," Hamilton wrote. "The defendant is 71 years old, had no prior criminal record, and posed little risk of repeat offenses. He had given up his law license. The crime of fraud did not involve violence, and there was no element of public corruption." AEAE gives kudos to Judge David Hamilton  BOSTON – Massachusetts lawyer Simon Glik is suing three Boston police officers and the city in Boston federal court for arresting him after he used his cellphone to record an arrest. The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts filed Glik v. Cunniffe in the District of Massachusetts on Feb. 1, along with Boston attorney Howard Friedman. Glik was arrested in October 2007 after openly using his cellphone to record police allegedly using force during a Boston arrest. The Boston Municipal Court threw out the case after four months. The lawsuit says Glik is suing the city for "failing to properly train Boston police officers that they cannot arrest people for openly making video or audio recordings of their conduct in public." The suit also claims the city "failed to supervise and discipline" Boston police officers to ensure that they made arrests that complied with the state's unlawful wiretap statute. The defendants include the city, police sergeant John Cunniffe, police officer Peter Savalis and police officer Hall-Brewster, whose first name is unknown to the plaintiffs. When law enforcement officials falsely arrest legal professionals they're going to be sued endlessly and in their individual capacity for millions of dollars.  NEW YORK-(AEAE)-A HUSBAND OR EX-HUSBAND HAS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO GATHER EVIDENCE against a former wife in a civil proceeding despite the fact that the woman has a order of protection against the husband. The man can have the wife followed and keep her home under surveillance 24/7 in order obtain evidence against her according to a New York Judge. According to the New York Law Journal a man who hired a detective to trail his wife to a motel where she was having an affair with a local priest was not stalking her, a New York judge has ruled. Forced to resign after her husband turned over a recording of her and the priest to the church where she worked, the wife accused her husband of violating an order of protection requiring him to stay away from her home and place of employment. But the judge held that the husband had the right to gather evidence to defend himself in a divorce proceeding. Click on the attached link to read the full story: Snooping by Detective 'Legitimate' Part of Divorce Process, Judge Finds  CHICAGO-(AEAE)-IN A 15 YEAR STUDY IN WHICH SEVERAL THOUSAND LAWYERS WERE STUDIED. AEAE FOUND A HIGH RATE OF MENTAL ILLNESS ALMOST THREE TIMES THAT OF A CONTROL SAMPLE. AEAE found that the attorney study group were not prone to schizophrenia, a disorder of thinking, but to manic-depression, a disorder of feeling. Manic depressives experience sharp mood swings from euphoric highs to despairing lows, which can lead to alcoholism or even suicide. A high percentage of the attorneys studied turned out to have manic depressive temperaments, a fact that may explain their attraction to the law in the first place. AEAE study reveals that mild manic highs if kept in check, can actually benefit the attorney. The study reveals that hundreds of the attorneys who fall into this category, are highly productive during their “up” phases” and able to ride through intermittent mild lows without any serious legal repercussions, sanctions, contempt and disbarment(s) . However a large number of attorneys who thrived on the creative rush of the early phase of the manic attack, soon they thrive no more; creativity turned into craziness, they can't write a brief if there life depended on it and they start shouting at the bailiffs and judges. Their engine(s) revves up too much, the practice of law becomes too intense and thoughts fly so fast that attorneys after several years in the profession no longer seem like they can connect to the law. That's why so many attorneys turn into alcoholics, end up facing the attorney registration and disciplinary commissions or face federal charges. Every once in a while you get a study that confirms people's worst fears and their intuitions. SIDEBAR: The most interesting finding from this study is that the attorneys who can no longer practice law, have a tendency to become “judges” in order to be able to remain in the legal profession. | 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