Americans for the Enforcement of Attorney Ethics

  • SUE THE BASTARDS
  • AEAE
  • AEJE
  • AEIPR
  • Rentamark
  • Archrive
  • PAGE 2
 

The Speech Patterns to be Avoided when being Interviewed by Leo Stoller

9/27/2026

0 Comments

 
https://svc.lulu.com/?items=d78a200a-380e-406c-ad27-93ab72c209c2
​
Picture
0 Comments

Lawyer's Appeal by Leo Stoller

9/25/2026

0 Comments

 
​https://svc.lulu.com/?items=432c8bcf-eb74-475e-a3f7-efd54ef0db22  
Picture
0 Comments

Five Signs Thou Art Wasting Time with the Wrong Woman by Leo Stoller

9/25/2026

0 Comments

 
https://svc.lulu.com/?items=71cba19c-4b6e-4f33-b553-ed0fcaabb807
Picture
0 Comments

Illinois Attorneys Timothy Strino, Joshua Concannon and Penny Eilers charged with Professional Misconduct and acquitted

9/24/2026

0 Comments

 
Picture
Picture
​Chicago-(AEAE) Illinois Attorneys Timothy Strino, Joshua Concannon and Penny Eilers were charged with professional misconduct before the Illinois Attrony Registration and Disciplin Commission.
​ On September 23, 2026 ARDC Intake Counsel Britt Florin issued an Order stating "We have review the pleading referenced in your complaint and cannot conclude the motion prepared by Mr. Storino was misleading as to justify a displinary inquiry into his conduct surrounding the motion....If in the future any court determines that Mr. Storine, Mr. Concannon or Ms Eilers engaged in professional misconduct regarding your claims, please let us know. at that time ,we will be pleased to review the matter to determine whether action by this commission might be warranted."
Disclaimer: The charges against Timothy Storino, Joshua Concumcannon and Penny Eilders were "allegations". Timothy Storino, Joshua Concumcannon and Penny Eilders deny the charges and are considered innocient until proven guilty in a court of law.

Picture
0 Comments

September 23rd, 2026

9/23/2026

0 Comments

 
0 Comments

Illinois Assistant Attorney General Charged with Professional Misconduct

9/23/2026

0 Comments

 
Picture
​

​CHICAGO: (AEAE) AMERICANS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF ATTORNEY ETHICS (AEAE)
FORMAL DISCIPLINARY STATEMENT AND PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY NOTICE
Regarding Assistant Attorney Emily Vernon and Alleged Abuse of Appellate Extension Procedures
The Americans for the Enforcement of Attorney Ethics (AEAE) announces its serious concerns regarding the conduct of Assistant Attorney Emily Vernon in connection with multiple requests for extensions of time filed in the Illinois Third District Appellate Court in Stoller v. Illinois State Police, Appeal No. 25-0586.
AEAE maintains that repeated requests for extensions of time, when unsupported by legitimate necessity or presented through materially inaccurate factual or legal representations, can undermine the integrity of the appellate process, prejudice an opposing litigant, and interfere with the timely administration of justice.
The allegations at issue concern whether Ms. Vernon filed multiple extension requests that she knew or reasonably should have known were frivolous, with the alleged purpose or foreseeable effect of delaying appellate proceedings and prejudicing the Appellant.
AEAE considers the integrity of judicial proceedings a matter of professional obligation, not administrative convenience. Attorneys appearing before Illinois courts are expected to exercise candor, accuracy, and good-faith judgment in every filing submitted to the judiciary.
I. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT RULES
AEAE alleges that the conduct described in its disciplinary complaint may constitute violations of the following provisions of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct:
Rule
Subject of Allegation

Rule 3.3(a)
Alleged lack of candor toward the tribunal, subject to the specific subsection and elements asserted in the complaint.

Rule 8.4(c)
Alleged conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.

Rule 8.4(d)
Alleged conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

The applicability of these provisions, the sufficiency of the factual allegations, and whether any violation occurred remain matters for determination through the appropriate disciplinary process.
AEAE contends that an attorney's repeated requests for additional time should not be used as a mechanism to obtain an unfair procedural advantage. Where a litigant alleges that extension requests are unsupported, repetitive, or materially misleading, those allegations warrant examination based on the actual filings, representations, procedural history, and applicable court rules.
II. AEAE'S CONCERNS REGARDING PROFESSIONAL INTEGRITY
AEAE has expressed an adverse opinion concerning Ms. Vernon's professional integrity and honesty, including an alleged one-half-star rating attributed to its assessment.
Any such rating is an AEAE opinion or organizational assessment, not an adjudicated finding by the ARDC or a court of law. AEAE's characterization must not be presented as an established disciplinary determination unless supported by a final, verifiable ruling or other authoritative finding.
AEAE's position is that professional accountability requires attorneys to be answerable for the accuracy of their representations and the procedural consequences of their litigation conduct. Criticism of an attorney's actions must, however, remain grounded in identifiable evidence and the applicable professional standards.
III. APPELLATE DELAY AND PREJUDICE TO THE APPELLANT
The alleged repeated extension requests raise concerns regarding the effect of procedural delay on the Appellant's ability to obtain timely appellate review.
Where an appellant is required to respond to successive requests for extensions, the practical consequences may include:
  • Delayed resolution of the appeal.
  • Additional burdens on a self-represented litigant.
  • Increased litigation costs and administrative burdens.
  • Potential impairment of the litigant's ability to obtain timely judicial relief.
  • Questions regarding whether the extension process is being used consistently with its intended purpose.
These are identified potential consequences, not adjudicated findings that Ms. Vernon caused each consequence or acted with an improper purpose. The actual impact and intent must be established through the relevant evidence and applicable procedural standards.
AEAE asserts that the appellate process must serve the fair and timely resolution of disputes rather than become a vehicle for unnecessary delay.
IV. DEMAND FOR ACCOUNTABILITY AND PROCEDURAL TRANSPARENCY
AEAE calls for appropriate scrutiny of the allegations through the legally authorized disciplinary process. Any reviewing authority should examine the actual extension motions, supporting representations, prior extensions, applicable deadlines, opposing objections, and the procedural history of the appeal.
The question is not whether an attorney may ever request additional time. Attorneys may have legitimate grounds for seeking extensions. The issue is whether particular requests were filed in good faith, supported by accurate representations, and consistent with professional obligations.
AEAE maintains that procedural privilege does not excuse dishonesty, and an attorney's position as an officer of the court does not eliminate the duty of candor. Any determination of misconduct must be made under the governing rules and evidentiary standards.
V. PRESERVATION OF DUE PROCESS AND PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
This statement concerns allegations attributed to AEAE. It does not establish that Assistant Attorney Emily Vernon committed professional misconduct, violated the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, or acted with an intent to prejudice the Appellant.
Ms. Vernon denies the charges, as applicable, and is entitled to the presumption of innocence in any disciplinary proceeding in which that presumption applies. The allegations remain subject to review, response, and adjudication by the appropriate authority.
No disciplinary violation should be treated as proven unless and until established through the applicable legal process.
AEAE's advocacy for professional accountability does not replace the authority of the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission or any court to determine the facts and law.
VI. AEAE'S CLOSING POSITION
The integrity of the legal profession depends upon more than the appearance of procedural compliance. It depends upon candor, accuracy, good faith, and respect for the rights of every litigant—including those proceeding without counsel.
AEAE will continue to advocate for the examination of alleged professional misconduct through documented evidence, established ethical standards, and lawful disciplinary procedures.
An extension of time is a procedural request—not a license to misrepresent facts, distort the law, or impose unjustified delay. Whether that principle was violated in this matter is a question for the authorized disciplinary process to determine.
AMERICANS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF ATTORNEY ETHICS (AEAE)
Advocating for Professional Integrity, Judicial Accountability, and the Fair Administration of Justice.
Disclaimer: This statement contains allegations and attributed opinions. It does not constitute a final disciplinary determination. All allegations remain subject to the applicable legal process, and Assistant Attorney Emily Vernon is presumed innocent unless and until misconduct is established through the appropriate adjudicatory proceedings.

decision.pdf
File Size: 2616 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

0 Comments

Cook County Judge Mary S. Trew Charged with Judicial Misconduct in a Judicial Inquiry Board Complaint

4/23/2026

1 Comment

 
Picture
​Chicago-(AEAE) Today Judge Mary S. Trew was charged in a Judicial Inquiry Board Complaint of violations of the Illinois Code of JudiciaL Conduct as a result of a hearing conductedf in Cook County case No. 2025 1450232. 
Legal Disclaimer: The complaint contains allegations, Judge Mary S. Trew  denies the Charges and is considered innoncient until proven guilty in a Court of Law.
letter_may_5_2026.pdf
File Size: 648 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

1 Comment

Cook County Judge Corinne Heggie charged in a Judicial Inquiry Board Complaint

4/16/2026

4 Comments

 
Picture
​Chicago-(AEAE)A Judicial Inquiry Complaint has been filed against Illinois Cook County Judge Corinne Heggie, arising out of her conduct in the matter of The Equal Justice Party, et al. v. Illinois State Board of Elections et al  Case No 2025 1450232, currently pending in the Circuit Court, County Division of Cook County, Illinois. See Attached Complaint. 
Legal Disclaimer: The Complaint consists of Allegations of wrong doing, Judge Corrine Heggie denies the Charges and is considered innoncient until proven by a Court of Law.
court_filed.pdf
File Size: 10412 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

letter_may_5_2026.pdf
File Size: 648 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

4 Comments

Illinois Assistant Attorney General Connor Q. Hollander is Charged in a Attorney Disbarment Complaint

4/10/2026

10 Comments

 
Picture
​Chicago-(AEAE)A ARDC Complaint has been filed against Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul and Assistant Attorney General Connor Q. Hollander, arising out of their conduct in the matter of The Equal Justice Party, et al. v. Illinois State Board of Elections et al  Case No 2025 1450232, currently pending in the Circuit Court, County Division of Cook County, Illinois.
As detailed in the ARDC Attorney Disbarment Complaint and supporting documentation, Attorney General Raoul and Assistant Attorney Connor Q. Hollander:
  1. Represented multiple defendants Board members Catherine McCrory, Jack Vrett, Laura Donahue Casandra Watson, Tom Newman, Amy Calvin, Jason Hinds, Jennifer M. Balard Croft, Cris Cray, Ms. Walowitz, Rich Terven, Tonya Genovese, with conflicting interests without obtaining informed written consent in violation of Rule 1.7;
  2. Failed to discharge supervisory responsibilities under Rule 5.1.
  3. Respondents further represented multiple defendants with directly conflicting interests, including the Illinois Department of Human Services and individual DHS employees, without obtaining informed written consent as required by Rule 1.7.
  4. The combined motion and subsequent filings contained misrepresentations of law and fact, misleading the court as to the propriety of their pleading and the scope of their authority to represent multiple defendants.
  5. These actions caused unnecessary delay, prejudice to Complainant, and undermined the fair administration of justice.


IV. Rule Violations
Respondents’ are charged  violating the following Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct:
  • Rule 1.7 – Conflict of interest in representing multiple clients with adverse interests without informed written consent.
  • Rule 3.3(a)(1) – Making false statements of law to a tribunal.
  • Rule 3.3(a)(2) – Failing to disclose controlling legal authority directly adverse to their position.
  • Rule 8.4(c) – Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
  • Rule 8.4(d) – Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
  • Rule 5.1(a)–(c) – Failure of Attorney General Raoul to properly supervise subordinates and ensure compliance with ethical obligations.
 
Complainant Information
Attorney Information
Attorney 1: Kwame Raoul
  Position: Illinois Attorney General
Attorney 2: Connor Q. Hollander
   Position: Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Illinois Attorney General
100 W. Randolph Street
Chicago, IL 60601

 The Illinois Attorney General Office refused to comment.
​
LEGAL DISCLAIMER: The details contained in the Charging documents are allegations.  Connor Q. Hollander and Kwame Raoul are presumed Innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.  Connor Q. Hollander and Kwame Raoul  denies all of the charges.
  
10 Comments

Disbarment Complaint filed against Illinois Attorney General Aidan Nuttal and Kwame Raoul

10/31/2025

3 Comments

 
Picture
​Chicago-(AEAE)A ARDC Complaint has been filed against Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul and Assistant Attorney General Aidan Nuttal, arising out of their conduct in the matter of Leo Stoller, et al. v. Illinois Department of Human Services, et al., Case No. 2022 AR 001369, currently pending in the Circuit Court of DuPage County, Illinois.
As detailed in the ARDC Complaint and supporting documentation, Attorney General Raoul and Assistant Attorney General Nuttal:
  1. Represented multiple defendants with conflicting interests without obtaining informed written consent in violation of Rule 1.7;
  2. Filed a procedurally improper combined Section 2-301 and Section 2-619.1 motion, misrepresenting the law and misleading the Court, in violation of Rules 3.3(a) and 8.4(c), (d);
  3. Violated Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137 by submitting frivolous pleadings not well grounded in law or fact; and
  4. Failed to discharge supervisory responsibilities under Rule 5.1.
For ARDC review,  following materials as exhibits are in support of the ARDC complaint:
  • Exhibit A: Copy of Defendants’ Combined Section 2-301 and 2-619.1 Motion to Dismiss (filed July 18, 2025)
  • Exhibit B: Plaintiff’s Motion for Rule 137 Sanctions filed in Cook County Circuit Court
  • Exhibit C: Other relevant pleadings and orders of record

  1. Illinois law is clear that a jurisdictional objection under Section 2-301 must be raised separately and prior to any other responsive pleading. By combining these motions, Respondents knowingly filed a procedurally improper and frivolous pleading.
  2. Respondents further represented multiple defendants with directly conflicting interests, including the Illinois Department of Human Services and individual DHS employees, without obtaining informed written consent as required by Rule 1.7.
  3. The combined motion and subsequent filings contained misrepresentations of law and fact, misleading the court as to the propriety of their pleading and the scope of their authority to represent multiple defendants.
  4. These actions caused unnecessary delay, prejudice to Complainant, and undermined the fair administration of justice.


IV. Rule Violations
Respondents’ are charged  violating the following Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct:
  • Rule 1.7 – Conflict of interest in representing multiple clients with adverse interests without informed written consent.
  • Rule 3.3(a)(1) – Making false statements of law to a tribunal.
  • Rule 3.3(a)(2) – Failing to disclose controlling legal authority directly adverse to their position.
  • Rule 8.4(c) – Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
  • Rule 8.4(d) – Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
  • Rule 5.1(a)–(c) – Failure of Attorney General Raoul to properly supervise subordinates and ensure compliance with ethical obligations.
 
Complainant Information
Attorney Information
Attorney 1: Kwame Raoul
  Position: Illinois Attorney General
Attorney 2: Aidan Nuttal
   Position: Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Illinois Attorney General
100 W. Randolph Street
Chicago, IL 60601

 The Illinois Attorney General Office refused to comment.
​
LEGAL DISCLAIMER: The details contained in the Charging documents are allegations.  Aidan Nuttal and Kwame Raoul are presumed Innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. Aidan Nuttal and Kwame Raoul  denies all of the charges.
 

3 Comments
<<Previous

    EQUAL JUSTICE PARTY
    Internships not available now
    ​


     Help the Equal Justice Party www. equaljusticeparty.org a registered political party in Illinois, support conservative candidates and endorses AEAE. Contribute today!
    FREE SPEECH ON THE NET IS NOT 'FREE'. PEOPLE GO TO JAIL FOR BLOGGING ALL OF THE TIME. THE EQUAL JUSTICE PARTY IS FIGHTING TO MAINTAIN THE FIRST AMENDMENT WHICH IS SUPPOSE TO GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF SPEECH. , the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content." Police Dep't of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 95, 33 L. Ed. 2d 212, 92 S. Ct. 2286 (1972); see also Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 447 U.S. 530, 537, 65 L. Ed. 2d 319, 100 S. Ct. 2326 (1980)
    ​
    YOU CAN SUPPORT FREEDOM OF SPEECH BY SUPPORTING THE EQUAL JUSTICE PARTY. DONATE ON-LINE
    Supporting Equal Justice Party helps to maintain the Internet a free voice and EJ supports the First Amendment of the U.S Constitution.
     The Equal Justice Party (EJ) is a registered Political Action Committee in Chicago, Illinois S 10127 L 15656. The EJ supports conservative causes, conservative candidates, small government.
     Americans for the Enforcement of Attorney Ethics (AEAE) www.rentamark.net is a not for profit group that  supports Equal Justice www.equaljustice.org and advocates the strict enforcement of attorney ethics since 1974.
     The purpose of the AEAE 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 AEAE, is a attorney rating Service. The comments made by AEAE are not actionable because they are statements of opinion Moriarty v. Greene 732 N.E.2d 730, 740 Ill.App), citing Owen  v. Can 497 N.E.2d 1145, 1148 (Ill.1986) see Law offices of David Freydin,PC v Vitoria Chamara et al No 18-3216 Seventh Circuit No 18-3216 decided 01-28-2022.
    Ratings are non-actionable opinion statements 
    David Freydin,PC v Vitoria Chamara et al citing  Syngenta Seeds Inc v. Bung North America,Inc 773 F.3d 58  (8th Cir 2014) Illinois Law  on expressions of Opinion , an unexplained  one star review simply could not be actionable as defamation David Freydin case citing  Cf. Kimzey v. Yelp!Inc. 836  F. 3d 1263, 1269-70 (9th Cir 2016)
    AEAE LEGAL ETHICS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY EXPERTS, valuations, expert
    witness testimony, trademark surveys, brief writer, Appellate Expert. 
    The author(s)  graduated from Mayville State College with a BS Degree, North Dakota State University, MASTERS DEGREE  and attended the University of Iowa a  for a PHD. The Author(s)  are the nation's most renowned
    Legal Ethics experts  and Intellectual Property Entrepreneur(s) with many years of experience in the field of brief writing, trademarks, licensing and
    enforcement, expert witness testimony, trademark valuation  Americans for the Enforcement of Attorney Ethics (AEAE) an attorney watch dog group since 1974. AEAE has appeared on FOX NEWS, CBS and in
    numerous national news papers including the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Chicago Sun Times etc and on many radio talk shows. AEAE accepts political contributions.  AEAE, P.O.  Box 60645, Chicago, Illinois 60660. Email [email protected]
    312-545-4554
    Copyright AEAE 2017, all rights reserved. AEAE accepts no liability for incorrect or inaccurate information appearing here. The opinions expressed here are those o f AEAE  Use of this site is subject to our "terms of use" which is published here. Nothing can be duplicated without written permission.
     "Litigation is the Sea We swim in,
    Litigation is the Air We Breathe
    Litigation is War,

    Welcome to the Front!"


     To Prove Defamation Case?
    What Do You Have To Prove? There are two things you have to prove to be true in order to win a case of defamation of character in the court of law. First of all, you have to prove without a doubt that what was said or written about you is not true. Once you have proved that the statement is, in fact, false you have to prove that the other person said the false statement with the intent of causing you some form of harm. 
    The Fair Reporting Privilege is a defense to any claim of Defamation 

    The Fair Report Privilege applies to the information contained on this web site.

    “[T]he fair report privilege has two requirements: (1) the report must be of an official proceeding; and (2) the report must be complete and accurate or a fair abridgment of the official proceeding. [Citation.] *** For a publication to be considered a fair abridgment, the report must convey to readers a substantially correct account of the official proceedings. [Citation.] A reporter is not privileged to make additions of his own that would convey a defamatory impression or to indict expressly or by innuendo the veracity or integrity of any of the parties. [Citation.] Finally, it is the accuracy of the summary, not the truth or falsity of the information being summarized, that is the benchmark of the privilege. [Citation.]” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Eubanks, 397 Ill. App. 3d at 749 (citing Solaia Technology, LLC v. Specialty Publishing Co., 221 Ill. 2d 558, 588-90 (2006)). ¶ 30 
    AEAE argues it reports on the  law and law suits and it is the intent of AEAE to "fairly report" these official proceedings.

    ​AEAE has the legal  right to evaluate and rate attorneys, government officials, College educators,  business leaders See JOHN HENRY BROWNE, et al., AVVO, INC., et al Case No. C07-0920RSL UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE  18th day of December, 2007. A Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge

    VERITAS OMNIA VINCIT


    DISCLAIMER: The AEAE does not provide legal services or legal advice. Discussions of legal principles and authority, including, but not limited to, constitutional provisions, statutes, legislative enactments, court rules, case law, and common-law doctrines are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice.


    Archives

    September 2026
    April 2026
    October 2025
    September 2025
    August 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    January 2025
    March 2024
    February 2024
    September 2023
    July 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    July 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    October 2021
    July 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    April 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    June 2019
    April 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    January 2015
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010
    December 2009
    November 2009
    October 2009
    September 2009

    Categories
    Disclaimer This website is not a solicitation for business. All content on the AEAE website is intended to provide general information about AEAE and an opportunity for interested  persons to contact AEAE. The content of this website is not offered as legal advice or legal opinion and it should not be relied upon for any specific situation.  AEAE is not engaged in the practice of law and no attorney client relationship is intended.  This website is for informational purposes only and does not constitute a complete description of AEAE services. While AEAE endeavors to keep the information updated and correct, AEAE makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the information contained in this website. 

    All
    Jewelry Frauds
    Scams
    Yellow Diamonds

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.