Americans for the Enforcement of Attorney Ethics

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

BRYAN CAVE LP PARTNER STEVEN R. SMITH CHARGED WITH INDIRECT CRIMINAL CONTEMPT AND PERJURY-SMITH COULD DRAG DOWN THE PRESIDENT OF BANK OF AMERICA AS WELL

2/11/2010

5 Comments

 
Picture
  CHICAGO-(AEAE)-IN AN INDIRECT CRIMINAL PETITION FILED IN CHICAGO, BRYAN CAVE LP PARTNER STEVEN R. SMITH WAS CHARGED WITH FALSE SWEARING.
The nature of the charge against STEVEN R. SMITH is perjury, false swearing by a witness, 720 ILCS 5/32-2(a), a Class 3 felony; see a People v. Hagopian, 343 Ill. App. 640, 99 N.E.2d 726 (1st Dist. 1951), 720 ILCS 5/11-20.1, a Class 3 felony. See true and correct copy of a false Affidavit of Steven R. Smith executed on January 22, 2010, http://www.filefront.com/15555423/scan0001.pdf

On December 23, 2009, Leo Stoller had a telephonic conversation with Mr. Steven Smith in which Steven Smith had admitted that “I know Judge Mason and she will not deal with your nonsense.” See paragraph five of the Affidavit. Now after Stoller had filed a Motion for Substitution of Judge Mary Ann Mason, Mr. Smith, on January 22, 2010, submittes a false Affidavit in support of Bank American’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Substitution of Judge, falsely stating that Mr. Smith did not make that statement. The chances are that the fact Mr. Steven R. Smith made that admission that “I know Judge Mason and she will not deal with your nonsense!” may have had little impact on whether the newly assigned Judge who is ruling on Stoller's substitution motion would have removed Judge Mason as a result of Mr. Smith admission. However, now Mr. Steven R. Smith is being charged with perjury for lying under oath according to the charges in the petition. It is never necessary for lawyers to lie under oath but some lawyers are driven to show their client that they can win at any cost and are willing to jeopardies their case and their careers by lying under oath.

LEGAL DISCLAIMER: Illinois Attorney Steven R. Smith is considered innocent of all charges until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

5 Comments

BANK OF AMERICA CHAIRMAN WALTER E. MASSEY, CEO BRIAN MOYNHAN AND JOE L. PRICE CHARGED IN INDIRECT CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION IN CHICAGO ILLINOIS COURT

2/10/2010

6 Comments

 
Picture
CHICAGO-(AEAE)-IN AN INDIRECT CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION FILED IN COOK COUNTY COURT THE CHAIRMAN OF BANK AMERICA WALTER E. MASSEY, THE FORMER CEO KENNETH D. LEWIS, THE CURRENT CEO JOE L. PRICE, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER have been charged with conspiracy. It is not required to prove that each member of a conspiracy committed an overt act within the statute of limitations. Hyde v. United States, United States v. Read, 658 F.2d 1225, 1234 (7th Cir.1981) The indirect criminal contempt charges alleged here in are ones that were committed outside of the presence of the Court1. Ergo Indirect Criminal Contempt proceedings are mandated. The nature of the charge against Bank of American's attorney STEVEN R. SMITH is that he presented a “false” affidavit”. That charge is perjury, false swearing by a witness 720 ILCS 5/32-3(a) and . 720 ILCS 5/32-2, a Class 3 felony “see also People v. Hagopian, 343 Ill. App. 640, 99 N.E.2d 726 (1st Dist. 1951). The nature of the charges against Smith's “bag man” attorney Michael Werich is Subornation of Perjury 720 ILCS 5/32-2, 720 ILCS 5/32-3(a) The charge against the Respondent’s Law Firm of Bryan Cave LLP is Subornation of Perjury a Class 4 felony 720 ILCS 5/32-2, 720 ILCS 5/32-3(a) . The Law Firm of Bryan Cave LLP is attempting to proceed before the Illinois trial court Judge Leroy Martin using the falsely sworn affidavit of attorney Steven R. Smith dated January 22, 2010. In that sworn affidavit Steven R. Smith denies under oath that he said, “I know Judge Mason and she will not deal with your nonsense!” There is irrefutable evidence consisting of a telephonic tape recording that Mr. Smith consented to, which clearly has Mr. Steven R. Smith stating, “I know Judge Mason and she will not deal with your nonsense!” It is the opinion of legal experts that when that tape recording of Mr. Steven R. Smith voice is played in court it will lead to the convictions of all of the parties charged. This story continues click on the following link http://www.rentamark.net/3/post/2010/01/bank-of-america-ceo-brian-moynihan-makes-damming-admissions-under-oath-to-the-financial-crisis-inquiry-commission.html

LEGAL DISCLAIMER: WALTER E. MASSEY, JOE L. PRICE , BRIAN MOYNHAN, Steven R. Smith, Michael Werich, the Law Firm of Bryan Cave LLP are considered innocent of all charges until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Picture
6 Comments

U.S. SUPREME COURT RULES THAT “ACTUAL PREJUDICE” IS NOT REQUIRED FOR SUBSTITUTION OF JUDGE

2/9/2010

1 Comment

 
Picture
  1. CHICAGO-(AEAE)-ATTORNEY ASKES THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT TO OVERRULE ILLINOIS CASE LAW THAT SAYS THOSE SEEKING S SUBSTITUTION OF A JUDGE FOR CAUSE MUST SHOW “ACTUAL PREJUDICE” and create a standard by which the “appearance of impropriety” would be sufficient. The attorney cited the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Inc., No.08-22 decided June 8th, 2009 http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-22.pdfthat held the Constitution does not require proof of actual prejudice for the substitution of a judge to be appropriate. The U.S. Supreme Court in that Caperton decision also stated that the Due Process Clause requires “recusal” when a judge has a “direct, personal, substantial, pecuniary interest. The high court sites the “rule” that “a defendant in criminal contempt proceedings should be tried before a judge other than the one reviled by the contemnor. In Stoller's contempt proceeding, which is up on appeal, in which Illinois Divorce Judge Carol K. Bellows “who was reviled” by Stoller's alleged violation of her order banning Stoller from blogging, also tried and convicted Stoller sending him to the Illinois Cook County Jail for 37 days. A decision which clearly is in Opposite Caperton et al id., and Mayberry v. Pennsylvania 400 U.S. 455, 466


1 Comment

STOLLER ASKS ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT TO VACATE UNCONSTITUTIONAL ORDER OF PROTECTION

2/8/2010

8 Comments

 
Picture
 

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.

Picture
8 Comments

WHO DO YOU THINK IS GOING TO WIN THE SUPER BOWL 2010

2/6/2010

2 Comments

 
Picture
2 Comments

ILLINOIS ATTORNEYS LAURA MYERS AND MICHELE LYNN KILLEBREW CHARGED WITH FALSE SWEARING

2/6/2010

12 Comments

 
Picture
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.

Picture
12 Comments

STOLLER HAS FILED MORE U.S. SUPREME COURT APPEALS THAN 99% OF THE ATTORNEYS IN AMERICA

2/5/2010

3 Comments

 
Picture
 

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!"

3 Comments

STOLLER\'S APPEAL TO THE ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT RAISE UNIQUE ISSUE IN PROBATE CASE, “DOES THE ILLINOIS PROBATE ACT TRUMP THE POWER OF ATTORNEY ACT?”

2/4/2010

8 Comments

 
Picture
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.

8 Comments

AEAE GIVE KUDOS TO JUSTICE DAVID HAMLTON FOR SPEAKING “TRUTH” TO POWER

2/3/2010

1 Comment

 
Picture
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


1 Comment

AEAE- LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS WHO FALSELY ARREST LEGAL PROFESSIONALS CAN ANTICIPATE BEING SUED INDIVIDUALLY FOR MILLIONS

2/2/2010

2 Comments

 
Picture
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.

2 Comments
<<Previous
Forward>>

    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

    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.