Americans for the Enforcement of Attorney Ethics

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

STOLLER FILES APPEAL ASKING THE ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT TO GIVE GUIDELINES ON THE PROPER PROCEEDURE TO FILE A PETITION FOR INDIRECT CRIMINAL CONTEMPT

3/31/2010

4 Comments

 
Picture
CHICAGO-(AEAE)-STOLLER FILED AN APPEAL WITH THE ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT ASKING THEM TO SET GUIDE LINES ON THE PROPER PROCEEDURE FOR FILING AN Indirect Criminal Contempt Petition in Chicago Illinois when seeking "jail" time for attorneys  and others who are found guilty of contempt. 
The nature of the case before the Illinois Appeals court was a citation to discover assets. The opposing counsel, Robert Tepper, in an attempt to collect a debt, filed a false lien against a piece of property, in which he knew or should have known that the creditor had no interest according to the brief. Mr. Tepper is alleged to have falsely swore under oath that he had a valid lien on a piece of property. As a result of Mr. Tepper’s false swearing on a lien, he was entitled to a be charged in an indirect criminal contempt proceeding since his false swearing was outside the purview of the Court.
Whether the Cook County Rules of Civil Procedure provide specific instructions on how to file an indirect criminal contempt petition to be filed in Cook County?
 The Appellant had filed an indirect criminal contempt petition in front of Judge Kathy Flanigan, who was familiar with a procedure which gives a party leave to file a petition on the 10th floor of the Daley Center in the Criminal Division in order to obtain a separate filing number.
On the other hand, Judge Tolmaire acknowledged in open court that he was unfamiliar with any indirect criminal contempt proceedings, and summarily denied the Appellant leave to file an indirect criminal contempt petition in the criminal division in order to obtain a separate filing number.
In view of the confusion among Judges in the Daley Center, it is important for this Court to establish guidelines and procedures for a party to obtain leave to file a petition for adjudication of indirect criminal contempt on the 10th floor of the Daley Center.
Individual parties, and pro se parties, should be allowed to bring indirect criminal contempt charges when lawyers,  abusers,  infringe on a court order and/or engage in any other contumacious behavior outside of the purview of the court.

The private right to prosecute gives teeth to court orders and/or to prosecution of contumacious conduct outside the purview of the court. Victims should be able to file the paperwork and argue at a hearing before a judge that could change a tormentor. Victims should not have to convince a busy prosecutor to have to add to his or her workload. Indirect criminal contempt actions should be able to be brought in the name of the victim.

There is a tradition of private prosecutions, particularly for criminal contempt. There has never been an established common law requirement, let alone a Constitutional requirement, that a criminal or an indirect criminal contempt proceeding be brought in the name of the sovereign.
A victim cannot rely on the police or prosecutors to bring these actions because the state does not have the necessary resources to enforce every court order issued or to prosecute every individual who is guilty of contumacious conduct.
Leo Stoller is a legal scholar and Appelate Expert ldms4@hotmail.com

4 Comments

CHICAGO CHILD PSYCHOLOGISTS 604 CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATOR WAS SERVED

3/30/2010

0 Comments

 
Picture


CHICAGO-(AEAE)-A MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, FALSE ARREST, FALSE IMPRISIONMENT LAWSUIT WAS FILED LESS THAN A YEAR AFTER STOLLER WAS FALSELY INCARCERATED ON FEB. 25 THRU MARCH 6 OF 2009. STOLLER SUED The Illinois Cook County Sheriff, a divorce lawyer(s) several other attorneys, a child representative and the 604b court appointed Child Psychologists. Finally, on Monday the last party, the 604(b) Child Psychologists was served. The case can now begin
LEGAL DISCLAIMER: A court order bars the mention of the parties on this blog. There is a pending appeal which should reverse that court order. stay tuned.

0 Comments

BRYAN CAVE LLP AND SENIOR PARTNER STEVEN R. SMITH SUED FOR RICO CLAIMS CANNOT EXPECT INSURANCE COVERAGE

3/29/2010

4 Comments

 
Picture
CHICAGO-(AEAE)-THE AMERICANS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF ATTORNEY ETHICS (AEAE), a Chicago based attorney ethics watch dog group has analyzed a number of attorney insurance policies. 95% of the policies will not insurance an attorney if a Racketeering Claim is brought against him. Generally, most insurance policies exclude from coverage any damages caused by intentional misconduct. In addition if an attorney is sued twice within 5 years most attorney insurance carriers will drop that attorney's coverage.
 Attorney disciplinary complaints filed against attorneys is a permanent stain against their careers, whether or not a disciplinary commission actually disciplines that attorney or not. Once an attorney disciplinary complaint is filed against an attorney that lawyer has to explain that complaint for the rest of his career. If he fails to report it in insurance disclosures, judgeship applications he can be disqualified and/or disbarred. The fact that a small percentage of attorney disciplinary complaints ever result in sanctions and/or disbarments should not deter any party from filing a attorney disciplinary complaint if they feel they have grounds to do so.

Picture
4 Comments

AEAE GIVES KUDOS TO UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS LAW PROFESSOR ROBERT OWEN

3/28/2010

10 Comments

 
Picture
CHICAGO-(AEAE)-THERE WOULD BE A MAN DEAD TODAY IF IT WERE NOT FOR PROFESSOR ROBERT OWEN FILING A PETITION BEFORE THE UNITES STATES SUPREME COURT. The Supreme Court's "11th hour" stay of execution issued Wednesday evening for a Texas death row inmate gives the justices another chance to revisit a key DNA testing question left unanswered last term. The justices unanimously granted the delay one hour before Henry Skinner was scheduled to die for the 1993 murders of his girlfriend and her two adult sons. Skinner, who claims he is innocent, has sought DNA testing of bloody knives, material beneath the dead woman's fingernails, rape kit samples and other items found at the murder scene. The Court's order (pdf) will remain in effect until the justices act on Skinner's petition for certiorari. Skinner's counsel, Robert Owen http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/profile.php?id=owenrc of the University of Texas School of Law, expressed relief in a statement Wednesday night, saying, "As a result of this action, the Court will have more time to determine whether to hear his appeal. This action suggests that the Court believes there are important issues that require closer examination. We remain hopeful that the Court will agree to hear Mr. Skinner's case and ultimately allow him the chance to prove his innocence through DNA testing." The Americans for the Enforcement of Attorney Ethics (AEAE), ranking lawyers since 1974, ranks attorneys who assist indigent prisoners who are convicted of capital crimes at the very top of the legal profession.
Mr. Robert Owen ranks at the very top of the AEAE attorney ratings. As opposed to the Bryan Cave LLP law firm http://www.bryancave.com/ , attorneys Steven R. Smith http://www.bryancave.com/srsmith/ , Michael Werich http://www.bryancave.com/michaelwerich/ , the law firm of Roylance, Abrams, Berdo and Goodman www.roylance.com , attorneys Lance G. Johnson, http://www.roylance.com/roylance-abrams-attorneys/Pages/Lance-Johnson.aspx David Abrams http://www.roylance.com/roylance-abrams-attorneys/Pages/david-abrams.aspx and Alfred Goodman http://www.roylance.com/roylance-abrams-attorneys/Pages/Alfred-Goodman.aspx who are ranked as “garbage” at the bottom of the AEAE attorney rating scale as “unqualified” to practice law in AEAE's opinion. This is an illustration of the best and the worst in the legal profession.
Please send an email to Mr. Robert Owen to congratulate him on the great job he did and is doing ROWEN@LAW.UTEXAS.EDU

10 Comments

PHOENIX LAW FIRM OF TIFFANY & BOSCO TO BE ADDED IN CHICAGO RACKETERRING LAWSUIT

3/27/2010

8 Comments

 
Picture
CHICAGO-(AEAE)- THE ARIZONA  LAW FIRM OF  TIFFANY & BOSCO REFUSED TO RESPOND TO A DEMAND LETTER TODAY BY  6:00PM Thursday. A spokes person for the law firm McHenry stated that attorney Leonard McDonald would respond. Email and faxes were sent to the Phoenix Arizona law firm but they failed to respond. Illinois Civil Racketeering law suit involving Bank of American, Country Wide Financial will be amended to add the necessary parties, Defendants, the law firm of Tiffany & Bosco, Mark Bosco individually and Michael A. Bosco individually. In addition, the Arizona firm of John Hall & Associates, Bryan Hayes, and the real estate broker Jim Sexton will be added to the Chicago fraud and conspiracy case. Each one of these parties failed to meet the dead line to respond.

8 Comments

BANK OF AMERICA A CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE?

3/26/2010

3 Comments

 
Picture
STOLLER MOVES TO TRANSFER BANK OF AMERICA CASE FROM CHANCERY TO THE LAW DIVISION OF COOK COUNTY
CHICAGO-(AEAE)-STOLLER HAS MOVED TO TRANSFER THE BANK OF AMERICA CIVIL RACKETERRING 100 million dollar Civil Racketerring lawsuit  SEEKING DAMAGES OF $100 MILLION DOLLARS TO THE COOK COUNTY LAW DIVISION. The Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan on the same grounds that Stoller has alleged forced a settlement from Bank of American's Countrywide division of 8.4 billion which dealt with the fact that Countrywide engaged in consumer fraud and deceptive trade practices in granting mortgages to home owners. Stoller's complaint is similar. Now Stoller has requested that the case be moved from the Chancery Court to the Cook County Law division. The decision whether to retain or transfer a claim to the Law Division rests in the sound discretion of the Chancery Court. See, e.g., May Stores Shopping Ctrs., Inc. v. Hartz Mountain-Free Zone Ctr., 162 N.J. Super. 130, 135 (Chan. Div. 1978).

3 Comments

BANK OF AMERICA AGREES TO PAY 3 BILLION DOLLARS

3/25/2010

0 Comments

 
Picture
Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley has brokered a $3 billion loan modification deal with Bank of America subsidiary Countrywide Financial Corp. The settlement builds on Countrywide's 2008 agreement with 43 other state attorneys general and the District of Columbia, which called for Countrywide to modify loans for certain delinquent borrowers and builders. In a statement, Coakley noted that the settlement would be used to reduce the principal owed by some homeowners.

BofA Subsidiary Agrees to $3 Billion Home Loan Modification Deal

0 Comments

BRYAN CAVE LLP SENIOR PARTNER STEVEN R. SMITH CHARGE WITH PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT IN A HEARING TODAY

3/24/2010

6 Comments

 
Picture
CHICAGO-(AEAE)- BRYAN CAVE LLP SENIOR PARTNER STEVEN R. SMITH IN AN ARGUMENT BEFORE ILLINOIS CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE LEROY MARTIN made a “clear” misstatement of material fact in violation of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 3.3(a). Mr. Smith in open court in an attempt to discredit Stoller sited to a blog posting regarding his partner Rodney Perry. http://www.rentamark.net/3/post/2010/03/aeae-releases-the-name-of-a-bryan-cave-llp-partner-attorney-rodney-perry-who-is-rated-as-not-recommended.html Mr. Smith misstated in open court that “Stoller on his blog posting of Rodney Perry charged him with perjury!” Mr. Perry was not charged with “perjury”. A simple reading of the above link will reveal that clear fact. Mr. Steven R. Smith knew that no where on this blog was Mr. Perry charged with “perjury” yet Mr. Smith in an attempt to prejudice Judge Martin against Stoller made the “false” representation to Judge Smith meriting a full blown Illinois Attorney Registration and disciplinary complaint being filed against Mr. Steven R. Smith and h is “bag” man Michael Werich. A copy of the official transcript of todays hearing was ordered and will be posted here within the next few days stayed tuned. Mr. Smith's office would not return our phone calls today.
LEGAL DISCLAIMER: Steven R. Smith and Michael J. Werich are considered innocient of all charges until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

6 Comments

HEARING ON DISQUALIFICATION OF ILLINOIS CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE MARY ANN MASON FOR CAUSE SET TO GO

3/24/2010

8 Comments

 
Picture
CHICAGO-(AEAE)-A HARING FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF ILLINOIS CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE MARY ANN MASON IS SET TO GO BEFORE JUDGE LEROY K. MARTIN. In th last hearing Bryan Cave LLC Senior partner Steven R. Smith was charged with making misrepresentations of material fact or law. Stoller requested that Judge Martin put Mr. Smith under oath in order for Stoller to ask Smith one question, “Did you tell me on Dec. 23, 2009 that you knew Judge Mary Ann Mason and she would not put up with my nonsense?” Judge Martin refused to put Steven Smith under oath so that Stoller could ask him the question. A Petition for Indirect Criminal Contempt has already been filed naming Steven Smith. The official transcript of the March 3, 2010 hearing is down loadable click on the following link to see the verbal fire fight in front of Judge LeRoy K Martin Jr.  http://www.filefront.com/15905975/scan0002.pdf(before .  Ldms4@hotmail.com

8 Comments

BRYAN CAVE LLP, STEVEN R. SMITH, MICHAEL WRICH, RODNEY PERRY SUED FOR RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATION ACT (RICO)

3/23/2010

3 Comments

 
Picture


CHICAGO-(AEAE)-A CIVIL RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATION ACT (RICO) CAUSE OF ACTION WAS FILED TODAY AGAINST THE LAW FIRM OF BRYAN CAVE LLP, SENIOR PARTNER STEVEN R. SMITH, RODNEY PERRY AND ASSOCIATE MICHAEL WRICH. This is civil action accrue under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ( RICO) remedies authorized by the federal statutes at 18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq.;  for declaratory and injunctive relief;  for actual, consequential and exemplary damages;  and for all other relief which this honorable Superior Court deems just and proper under all circumstances which have occasioned this Initial COMPLAINT.  See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1964(a) and (c) (“Civil RICO”).

“The primary cause of this action is a widespread criminal enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity across State lines, and a conspiracy to engage in racketeering activity involving numerous RICO predicate acts during the past ten (10) calendar years.

The predicate acts alleged here cluster around a scheme to defraud mortgage holders by trafficking in fraudulent loan practices, failing to disclose the terms of the loans to mortgages , charging usury interest rates, foreclosing on homes, and then profiting from the foreclosure and resale of the homes to third parties. The primary predicate offenses in this case pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1961 mail fraud, wire fraud and fraud in the sale of mortgages. The Defendants “causes” the mails to be used with the meaning of the mail fraud statute.

Other RICO predicate acts, appearing as part of this conspiracy, were actually part of the overall conspiracy and pattern of racketeering activity alleged herein, e.g. mail fraud and bank fraud.  See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1344, respectively.

The primary objective of the racketeering enterprise has been to inflict severe and sustained economic hardship upon Plaintiff, and similar other parties who were victims of fraudulent loan practices throughout Illinois, Arizona, and throughout the country as well known to Bryan Cave, Steven R. Smith, Rodney Perry and Michael Werich.

LEGAL DISCLAIMER: Bryan Cave, Steven R. Smith, Rodney Perry and Michael Werich. Are considered innocient until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

3 Comments
<<Previous

    EQUAL JUSTICE PARTY
    Internships available
    ​312-545-4554


     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
    LEGAL ETHICS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY EXPERT, 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 ldms4@hotmail.com
    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

    February 2023
    July 2022
    April 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.