A Supreme Court of 1 Justice -- Sotomayor -- Rules Against Former 'D.C. Madam' Lawyer
CHICAGO-(AEAE)-LAWYER MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY SUED THE JUSTICES OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT when it does not rule in his favor or does not take up his case. His suits cause recusal problems for the Court, because the justices tend to recuse when they are named targets. Sibley's latest suit named all the justices he claims improperly refused to hear an earlier custody case, leaving only the Court's newest justice to rule on it. A Supreme Court of 1 Justice -- Sotomayor -- Rules Against Former 'D.C. Madam' Lawyer
5 Comments
CHICAGO-(AEAE)-EVERY SINCE BROKE BACK MOUNTIAN WAS NOMINATED FOR AN OSCAR in 2005, Americans have been loosing interest in the Oscars. Remember, Broke Back Mountain was a American gay-themed “sick”romantic-drama film that depicts the complex romantic and sexual relationship between two sodomites, “fag” cowboys. Since then, millions of people have turned off the Oscars. Broke Back Mountain represented the entire moral collapse of Hollywood. That next year, 2006, the Oscars even featured, another homosexual theme, a lesbian, Allen Degenerate as the host. Since 2006 millions of Americans have turned off their TV's when the Oscars are presented. Today's La and Hollywood are yesterdays Sodom and Gomorrah. Who cares about tonights Oscars? WASHINGTON-D.C.-(AEAE)- APPELLATE COURT DO NOT ALWAYS GET IT RIGHT. The United States Supreme Court issued a decision inREED ELSEVIER, INC., ET AL. v. MUCHNICK ET AL. On March 3, 2010 reversing the THE SECOND CIRCUIT in a copyright case. The Copyright Act (Act) generally requires copyright holders to register their works before suing for copyright infringement. 17 U. S. C. A. §411(a). The complaint in this consolidated, class-action copyright in fringement suit alleged that the named plaintiffs each own at least one copyright, typically in a freelance article written for a newspaper or magazine, that they had registered in accordance with §411(a).. The parties moved the District Court to certify a settlement class and approve a settlement agree ment. The District Court did so over the objections of some freelance authors. On appeal, the Second Circuit sua sponte raised the question whether §411(a) deprives federal courts of subject-matter jurisdiction over infringement claims involving unregistered copyrights, concluding that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to certify the class or approve the settlement. The U.S Supreme Court reversed. The Second Circuit sua sponte committed reversble error. Click on the attached link to read the whole opinion http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-103.pdf Leo Stoller is the nations leading Intellectual Property and Appellate court Expert Ldms4@hotmail.com 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 LAWSUIT3/5/2010 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. 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. |
EQUAL JUSTICE PARTY
|