Americans for the Enforcement of Attorney Ethics

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

JUDGES DO NOT ENJOY ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FROM CIVIL SUITS-TWO COOK COUNTY JUDGES TARGETED FOR 1983 CIVIL ACTIONS

5/31/2010

4 Comments

 
Picture
CHICAGO-(AEAE)-HAS TARGETED TWO COOK COUNTY JUDGES FOR CIVIL SUITS UNDER SECTION 1983 CIVIL RIGHTS. In examining entitlement to immunity, the U.S. Supreme Court focused upon the nature of the act: is it an act ordinarily performed by a Judge? Although absolute judicial immunity is favored as public policy, so that judges may fearlessly, and safe from retribution, adjudicate matters before them. The tide is turning. Corrupt judges must be sued! “Federal Civil Rights statutes, and possibly Bivens actions, appear to offer the best path for redressing constitutional grievances with state and federal judges, respectively, in Federal Court. As a practical matter, such cases will usually be brought by pro se litigants. Neither the politics nor economics of law practice permits lawyers, who want to keep their law licenses, to sue judges. It is for that reason that judges have an out right hostility toward pro se litigants well versed in the law.
4 Comments

REQUEST TO DISQUALIFY ILLINOIS ASSOCIATE JUDGE NAOMI H. SCHUSTER ON THE GROUNDS THAT SHE IS BIAS AND PREJUDICE

5/30/2010

17 Comments

 
Picture
CHICAGO-(AEAE)-ON THURSDAY MAY 27, 2010 ILLINOIS CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE GERALD BENDER TRANSFERRED STOLLER'S MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION (SOJ) TO THE CHIEF JUDGE FOR ASSIGNEMENT FOR HEARING BY ANOTHER JUDGE. The case was assigned to a new female Associate Judge Naomi H. Schuster in Room 2103(a) in the Chicago Daley Center Court House. At 12:10PM Stoller arrived in a very small court room. Judge Schuster, a young woman in her 40's said,”This case must be heard quickly.” Stoller's opponent requested 28 days to file their response to Stoller' motion for substitution of Illinois Judge Gerald Bender. Judge Schuster said,”I want this hearing set for June 5, 2010.” Stoller said, “That's impossible, I have three appeals and a U.S Supreme Court Appeal that I am drafting and that there is no way I can be ready for June 5, 2010!” Judge Schuster said, “Everyone is busy, we will set the hearing for June 15, 2010 at 9:30PM.”
“I have a hearing at 9:30AM before Judge Preston!” “That's to bad!” Judge Naomi H. Schuster got up and left the bench. Stoller immediately filed a motion to SOJ  Judge Naomi H. Schuster which is set for next week.”
17 Comments

ILLINOIS CHIEF LAW DIVISION JUDGE WILLIAM D. MADDUX RE-INSTATES THE LANCE G. JOHNSON 100 MILLION DOLLAR DEFAMATION LAWSUIT TODAY

5/29/2010

6 Comments

 
Picture
CHICAGO-(AEAE)-IN HEARING BEFORE ILLINOIS COOK COUNTY CHIEF LAW DIVISION JUDGE ON WEDNESDAY, JUDGE WILLIAM D. MADDUX ISSUED AN ORDER re-instating the Lance G. Johnson 100 million dollar defamation lawsuit. Gordon and Rees attorney Haynes Ryan represented the Johnson crowd at the hearing. 
 It is reported that the defendants in that case attorneys Lance G. Johnson, David Abrams and Alfred Goodman who had been celebrating the dismissal of the defamation lawsuit all month since May 5. 2010 when Judge Foran dismissed the case, became head bangers today and reached for the “bottle”. It is reported that Goodman has been off of the bottle for several years but could not any longer with stand the “stress” of facing a 100 million dollar liability that if successful will wipe out all of his financial gains that he has achieved over his entire life. A source close to Goodman stated that he has not been seen since Judge Maddox  http://www.cookcountycourt.org/about/directory/courthouses.htmlissued his decision. If there is anyone who knows where Goodman is please email Ldms4@hotmail.com because the readers of this blog would be very interested in finding out.
LEGAL DISCLAIMER: When Goodman reaches for a "bottle"  we have no evidence as to what type of "bottle" Goodman is reaching for. Some reports suggest that he likes "small" bottles that he carries in his back pocket. Other reports that Goodman perferrs much larger bottles, as far as we know these could be empty bottles Goodman is reaching for. No inference should be made of what type of contents may or may not be in these "bottles" that Goodman is alledged to  reach for.
6 Comments

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS CHIEF JUDGE JAMES HOLDERMAN REMANDS STOLLER LAWSUIT AGAINST BANK OF NEW YORK, BRYAN CAVE LLP ET AL, TO ILLINOIS STATE COURT

5/27/2010

1 Comment

 
Picture
CHICAGO-(AEAE)-STOLLER BROUGHT A CIVIL RACKETERRING LAWSUIT AGAINST BANK OF AMERICA, BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, THE LAW FIRM OF BRYAN CAVE LLP. SENOR PARTNER STEVEN R. SMITH HIS BAG MAN MICHAEL WERICH and the officers and directors of the bank. Bryan Cave LLP moved to have Stoller lawsuit transferred to the Northern District of Illinois from the Illinois Cook County Court. The case was assigned to Chief Judge James Holderman. Judge Holderman conducted a hearing in which Stoller appeared and argued his case to have his lawsuit transferred back to Illinois State Court. Steven R. Smith attorney for Bryan Cave LLP and a defendant in the case argued that the case belonged in Federal Court on account of Stoller's Civil Rico Count and his claims under the Truth In Lending Act. On April 26, 2010 Judge Holderman http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/Judge/HOLDERMAN/jfhbio.htm issued an order transferring Stoller's case back to the Illinois State Court, granting Stoller's request and denying Bryan Cave LLP's Motion to Dismiss.
1 Comment

WASHINGTON D.C. ATTORNEY S LANCE G. JOHNSON, DAVID ABRAMS AND ALFRED GOODMAN CELEBRATES JUDGE DISMISSES 100 MILLION DOLLAR DEFAMATION CASE

5/26/2010

3 Comments

 
Picture
  CHICAGO-(AEAE)-WASHINGTON D.C. ATTORNEYS LANCE G. JOHNSON, DAVID ABRAMS AND ALFRED GOODMAN FROM THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW FIRM OF ROYLANCE, ABRAMS BERDO AND GOODMAN LLC WERE SUED FOR 100 million dollars in a defamation lawsuit in Chicago, Illinois. They were also charged in an Indirect Criminal Contempt Petition which is currently on appeal before the Illinois Appellate Court Division One. On May 5, 2010 the defamation case was dismissed by Illinois Circuit Court Judge Lust ig Patrick Foran. Bringing joy and celebration to all of the partners of www.roylance.com . For a loss in the Defamation case would put the Roylance firm out of business because it is believed that there insurance limits do not exceed $100 million dollars. It was reported that Lance G. Johnson partied heavenly with Abrams and Goodman. A source close to Goodman said that he gave up alcohol several years ago but did imbibe upon hearing that their case was dismissed. However a hearing is set today to re-instate the 100 million dollar case against them. Stay tuned to learn if Johnson and his crew are still celebrating after this morning's court hearing in Chicago.
3 Comments

JUDGES TURN THEIR BACK ON PRO SE LITIGANTS

5/25/2010

5 Comments

 
Picture
CHICAGO-(AEAE)-JUDGES TURN THEIR BACK ON PRO SE LITIGANTS. In another  10 year study released by the Americans for the Enforcement of Attorney Ethics (AEAE) it states that Judges do not give pro se litigants their due process rights. Judges, all of who having gone to law school believe that the courts are reserved for only attorneys and that individual parties are not worthy to have their constitutional rights protected. Appllate Courts, State Supreme Courts are the back stop for these trial courts. For there parties, whether lawyers, pro se parties do get there day in court.
5 Comments

AEAE RELEASING STUDY ON WHITE COLLAR CRIME AND HOW TO DEVELOP A CRIMINAL LAW PRACTICE

5/24/2010

7 Comments

 
Picture
CHICAGO-(AEAE)-THE AMERICANS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF ATTORNEY ETHICS (AEAE)  a not for profit association that advocates the strict enforcement of attorneys ethics is releasing a study on WHITE COLLAR CRIME in the AEAE continuing education for attorneys program. Some of the topics are Building a White Collar Criminal Law Practice, trying cases in the post Madoff period, trends in bank and security fraud and protecting the attorney-client priviledge and attorney work product.
7 Comments

MOTION FILED TO DISQUALIFY ILLINOIS CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE GERALD BENDER ON THE GROUNDS OF BEING BIAS, PREJUDICE AND DEPRIVING A PARTY OF HIS DUE PROCESS AND RIGHT TO APPEAL

5/22/2010

14 Comments

 
Picture
CHICAGO-(AEAE)- ON FRIDAY , MAY 21, 2010, IN A HEARING BEFORE ILLINOIS POST DIVORCE JUDGE GERALD BENDER, JUDGE BENDER IS ALLEDGED TO HAVE VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF A PARTY who was merely requesting leave to file certain appeals, which had already been briefed before the Illinois Appellate Court. In an unconstitutional unenforceable provision of a coerced marital settlement dated July 15, 2009, paragraph 17.2 provided that a party must seek leave of court to file any post decree lawsuits. The Appellate Court interpreted that provision to mean that the party must seek leave of court before filing even an appeal, although that language was not contained in the coerced July 15, 2010 martial settlement agreement. On Friday, Illinois Judge Gerald Bender denied the party the right to file its appeals with the Illinois Appellate court in clear violation of both the Illinois and U.S. Constitution. From the beginning of time, the right to appeal an adverse legal decision is a constitutional right. This appeals system provides a check on the power of a judge or jury. Judges who interrupt the law erroneously will have their decisions overturned by a court with authority to do so. Purposeful and willful denial of this right is a grave act of misconduct by a judge. Judge Bender's decision was appealed today to the Illinois Appellate Court. A motion for substitution of judge has been filed as well, to remove Judge Gerald Bender.
14 Comments

OVERCOMING ADVERSITY: HOW SUCESSFUL LAWYERS RESPOND TO SETBACKS

5/21/2010

2 Comments

 
Picture
CHICAGO-(AEAE)-Adversity, especially in the form of a crushing defeat, can trigger raw emotions and varying reactions. Here's how successful lawyers overcome challenges at various stages of their careers.
Overcoming Adversity: How Successful Lawyers Respond to Setbacks
2 Comments

HIGH COURT AFFIRMS PRINCIPLE THAT THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FOR PROSECUTOR

5/21/2010

5 Comments

 
Picture
CHICAGO-(AEAE)-THE U.S SUPREME COURT HAS re-affirmation of the principle that absolute immunity is not available for everything that a prosecutor does, and indeed is applied sparingly when it is not necessary to serve the public interest. A former grand juror, Peter Atherton, alleged in a complaint that he was removed from a grand jury for asking too many questions. Atherton filed suit pro se against assistant U.S. Attorney Daniel Zachem, and others, in 2004. The high court on May 17, 2010 rejected without comment the prosecutor's petition for certiorari, which said the case presents an important issue of prosecutorial immunity. Most immunity cases involve a criminal defendant suing a prosecutor. In this case, a grand juror who was kicked off of a panel is suing a prosecutor. This story continues Supreme Court Won't Stop Dismissed Juror's Suit Against Federal Prosecutor
Picture
 
5 Comments
<<Previous

    EQUAL JUSTICE PARTY


     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

    Archives

    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.