Blog Archives

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

5/31/2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5 Comments

<<Previous

EQUAL JUSTICE PARTY

Archives