Americans for the Enforcement of Attorney Ethics

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

STOLLER SET TO GO ON TRIAL FOR INDIRECT CRIMINAL CONTEMPT FOR PUBLISHING \"SPEECH\" ON HIS BLOG

9/30/2009

1 Comment

 
 
Picture
STAR WITNESS AGAINST STOLLER
CHICAGO-(AEAE)- THURSDAY-OCTOBER 1, 2009 - STOLLER IS SET TO GO ON TRIAL FOR INDIRECT CRIMINAL CONTEMPT FOR THE AGREGIOUS OFFENSE OF PUBLISHING "SPEECH" ON THE INTERNET. Stoller has been involved in a civil divorce proceeding since July 2, 2005. The Attorney for the Petitioner filed a Indirect Criminal Contempt Charge against Stoller for publishing "speech" on the Internet in violation of Stoller's first Amendment Rights. Stoller has already spent 37 days in the Illinois Cook County Jail from June 8, 2009 until July 15, 2009 for "civil" contempt for the publishing of "Speech" on his former "blog" rentamark.blog.com. Stoller was forced to remove his former blog which clearly violated Stoller's first amendment rights. Once Stoller was released from the Illinois Cook County Jail on July 16, 2009 Stoller started a "new" blog www.rentamark.net  Stoller has appealed all of the decisions that lead to his incarceration from June 8th, until July 15, 2009. Stoller has also a pending appeal in the Indirect Criminal Contempt proceeding when  Criminal Courts Judge Denis Porter denied Stoller's Motion to Dismiss. Stoller's trial is set for next week. The Petitioner's are seeking a 6 months incarceration for Stoller for publishing "speech" on the Internet which violates the United States Supreme Court findings in ACLU v. Janet Reno.C
1 Comment

STOLLER TOSSES AN A-BOMB INTO GOOGLE INC

9/30/2009

3 Comments

 
Picture
STOLLER'S TROOPS FINALLY ATTACK
 
STOLLER FORCES GOOGLE INC., TO CIRCLE ITS WAGONS
CHICAGO-(AEAE)-ILLINOIS DISTRICT COURT JUDGE VIRGINIA M. KENDALL ISSUED AN ORDER IN THE GOOGLE INC., V. CENTRAL MFG CO CASE NO. 07-CV-00385 taking Stoller's motion for reconsideration under advisement. Judge granted Stoller's motion for an extention and gave Google Inc. and Stoller until Sept 30, 2009 to file their “Position” Papers in Google Inc.,'s Civil Rico Action. Stoller had previously moved to cancel the Federal Trademark “Google” because it is now in the dictionary and has become generic and does not belong on the Principle Trademark Register. Google was kind enough to come back with a Civl Rico Action against Stoller's companies. Judge Kendell granted judgment, Stoller appealed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, won and now the case is back before Judge Kendell. Today Stoller filed his “position” paper causing Google Inc., to “circle its wagons” charging its attorney the well known Trademark Attorney Michael T. Zeller with “fraud” on the court. The Illinois Supreme Court has issued court decisions which has defined "fraud" by an attorney.It should be noted that the definition of fraud applies to everything an attorney may be engaged in, whether in court, in his office "Fraud encompasses a broad range of human behavior, including " ' * * * anything calculated to deceive, * * * whether it be by direct falsehood or by innuendo, by speech or by silence, by word of mouth or by look or gesture.' "
"The Court has broadly defined fraud as any conduct calculated to deceive, whether it be by direct falsehood or by innuendo, by speech or silence, by word of mouth, by look, or by gesture. Fraud includes the suppression of the truth, as well as the presentation of false information. (In re Witt (1991) 145 Ill.2d 380, 583 N.E.2d 526, 531, 164 Ill. Dec. 610).". See also In re Frederick Edward Strufe, Disciplinary case no. 93 SH 100 where the Court stated that "Fraud has been broadly defined as anything calculated to deceive."It is clear and well-established Illinois law that any attempt by Michael T. Zeller, to deceive is considered fraud, and when the attempt to deceive occurs in a judicial proceeding, it is "fraud upon the court" for which Stoller has charged Zeller. Zeller could not be reached for comment. Legal Disclaimer: Zeller is considered innocient until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
3 Comments

OBAMA SCRAPED MISSILE DEFENSE-GOOD MOVE

9/29/2009

1 Comment

 
Picture
There on the way
CHICAGO-(AEAE)-COMMENTARY--YOU WILL RECALL THAT ON  SATURDAY,9-19-09- WE WROTE THAT "BARAK OBAMA HAS MADE THE ENEMIES OF AMERICA, RUSSA, IRAN AND NORTH KOREA VERY HAPPY BY SCUTTLING AMERICAN'S LONG RANGE MISSILE-DEFENSE SYSTEM IN EUROPE. What will Obama and the Democrats say when one or two or a dozen intercontinental missiles are launched at America, Poland and/or the Czech Republic?  And 1 million Americans and Europeans are killed?"
Now that the Iranians have launched their long range missile, the Iranians dream of distroying us is within there reach. Good job Obama keeping America strong and safe..."All of you left wing supporters who voted for Obama got what you deserve"....according to an Italian Chicago West Sider interviewed for this article Johnnie Pepperoni who previously  said, “What do you expect when you put a Chicago West side Niger-o in the Oval Office?”
This is your new blog post. Click here and start typing, or drag in elements from the top bar.
1 Comment

WORDS "KILL" !

9/28/2009

6 Comments

 
Picture
GOOGLE INC TRADEMARK 'GOOGLE' IS DEAD!
CHICAGO-(AEAE)-MONDAY-SEPTEMBER 28, 2009-FAMOUS DEFENSE ATTORNEY GARY SPENCE  WHO HAS NEVER LOST A CASE SINCE 1968 SAID, WORDS KILL!"
LEGAL BRIEFS ARE DUE ON SEPTEMBER 30, 2009  IN THE GOOGLE INC. V STOLLER  RICO CASE AS ORDERED BY ILLINOIS NORTHERN DISTRICT JUDGE VIRGINIA KENDELL. Stoller had petitioned to cancel the Google Inc., “term” google because it was now in the dictionary and no longer qualified for a Federal Trademark Registration. Google Inc., shot back with a Civil Rico lawsuit against Stoller's companies. Google refused to sue Stoller individually, having cut an “inside deal” with Illinois Bankruptcy Trustee Richard M. Fogel, agreeing to a “consent” judgment against Stoller's companies. Without Stoller in the case google Inc., knew that it was a “walk” in the park and that there “frivolous” civil Rico action would stick notwithstanding that it was not worth the paper it was written on. Stoller appealed and won. The case went back before Judge Kendell. Final briefs are due on this Thursday. Stoller's brief is a “killer”. Famous Defense Lawyer Gary Spense said, “Words can Kill”. If that were true Google Inc.,'s Trademark “Google” will be dead in the water!
 While google Inc., has been inventing a new operating system “Chrome” and involved in Cell Phones, Stoller's wagons have been circling the Google Inc., Trademark for over five years now, it will just be a short amount of time before Stoller finally finishes off the "generic"  term GOOGLE and has it removed from the Principle Register for once and for all.
Hundreds of articles have been written about how the Google trademark has become “generic”. Just “google” the term “google is a verb”. But no one out of the 300 million Americans and thousands of Trademarks Experts have stepped forward to deliver the Hammer blow to the generic Google trademark until the Nations leading trademark Expert Stoller stepped forward. [email protected]
This is your new blog post. Click here and start typing, or drag in elements from the top bar.
6 Comments

SUMMER 2009 IS OFFICIALLY OVER--FOOTBALL SEASON BEGINS

9/26/2009

3 Comments

 
Picture
Sue You!
CHICAGO-(AEAE)-SUNDAY-COMMENTARY-TODAY IS SEPTEMBER 27, 2009. Summer 2009 is officially over. We are now entering into the Fourth Quarter of the year (Oct, Nov & Dec). The fiscal year is divided up into 4 quarters just like a football game. Everything tightens up in the 4th quarter when the game is on the line.
I missed most of the summer (June 8th until July 15, 09') being unlawfully locked up in the Illinois Cook County Jail  in violation of my First Amendment “right” to publish information on the Internet, on my old blog rentamark.blog.com.  I am preparing as most of you know a “knock out” Section 1983 Action Lawsuit against all of the parties responsible for my “false arrest” “false imprisonment” that I experienced.
 Although my opponents have been laughing and joking about the pleasure they experienced by unlawfully having me placed in jail for the summer of 09', I guarantee they will not be laughing after they are served with my summons! They will not be "laughting" two years from now, five years from now because they are going to be "defendants" for the balance of my litigation career.
It has been reported to me by a reliable source that on the Fourth of July when one of the "defendant's" to be named in my 1983 Civil Lawsuit was asked, "Where is Lee?" She responded, "In Jail" and laughed....

While in the Cook County Jail I documented in a 400 page book each and every violation of my civil and constitutional rights. That book entitled JUICE FOR PEANUTS will be published shortly. It has taken an extraordinary amount of time to transcript my notes and key them into the “Word” program for the publisher since I been released from prision because I have had to draft so many appeals this summer to the Appellate Court(s) and to catch up on all of my legal pleadings that I was unable to do while in the Cook County Jail Maxium Security Unit, Division 10 in cell 1306, locked down 18 hours a day.
It is the end of September,  we are now in the 2009 “football” season. American's most popular “sport”.
 Having been a All Conference Football player, I have found out that the Litigation “game” is a exactly like a football “game”.
There is one party vs another party. Although there is “no” physical contact there is a great deal of “emotional” contact and the consequences of losing can be equally devastating. A “bad” hit in a football game leads to players dying every year!
Another very interesting comparison I have discovered that in litigation as in football, you can be down for 3 quarters of the game and come back to win in the “Fourth” quarter, as long as you don't give up and give your opponent the “permission” to beat you....As in any marathon race, there comes a time in each race when a runner must decide whether he cares enough about winning the race or whether he doesn't care about winning the race and allows his opponent to “win”. “In forty one years of playing the litigation “game” Stoller has never allowed an opponent to beat him”, according to the media. Stay tuned I expect that within the the 4th quarter some of my attorney opponents will not die but will be charged with professional misconduct, disbarred and/or indicted, as they hope happens to me too. Litigation like football is a “blood” Sport...Litigation is War, Welcome to the Front!  [email protected]
This is your new blog post. Click here and start typing, or drag in elements from the top bar.
3 Comments

ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT STAYS STOLLER APPEAL PENDING ORDER OF JUDGE THOMAS DUDGEON

9/26/2009

2 Comments

 
Picture
Stoller Appeals
CHICAGO-(AEAE)-SATURDAY-SEPTEMBER 26, 2009-THE ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT DENYED  ATTORNEY LAURA MYERS MOTION TO DISMISS A STOLLER APPEAL. The Illinois Appellate court issued an order yesterday staying Stoller's Appeal pending further order of Illinois Circuit Court Judge Thomas Dudgeon.
In another Stoller Appeal pending before Illinois District Court Judge William J. Hibbler, the court issued a decision granting the Appellee Pure Fishing Motion to Dismiss. Stoller had no record of ever receiving service of Appellee's Motion to Dismiss which appears to have been filed with the Federal  Court in April of 2009. Judge Hibbler granted Appellee's motion to dismiss based upon the fact that Stoller had "never" responded to it. Stoller has moved immediately for a motion for reconsideration of Judge Hibbler's Order based upon the grounds of lack of jurisdiction for Appellee's failure to serve Stoller with a copy of its Motion to Dismiss. Leo Stoller is considered an Appellate Expert and Professional Trademark Expert Witness who provides Intellectual Property Evaluations, Expert Witness Testimony, surveys, trademark policing services, trademark searches. Call 312-545-4554  [email protected]   7115 W. North Ave #272  Oak Park, Illinois 60302 
This is your new blog post. Click here and start typing, or drag in elements from the top bar.
2 Comments

STOLLER WEIGHTS INTO U.S. SUPREME COURT PATENT CASE WITH AMICUS BRIEF

9/24/2009

4 Comments

 
Picture
STOLLER EXPERT WITNESS
CHICAGO-(AEIPR) SEPTEMBER 25, 2009 FRIDAY- LEO STOLLER THE NATIONS LEADING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHT EXPERT WITNESS AND DIRECTOR OF THE AMERICANS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS (AEIPR) is weighting into the United States Supreme Court's most important intellectual property case this term. The high court will decide a case  is Medela AG v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., and as Patently-O points out, the question is: "Whether a person accused of patent infringement has a right to independent judicial, as distinct from lay jury, determination of whether an asserted patent claim satisfies the ‘non-obvious subject matter' condition for patentability."  The amicus brief (.pdf) was filed Wednesday by a Silicon Valley who's who of tech companies: Apple, Cisco, Google, Symantec and Yahoo and Microsoft. 
This is an important legal question, "who can decide wheither a patent is "obvious" a jury or judge?  The moving parties in this case believe that only a "judge" is qualified to decide this important question. When retained an expert intellectual property witness like Leo Stoller can help the judge or jury decide whether a patent is obvious and should die or whether the patent is not obvious and shall live. In intellectual property cases which involve millions of dollars in potential damages a good expert can help decide the case in favor of the party that retains him. Stoller can be reached at 312-545-4554, [email protected]   7115 W. North Ave  Chicago, Illinois 60302. One fact for sure is for a party to go into intellectual property litigation without a expert witness will certainly lead to a huge damage award against that party.

 
This is your new blog post. Click here and start typing, or drag in elements from the top bar.
4 Comments

LEO STOLLER IS THE NATIONS BEST INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY EXPERT WITNESS

9/24/2009

5 Comments

 
Picture
STOLLER TRADEMARK EXPERT
CHICAGO-(AEIPR) LEO STOLLER IS THE DIRECTOR OF THE AMERICANS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF AMERICAN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS since its founding in 1974. AEIPR advocates the "strict" enforcement of American Intellectual Property Rights through the World. Stoller is the founding Director. Stoller is also the nations most well known Intellectual Property Rights Expert Witness. Stoller testifies at trial in order to assist the fact finder (jury or judge) decide the Patent, Trademark, Copyright, Right to Publicity Case. Recently Microsoft had the wrong expert because it cost them $300 million dollars in damages for infringing a patent that related to their "Word" software. Had Microsoft employed Stoller he could have save Microsoft $300 million in Stoller's opinion. Stoller can be reached at 312-545-4554 [email protected]   7115 W. North Ave, Chicago, Illinois 60302
This is your new blog post. Click here and start typing, or drag in elements from the top bar.
5 Comments

JUDGE ELMER TOLMAIRE DECESION APPEALED TO THE APPELLATE COURT TODAY

9/23/2009

3 Comments

 
Picture
Megan Fox
CHICAGO-(AEAE)-SEPTEMBER 24, 2009-In a Hearing yesterday Cook County Judge James Tolmaire issued a decision freezing an asset in Lake County Illinois. Stoller argued that Judge Tolmaire did not have jurisdiction to "freeze" an asset outside of Cook County. This position was also argued by a bank's attorney. Notwithstanding, Judge Tolmaire issued his order. Like any other Judges' court Order it would stand if not appealed. Any order or judgment entered by a trial court without jurisdiction is void and may be attacked at any time.  A void judgment, order or decree of  a court  will be reversed on appeal whenever brought before the court by any means possible in the particular case. An Appeal of Judge Tolmaire was in fact filed today with the Illinois Appellate Court.
SIDEBAR: The only way a attorney or litigant will ever get any respect from a judge is to reverse that judge. Then that Judge will start to pay attention to you. Stoller is an Appellate Expert, having been involved in over 300 appeals from the Illinois Appellate Courts, the the Federal Appeals Courts all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Call Stoller at 312-545-4554 a Trademark Expert  [email protected]
This is your new blog post. Click here and start typing, or drag in elements from the top bar.
3 Comments

JUDGE ELMER TOLMAIRE TO HEAR MOTION TODAY

9/22/2009

0 Comments

 
Picture
GENERAL PATTON
CHICAGO-(AEAE)-WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 23RD, 2009-JUDGE ELMER TOLMAIRE IS SET TO RULE TODAY. STOLLER is opposing a motion filed by opposing counsel. Judge Tolmaire has "no" jurisdiction which would permit him to rule in favor of Opposing counse. Stay tuned to find out the outcome.
In a Federal Google Inc., Rico action against Stoller's companies, Stoller is set to release a abomb of a Response to Judge Virginia Kendell's Order. Google Inc., is fighting to pervent Stoller from intervening in his own case. The Trustee Richard M. Fogel has "no" jurisdiction that allows him to interfere any longer in the Google Inc., case because he has alleged to have sold all of the assets of Central Mfg Co., on August 7, 2007. The Google Inc., case is heating up, having once been to the 7th Circuit court of Appeals. Stoller won that appeal and expects to "win" the next appeal in the same way that Patton expected to win his next "battle". 
This is your new blog post. Click here and start typing, or drag in elements from the top bar.
0 Comments
<<Previous

    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.