Blog Archives - Americans for the Enforcement of Attorney Ethics

HOOKER TAKES OUT FEDERAL JUDGE

11/20/2010

CHICAGO-(AEAE)-EVEN SENIOR FEDERAL Judges are susceptible to gorgeous hookers. There is no need to list all of the famous men who's down fall was a Femme fatale

U.S. District Senior Judge Jack T. Camp can now be added to the list. He has reached an agreement with federal prosecutors over his arrest last month on drug and gun charges and will enter a guilty plea today.

Federal Judge to Enter Guilty Plea on Drug Charges

FORECLOSURE CLASS ACTIONS LAW SUITS FILED AGAINST BANK OF AMERICA FOR USING FRAUDULENT DOCUMENTS

11/19/2010

CHICAGO-(AEAE)-A SERIES FO CLASS ACTION LAW SUITS HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST BANK OF AMERICA, WELLS FARGO AND CITI BANK FOR MORTGAGE FRAUD. Bank of America's stock has fallen 21% so far for the year making it the biggest loser of the Dow Jones. The law firm of Bryan Cave has been charged in a Chicago Civil Racketeering lawsuit with aiding and abiding Bank of America commit fraud on a foreclosed party. Neither Bryan Cave LLP nor Bank of America would respond to this article. For the full story click here Foreclosure class actions pile up against banks

BANK OF AMERICA MORTGAGE FRAUDULENT PRACTICES EXPOSED

11/18/2010

IOWA-(AEAE)-ALL FIFTY STATE ATTORNEY GENERALS ARE NOW INVESTIGATING BANK OF AMERICA FRAUDULENT FORECLOSURE PRACTICES. Which involve “deceptive trade practices” by using “robo signers” to submit fraudulent affidavits and foreclosure documents without confirming the paperwork's accuracy. Filing foreclosure proceeding without presenting the original note because it was not kept or is lost. Filing foreclosures without providing assignments of the mortgage from the original mortgagee to the suing entity.Filing foreclosures without even serving summons on the proper party.

The claim in the past for Bank of America (BOA) , Wells Fargo Citibank was that they are “too big to failure”. Now the claim is that they are “too big to be charged with a pattern of civil racketeering activity in their anxiety to foreclosure on so many millions of Americans. It is alleged that Bank of America while attempting to offer loan modifications, informing home owners that they had to be in “default” to qualify, actually forclosured on these home owners while they were attempting to follow the Bank's instruction to secure a “loan modification”.

Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller is attempting to “spearhead the 50 state Attorney Generals probe” with Bank of America. Mr. Miller is well advised that he cannot make any deal with Bank of America to forgive their fraudulent foreclosure practices without being charged with “conspiracy” and Professional Misconduct before the Iowa Bar Association according to an Ethics Professor at the University of Iowa. “The only think that surprises me, the Professor said, is that “I don't understand why there is not a revolution by the 3 ½ million home owners who have been defrauded out of their property by the big banks!” The Law Firm of Bryant Cave LLP who represent Bank of America have been charged with aiding and abiding BOA defraud home owners out of their homes. This firm is NOT recommended by the Americans for the Enforcement of Attorney Ethics (AEAE). Help the Equal Justice Party expose the big banks fraudulent forclosure practices on the American public by making a small contribution to the EJ party by clicking on the donate button upper right on this screen. Thanks in Advance This story continues Pressure Builds Over Loan Modifying

MOTION TO DISQUALIFY BRYAN CAVE LLP, STEVEN R. SMITH AND MICHAEL WERICH

11/16/2010

CHICAGO-(AEAE)-BRYAN CAVE LLP, SEVEN R. SMITH SENIOR PARTNER AND his bag man Michael Werich are defendants in a multi million dollar Civil Racketeering lawsuit. Bryan Cave LLP also represent the Buyers and sellers of a piece of property in alleged fraudulent foreclosure proceeding, while they also represent themselves in the same proceeding. What's wrong with that picture? Now aside from being sued in other parts of the country Bryant Cave LLP is facing a motion to disqualify themselves based upon a conflict which is unwaveable. Steven R. Smith Esq filed the following email response:

“I don't care where you are going to be or for what purpose. We are going to appear at all noticed hearings and oppose the motions you have filed, especially you're motion to disqualify ou'r firm.

Steven R. Smith

partner

Bryan Cave LLP
161 N. Clark Street
Suite 4300
Chicago, IL 60601”

BRYAN CAVE SUED BY THE FDIC OVER BANK RECORDS

11/16/2010

ATLANTA-(AEAE)-BRYANT CAVE WAS SUED AGAIN NOW IN FEDERAL COURT IN ATLANTA FOR REFUSING TO HAND OVER records related to the failure of the Hillcrest Bank. Stoller is suing Bryan Cave in Chicago for fraud, conspiracy and civil racketeering. FDIC Sues Bryan Cave Over Bank Records Bryan Cave spends more time in court defending itself from law suits than defending its clients according to charges filed in Chicago. Bryan Cave would not return phone calls. Steven R. Smith was charged with a petition for Indirect Criminal Contempt in Chicago for perjury. He denied the charges and Judge Mason refused to allow the petition to be filed because it envolved Smith's relationship with Mason according to allegations filed with the Judicial Inquiry Board in Illinois.

ORDER OF PROTECTION HELD INVALID THAT INFRINGED FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF FREE SPEECH

11/15/2010

CHICAGO-(AEAE)-AN ORDER OF PROTECTION THAT INFRINGES THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS VOID AB INITIO. The ACLU v. JANET RENO 1996 supreme court decision held that a party can publish speech on the Internet. An order of protection that infringes that right is also in valid. Reno v. ACLU, U.S. Supreme Court Case Summary & Oral Argument

EQUAL JUSTICE PARTY JOINS GOVERNMENT CAMPAIGN TO STOP SMOKING

11/14/2010

CHICAGO-(EJ)-THE GOVERNMENT IS MAKING CHANGES TO CIGARETTE PACKAGING. It is the first time in 25 years. http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/Labeling/CigaretteProductWarningLabels/default.htm cigarette smoking is attributed to killing over 400,000 Americans a year. The Food and Drug Administration will now require graphic warning labels that cover half a package front label Proposed warning labels

The Equal Justice Party campaign to help stop smoking slogan is “PEOPLE ARE UGLY WHO SMOKE!” Ugly because they kill themselves and they kill people around them with secondary smoke. You can help The Equal Justice Party campaign by making a contribution to the Equal Justice Campaign to Stop smoking just click on the donate button to the right of you're screen. Help save American lives

PENTAGON: ALIEN SPACE CRAFT CAUSED MYSTERIOUS VAPOR TRAIL

11/13/2010

CHICAGO-(AEAE)-REMEMBER THAT MYSTERIOUS VAPOR TRAIL THAT WAS FILMED OF THE COST OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ON WEDNESDAY AND LOOKED LIKE A MISSLE LAUNCH. AFTER 42 HOURS OF INVESTIGATION involving the Navy, Air Force, the Missile Defense Agency. U.S. Northern Command, the North American Aerospace Defense Command. The Federal Aviation Administration and NASA, it was concluded that the image caught on tape by a news helicopter at rush hour Monday evening Video which showed a billowing contrails apparently rising from the water about 35 miles west of L.S and north of Catalina Island was caused by an alien aircraft, according to Col F. Gordon. “It's a matter of...running down all of those different leads,” Gordon said. “I mean, going out and having everybody scrutinize everything that they had in terms of information to be able to piece together. The Department of Defense...is satisfied that the contrail was caused by an alien space craft from the Sagittarius Dwarf Elliptical Galaxy which is only 80,000 light-years away from our Galaxy”.

What is copyright infringement?

11/12/2010

CHICAGO-(AEAE)-Copyright infringement is the unauthorized or prohibited use of works under copyright, infringing the copyright owner's exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivative works.

9th CIRCUIT- COPYRIGHT LAW FIRST SALE DOCTRINE DOES NOT GIVE A LICENSEE OF SOFTWARE THE RIGHT TO SELL IT

11/11/2010

Legal software to disbar a lawyer

CHICAGO-(AEIPR)-DO YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELL SOFTWARE THAT YOU PURCHASED? Software is licensed, not sold, and does not come with the right to resell under the first sale doctrine of the Copyright Act. You have the right to sell copyrighted books, CD's and Records, but do you have the right to sell software to a third party? Generally speaking, most software is licensed, not sold, and subject to contractual restrictions that may not necessarily qualify the user as an "owner" of a copy with the implicit rights of resale. Yet despite the "license" Recently, in Vernor v. Autodesk Inc., 2010 WL 3516435 (Sept. 10, 2010), the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals delineated a new multifactor test to determine whether a user of licensed software is an owner of a particular copy of the work or a mere licensee. Section 106 of the Copyright Act grants several exclusive rights to copyright holders, including the rights of distribution and reproduction. Certain exceptions to these rights are granted to an owner of a copy of copyrighted material.

The first sale doctrine entitles the owner of a particular copy of a copyrighted work to resell or otherwise dispose of that copy without need for permission from, or remuneration to, the copyright owner. 17 U.S.C. §109(a).

A 9th Circuit panel reversed the district's court grant of summary judgment to the plaintiff-reseller, concluding that an individual that resold used copies of software the original licensee acquired pursuant to a restrictive software licensing agreement was not entitled to invoke the first sale doctrine or the essential step defense. See Vernor v. Autodesk Inc.., 2010 WL 3516435.

Leo Stoller is a Intellectual Property Expert Witness who can help you win you're next trademark, copyright or Patent Case [email protected]

joomla counter

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

October 2025
September 2025
August 2025
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.