GORDON AND REES CONTINUES TO THREATEN STOLLER WITH DEFAMATION LAWSUIT

11/11/2009

CHICAGO-(AEAE)--STOLLER OPEN CORRESPONDENCE WITH GORDON AND REES ATTORNEY HAYES RYAN:
Mr. Hayes Ryan:

Thank you for your email. In over 30 years I as you well know have participated in a considerable amount of litigation. In over 30 years I have "never" been sued for defamation. The "truth" is the best defense to any claim of defamation. Since you refuse to have a meeting in order to attempt to resolve this controversy amiciably, I will inform you that the "words" on the summons, which was signed by the Judge state in plan english that the charge against all of the respondents is "criminal contempt". Had you not refused summons you would clearly have seen the charge. I did not place that language on the summon(s) that were signed by the judge. The Court did. Consequently, the allegation that the respondents are charged with "criminal contempt" is factually correct. Please advise me immediately if the respondents will waive service of process so that I can send you the summons. Under the circumstances, it will not look very good when your clients, Lance G. Johnson, David Abrams and Alfred Goodman have attempted to dodge Service for 18 months and now Gordon and Rees is following in there foot steps. Whether Gordon and Rees will acknowledge it or not for a well known law firm and three of its attorneys to be "charged" with "criminal contempt" is very serious business. I cannot understand for the life of me why a firm of your calibur would "refuse" service of summons and force me to retain a process server to effect service. Should Gordon and Rees decide to sue me, please call me 312-545-4554 so I could pick up the summons. Please advise me by email or phone by Nov 19, 2009 or sooner as to whether you will wave service of summons so that I can send your the summons and complaints. As you know we have a first hearing in December. Also advise me if Gordon and Rees will represent itself in this matter or if you plan on obtaining outside counsel. Likewise please advise me if Lance G. Johnson, David Abrams and Alfred Goodman will waive service of summons by the same date.
Most Cordially,
Leo Stoller
7115 W. North Ave #272
Oak Park, Illinois 60302
312-545-4554
www.rentamark.net

Subject: RE: Stoller v. Johnson, et al.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:52:31 -0800
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]

.Leo, As my letter identifies the articles on your blog that are defamatory, I see not point in meeting. As you know, no one from Gordon & Rees has been charged with criminal contempt. Rather, you simply have filed a Petition for Adjudication of Indirect Criminal Contempt Citation. To date, there has been no Show Cause hearing, and no authoritative or policing body has backed your Petition. Further, as noted on page 9 of your Appellant Brief, "[o]n June 5, 2009, Judge Flanagan denied a motion for evidentiary hearing on whether [Defendants] were telling the truth [as to service]." By claiming that I and other lawyers at Gordon & Rees have been "charged" with a crime, you have committed defamation per se. These statements, which are factually and legally inaccurate, may mislead the public into believing that criminal charges have been filed against the firm and/or named attorneys by a policing agency. In this connection, your statements have caused, and continue to cause, serious irreparable injury to this firm’s reputation and the reputation of the individual attorneys named. Given that these statements constitute defamation per se and threaten to tortuously interfere with our client relationship(s), they actionable under Illinois law. As noted in my letter of October 29, 2009, we will be taking legal action to protect the rights of this firm and its attorney’s, seeking compensatory and punitive damages. Regards, Hayes

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

7 Comments

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.

Polish Police

11/10/2009 10:34:09 am

Just sue him please

Thinker

11/10/2009 02:56:39 pm

The Myth Behind The Legend Where is Anon?
Few literary puzzles have inspired such universal apathy as the question: "Who was Anon, who is Anon?" Books of quotations are cluttered with sayings attributed to Anon, and these scraps of truth and wisdom have earned Anon universal recognition and immortality. Innumerable biographies have been written about lesser authors, even authors so obscure that their works are seldom read. But Anon, blog comments though widely read and widely quoted, has been accorded only widespread indifference by the literary and psychological community.

Even the most astute literary scholars and Doctors of psychological would be perplexed if asked to identify the central themes of Anon's comments left on this blog. If a historian Doctor of psychological were asked how Anon's comments were influenced by culture and current events, they would be at a total loss for a sensible answer, so would Anon. Where is Anon?

Anon

11/10/2009 07:03:35 pm

Thinker/Stoller, you are so close to figuring me out, yet so far away. I am the one who will carry the sad story of your failed life and your dishonorable behavior well after you are gone.

Russ

11/10/2009 10:21:34 pm

Stollerexposed.blog.com

Poor guy.

Jack Mehoff

11/10/2009 10:33:05 pm

When will Stollerexposed.blog.com be updated with a new blog entry?

Hondo

11/11/2009 12:16:08 am

Strollers tactics are predictable. When you can't refute the message with factual evidence, attack the messenger.

Paraphraser

11/11/2009 03:53:21 pm

Anon is alive and well...I have seen his comments on several other blog sites...he seems to generate the same reaction where ever he posts...

Americans for the Enforcement of Attorney Ethics