ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT AFFIRMS THAT STOLLER WAS NOT CHARGED WITH CONTEMPT ON FEB. 25, 2009

8/28/2010

CHICAGO-(AEAE)-ON FEBRUARY 25, 2009 Illinois Circuit Court Judge Renee Goldfarb unlawfully ordered Leo Stoller to be taken into custody by the Cook County Department of Corrections in order to take a BCX Examination. According to Stoller malicious prosecution complaint filed in Cook county Illinois against the Cook county Sheriff, the Cook County Department of Corrections and Cook County Illinois, Stoller alleges that the Cook County Sheriff Thomas Dart manufactured a charge of “contempt” on Feb. 25, 23009 in order to incarcerate Stoller, who was held for 9 days in the Cook County Jail.

Now the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed Stoller allegation that Stoller was not “charged” with contempt on Feb. 25, 2009.

But Stoller was in fact locked up on Feb. 25, 2009 under the false charge of contempt and held in custody until March 6, 2009.

Stoller malicious prosecution, false arrest, and false imprisonment now has become a strict liability case for the County of Cook and each defendant.

15 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
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

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.

idiot

8/26/2010 05:19:39 pm

During the first seven of his first nine days in custody, the correctional facility's physician enlisted the help of a microbiologist to determine whether an acne-sized appendage sprouting from Stoller was a clitoris or a penis. Fearful of facing a lawsuit for incarcerating a woman in the men's facility, or vice versa, an unidentified University of Chicago medical professor was summoned to make a final determination as to which facility in which Stoller belonged. Unable to make a determination with any medical certainty, Stoller was placed in solitary confinement, where he spent his final two days crafting a mumu from his prison jammies.

idiot II

8/27/2010 12:38:26 am

All that order does and says is that you lost yet another appeal, good job fool.

You really are mentally ill.

To idiot: that was agreat comment we are all sitting around laughing about the MUMU

Leo the loser

8/27/2010 01:06:04 am

Leo, the court issued a summary dismissal of your appeal because you are too stupid to figure out when to file a notice of appeal.

You lost....again.

Blazero

8/27/2010 01:54:30 am

However, the Appellate clarified findings of "no" contempt as of Feb 25, 2009, the day the Cook County Sheriff, locked him up. That finding is "golden", notwithstanding that the appeal was dismissed. It establishes clearly that the Cook County Sheriff falsely arrested, falsely imprisoned and violated his Civil Rights under Section 1983. That's a millon dollar finding.
What stupid people do not realize is that wheither an appeal is successful is not as important as what findings the court makes which will help in other cases.
Litigation is one "big" puzzle and it takes a lot of time, effort and appellate court findings to help crush one's opponents.
This may be the biggest victory in 42 years. Now its time for Summary Judgment pased upon an Appellate Court findings.
Eat your heart out "idot II!"

Leo the Zero

8/27/2010 04:40:56 am

If that is 'your biggest victory in 42 years,' Fattie, that explains everything. It explains how you wound up 64-years-old with your broke ass living in a rathole with over a million dollars in non-dischargeable judgments against you, how your entitre family came to the conclusion that you are a complete psychopath who would be better off dropping dead, how you lack the third-grade reading skills to understand a judge's opinion, and how you have never prevailed on an appeal in your entire pathetic life.

Well done, Fat Boy, well done. Have fun dying broke, alone, and with nobody who gives wit that you are gone. You did it all to yourself.

You think you're smart, huh?

8/27/2010 04:40:59 am

In this business you don't have to be a great deal smarter than your opponent, only a "hair" smarter will allow you to tear his eye teeth out!

Arn't you glad it's Friday. In Chiago it is suppose to be in the 90's tomorrow Saturday

Karry let's go to the beach? How about it baby!

Leo lost again

8/27/2010 04:46:49 am

Go ahead and run with that theory Leo. Why don't you amend the complaint again to add it.

Idiot II

8/27/2010 04:51:09 am

You really are a fool Leo, infact you can't even get permission to proceed witha case. As for the summary order, there are no findings therein. Not even dicta, jeez your stupid

Moron

8/27/2010 04:59:39 am

Go to the beach with your imaginary paramour, Fattie-- just don't jump in the water, you'll flood the entire Gold Coast.

8/27/2010 05:04:08 am

and you couldn't rip the eye teeth out of a newborn kitten, whether it be in a court of law or an alley on State Street, you fat little pussy.

Blazarro

8/27/2010 05:45:56 am

I though that you didn't care.

I would never think of ripping the eye teeth out of a baby "joepie"

"Should I bring my bathing suit!"

"Honey you don't need your bathing suit, not where we are going!"

"Don't forget the liquer."

Blazaro

8/27/2010 05:50:59 am

I would never tink of ripping the eye teeth out of a baby joepie.

"Honey do I need my bathing suit?"

"Not were we're going baby!"

"Ok, I bring the liquor!"

The Bull

8/27/2010 06:17:44 am

Hey leo,

I've been fucking her several nights a week, thought you would like toknow.

Buck Nasty

8/27/2010 04:18:53 pm

Dang, Bull, leave some for the rest of us. Take a little leave a little, as the old saying goes.

Ouch

8/28/2010 04:25:45 pm

Why are you so Mean spirited?

Americans for the Enforcement of Attorney Ethics