ILLINOIS ATTORNEY HAYES RYAN OF GORDON AND REES ADMIT THEY \"CAUSED TO BE FILED CERTAIN AFFIDAVITS CONTESTING PERSONAL SERVICE WHICH STOLLER ALLEGES WERE PERJURIOUS IN CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION

12/22/2009

CHICAGO-(AEAE)-IN A MOTION TO STRIKE STOLLER INDIRECT CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION http://www.filefront.com/14756757/Lance-G.-Johnson-Charged-with-perjury0001.pdf/ILLINOIS ATTORNEY HAYNES RYAN ADMITS THAT "GORDON & REES LLP CAUSED TO BE FILED CERTAIN AFFIDAVITS CONTESTING PERSONAL SERVICE OF THE COMPLAINT. LEO STOLLER PRODUCED CERTAIN AFFIDAVITS OF THE PROCESS SERVER WHICH CONRADICT THE DEFENDANT (ALFRED GOODMAN) AFFIDAVIT. GORDON AND REES ATTORNEY HAYNES RYAN FILED A MOTION TO STRIKE STOLLER'S PETITION CHARGING HAYES RYAN WITH INDIRECT CRIMINAL CONTEMPT. In Haynes motion to strike Haynes Ryan asserted Stoller citation “is designed solely to harass me as opposing counsel and delay the underlying (defamation) litigation. Accordingly, the Petition should be stricken and Leo Stoller should be sanctioned under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137”.

STOLLER HAS ASSERTED THAT HAYNES RYAN CHARGES OF INDIRECT CRIMINAL CONTEMPT SHOULD NOT BE STRIKEN BECAUSE HAYNES RYAN KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY FAILED TO TAKE REASONABLE CORRECTIVES STEPS NECESSARY TO CORRECT THE PRESENTATION OF GOODMAN’S PERJURED AFFIDAVIT AND FALSE MATERIAL EVIDENCE WHICH RYAN ADMITTS THAT GORDON AND REES CAUSED TO BE FILED.

Stoller argued that Haynes Ryan, who knew that his client Alfred Goodman, with the consent and approval of Respondents, Lance G. Johnson and David Abrams, presented false evidence ( Alfred N. Goodman’s perjured affidavit dated May 18, 2009) failed to take any reasonable corrective steps, including informing the trial court judge Kathy Flanagan1 of the deception. Respondent Hayes Ryan by his failure to take any corrective action actually aided and abided the other Respondents, Alfred G. Goodman, Lance G. Johnson and David Abrams in their Indirect Criminal Contempt and fraud on the court. Attorney Haynes Ryan knew that the burden was on him, the attorney who knew of his Goodman’s dishonesty, to take corrective action, but failed to do so. Romano Brothers Beverage Co. v. D Agostine-Yerow Assoc,. Inc., 1996 U.S. DIST. LEXIS 10730 47 (N.D. Ill. 1996) . Disclosure of Alfred N. Goodman’s perjury was required where respondents Haynes Ryan, Ryan T. Brown, Chance L. Cooper and the Law firm of Gordon & Rees LLP offered material evidence (Goodman’s perjured Affidavit) to the trial court judge Kathy Flanagan and all of the respondents including Mr. Ryan knew or came to know of its falsity, or when disclosure of Goodman’s perjured affidavit was necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by Goodman, all of the respondents did nothing.Haynes Ryan knew that his duty to disclose Goodman’s perjury to the trial court judge Kathy Flanagan superseded his responsibility to keep client confidences. Haynes Ryan’s failure to “disclose” Alfred Goodman’s perjured affidavit, this material evidence, was necessary to avoid assisting Goodman, Abrams and Johnson in their crime of fraud and Indirect Criminal Contempt on the court.

Which has provoked the said Indirect Criminal Contempt Citation against the respondents, for their unlawful conduct was done “outside” of the purview of the court which has subjected all of the respondents to a valid charge of Indirect Criminal Contempt in the case at bar that was approved by the trial court judge Kathy Flanagan.

Thus far Lance G. Johnson, David Abrams and Alfred Goodman have evaded service of summons, but that day is coming to a rapid end. When they see the process server coming they can run but their not that fast that they can avoid the jurisdiction of the Illinois Cook County Courts much longer. They have a date with the Illinois Cook County Judge on January 19, 2010 http://www.filefront.com/15157881/Dec-15-2009-Order0001.pdf/

LEGAL DISCLAIMER: Haynes Ryan, Ryan T. Brown, Chance L. Cooper and the Law firm of Gordon & Rees LLP Alfred G. Goodman, Lance G. Johnson and David Abrams are considered innocent of all charges until proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.

1

4 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.

Elessar

12/20/2009 11:55:09 am

The truth shall set Gordon and Rees free, think again...why it always pays to be represented by outside counsel before a party self incriminates themselves

Jose The Gardener

12/20/2009 11:56:21 pm

Senor Stoller, I just hope that when you are in prison I can keep my job sweeping out the gutter in front of your place.

Godsmack

12/21/2009 02:41:05 am

The only thing Leo has ever done is attempt to make a living as a con artist.

The U.S. Supreme Court has banned Stoller's filings for abusing that Court's process. Leo cried about that being "unconstitutional."

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has banned Leo from further filings due to his lies, frauds and deceptions. And they referred it to the U.S. Attorney to prosecute the sawed-off little runt.
Leo cried about that being "unconstitutional."

The state courts have thrown Leo's worthless butt in jail several times for various misconduct. Leo cried about that being "unconstitutional."

The United States Patent and Trademark Office gave Leo the boot after finally realizing he is nothing except a package of forgery, perjury, misrepresentations and any other lie you can think of. Leo cried about that being "unconstitutional."

Oh, boy, now Leo says he is appealing all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Great, his b.s. will be laughed out of the big court as the rantings of just another psycho.

You want to know why you are going to die penniless, with no friends or family who give a rat's ass about you Leo?

Because you are a pathological liar who was never man enough to get a real job and take care of you of your family. Everything you have ever done has been covered in the patina of deception. (And you're so stupid you aren't even a successful crook.)

You know nothing about the law. The Courts know you know nothing about the law. You are a low-grade criminal.

And now you will pay the ultimate price with your freedom. Have fun in prison, you worthless jerk-off.

12/21/2009 02:10:52 pm

On December 4, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ordered that the Special Master’s report regarding Leo Stoller’s truthfulness be forwarded to the United States Attorney for consideration of whether Leo Stoller should be prosecuted for perjury. The Court of Appeals also ordered the Mack bar against Leo Stoller to be reinstated, directing the clerks in all federal courts within the 7th Circuit not to accept any papers submitted by Stoller. The court entered the orders after establishing Stoller had been deceitful.

Read the documents at: http://www.scribd.com/ChiliPalmer75

Americans for the Enforcement of Attorney Ethics