STOLLER FILES APPEAL ASKING THE ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT TO GIVE GUIDELINES ON THE PROPER PROCEEDURE TO FILE A PETITION FOR INDIRECT CRIMINAL CONTEMPT

3/31/2010

CHICAGO-(AEAE)-STOLLER FILED AN APPEAL WITH THE ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT ASKING THEM TO SET GUIDE LINES ON THE PROPER PROCEEDURE FOR FILING AN Indirect Criminal Contempt Petition in Chicago Illinois when seeking "jail" time for attorneys and others who are found guilty of contempt.
The nature of the case before the Illinois Appeals court was a citation to discover assets. The opposing counsel, Robert Tepper, in an attempt to collect a debt, filed a false lien against a piece of property, in which he knew or should have known that the creditor had no interest according to the brief. Mr. Tepper is alleged to have falsely swore under oath that he had a valid lien on a piece of property. As a result of Mr. Tepper’s false swearing on a lien, he was entitled to a be charged in an indirect criminal contempt proceeding since his false swearing was outside the purview of the Court.
Whether the Cook County Rules of Civil Procedure provide specific instructions on how to file an indirect criminal contempt petition to be filed in Cook County?
The Appellant had filed an indirect criminal contempt petition in front of Judge Kathy Flanigan, who was familiar with a procedure which gives a party leave to file a petition on the 10th floor of the Daley Center in the Criminal Division in order to obtain a separate filing number.
On the other hand, Judge Tolmaire acknowledged in open court that he was unfamiliar with any indirect criminal contempt proceedings, and summarily denied the Appellant leave to file an indirect criminal contempt petition in the criminal division in order to obtain a separate filing number.
In view of the confusion among Judges in the Daley Center, it is important for this Court to establish guidelines and procedures for a party to obtain leave to file a petition for adjudication of indirect criminal contempt on the 10th floor of the Daley Center.
Individual parties, and pro se parties, should be allowed to bring indirect criminal contempt charges when lawyers, abusers, infringe on a court order and/or engage in any other contumacious behavior outside of the purview of the court.

The private right to prosecute gives teeth to court orders and/or to prosecution of contumacious conduct outside the purview of the court. Victims should be able to file the paperwork and argue at a hearing before a judge that could change a tormentor. Victims should not have to convince a busy prosecutor to have to add to his or her workload. Indirect criminal contempt actions should be able to be brought in the name of the victim.

There is a tradition of private prosecutions, particularly for criminal contempt. There has never been an established common law requirement, let alone a Constitutional requirement, that a criminal or an indirect criminal contempt proceeding be brought in the name of the sovereign.
A victim cannot rely on the police or prosecutors to bring these actions because the state does not have the necessary resources to enforce every court order issued or to prosecute every individual who is guilty of contumacious conduct.
Leo Stoller is a legal scholar and Appelate Expert ldms4@hotmail.com

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
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.

Anon

3/30/2010 03:51:09 pm

Agreed Stoller's blog is hopeless drivel but its completely unintentional humor value is priceless. Take Leo's post here as an example. You read and read, looking for a point to it, but Leo saved the punch line for the very end. "Leo Stoller is a legal scholar and Appelate Expert." Cue belly laughs, eye rolls and catcalls.

Priceless

3/30/2010 06:38:36 pm

Without a doubt, Anon. An 'appelate' expert who can't spell appellate, and a self-perceived legal expert who can't spell the frivolous causes of actions he alleges. Can you say 'aiding and abiding' for the umpteenth time? Oh, and let's not forget that the fat little circus midget is a 'martial arts expert' who spends seven nights a week at the gym training. I've seen crackheads who make more intelligent legal arguments than this clown.

fed watcher

3/31/2010 03:16:24 am

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhaahahahahahahahahahahahaha
that appellate court has barred his from filing anything

hahahahahaha

3/31/2010 05:11:24 am

Leo, if you were fortunate enough to be blessed with a Pinnochio nose that grew every time you told a lie, you would finally have an appendage that could satisfy a woman.

Americans for the Enforcement of Attorney Ethics