STOLLER TO APPEAL THE \"MACK\" FILING BAR TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

12/7/2009

Justice Roberts

CHICAGO-(AEAE)-FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL IMPOSED A "MACK" FILING BAR OVER A DISPUTE INVOLVING A PAUPERIS PETITION FILED BY A PARTY IN A CHAPTER 7 BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING. Stoller while in Chapter 7 Bankruptcy filed an appeal before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The Bankruptcy Judge Jack Schmetterer had granted Stoller indigent. Judge Virginia Kendell had granted Stoller motion to appeal in forma pauperis. The Illinois Supreme Court had granted Stoller the right 5 times to Appeal informa pauperis. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied Stoller the right to appeal informa-pauperis and was given a week to pay the filing fee. Stoller raised the money paid the filing fee. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals refered the case to Judge Brown to conduct an investigation as to "how" could Stoller could claim to be a "true" pauper if he was able to come up with the filing fee for his appeal? Without concluding her investigation Judge Brown filed a request for instructions before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The $450 appeal fee issue was now a full blow Federal Court inquiry which appeared to involve $100,000.00 of dollars in attorneys fees, court fees to get to the bottom of "How could a pauper come up with a appeal fee when he claimed he was a pauper?" The Seventh Circuit choose not to allow Judge Brown to continue her investigation and on Dec. 4, 2009 issued a "Mack" filing bar against Stoller. Stoller will argue to the United Supreme Court that the "Mack" bar is unconstitutional and a violation of his Fifth and Fourteen Amendment rights and is an excessive punshiment which "never" has been imposed on any bankrupt party in the United States since its founding over the filing of a simple pauperis petition. The Special master Judge Brown was especially interested in "How Stoller was able to pay for the "paper" he use to file his cases with?" The decision was issued by Justices frank H. Easterbrook, Richard A. Posner and Diane S. Sykes on Dec. 4, 2009 . It is important to note that the 7th Circuit "mack" bar does not apply to the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 11th or any other Federal
Circuit Court. Stoller is free to sue in every other Federal Jurisdiction, until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the Seventh Circuit decision which is the subject of Stoller Writ of Cert. Ldms4@hotmail.com

8 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.

Achilles

12/6/2009 04:41:46 pm

He has filed more Appeals with the United States Supreme Court than anyone else in Chicago where there are over 70,000 attorneys

Anon

12/6/2009 05:51:02 pm

More delusional jokes from the clown act that is Stoller. The Supreme Court too has restricted Stoller's filings before it because he is a vexatious litigant. Stoller's suggestion that the Supreme Court will step in and save him is laughable.

fed watcher

12/6/2009 07:35:56 pm

Buffoon

Stoller's Lost Brother

12/7/2009 12:18:59 am

When the Fed's lock you up you get sent far away unless you have unique family needs. Like I said, you will get sent far, far away.

No Name

12/7/2009 04:38:11 am

Hey, Christopher, is that you? Are you out of the slammer or are you still in Maricopa wearing pink underwear and sleeping in a tent?

Chris

12/7/2009 04:44:27 am

No I'm on in Chicago now. Back in jail for a lake county case. Leo can you bring me some nuts?

Stollerexposed.blog.com

Stoller's Ghost

12/7/2009 05:49:28 am

Doesn't Stoller realize that judges talk between themselves? With his reputation, there is no way he will prevail.

Grand Jury????

12/7/2009 06:20:44 am

Hmmm, Easterbrook refers it to the US Attorneys office? Does not look too good for Leo. Should be an easy case considering the evidence obtained by the Magistrate. Considering his past conduct and probability that Leo will not cooperate nor admit to the charge, Leo could be looking at some real time in a federal institution near you. Once convicted, Leo would lose valuable rights, including the right to vote. The MCC is not very nice in the winter.

Stollerexposed.blog.com

Americans for the Enforcement of Attorney Ethics