The appearance the scumbag is up to same bull sh_t ,Prenda saga continues .

February 16, 2014 § Leave a comment

Prenda saga continues as appeals over sanctions move forward

Steele, Hansmeier, Duffy

Steele, Hansmeier, Duffy

The days of Prenda Law filing copyright infringement and computer hacking suits may be over, but attorneys with ties to the now-dissolved Chicago firm still have a ways to go before they can close the book on the litigation practice that has received scrutiny from judges across the nation.

Since about 2010, Prenda has brought hundreds of complaints, accusing thousands of people of illegally downloading pornography by hacking into the computer systems of its clients, some of which have been called out by judges as shell corporations created to benefit the very attorneys representing them.

While the majority of these suits are now closed, the result of voluntarily dismissals by the plaintiffs, dismissals at the hands of judges, default judgments and settlements, Prenda-affiliated attorneys continue to fight a few suits and are appealing at least a pair of sanction orders handed down over their alleged misconduct.

And the reach of the nationwide litigation extends outside of the federal and state courtrooms that have served as backdrops for the battles between those believed to be behind Prenda’s practice – Paul Duffy, Paul Hansmeier and John Steele– and dozens of defense attorneys.

In May, these three attorneys and others were referred to the criminal investigation unit of the Internal Revenue Service, at least one U.S. Attorney’s office and the state and federal bars where they are admitted to practice. These agencies typically don’t comment on pending or potential investigations.

The referral came in what has since become a well-known and commonly cited order from U.S. District Judge Otis Wright II in California that sanctioned Duffy, Hansmeier, Steele, Brett Gibbs and Prenda Law, as well two of its clients: AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13.

Applying a Star Trek theme to his order, Wright accused the attorneys of engaging in “brazen misconduct and relentless fraud” and said they “outmaneuvered the legal system” with their practices, which have earned a reputation for attempting to coerce settlements from John Doe defendants and exploit the court’s subpoena powers.

Judges who sanctioned Prenda and its affiliated attorneys and firms since Wright’s order have made similar comments in ordering them to pay thousands of dollars in fees and costs to defense attorneys and defendants, including a few Internet Service Providers (ISPs) that fought to quash subpoenas seeking personally identifiable information on Internet Protocol (IP) addresses.

Several defense attorneys involved in the litigation said they wonder why Prenda didn’t throw in the towel after being referred to the authorities in Wright’s order and slapped with subsequent sanctions by judges in California, Illinois and Minnesota.

“A sane person would have stopped a long time ago, but they just keep going,” said Jason Sweet, a Massachusetts attorney who represents several John Does and named defendants across the country. “Why these guys aren’t in jail yet, I have no idea.”

Illinois defense attorney Laura Beasley agreed, referring to Prenda’s litigation as “unbelievable” and “a horrible abuse of our judicial system.”

“They should be disbarred,” she said. “I can’t believe they aren’t already.”

Attempts to reach Duffy and Steele were unsuccessful.

A message left for Duffy, a Chicago attorney who is representing Prenda in a defamation suit in the Northern District of Illinois, was not immediately returned and several calls made to the number Steele, a former Chicago attorney who now lives in Florida, listed in recent court filings resulted in an automated message that said “We could not complete your call. Please try again.”

Hansmeier, who continues to practice in Minnesota, said “no comment” when reached by phone today.

According to other published media reports, Hansmeier helped start Class Justice, an advocacy organization in Minneapolis. The group’s website states it works to promote “accessibility for all people, consumer rights, and class action fairness.

A media report from November details a lawsuit alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) the group filed in October on behalf of a visually impaired woman who later said she had no idea her name was being as a plaintiff.

The woman was cited in the report as saying she thought she was helping her cousin, who asked her to evaluate websites for Class Justice, work she was told would be used to educate businesses about money they are losing by not making their sites ADA accessible.

Sanctions
Wright’s May order appears to mark the first of about a handful of orders imposing sanctions and fees on Prenda and some of its attorneys.

In Ingenuity 13 LLC v. John Doe, Wright doubled an award of attorneys’ fees and costs for defense lawyers to $81,319.72. After missing the deadline, he ordered Prenda, its affiliated attorneys and clients to pay an extra $1,000 per day, per person or entity.

California attorney Morgan Pietz, who represents some of the defendants in this case, previously said the sanctions eventually reached about $237,000 and after “after a bit of kicking and screaming,” they were ultimately paid.

Wright’s order is now on appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The briefing schedule is underway and records show the court last month extended a deadline, giving the sanctioned parties until March 17 to file an optional reply brief.

Another sanctions order Prenda has appealed is now in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, where Hansmeier filed an opening brief last month on behalf of himself, Duffy and Steele.

This appeal is over since-retired U.S. District Judge G. Patrick Murphy’s November order in Lightspeed Media Corp. v Anthony Smith, et al., requiring the trio to pay $261,025 in fees to the defendants in the southern Illinois computer hacking case.

The defendants in this case – Anthony Smith, AT&T and Comcast, as well as an unnamed representative from each of the ISPs — have until Feb. 26 to submit their brief to the Seventh Circuit.

In an argument over personal responsibility included in their opening brief, it appears the Prenda-affiliated attorneys try to pass off the blame to Belleville, Ill. attorney Kevin Hoerner, who they say filed the amended complaint in the case while serving as co-counsel, not local counsel.

Hoerner, who is not subject to the sanctions order, did not return a message seeking comment.

He is also mentioned in, but again not subject to, another recent order sanctioning Prenda and Duffy inPrenda Law v. Godfread, et al.

Earlier this month, U.S. Judge John Darrah of Chicago’s federal court granted a request for sanctions from Minnesota attorney Paul Godfread and his client, Alan Cooper, who are  defendants in the consolidated defamation suit Prenda and Duffy brought last year.

In his order, Darrah called out Prenda and Duffy for lying and engaging in duplicitous behavior regarding remand motions filed in southern Illinois’ federal court and before him, as well as for “grasping at straws” in their unsuccessful arguments against sanctions.

He also mentioned alleged misrepresentations that Hoerner made prior to the case’s removal to federal court that attempted to get an amended complaint filed in the St. Clair County Circuit Clerk’s office without permission from the court.

The amended complaint named Alpha Law Firm in Minnesota as a plaintiff, an addition that would have destroyed the defendants’ diversity argument and potentially allowed the plaintiffs to remand the suit to circuit court.

The defendants’ attorneys, Erin Russell of Chicago and Sweet of Massachusetts, filed an itemization of fees last week, asking Darrah to make Prenda and Duffy pay them at least $26,452.50 for the 60-plus hours they spent working on the sanctions motion, as well as fighting Prenda’s remand requests.

Darrah has not yet attached a dollar figure to his sanctions order as Duffy and Prenda have until Feb. 20 to submit a response to the defendants’ itemization of requested fees.

Given the firm’s track record of appealing sanctions order, it would not be unlikely that Prenda and Duffy appeal this one to the Seventh Circuit.

Besides these three sanctions order, it also appears that federal judges in California have ordered Prenda-affiliates to pay nearly $10,000 attorneys’ fees in AF Holdings v. David Trinh and about $22,000 in AF Holdings v. Joe Navasca.

And last year, records show a state judge in Minnesota ordered plaintiff Guava LLC, its attorney Michael Dugas, and Alpha Law to pay more than $63,000 in attorneys’ fees in Guava LLC v. Spencer Merkel.

Court records show Dugas also represents Prenda-client AF Holdings in Minnesota’s federal court, where he sought to withdraw as counsel in the case last year.

An August 2013 order denying his request states his withdrawal would delay the progress of the case and noted he signed the complaint that allegedly forged documents were attached to. Records show he continues to represent AF Holdings, along with Hansmeier, in that suit.

Dugas did not return a message.

Although his request to withdraw didn’t appear to include a reason, he isn’t the only attorney involved in Prenda litigation who has tried to get out.

In an August 2013 motion seeking to withdraw as counsel in AF Holdings v. Sandipan Chowdhury,attorney Daniel Ruggiero told a Massachusetts federal court that “there are several things that have come to light regarding plaintiff and its related owners, officers and lawyers since counsel agreed to file and represent plaintiff in this case.”

“For the sake of brevity,” Ruggiero directed the court to read Wright’s sanctions order and added that “under the circumstances here, I believe the Rules of Professional Conduct are highly relevant here.”

He then cited rules stating that a lawyer should not represent a client or should withdraw as counsel if “the representation will result in violation of the rules of professional conduct or other law” and “the client has used the lawyer’s services to perpetrate a crime or fraud.”

Pointing to Wright’s findings, Ruggiero wrote in his withdrawal request that “it is clear that continued representation of” AF Holdings puts him at “a compromised risk.”

In addition, Gibbs, the San Francisco attorney who was sanctioned in the Ingenuity case in California, testified in March that he eventually left his position as of counsel to Prenda and the now-dissolved Steele Hansmeier firm in Chicago.

He told Wright that anything that may have been improper in these cases was done under the direction of his superiors and in response to a question from the judge over whether he felt like he was duped by Steele and Hansmeier, Gibbs said, “In a way, yes.”

This is the final story in a three-part series on Prenda’s litigation practices. The first story can be read hereand the second story here.

The appearance federal code violations of parent paratiem as a parent.

January 1, 2014 § Leave a comment

Short Description:  ADOPTION ACT-UNFIT PARENT

Senate Sponsors
Sen. Darin M. LaHood – David Koehler

House Sponsors
(Rep. Jehan A. Gordon-Booth – Emanuel Chris Welch)

Last Action

Date Chamber  Action
  8/23/2013 Senate Public Act . . . . . . . . . 98-0532

Statutes Amended In Order of Appearance

750 ILCS 50/1 from Ch. 40, par. 1501

Synopsis As Introduced
Amends the Adoption Act. Makes various changes in provisions including in the definition of “unfit person” a parent who fails to make reasonable efforts to correct specified conditions or reasonable progress toward the return of the child so that the provisions include: failure by a parent to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that were the basis for the removal of the child from the parent during any 9-month period following the adjudication of neglected or abused minor or dependent minor; and failure by a parent to make reasonable progress toward the return of the child to the parent during any 9-month period following the adjudication. Deletes language that included, in provisions defining “failure to make reasonable progress toward the return of the child to the parent” when a service plan has been established to correct the conditions that were the basis for the removal of the child from the parent and those services were available, the parent’s failure to substantially fulfill his or her obligations under the service plan and correct the conditions that brought the child into care during any 9-month period following an adjudication under specified provisions of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987. Makes other changes.

Actions

Date Chamber  Action
  2/15/2013 Senate Filed with Secretary by Sen. Darin M. LaHood
  2/15/2013 Senate First Reading
  2/15/2013 Senate Referred to Assignments
  2/27/2013 Senate Assigned to Judiciary
  3/6/2013 Senate Added as Chief Co-Sponsor Sen. David Koehler
  3/19/2013 Senate Do Pass Judiciary; 011-000-001
  3/19/2013 Senate Placed on Calendar Order of 2nd Reading March 20, 2013
  4/10/2013 Senate Second Reading
  4/10/2013 Senate Placed on Calendar Order of 3rd Reading April 11, 2013
  4/24/2013 Senate Third Reading – Passed; 053-000-001
  4/25/2013 House Arrived in House
  4/25/2013 House Chief House Sponsor Rep. Jehan A. Gordon-Booth
  4/29/2013 House First Reading
  4/29/2013 House Referred to Rules Committee
  4/29/2013 House Assigned to Adoption Reform
  5/3/2013 House Added Alternate Chief Co-Sponsor Rep. Emanuel Chris Welch
  5/9/2013 House Do Pass / Short Debate Adoption Reform; 004-000-000
  5/9/2013 House Placed on Calendar 2nd Reading – Short Debate
  5/10/2013 House Second Reading – Short Debate
  5/10/2013 House Placed on Calendar Order of 3rd Reading – Short Debate
  5/15/2013 House Third Reading – Short Debate – Passed 112-002-001
  5/15/2013 House Motion Filed to Reconsider Vote Rep. Rita Mayfield
  5/29/2013 House Motion to Reconsider Vote – Withdrawn Rep. Rita Mayfield
  5/29/2013 Senate Passed Both Houses
  6/27/2013 Senate Sent to the Governor
  8/23/2013 Senate Governor Approved
  8/23/2013 Senate Effective Date January 1, 2014
  8/23/2013 Senate Public Act . . . . . . . . . 98-0532

Comments on the judges

December 7, 2013 § Leave a comment

VIEW & ADD COMMENTS

Comments (6)

+2

Fhenz2001's avatarFhenz2001· 1 day ago

Keep UP the good work mark!

1 reply · active 1 day ago

0

KW's avatarKW· 1 day ago

Concise and calling for the public to wake up. Keep the heat on Mark ! Not surprising that Mr Berrios’ name comes up when property tax “irregularities” are brought out for his acquaintances. Curious about the special exemption that judge took since I could not locate a word about it on the assessor’s website – or is it just for the “connected”.
+1

Betty's avatarBetty· 1 day ago

Ok report, but I’d like to see more on the Judges at the criminal courts where it wreaks corruption.
+2

STILL NOT FREE's avatarSTILL NOT FREE· 1 day ago

The Crook County courts are the worst! Judge Nancy Katz had a case before her but then her Lesbian partner died and she was allowed a paid sabbatical for months. She has the reputation of being a man hater and has a practice & pattern of Alienating Parents from their children. In one instance one of her cases was sent to the court room to Judge Jacobias (removed since from family court) who in open court stereo typed a Hispanic father as “macho and violent” by just looking at him. Stopped visitation of his child who identified abuse at hands of step father. Jacobias sent her to therapist (friend) Beth Wilner who contributed to Alienation and advised medicating child who attempted suicide numerous times and pleaded with all professionals to be with her father. Judge Katz had final hearing 3yrs later & made final decisions & forced bankrupt father to pay child support to abusing Parental Alienator. Father has not seen child for 2yrs. Child remains institutionalized. Court room cartel destroying our children! No one is watching or doing something about abuse by Judges.
0

NO JUSTICE NO PEACE's avatarNO JUSTICE NO PEACE· 1 day ago

All Family Court and Probate Court Judges – look to maximize money for lawyers, GALs, therapists, etc. who are friends of the judge.

Judge Katz – lesbian with a cause.

Judge Mathein – hates anyone who fights for justice.

Judge Nega – believes that the law and the Constitution do not apply to family court. Never wants to hear the law, just character assassination.

Judge Haracz – Plain stupid. Afraid to make a decision.

Judge Lopez – believes that the impossible is easy. (“You want a Modification in child support, just ask for it.” But show me a judge that will actually grant it.)

Judge Fernandez – In her own little world.

An other fine piece on Judging the Judges | Will County Pro-se

[…] more: http://wgntv.com/2013/12/04/judging-the-judges-knock-knock-your-honor-are-you-illegally-living-here/… My addition not […]

Read more: http://wgntv.com/2013/12/04/judging-the-judges-knock-knock-your-honor-are-you-illegally-living-here/#ixzz2ml1CYUS9

“Who is Judging the Judges.” Well next who is watching the IARDC ?

December 5, 2013 § Leave a comment

 I know that we all have submitted documents supporting our claims.To the news as well as to the DOJ whom is here visiting Crook county  i mean Cook County il.

All this week at 9:00 PM, WGN will do an investigative report on “Who is Judging the Judges.”  I think we need to bombard them with examples of the failures of the JIB; and we need to encourage them to do an investigative report regarding the failure of the ARDC as well, particularly as it relates to Child Reps/ GALs.

Here is the link:

http://wgntv.com/2013/12/01/judging-the-judges-an-introduction/

Make a comment on the webpage.  Let’s find a contact person for WGN and offer to be interviewed (stating that you supporting documents and others with similar complaints).

Please forward this email to others so that they can take action as well.

vawa crazy stuff its more fed dollars to the court corps. 3000.00 average retention for each month.

September 13, 2013 § Leave a comment

(( GET YOUR CAMERAS OUT )) Expose violence by women. The political elite claim VAWA needed to be funded for the profit of judicial members and groups that defend women like this. How many families have been torn apart because of deceptions from gay women? How many men have been victims of gay women wanting children? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7MDZr-cVHU
Crazy woman beats up beer factory waiter over Guinness!

http://www.youtube.com

I was drinking with my friends in beer factory, and then i saw two crazy woman going into rage, throw glasses and beats up the waiter when they told them sol…

Our favorite porn Judge pornlito i mean judge Polito…….

September 12, 2013 § Leave a comment

I still believe that restitution should have been repaid to the state as we payed him to self gratify on state time at least the time he was on the computor surfing for porn ?

This is miss appropriation of state and county funds.

 

 

 

(No. 12-CC-1 Respondent suspended.)

In re ASSOCIATE JUDGE JOSEPH C. POLITO,
of the Circuit Court of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit, Respondent

Order entered February 1, 2013.

SYLLABUS

On July 13, 2012, the Judicial Inquiry Board filed a complaint with the Courts Commission, charging respondent with conduct that brought the judicial office into disrepute in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, Illinois Supreme Court Rules 61 and 62. In summary form, the complaint alleged that beginning in 2010 and periodically until August 2011, respondent frequently used his Will County issued work computer to access pornographic websites during work hours in his chambers. The complaint further alleged that Will County’s policies prohibited its employees from using Will County’s electronic communication systems for accessing sexually explicit material.

Held: Respondent suspended.
Sidley Austin LLP, of Chicago, for Judicial Inquiry Board.

William J. Martin, of Oak Park, for Respondent.

Before the COURTS COMMISSION: GARMAN, Chair, APPLETON, FRANKS, McBRIDE, SPENCE1, WEBBER, and WOLFF, commissioners, ALL CONCUR.

ORDER

In a complaint filed on July 13, 2012, the Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board (Board) charged Joseph C. Polito, an associate judge in the Twelfth Judicial Circuit, with “conduct that brought the judicial office into disrepute” in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, Illinois Supreme Court Rules 61, Canon 1, and 62, Canon 2, which provide as follows:

“An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing, and should personally observe high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved. The provisions of this Code should be construed and applied to further that objective.

(A) A judge should respect and comply with the law and should conduct himself or herself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.”

1At the time of the hearing and consideration of this case, Commissioner Robert B. Spence was an alternate member of the Commission appointed to serve on this case.

page1image18832

In support of the charge, the complaint stated that beginning in 2010 and periodically until August 2011, respondent used his Will County issued work computer to access pornographic websites during work hours in his chambers. During the relevant time period, respondent usually accessed pornographic websites multiple times a week.

Will County uses an internet blocking system, which prevents employees and users of the Will County computer network from accessing certain restricted websites. The internet blocking system used software that, when triggered, caused a blocking message to appear on the computer screen. When respondent was blocked from viewing a pornographic website and encountered these blocking screens, he typically returned to internet search engines and clicked on search results until he succeeded in bypassing the computer blocking software and, ultimately, accessed a pornographic website in violation of Will County’s written policies that prohibit employees from using the computers provided to them to access sexually explicit material. Respondent admitted that he was aware of this prohibition. It is also noted that respondent’s Chief Judge Stephen White specifically told him that such work computer usage was prohibited.

Respondent has further admitted the alleged conduct and his knowledge of the computer usage policy of Will County.

The Illinois Courts Commission (Commission) has heard not only the testimony presented before it but also has had the benefit of the report of proceedings before the Board.

It is uncontroverted that respondent suffers from an addiction to pornography and following a meeting with Chief Judge Gerald Kinney, who apparently had been alerted to respondent’s misuse of his computer, respondent entered into a program for treatment of his addiction to pornography. The treatment providers have filed statements concerning respondent’s progress in treatment, which disclose he is not only compliant with his treatment regimen but has made progress in his recovery.

The Commission recognizes that persons may become addicted to pornography as well as to alcohol or drugs. Such addictive behavior may manifest itself both during and outside of work hours, taking advantage of the temporal opportunity to do so.

In In re Associate Judge Francis P. Butler (2-CC-62), respondent was charged with consuming alcohol during working hours in the State’s Attorney’s Office. That behavior was compounded by respondent’s interference with a young female complainant and her family who had come to the prosecutor’s office to seek to have charges filed against another individual. There was no evidence concerning Judge Butler’s addiction to alcohol but his behavior directly interfered with the operation of the prosecutor’s office and the treatment of the alleged victim. He was suspended without pay for 30 days.

Here, there is no evidence that Judge Polito’s behavior in court or his association with his coworkers was directly impacted by his addictive behavior. To the contrary, Judge Carla Alessio Policandriotes testified that he was a valued mentor to both judges and lawyers and treated all

2

litigants with all the respect due them. However, his highly inappropriate behavior and the violation of the Will County regulations regarding computer usage did cause disrespect to his office as Associate Judge.

While there is no evidence that Judge Polito’s conduct affected his ability to perform his judicial duties, the Commission considers it to be an aggravating factor that Judge Polito used his work computer, during normal working hours at the courthouse, to access pornographic websites. Not only was this known by him to be in violation of the County’s regulation, but also in an era of declining judicial resources, many judges carry heavy caseloads, and Judge Polito’s conduct was an inexcusable waste of judicial time that should have been spent on available judicial duties.

SANCTION

The parties have brought to the Commission’s attention several decisions from sister jurisdictions where judicial officers were disciplined for behavior similar to that engaged in by Judge Polito. The Commission can find no common pattern of discipline from these cases by which to guide us in the imposition of an appropriate level of discipline here.

Turning to the judicial discipline jurisprudence of Illinois, we note In re Spurlock, 4 Ill. Cts. Com. 74 (2001) describes similar but albeit more egregious conduct by that respondent. Judge Spurlock was removed from the bench because of his treatment of female staff of both the court system and ancillary offices. In Spurlock, the Commission referenced with approval several factors used to determine an appropriate sanction for judicial misconduct: (a) whether the misconduct is an isolated instance or evidenced a pattern of conduct; (b) the nature, extent and frequency of occurrence of the acts or misconduct; (c) whether the misconduct occurred in or out of the courtroom; (d) whether the misconduct occurred in the judge’s official capacity or in his private life; (e) whether the judge has acknowledged or recognized that the acts occurred; (f) whether the judge has evidenced an effort to change or modify his conduct; (g) the length of service on the bench; (h) whether there have been prior complaints about this judge; (i) the effect the misconduct has upon the integrity of and respect for the judiciary; and (j) the extent to which the judge exploited his position to satisfy his personal desires. In re Deming, 736 P.2d 639, 659 (1987).

In this case, the Commission finds that Judge Polito’s conduct relates to these factors: (a) the misconduct was not an isolated instance; (b) it was frequent; (c) the acts occurred out of the courtroom but, importantly, used court resources; (d) it occurred in his personal capacity; (e) the judge has acknowledged the misconduct; (f) the judge is receiving treatment; (g) the judge has served for six years; (h) there were no prior complaints of which the Commission is aware; (i) the judge acknowledges that his conduct has brought the office into disrepute; and (j) the judge did not use his official position, other than access to official computers against regulations, to satisfy his personal desires.

We note as well that Judge Polito has testified under oath that he will not apply for reappointment as an associate judge at the expiration of his current term, a circumstance which

3

ameliorates the necessity for the imposition of a more onerous sanction here.

It is the order of the Commission that respondent, Joseph C. Polito, be suspended without pay from his judicial duties for a period of 60 days.

Respondent suspended for 60 days commencing on February 16, 2013.

Judge Pornlito How come he didn’t get in trouble for misapproation of state and county funds

August 25, 2013 § Leave a comment

 

WHAT a thing someone sent me to post this  crazy picture of will county court house with their favorite JUDGE PORNLITO !!!!!!!!
So why is this getting past buy from the state with working and looking on state and county time getting paid over 172,000 a year did he pay back judy barr tapinka for mis use of funds ?
This ws sent to us from GOV. ABUSE .COM THE NEXT PROTEST IS COMING SOON ?

Where Am I?

You are currently browsing entries tagged with Judicial Hellhole Kevin Hoerner Michael O’Malley non-custodial parent obtaining evidence order of protection parental Alienating Behavior Paul Duffy Paul Hansmeier PORN JUDGE PORNLITO Prenda Law refus at Will County Pro-se.