Illinois projections of da budget????

October 5, 2013 § Leave a comment

The September 2013 monthly update on Illinois economic activity published by the Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability (CGFA), the economic “think tank” maintained by the General Assembly, reports that General Funds revenue receipts for the first quarter of FY14 are tracking ahead of the receipts for the same period in FY13.  For the first three months of FY14, net General Funds receipts total $8.433 billion.  This total is $700 million higher than the FY13 total for the first quarter.  A primary reason for the increase in FY14 revenue receipts is a one-time spike in transfers in August from the Income Tax Refund Fund into the General Fund.  This one time transfer accounts for $397 million of the first quarter revenue growth.

Receipts from both the personal income tax and the corporate income tax have also seen growth compared to FY13.  Revenue from the personal income tax is up $205 million (net of refunds) and receipts from the corporate income tax are up $75 million (net of refunds).  Perhaps the strongest surprise in growth is due to the sales and use tax, which is up $139 million year to date. Strong continued growth will be necessary to provide sufficient revenue to support the $35.446 billion appropriated in this year’s FY14 spending bills. More information may be found here.

Advertisements

ILLINOIS State lacks program to resolve fee disputes with scumbag liars ,forget about the appearance (IARDC) doing their LIARS AS WELL ?

September 19, 2013 § Leave a comment

INSIDE THE LEGAL PROFESSION

State lacks program to resolve fee disputes

By Ameet SachdevSeptember 18, 2007

Illinois is one of eight states that does not provide a statewide program for individuals to resolve fee conflicts with their lawyers, according to a study released Monday by Halt, a legal consumer watchdog group.

The organization evaluated out-of-court forums designed to settle fee disputes, because they can be inexpensive alternatives to suing a lawyer in court.

“The most pervasive complaint about lawyers is that their fees are too high for the work done,” said Halt senior counsel Suzanne Blonder.

State bar associations typically sponsor such programs as part of the legal services they offer to the public.

But the Illinois State Bar Association stopped offering such legal assistance within the last year or two, said Joseph Bisceglia, president of the group.

“It just wasn’t being used,” Bisceglia said. “We were putting a lot of resources into the voluntary program, and the results weren’t commensurate with the time involved.”

The Illinois bar association also has no regulatory power over its members because it is a voluntary organization, making it difficult to enforce its rulings on fee disputes, Bisceglia said.

Illinois’ problems were not isolated. Halt found that many out-of-court resolution systems were plagued with problems, from biased procedures to the lack of consumer awareness.

Of the 51 jurisdictions surveyed, 38 received grades below “C,” the group said. At the top were Washington, D.C., Maine, New Jersey, New York and California. Programs were evaluated in six categories, including the ease of initiating an appeal and whether lawyers are required to participate in binding arbitration at a client’s request.

Some program is better than nothing, however, the group said. In addition to Illinois, Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Tennessee also received “incomplete” grades from Halt.

Although the Illinois state bar canceled its program, the Chicago Bar Association continues to offer assistance in this area. After a client or lawyer completes a fee complaint form, a panel of lawyers reviews the complaint. If the dispute can’t be resolved, the bar association’s Committee on Professional Fees will hold a hearing. Its recommendations are not binding on lawyers, however.

“We’re there to serve as a venue for people to complain about their attorneys who otherwise can’t afford to take the matter to court,” said Mari Leigh, chair of the Chicago committee. “If we don’t hear the matter, who will?”

———-

asachdev@tribune.com

letter to chief judge evans?

September 17, 2013 § Leave a comment

Attorney, Judicial And Prosecutorial Misconduct Experienced By Yongping Zhou In Illinois

The System Is Known To Trample On People…and sometimes people trample back.

Note:  Due to Yongping’s English language difficulty, caught.net has had to edit Mr. Zhou’s submission for grammar.

Mr. Yongping Zhou has done the following:

  • He defeated the INS pro se with his friend’s help in February 2003.
  • He defeated attorney Scott Pollock and INS both in his appeal case in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals (Chicago) in April 2003. The case number is: No. 02-3064.

Mr. Zhou asserts the following regarding his case: My case was a civil case in Cook County Circuit Court (“CCCC”), I counter-claimed to sue my previous lawyer, Attorney Scott Pollock, for legal malpractice. Atty. Pollack caused me to be illegally detained by the Federal government by failing to file a Habeas Corpus (“HC”). Note that Atty Pollack had written several letters to me stating he would file HC. He also promised the same to my two friends when they paid him $2,000 to hire him.

Note: that original case was filed with United States Court of Appeals For the 7th Circuit in Chicago with case No. 02-3064. In March 2003, Mr. Zhou discovered collusion between his Attorney Scott Pollock and the U.S. Attorney General. Together they had filed a Joint Motion For Voluntary Dismissal without Mr. Zhou’s knowledge and agreement. Mr. Zhou caught this unethical conduct by court internet records and filed an Emergency Motion to inform the judge.The 3 judge panel ordered attorney Scott Pollock to withdraw, and granted Mr. Zhou’s pro se victory in his appeal.

Read Mr. Zhou’s Counter Claim [PDF]

In this civil case which started in 2003, Atty. Scott Pollock hired Attorney Stephen Tyma to assist his law firm, Scott Pollock Associates.

The initial judge in the case, Judge Healy of CCCC courtroom 1501, was a good and honest Judge. He denied Atty. Stephen Tyma’s challenge to my lawsuit against Atty. Pollock. Attorney Stephen Tyma had motioned to dismiss my lawsuit of legal malpractice against Atty. Scott Pollock. The motion was denied and my case was allowed to go forward.

Later, in 2005, the case came into the hands of Judge Francis Dolan. Judge Francis Dolan was very unfair and hostile toward me openly in court on many occasions. (Judge Francis Dolan always arranged my case as the last one, so that there was no other people inside courtroom 1503 when my case was being heard). Caught.net Note: Many judges have a policy of hearing pro se cases in empty courtrooms.

I had no idea why Judge Francis Dolan was so unfair to me until I got the evidence in September 2006 about 3 weeks before the trial. This evidence showed he (Judge Francis Dolan) had improper ex-parte communications with opposing council’s Attorney Stephen Tyma. This was a violation of the Judicial Conduct Rules of Illinois.

The evidence consisted of two emails from Stephen Tyma to me. On August 30, 2006, Stephen Tyma sent me two emails attached by Judge Francis Dolan’s two different versions of an order for the next day’s [August 31, 2006] court hearing.

These were made between Judge Francis Dolan and Stephen Tyma on August 30, 2006 when there was no court hearing and when I was absent. In my absence, Judge Francis Dolan and opposing council Atty. Stephen Tyma worked outside the courtroom together to make up his 5-page draft order to favor Atty. Stephen Tyma. In these orders Judge Francis Dolan ruled to dismiss my legal malpractice lawsuit against Atty. Stephen Tyma’s client Atty. Scott Pollock. These two rulings only differed on the findings part but were in agreement on the dismissal of my case.

I was unaware of Atty. Stephen Tyma’s emails on August 30, 2006 before I went to the August 31, 2006’s hearing in the early morning. I discovered the collusion between Judge Francis Dolan and Atty. Stephen Tyma at the beginning of the hearing of 08-31-2006.

At the very beginning of the hearing on August 31, 2006, trial Judge Francis Dolan gave me his 5-page order to review, which was dated as August 31, 2006. He said to me he would sign the order immediately if I had no argument.

When I reviewed it quickly, I found it was drafted by Stephen Tyma (Page 5), it said he (Dolan) rules to dismiss my lawsuit. I was shocked. I immediately pointed out to the trial Judge Francis Dolan that the whole 5 page draft order had never been argued previously and he (Judge Francis Dolan) had never ruled or had a full and fair hearing on the 4 points made on pages 1-4. I immediately asserted it was improper for both the judge and opposing council to be acting in this manner.

(It is routine in CCCC courts that after a Judge rules in a case, one of the parties drafts the order. Then the Judge and both parties review it to check whether it accurately reflects what the Judge’s ruling was. It is then signed. However, in my case, on August 31, 2006, the 5-page draft order and the issues contained in it had never been argued in any open hearing.

Atty. Stephen Tyma claimed that drafting in advance was to save another pre-trial conference since the time was too tight before the trial date of 09-18-2006. I rebutted that it was misconduct for the Judge and opposing council to work together on an order ex-parte and to do so without full and fair hearings on the merits and arguments of the case.

Judge Francis Dolan did not sign the order or dismiss the case. On the contrary, on August 31, 2005, the judge ruled to add Atty. Scott Pollock as the top agent of Scott Pollock Associate PC.  The misconduct just mentioned was in violation of Illinois Supreme Court Rule Judicial Conducts 63(A)(4) and 63(C)(1)(b).

Caught.net Note: A critic might say, “This wasn’t misconduct because the judge did not sign the order or dismiss the case. But the court was trying to manipulate and intimidate a pro se litigant. It is very easy to be overwhelmed when representing yourself and, in plain English, they were trying to pull the wool over Mr. Zhou’s eyes and intimidate him into going along with it. THIS IS MISCONDUCT, and so was any ex-parte communications between the Judge and opposing council.

Other misconduct of Judge Francis Dolan in my case include things like illegally confiscating 1.5 feet height documents, returned back to me by a civil rights group, allowing Atty. Scott Pollock to be absent from hearings despite subpoenas and not allowing my two witnesses to testify in the trial even though I listed them in my Intake Form For Trial from the beginning. All of this is detailed in the letter to Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans below.

I filed my Motion To Disqualify Judge Francis Dolan in September 2006 just before the trial. Judge Francis Dolan refused to hear it in open court and threatened to throw me into jail if I insisted it be heard in front of bailiff and court staff.

Judge Evans wrote me twice to ask a lower chief Judge Wright Jr. to take over the proceedings, but Judge Wright Jr. never took any action. (Judge Francis Dolan belongs to the municipal division which lower chief Judge Wright Jr. presides over.)

Best Regards,
Yongping Zhou

Caught.net Note: We are unaware of the rules of Illinois courts but in Rhode Island writing a letter to any judge’s superior WILL NOT and, according to the Rhode Island system, CAN NOT result in any corrective or disciplinary action. ALL judicial discipline in Rhode Island is handled exclusively by the Rhode Island Supreme Court Council of Judicial Tenure And Discipline. If your state is set up the same, do not waste any time writing to superior judges – file a complaint with the disciplinary councils immediately or there is a good chance your letter will be ignored or valuable time will be wasted.

Letter To Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans

October 18, 2007
Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans
50 W. Washington St. Room 2600 Chicago IL 60603
Regarding:
(A) serious bad faith misconduct of Judge Francis Dolan committed in the case 03 M1-159148; and
(B) Judge Wright’s refusal to take proper action against Judge Francis Dolan’s misconduct
Dear Chief Judge Evans:

I ask you to take remedial, corrective action regarding the serious bad faith misconduct of Judge Francis Dolan of Courtroom 1503 of Cook County based on Illinois Supreme Court Rule 62 B(3). The chief Judge Wright Jr. refused to take initial actions regarding Judge Francis Dolan’s serious bad faith misconduct, even after you had transferred my Complaint letters to chief Judge Wright Jr.

In my Complaint, there are two important issues raised:
(1) Serious bad faith misconduct of Judge Francis Dolan of courtroom 1503 when he presided in the case of 03 M1-159148;
(2) Judge Wright Jr. violation of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 62 B – Judge Wright’s refusal to take any necessary action upon the serious bad faith misconduct of Judge Francis Dolan for almost 15 months.

1. I have filed more than 6 Complaints to the chief Judge Wright Jr. to complain about the serious bad faith misconduct of Judge Francis Dolan of courtroom 1503 in the case of 03 M1-159148 since September 06, 2006. I also faxed many letters to chief Judge Wright Jr. during the last 15 months to ask him to take the necessary actions upon Judge Francis Dolan’s serious bad faith misconduct based on Illinois Supreme Court Rule 62 B(3); but Judge Wright Jr. refused to take the initial action until today. I had served these copies of my Complaints to your office of Room 2600 at Richard Daley Center before. You replied to me twice by asking Judge Wright Jr. to take the initial action upon Judge Francis Dolan. I serve to you copies of my previous Complaints once again. In these Complaints, I clarified the facts of serious bad faith misconduct of Judge Francis Dolan with relevant evidence. Here I emphasis some critical points once again in order to assist your investigation:

(I)
On August 30, 2006, Judge Francis Dolan had ex parte communications with Attorney Stephen Tyma, who is the Attorney of counter-defendant Atty. Scott Pollock Associate PC in this case. The purpose of the ex-parte communication was to make up a draft order to favor counter-defendant when there was no full and fair hearing on the issues.

On August 30, 2006, there was NO hearing in this case. At that day August 30, 2006, I was traveling from my Michigan home to Chicago for next day’s pre-trial conference; thus, I could not check email. As a result I did not find that on August 30, 2006 the Attorney Stephen Tyma sent to me two different versions of Judge Francis Dolan’s 5-page order by two emails, and both versions of the order were dated as August 31, 2006

On August 31, 2006, there was a pre-trial conference in this case. At the beginning of that hearing, Judge Francis Dolan gave me the drafted order. I immediately pointed out to the trial Judge Francis Dolan that the whole 5 pages draft order had never been argued previously and he (Judge Francis Dolan) had never made these findings before and he had NEVER ruled on the 4 points mentioned. On the 5th page was the following:
“NOW THEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, it is ordered as follows:
1. Defendant Yong-Ping Zhou is not entitled to have the Court instruct the jury at trial of this cause on any theory of liability which involves Mr. Pollock individually. All proposed instructions which Mr. Zhou had tendered to the Court and which assert individual liability against Mr. Pollock will not be used at trial.
2. Defendant Yongping Zhou’s Second Amended Counterclaim is dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, and Defendant is denied leave to amend his Second Amended Counterclaim.
3. Defendant Yongping Zhou is only entitled to assert legal malpractice at trial as an affirmative defense to Plaintiff’s claims to recover fee from him.
4 Count II of Defendant Yongping Zhou’s Second Amended Counterclaim will be deemed an appropriate denial of the allegations permitted by Ill. Sup. Ct. Rule 133(c).”

I objected to Judge Francis Dolan stating all these 4 points on the 5th page of his 5-page draft order of August 31, 2006 had never had any full and fair hearing nor had they been ruled on at any hearing by him (Judge Francis Dolan). How could he (Judge Francis Dolan) plan to sign this order without any argument or full and fair hearing?

Attorney Stephen Tyma immediately interrupted me and claimed that the arguments from Page 1 to Page 4 of Judge Francis Dolan’s 5-page draft order of August 31, 2006 are what he (Atty. Stephen Tyma) plans to argue today (August 31, 2006). Tyma asserted that because the trial date is coming within 15 days, he (Stephen Tyma) drafted from Page 1 to Page 4 in advance of what he planned to argue today. Then Attorney Stephen Tyma said that in his previous motions he had made false claims that a law firm could not be sued for legal malpractice, only lawyers could be. He admitted the false statement and withdrew it admitting that law firms could be sued for legal malpractice. I objected to the Judge and opposing council trying to railroad the proceedings against me calling it collusion and dirty.

For my service issues of my initial Counterclaim and my 1st Amended Counterclaim in 2003, Attorney Stephen Tyma never challenged these service issues in 2003 when Judge Healy ruled to dismiss without prejudice on my first two Counter claims.

However, after three years in 2006, Judge Francis Dolan found some problems of my services of my two Counter claims and ruled in his 5-page draft order to favor Attorney Stephen Tyma because of these service issues, after these motions had been dismissed by Judge Healy 3 years ago in 2003, but Attorney Stephen Tyma himself had satisfied for my services of my two Counter claims and Stephen Tyma NEVER challenged the issues of my service in 2003.

These service issues of my Counter claims had gone forever in 2003 when Judge Healy dismissed my two Counter claims without prejudice. But Judge Francis Dolan planned to use these forever-gone service issues to favor Attorney Stephen Tyma in the hearing of August 31, 2006, which was already drafted by Attorney Stephen Tyma in advance on August 30, 2006 for two different versions —– it just indicated that there was some inappropriate and dirty relationships between he (Francis Dolan) and Attorney Stephen Tyma, it also indicated that he (Francis Dolan) and Attorney Stephen Tyma had made ex parte contacted on August 30, 2006 to draft two different versions for Judge’s next day’s 5-page order.

Judge Francis Dolan’s misconduct with Attorney Stephen Tyma were, absolutely in violation of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 63(A)(4) of Judicial Conduct Rules; the 5-page order also indicated that Judge Francis Dolan was acting as the lawyer in the behalf of Counter-defendant in this case in violation of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 63(C)(1)(b). He (Francis Dolan) worked as the lawyer for counter-defendant and Stephen Tyma. Clearly they acted in collusion.

Although Judge Francis Dolan hesitated and did not sign it after I caught his misconduct, it did not change the fact that he (Francis Dolan) and Attorney Stephen Tyma had ex parte communications when I was absent.

(II)
Judge Francis Dolan forbid my two critical witnesses Ms. Stultz and Ms. Yan to testify in the trial, and repeatedly threatened to put me into jail if I brought these witnesses to the trial.

On May 12, 2005, I listed Ms. Stultz and Ms. Yan in my Intake Form when my case was transferred from Judge Healy’s courtroom 1501 to Judge Francis Dolan’s courtroom 1503 at the first time hearing in front of Judge Francis Dolan

These two witnesses hired Attorney Scott Pollock on August 1, 2002 when I was illegally detained and paid huge money [$2000] to Atty. Scott Pollock. It was my legal right to call these witnesses Ms. Stultz and Ms. Yan to testify in the trial. Caught.net Note: As anyone that knows the courts today will tell you, the evidence and witnesses being allowed has become a whimsical crap shoot having little to nothing to do with the realities or facts of the case. Then the higher courts give the trial justice “broad discretion” during the appeals.

But prior to the trial, Judge Francis Dolan suddenly barred these witnesses Ms. Stultz and Ms. Yan and barred me from calling these two witnesses to testify during the trial. In his order, Judge Francis Dolan claimed his ridiculous reason “evidences speaks for itself”, but scratched it out after he had signed the order and insisted on barring Ms. Stultz and Ms. Yan.

Judge Francis Dolan even threatened me that if I bring Ms. Stultz and Ms. Yan in the trial to testify, he (Judge Francis Dolan) will throw me into jail. It is outrageous bias and violation of due process and civil rights. Obviously, Judge Francis Dolan was trying to prejudice my case

In the trial of this case in September 2006, as soon as I testified that Ms. Stultz and Ms. Yan told me why they hired Atty. Scott Pollock on August 1, 2002, the Judge barred me to testify for what Ms. Stultz and Ms. Yan said to me; I asked for close bench to ask Judge Francis Dolan again to let me bring Ms. Stultz and Ms. Yan to testify, Judge Francis Dolan threatened to throw me into jail if I do it.

During the trial, Judge Francis Dolan repeatedly censured me in front of jurors when I raised the issue how my two friends Ms. Stultz and Ms. Yan hired Attorney Pollock on August 1, 2003 and it was rational that calling these two witnesses in. Later Judge Francis Dolan called both parties in the hallway, threatened me that I was close to jail just one step, if I mentioned these two witnesses’ names once again, He (Judge Francis Dolan) put me into jail before the trial ended. And Judge Francis Dolan also forbid sending my evidences to jury room to deliberate after I had used these evidences to argue in the trial. The trial was unfair. After the trial was finished, in the hallway, jurors asked me where my witnesses. Then I could tell the truth how Judge Francis Dolan forbid them but it was too late for jurors to hear the truth.

Judge Francis Dolan had illegally possessed the large amount of documents [about 1.5 feet height] since 2005 and refused to release them to me before the trial. These included many privileged communications between me and the lawyers of Midwest Human Rights Organization in Chicago. The lawyers of Midwest Human Rights Organization told Judge Francis Dolan in the pre-trial conference that they decided to turn these 1.5 feet-height pile of documents to me as my property. Judge Francis Dolan had no legal right to possess these documents and his doing so intentionally prejudiced my case and made it impossible for me to use this evidence during the trial in 2006. During the trial, Judge Francis Dolan brought these 1.5 feet-height documents for short time, and critical documents were missing.

(2) Judge Francis Dolan illegally made ex parte communications with Attorney Stephen Tyma of the counter-defendant in this case prior to the pretrial conference. He allowed Attorney Scott Pollock to be excused from attending the pre-trial conference after the subpoena was served upon Attorney Scott Pollock.

(3) Judge Francis Dolan repeatedly threatened my freedom when I tried to subpoena the relevant witnesses for the discovery issues and he barred these witnesses to testify after they had showed up in the courtroom to testify for the discovery issue.

Accumulated all this shows Judge Francis Dolan’s bad faith, bias, abuse of authority, abuse of judicial discretion, disregard for fundamental rights, intentional disregard of law, or any purpose other than the faithful discharge of judicial duty; see STEVEN DELGADO v. BERT RICE, WARDEN, 67 F. Supp. 2d 1148; 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15380; see Guenther and Guenther v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue 939 F.2d 758; 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 15893; see United States v. Lorenzo A. MARTINEZ, 40 M.J. 82, 1994 CMA LEXIS 54; see United States v. Lorenzo A. MARTINEZ, 40 M.J. 82, 1994 CMA LEXIS 54; Guenther and Guenther v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue 939 F.2d 758; 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 15893.

Dear chief Judge Evans, after you twice transferred my Complaints to chief Judge Kenneth Wright Jr., he (Judge Wright Jr.,) violated Illinois Supreme Court Rule 62 B(3) and refused to take any necessary action upon Judge Francis Dolan’s serious bad faith misconduct. In my Complaints and my personal letters to Judge Kenneth Wright Jr. during the last 15 months, I asked him to obtain Judge Francis Dolan’s yellow pad, in which Judge Francis Dolan wrote all notes for the case 03 M1-159148 about what he ruled. This yellow pad was Judge Francis Dolan’s hand-writing notes about my case 03 M1-159148 and was the critical evidence for all Judge Francis Dolan’s misconduct. But Judge Kenneth Wright Jr. refused to tell me whether he obtained the yellow pad from Judge Francis Dolan, and refused to tell me what was his investigation for all Judge Francis Dolan’s bad faith misconduct, refused to tell me what were Judge Francis Dolan’s replies to him when he contacted Judge Francis Dolan with all my Complaints! My last fax to Judge Kenneth Wright Jr. was on September 14, 2007, his secretary Stacy confirmed that she transferred it to Judge Kenneth Wright Jr., but the Judge Wright Jr. continued to refuse to take actions against Judge Francis Dolan.

Because of the refusal of Judge Wright Jr. to take the initial discipline actions upon Judge Francis Dolan for outrageous 15 months, it forced me to file this long Complaint letter to you and I ask you to take the initial discipline action upon the serious bad faith misconduct of Judge Francis Dolan based on Illinois Supreme Court Rule 62 B(3) and make your reporting to Illinois Judicial Board and serve me a copy of your reporting.

Here I serve my long Complaint letter to you by registered mail, I am asking you to reply me in written for what you investigate both the bad faith misconduct of Judge Francis Dolan and the refusal action of Judge Kenneth Wright Jr. based on Illinois Supreme Court Rule 62 B(3). I am asking you to supply me the copy of Judge Francis Dolan’s yellow pad.

I am asking you to arrange a meeting between you and me as soon as possible for all these issues of all Complaints since August 30, 2006, including the new issues of this long Complaint, which I only file to you. Our meeting will be helpful for your investigation.

Truly Yours,
Yongping Zhou

 

The apparence of the real scumbag will county GAL ? Not a winner looks only for herself not children and bills fraud ?

August 28, 2013 § Leave a comment

Tammy S. November 25, 2012
She has mental problems!
★☆☆☆☆
I am not surprised to see such negative reviews about her. When I met
her, she was so mean and so demanding. I have never met anyone who is
just as terrible as this woman. She didn’t help much with my case, she
just wanted to take my money for doing nothing.
If you need a lawyer who cares about your problems and would do
everything they can to help you, then that woman is not the one for
you. She’s nothing but lazy and miserable.
Do not hire her.

onymous D. August 17, 2012 Anonymous ★☆☆☆☆
I have to agree with all the negative reviews. This office takes more
time to handle a case then needed. My divorce case was a simple cut
and dry case yet took over 6 months to close. The office never kept me
updated on court dates or the status of my case at any time… the
only reason i found out about my final court day less than a week
before the date was because I called the office to find out what was
going on. This office is so quick to bill you but can’t do their job
of keeping their clients updated. My final court date the hearing was
quick yet I waited in the hallway while Judy did other personal work
on other cases before we went downstairs to get my final paperwork…I
waited in the hallway for almost an hour and was charged for her time
working on other cases! If you have any common sense you will not use
this office for any legal needs!!! For the money this office charges
they should do a better job of keeping their clients updated and doing
their cases in a timely fashion. If your personal life interrupts with
cases than don’t take on cases you can’t handle or don’t bill you
clients for your personal time!

__________________________________________________

Log In

Mokena, IL > Attorneys > General Practice Attorneys > Goldstein Judy A

Goldstein Judy A


708-479-0800
19235 S. Wolf Rd.
Mokena, IL
60448
Visit on the Web Get Directions Photos

Add Photo
Edit Business

About Goldstein Judy A

Categories

Divorce & Family Lawyers
General Practice Attorneys

Hours 0

Attorneys & Legal Services

Hi! Sign in and let us know us how was Goldstein Judy A?
Write a Review
Reviews 1 – 14 of 14.
Recency Popularity
Tammy S. November 25, 2012
She has mental problems!
★☆☆☆☆
I am not surprised to see such negative reviews about her. When I met
her, she was so mean and so demanding. I have never met anyone who is
just as terrible as this woman. She didn’t help much with my case, she
just wanted to take my money for doing nothing.
If you need a lawyer who cares about your problems and would do
everything they can to help you, then that woman is not the one for
you. She’s nothing but lazy and miserable.
Do not hire her.
Was this review helpful to you?

Anonymous D. August 17, 2012
Anonymous
★☆☆☆☆
I have to agree with all the negative reviews. This office takes more
time to handle a case then needed. My divorce case was a simple cut
and dry case yet took over 6 months to close. The office never kept me
updated on court dates or the status of my case at any time… the
only reason i found out about my final court day less than a week
before the date was because I called the office to find out what was
going on. This office is so quick to bill you but can’t do their job
of keeping their clients updated. My final court date the hearing was
quick yet I waited in the hallway while Judy did other personal work
on other cases before we went downstairs to get my final paperwork…I
waited in the hallway for almost an hour and was charged for her time
working on other cases! If you have any common sense you will not use
this office for any legal needs!!! For the money this office charges
they should do a better job of keeping their clients updated and doing
their cases in a timely fashion. If your personal life interrupts with
cases than don’t take on cases you can’t handle or don’t bill you
clients for your personal time!
Was this review helpful to you?

1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.
STK07 N. December 30, 2010
Get a real Divorce Atty
★☆☆☆☆
Do not hire Judy Goldstein you may as well attempt a pro bono for the
fact that she is not efficient and that is a compliment. I would
stress to anyone, the first impression she portrays like she is a
professional and until you deal with her it is like the devil herself.
On 2 occassions she missed court dates and had the nerve to bill and
then carried the case into nearly two years. Didn’t return phone calls
although fast to submit billings. I was later fortunate to have her
removed. She did not work in my best interest at all!
Was this review helpful to you?

2 out of 2 people found this review helpful.
Frank C. December 30, 2010
Do Not Hire Judy
★☆☆☆☆
I would strongly suggest you do not hire Judy Goldstein. I hired her
to represent me in a divorce. Her inability to remember key data
proved very expensive to me. After spending thousands of dollars I
severed my relationship with Judy yet still feel betrayed by her. Her
billing practices border on fraud. She will not help you.
Was this review helpful to you?

2 out of 2 people found this review helpful.
David M. December 30, 2010
You found her that good? Really?
★☆☆☆☆
While it is possible… doesn’t it seem odd that all these people
would have years and years experience with a family law attorney? How
many divorces did they have? Or are these just attempts to counter the
reality?
Our experience is one of disregard, lack of respect of others time,
and a disintinct inability to deal with matters in a timely fashion.
Was this review helpful to you?
2 out of 2 people found this review helpful.
ANON S. December 30, 2010

WHY ARENT THE FEDS INVOLVED THIS IS A RAIL SYSTEM ? TAKING INTO CLEAR APPEARANCE OF FRAUD?

August 16, 2013 § Leave a comment

HOW MUCH DID THEY SCAM OUT OF THE METRA FUNDS AND HOW THEY ARE STILL CONNECTED WITH THE MONIES ?

THEY ALL TOOK FOR NOT DOING THEIR JOBS AND HOW MUCH WAS FEDERALLY FUNDED TO ACCOMMODATE THE FRAUD THEY COMMITTED?

THE APPEARANCE IS TO AGAIN TAKE FED DOLLARS AND DEFRAUD THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO FUND THEIR SCAMS?

WELCOME TO CHICAGO BUT MOST OF ALL WELCOME TO ILLINOIS THE STATE THAT FUNDS  PATRONAGE POLITICAL FRAUD ?

 

 

 Metra’s commuter rail service is crucial to the Chicago region’s economy and livability. (Antonio Perez, Chicago Tribune / June 12, 2013)

August 16, 2013

Lest any of us forget, beneath the uncommonly pleasant August weather lurks a scandal mired in Illinois patronage and politics. So let’s all stipulate that:

• Far-flung yet reliable Metra commuter rail service is crucial to the Chicago region’s economy and livability.

• Lofty paeans to restoring faith in Metra will mean nothing until the rest of the board members who voted for a hush-money deal — and who didn’t immediately disclose a memo alleging corrupt efforts to influence the agency — resign.

• With another resignation Thursday, five of these underachievers have left. The job of driving out the rest, without grinding Metra to a halt, now falls to the local politicians across northeastern Illinois who by law appoint the members of Metra’s board.

Gov. Pat Quinn on Thursday named a 15-member task force to rethink transit oversight. Other voices, too, are proposing ways to rebuild the Rube Goldberg arrangement in which the Regional Transit Authority sits atop Metra, Pace bus service and the Chicago Transit Authority.

The long-term goal here is to make public transit throughout metropolitan Chicago more professional and less open to political abuse. Today’s superstructure — four oversight boards with some four dozen members — was created so Chicago Democrats and suburban Republicans would be forced to share power. But that top-heavy oversight structure has led to a lack of accountability.

Even by sketchy Illinois standards, the Metra board’s tolerance of political interference was egregious: When Metra CEO Alex Clifford accused Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan and other politicians of trying to influence agency decisions, board members reflexively tried to force Clifford out and buy his silence.

Local officials whose Metra appointees haven’t resigned should make the bitter-enders an offer they can’t refuse. Some of the officials, with good reason, are reluctant to fill vacancies on the board with investigations still going on and Metra’s future in question. Nobody should be appointed to a Metra board seat for the long haul until all of us decide how this region’s public transit should be structured. The worst move now, with transit oversight an open question, would be a rush to repopulate Metra’s board.

That said, the agency needs board members to make decisions. What to do?

The Solomonic solution comes from Dan Cronin, head of the DuPage County Board, whose appointee to the Metra board resigned last month. Cronin suggests a simple protocol: Reconstitute the Metra board with interim members who submit letters of resignation even before they take office. They then would serve solely at the pleasure of the officials who have appointed them, with no real or assumed squatter’s rights.

We hope Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and the other Great Appointers will join Cronin in helping Metra function day-to-day without creating expectations for their new appointees. If some of them later win full terms on Metra’s or some other board, so be it.

As the process of rethinking transit oversight plays out, we’ll be watching to see whether the proposals that emerge would reduce this abusive political influence, or just shift it from some politicians to others.

Here’s one test of any overhaul plan: Would this oversight structure encourage the hiring of top administrators who will run safe, efficient transit operations — and who would do what Metra’s ousted CEO did in refusing to buckle to the pols? That is, how can we recruit, and protect, transit bosses who won’t play by the rules of Illinois politics?

That should be any governing board’s mission. The Metra board’s decision to do the opposite is reason enough for its complicit holdouts to resign, and for interim placeholders to run the trains.

Copyright © 2013 Chicago Tribune Company, LLC

Punishment hearing begins for ex-social services worker ?THE APPEARANCE THEY ALL HAVE PROBLEMS IS PRETTY TRUE?

August 14, 2013 § Leave a comment

Punishment hearing begins for ex-social services worker

Posted: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 12:15 am | Updated: 5:24 am, Tue Aug 13, 2013.

By CHRIS PASCHENKO

GALVESTON — A punishment hearing began Monday for a former county social services worker who pleaded guilty in a case of what prosecutors said was the theft of more than $55,000 from four indigent wards, whose financial accounts she managed.

Sylvia Ann Villarreal, 47, of Hitchcock, pleaded guilty June 17 without a plea bargain to theft by public servant and faces from two to 20 years in prison on the second-degree felony charge.

kids on the cusp of a dream come true on hopes Bill Nemitz Camp gives siblings way to reunite

August 12, 2013 § Leave a comment

 

Bill Nemitz: Camp gives siblings way to reunite

They’re scattered all over Maine right now, 29 kids on the cusp of a dream come true.

“There’s just something about the magic of being in the outdoors, getting to be kids and forgetting your troubles,” said Heidi Krieger last week. “Camp Wigwam has a certain magic to it. It’s something you feel the moment you drive through the gates.”

No argument there. Despite the steady rain, a visit to the boys’ camp on Bear Pond in Waterford on Friday revealed the tennis courts, archery range, batting cage, outdoor theater, rock wall and all the other trappings that have filled this heaven-on-earth with children of privilege since it first opened way back in 1910.

But this isn’t about Camp Wigwam’s seven-week program for kids from as far away as France, Spain and the United Arab Emirates.

This is about Camp Wigwam’s Camp to Belong Maine, which next week will open its arms to a distinctly different group of children: Maine foster kids who have been separated from their siblings and, if only for six blissful days in mid-August, get to remember what real family feels like.

“We’re definitely not a therapy camp — that’s one thing I stress,” said Krieger, who has served as Camp To Belong Maine’s director since it began in 2004. “Although a lot of healing happens here.”

It started by happenstance: Jennie Hinkley, a former foster child in Farmington, tuned into “The Oprah Winfrey Show” one day back in 2001 to see Lynn Price, who grew up in Chicago’s foster care system, receiving an award for founding the first Camp To Belong for separated siblings in Colorado.

As Hinkley, by then a member of Maine’s Youth Leadership Advisory Team, recalled at the time, “It’s neat whenever you see your story is not the only story like that.”

Indeed. Two years of nonstop planning and fundraising followed and the rest is a priceless slice of Maine summer camp history.

Since the first campers arrived nine years ago this month, Camp To Belong Maine has hosted more than 350 foster siblings between the ages of 8 and 18 — all with the full blessing and $500-per-child financial support of the Maine Department of Health and Human Services.

“While we make every effort to place siblings who enter foster care together, it is not always possible,” said Therese Cahill-Low, director of the Office of Child and Family Services, in an email last week. “We strongly believe this camp provides a unique and special experience to children who cannot be placed in one foster setting.”

It costs just over $1,000 per child to put on the camp — what isn’t covered by the state is raised through grants and donations.

Camp Wigwam, having been at this for more than a century, provides the basics: medical staff, food service, activities counselors and a driver for the ski boat.

“That would be me,” said Bob Strauss, who along with his wife, Jane, has owned and operated Camp Wigwam since 1977. (It’s been in the Strauss family since 1964.)

Overnight supervision, meanwhile, comes from Camp To Belong volunteers as far away as Minnesota. They will gather for three days of on-site training next weekend before the campers check in a week from Monday — a tacit acknowledgement that these boys and girls show up with more than their share of baggage.

“Certainly there are some challenges,” said Krieger, who last week completed her personal, pre-camp visits with each and every child. “That’s why we have a 2-to-1 camper-to-staff ratio. We really want to be able to support these kids and whatever they may bring to camp.”

Consider, for example, the child who blew the whistle on abuse by a biological parent and thus triggered the state’s intervention with the family in the first place. While the outside world might applaud such courage, a fellow sibling caught up in the ensuing maelstrom might not view it so kindly.

Or what about the child who remains with Mom and Dad while others have been removed from the home? Can that be easily reconciled over a roasted marshmallow?

Then there are the older kids who, as Krieger put it, spent way too much time pre-separation “serving as parental figures and taking care of their younger siblings.” How does one tactfully steer them back toward their own lost childhoods?

“We simply encourage them to be kids,” said Krieger. “Let us be the adults.”

It’s not a hard sell.

The standard camp stuff — swimming, wall climbing, water skiing, tubing, canoeing, kayaking, hiking, theater — fills only part of the daily routine. Equally important are activities designed to plug holes unique to these young lives.

There’s the “sibling pillow” — a travel-size pillow each camper embroiders with a heartfelt, sibling-to-sibling message that fast becomes more lifelong keepsake than simple souvenir.

There’s the disposable camera that each kid gets at the beginning of the week to replace all of those family photos lost over the years or, worse yet, never taken in the first place.

There’s Carnival Night with cotton candy, snow cones and fried dough. And Theme Night, which might be a ’50s sock hop, a Western hoedown or a Hawaiian luau.

And then there’s the Birthday Party.

To make up for all those birthdays missed, each camper “shops” for free among an array of donated gifts for his or her sibling. The present comes topped off with a handmade card, sure to be taken out for a second look when the real birthday rolls around.

Strauss, who will follow Camp To Belong with yet another week for children with disabilities from the Chicago area (he’s been doing that one for more than 30 years), said this is at best a “not-for-profit” add-on to Camp Wigwam’s busy summer season.

But’s he’s welcomed enough of these youngsters over the past decade — they always show up a little withdrawn, as if waiting for it all to be suddenly snatched away — to know how foreign something so simple as a week in the woods is to many of them.

And he’s seen enough tearful farewells — often until next year — to know that these kids who thought they’d been forgotten “take the joy of this experience with them for the rest of their lives.”

Want to help?

Go to camptobelongmaine.org and click on either “donate” or, better yet, “become a volunteer.”

“You can give your money to various causes,” noted Strauss. “But the people who can give to this truly see the results right here. It’s a stupendous program.”

And no kids in the world deserve it more.

Bill Nemitz can be contacted at 791-6323 or at:

bnemitz@pressherald.com

 

Where Am I?

You are currently browsing entries tagged with WILL COUNTY at Will County Pro-se.