Leo the loser

Posted on Author Ron Coleman 2
Written by: Ron Coleman

Leo Stoller, that is, of course. This time, in the Seventh Circuit (it’s a Word document; click here for a link, but there’s no permalink for the story on the Roylance firm’s website, so it may move).  The Seventh is our federal circuit of choice this week if you count the Law and Economics post, too.

You may also like:

Ron Coleman

I write this blog.

2 Replies to “Leo the loser”

  1. On February 11, 2010, the Illinois Appellate Court (First District) granted an order taking judicial notice that Leo Stoller had been deceptive.

    The Illinois Appellate Court, on its own motion, also ordered that Leo Stoller show cause as to why he should not be held in Contempt of Court regarding sixteen appeals. The Court also ordered Leo Stoller to show cause as to why those appeals should not be dismissed.

    The Illinois Appellate Court entered the orders in view of an earlier order entered by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In that order, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that Leo Stoller had been deceptive and referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney to determine whether Leo Stoller should be prosecuted for perjury.

    Read the document at:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/27037025/LEO-STOLLER-JUDICIALLY-NOTICED-FOR-DECEPTION

  2. On March 15, 2010, the Appellate Court of Illinois (First Judicial District) entered an order dismissing several appeals filed by Leo Stoller. The matter came before the court on the court’s own rule to show cause why Leo Stoller should not be held in contempt and the appeals dismissed.

    In this order, the Appellate Court of Illinois (First Judicial District) noted that it had taken judicial notice of an order entered by the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in the matter of In re Leo D. Stoller, No. 08-4240 (7th Cir., Dec. 4. 2009). In that order, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found that Leo Stoller had been deceptive and referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney for determination of whether Stoller should be prosecuted for perjury.

    The Appellate Court of Illinois (First Judicial District) also noted that Leo Stoller had filed a response to the matter before it on February 19, 2010, and that Leo Stoller had contradicted himself in his response.

    This order follows a long history of sanctions against Leo Stoller. Several courts have noted that Leo Stoller’s “lack of credibility is a matter of public record.”

    Read the documents at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/28694929/LEO-STOLLER-S-APPEALS-DISMISSED-EN-MASSE

Comments are closed.