Scotillo ruled Tatooles incompetent, appellate court agrees.
Scotillo praises cops high on drugs while on patrol for excellent and out standing service to the community
Appellate court agrees
Tatooles not prepaired for criminal trial, defendant found guilty.
Tatooles hires cop, pays chief $120k
the motive; what was in it for Tatooles (defense lawyer 1);
money vs time - plead guilty $7500 in 30 minutes
Palatine Police would be great full to mayor Tatooles, if the intoxicated cops during the arrest were not mentioned.
mayor tatooles would be great full to defense lawyer Tatooles if the intoxicated cops during the arrest were not mentioned.
State's attorney Chandra would be weened into how a fixed trial works, by Tatooles
Judge would make sure, that Tatooles and this fixed trial that they talked about in private (over the phone, at bar function), would stay under control.
Jim had his his back covered, by his brother, judges wife, a police department, 2 mayors, 2 village councils
Who would up set this sweet deal.
money vs time - plead guilty $7500 in 30 minutes
Palatine Police would be great full to mayor Tatooles, if the intoxicated cops during the arrest were not mentioned.
mayor tatooles would be great full to defense lawyer Tatooles if the intoxicated cops during the arrest were not mentioned.
State's attorney Chandra would be weened into how a fixed trial works, by Tatooles
Judge would make sure, that Tatooles and this fixed trial that they talked about in private (over the phone, at bar function), would stay under control.
Jim had his his back covered, by his brother, judges wife, a police department, 2 mayors, 2 village councils
Who would up set this sweet deal.
Scotillo pays off lawyers for silence in RICO violations Tatooles, up to his neck in obstruction of justice, a little RICO has his name on it
Chandra, sold her sole for a "good and tight" with the judge
Scotillo paid Glasgo with a governor ship in his law bar
Tatooles, x law bar president, thought he was doing a favor for his brother (mayor of Inverness), who would be doing a favor for Mullins (mayor of Palatine, who would be doing a favor for chief Bratcher, who ended up, blackmailing Tatooles and probably Chandra and Andre for covering up a few of his cops that, were on some type of mind altering drug during the arrest, allowed and coached, Wenrich'sperjured testimony, including his false report. Wenrich's police report reflects a report of some one hallucinating, tripping, out of his mind. (I bet Bratcher made 1/2 million bucks on this or more). I would like to know besides Bratchers kid who else did chief Bratcher, teachtorture techniques to and were did Bratcher receive his training.
What is law license x 4 worth?
What is a judge ship worth? We all know when Scotillo became a judge, going price was $10k, the price has probably gone up.
hummmmm..... just 1 case out of a million, I would bet some one could find plenty of dirt, your not going to find any help from Alvarez, president of her own law bar, hummmmm..... I wounder who she has bought and what price for silence at her law bar?
One nice tight family, no one can trash another, because black mail/payback. Every one has dirt on every one else. Kind of like mutual assured destruction.
Jim Tatooles 2 of 2 of 42 blogs
Jim Tatooles 1 of 2 of 42 http://jamestatooles.blogspot.com/
The appellate Court judges JJ, Tully, PJ, McNulty and O'Malley agreed with Scotillo that Tatooles came to court unprepared, a contributing factor to the sleaze ball lawyering in my case along with prosecutor and judicial miss conduct.
If your incompetent I guess that would make a person mentally un fit to practice law, seems to me to me any way.
Why would the appellate court allow Tatooles to continue blundering his way practicing law, after they conclude he is unfit to be lawyer? Same concept as letting a person drive after they know he is drunk....
Why would Scotillo and his wife (publisher of the Northwest Suburban Bar Association news letter) not get Tatooles some professional physiological help? After all, he was president of the NWSBA, there for, had apparently, a close working relation ship with Nancy Scotillo.
I would assume the Scotillo's and Tatooles are friends, what ever happened to the saying of friends helping friends. Would not this be a professional courtesy?
or
Do lawyers, judges bar members view helping a incompetent lawyer belittling.
or
Maybe the Scotillo's knew Tatooles was incompetent to practice law before my trial date.
I certainly would not want a incompetent plumber to do a job for me and if he did, fooling me about his mentally fitness, screwed up, I would sue him, some one would probably be would be suing me.
Why does the bar and fellow lawyers let this type of disruption continue, I mean lets say a lawyer goes to trial 30 times a month unprepared or 40, maybe 50 times. To me I would think that the lawyer would be a misfit? Got problems, should not be practicing law. Maybe he is selective in this behavior, which is a problem also.
Treatment is needed, so Jim Tatooles can do some good honest lawyering
Has John Tatooles, the Mayor of Inverness, offered to help his brother get treatment?
Does the Northwest Suburban Bar Association have any rehabilitation program?
JAMES P. TATOOLES (R)
James P. Tatooles, 70, is a trial attorney with his own firm, James P. Tatooles and Associates, based in Wheeling. He wants to cut spending and lower taxes as well as rebuild roads in the district. Tatooles ran unsuccessfully for judge in the 12th Subcircuit in 2002 and 2006. He served as president of the Northwest Suburban Bar Association in 1985. http://www.pioneerlocal.com/elections/ilhouse57th/index.html thank goodness, he never was voted into judgeship or to Springfield, that's all we need is another crooked lawyer in down state, let alone around here.
Jim Tatooles 1 of 2 of 42 http://jamestatooles.blogspot.com/
The appellate Court judges JJ, Tully, PJ, McNulty and O'Malley agreed with Scotillo that Tatooles came to court unprepared, a contributing factor to the sleaze ball lawyering in my case along with prosecutor and judicial miss conduct.
If your incompetent I guess that would make a person mentally un fit to practice law, seems to me to me any way.
Why would the appellate court allow Tatooles to continue blundering his way practicing law, after they conclude he is unfit to be lawyer? Same concept as letting a person drive after they know he is drunk....
Why would Scotillo and his wife (publisher of the Northwest Suburban Bar Association news letter) not get Tatooles some professional physiological help? After all, he was president of the NWSBA, there for, had apparently, a close working relation ship with Nancy Scotillo.
I would assume the Scotillo's and Tatooles are friends, what ever happened to the saying of friends helping friends. Would not this be a professional courtesy?
or
Do lawyers, judges bar members view helping a incompetent lawyer belittling.
or
Maybe the Scotillo's knew Tatooles was incompetent to practice law before my trial date.
I certainly would not want a incompetent plumber to do a job for me and if he did, fooling me about his mentally fitness, screwed up, I would sue him, some one would probably be would be suing me.
Why does the bar and fellow lawyers let this type of disruption continue, I mean lets say a lawyer goes to trial 30 times a month unprepared or 40, maybe 50 times. To me I would think that the lawyer would be a misfit? Got problems, should not be practicing law. Maybe he is selective in this behavior, which is a problem also.
Treatment is needed, so Jim Tatooles can do some good honest lawyering
Has John Tatooles, the Mayor of Inverness, offered to help his brother get treatment?
Does the Northwest Suburban Bar Association have any rehabilitation program?
JAMES P. TATOOLES (R)
James P. Tatooles, 70, is a trial attorney with his own firm, James P. Tatooles and Associates, based in Wheeling. He wants to cut spending and lower taxes as well as rebuild roads in the district. Tatooles ran unsuccessfully for judge in the 12th Subcircuit in 2002 and 2006. He served as president of the Northwest Suburban Bar Association in 1985. http://www.pioneerlocal.com/elections/ilhouse57th/index.html thank goodness, he never was voted into judgeship or to Springfield, that's all we need is another crooked lawyer in down state, let alone around here.
tatooles I think is un fit to be a lawyer
In my trial Tatooles committed most if not all of the following below, but not limited to
this is just some of the professional conduct activities that I believe took place, please note there is another criminal side of this also such as but not limited to, aiding and abetting, cover up, accessory
ARTICLE VIII. ILLINOIS RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
Preamble
The practice of law is a public trust. Lawyers are the trustees of the system by which citizens resolve disputes among themselves, punish and deter crime, and determine their relative rights and responsibilities toward each other and their government. Lawyers therefore are responsible for the character, competence and integrity of the persons whom they assist in joining their profession; for assuring access to that system through the availability of competent legal counsel; for maintaining public confidence in the system of justice by acting competently and with loyalty to the best interests of their clients; by working to improve that system to meet the challenges of a rapidly changing society; and by defending the integrity of the judicial system against those who would corrupt, abuse or defraud it.
To achieve these ends the practice of law is regulated by the following rules. Violation of these rules is grounds for discipline. No set of prohibitions, however, can adequately articulate the positive values or goals sought to be advanced by those prohibitions. This preamble therefore seeks to articulate those values in much the same way as did the former canons set forth in the Illinois Code of Professional Responsibility. Lawyers seeking to conform their conduct to the requirements of these rules should look to the values described in this preamble for guidance in interpreting the difficult issues which may arise under the rules.
The policies which underlie the various rules may, under certain circumstances, be in some tension with each other. Wherever feasible, the rules themselves seek to resolve such conflicts with clear statements of duty. For example, a lawyer must disclose, even in breach of a client confidence, a client's intent to commit a crime involving a serious risk of bodily harm. In other cases, lawyers must carefully weigh conflicting values, and make decisions, at the peril of violating one or more of the following rules. Lawyers are trained to make just such decisions, however, and should not shrink from the task. To reach correct ethical decisions, lawyers must be sensitive to the duties imposed by these rules and, whenever practical, should discuss particularly difficult issues with their peers.
Timely, affordable counsel is essential if disputes are to be avoided and, when necessary, resolved. Basic rights have little meaning without access to the judicial system which vindicates them. Effective access to that system often requires the assistance of counsel.
It is the responsibility of those licensed as officers of the court to use their training, experience and skills to provide services in the public interest for which compensation may not be available. It is the responsibility of those who manage law firms to create an environment that is hospitable to the rendering of a reasonable amount of uncompensated service by lawyers practicing in that firm.
Service in the public interest may take many forms. These include but are not limited to pro bono representation of persons unable to pay for legal services and assistance in the organized bar's efforts at law reform. An individual lawyer's efforts in these areas is evidence of the lawyer's good character and fitness to practice law, and the efforts of the bar as a whole are essential to the bar's maintenance of professionalism.
The absence from the proposed new rules of ABA Model Rule 6.1 regarding pro bono and public service therefore should not be interpreted as limiting the responsibility of attorneys to render uncompensated service in the public interest. Rather, the rationale for the absence of ABA Model Rule 6.1 is that this concept is not appropriate for a disciplinary code, because an appropriate disciplinary standard regarding pro bono and public service is difficult, if not impossible, to articulate. That ABA Model Rule 6.1 itself uses the word "should" instead of "shall" in describing this duty reflects the uncertainty of the ABA on this issue.
The quality of the legal profession can be no better than that of its members. Lawyers must exercise good judgment and candor in supporting applicants for membership in the bar.
Lawyers also must assist in the policing of lawyer misconduct. The vigilance of the bar in preventing and, where required, reporting misconduct can be a formidable deterrent to such misconduct, and a key to maintaining public confidence in the integrity of the profession as a whole in the face of the egregious misconduct of a few.
Legal services are not a commodity. Rather, they are the result of the efforts, training, judgment and experience of the members of a learned profession. These rules reflect the sensitive task of striking a balance between making available useful information regarding the availability and merits of lawyers and the need to protect the public against deceptive or overreaching practices. All communications with clients and potential clients should be consistent with these values.
The lawyer-client relationship is one of trust and confidence. Such confidence only can be maintained if the lawyer acts competently and zealously pursues the client's interests within the bounds of the law. "Zealously" does not mean mindlessly or unfairly or oppressively. Rather, it is the duty of all lawyers to seek resolution of disputes at the least cost in time, expense and trauma to all parties and to the courts. good character and fitness to practice law, and the efforts of the bar as a whole are essential to the bar's maintenance of professionalism.
Terminology
"Belief" or "believes" denotes that the person involved actually supposed the fact in question to be true. A person's belief may be inferred from circumstances.
"Confidence" denotes information protected by the lawyer-client privilege under applicable law.
"Contingent fee agreement" denotes an agreement for the provision of legal services by a lawyer under which the amount of the lawyer's compensation is contingent in whole or in part upon the successful completion of the subject matter of the agreement, regardless of whether the fee is established by formula or is a fixed amount.
"Disclose" or "disclosure" denotes communication of information reasonably sufficient to permit the client to appreciate the significance of the matter in question.
"Firm" or "law firm" denotes a lawyer or lawyers engaged in the private practice of law in a partnership, professional corporation, or other entity or in the legal department of a corporation, legal services organization or other entity.
"Fraud" or "fraudulent" denotes conduct having a purpose to deceive and not merely negligent misrepresentation or failure to apprise another of relevant information.
"Knowingly," "known" or "knows" denotes actual knowledge of the fact in question. A person's knowledge may be inferred from circumstances.
"Partner" denotes a lawyer who is a member of a partnership, or a shareholder or officer in a law firm organized as a professional corporation.
"Person" denotes natural persons, partnerships, business corporations, not-for-profit corporations, public and quasi-public corporations, municipal corporations, State and Federal governmental bodies and agencies, or any other type of lawfully existing entity.
"Reasonable" or "reasonably" when used in relation to conduct by a lawyer denotes the conduct of a reasonably prudent and competent lawyer.
"Reasonable belief" or "reasonably believes" when used in reference to a lawyer denotes that the lawyer believes the matter in question and that the circumstances are such that the belief is reasonable.
"Reasonably should know" when used in reference to a lawyer denotes that a lawyer of reasonable prudence and competence would ascertain the matter in question.
"Secret" denotes information gained in the professional relationship, that the client has requested be held inviolate or the revelation of which would be embarrassing to or would likely be detrimental to the client.
"Substantial" when used in reference to degree or extent denotes a material matter of clear and weighty importance.
Rule 1.1. Competence
(a) A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation necessary for the representation.
(b) A lawyer shall not represent a client in a legal matter in which the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the lawyer is not competent to provide representation, without the association of another lawyer who is competent to provide such representation.
Rule 1.2. Scope of Representation
(a) A lawyer shall abide by a client's decisions concerning the objectives of representation, subject to paragraphs (c), (d) and (e), and shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued. A lawyer shall abide by a client's decision whether to accept an offer of settlement of a matter. In a criminal case, the lawyer shall abide by the client's decision, after disclosure by the lawyer, as to a plea to be entered, whether to waive jury trial and whether the client will testify.
(b) A lawyer's representation of a client, including representation by appointment, does not constitute an endorsement of the client's political, economic, social or moral views or activities.
(c) A lawyer may limit the objectives of the representation if the client consents after disclosure.
(d) A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent, but a lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with a client and may counsel or assist a client to make a good-faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law.
(e) A lawyer shall not present, participate in presenting, or threaten to present criminal charges or professional disciplinary actions to obtain an advantage in a civil matter.
(2) advance a claim or defense the lawyer knows is unwarranted under existing law, except that the lawyer may advance such claim or defense if it can be supported by a good-faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law; or
(3) fail to disclose that which the lawyer is required by law to reveal.
(g) A lawyer who knows a client has, in the course of the representation, perpetrated a fraud upon a person or tribunal shall promptly call upon the client to rectify the same, and if the client refuses or is unable to do so, the lawyer shall reveal the fraud to the affected person or tribunal, except when the information is protected as a privileged communication.
(h) A lawyer who knows that a person other than the client has perpetrated a fraud upon a tribunal shall promptly reveal the fraud to the tribunal.
Rule 1.3. Diligence
A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.
Rule 1.4. Communication
(a) A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.
(b) A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.
Rule 1.7. Conflict of Interest: General Rule
(b) A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client may be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client or to a third person, or by the lawyer's own interests, unless:
(1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not be adversely affected;
Rule 1.8. Conflict of Interest: Prohibited Transactions
(a) Unless the client has consented after disclosure, a lawyer shall not enter into a business transaction with the client if:
(1) the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the lawyer and the client have or may have conflicting interests therein; or
(2) the client expects the lawyer to exercise the lawyer's professional judgment therein for the protection of the client.
Rule 1.16. Declining or Terminating Representation
(a) A lawyer representing a client before a tribunal shall withdraw from employment (with permission of the tribunal if such permission is required), and a lawyer representing a client in other matters shall withdraw from employment, if:
(1) the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the client is bringing the legal action, conducting the defense, or asserting a position in the litigation, or is otherwise having steps taken, merely for the purpose of harassing or maliciously injuring any person;
(2) the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that such continued employment will result in violation of these Rules;
(3) the lawyer's mental or physical condition renders it unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out the employment effectively; or
Rule 3.1. Meritorious Claims and Contentions
A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good-faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. A lawyer for the defendant in a criminal proceeding, or the respondent in a proceeding that could result in incarceration, may nevertheless so defend the proceeding as to require that every element of the case be established.
Rule 3.2. Expediting Litigation
A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client.
Rule 3.3. Conduct Before a Tribunal
(a) In appearing in a professional capacity before a tribunal, a lawyer shall not:
(1) make a statement of material fact or law to a tribunal which the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is false;
(2) fail to disclose to a tribunal a material fact known to the lawyer when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client;
(3) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel;
(4) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer has offered material evidence and comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures;
(5) participate in the creation or preservation of evidence when the lawyer knows or reasonably should know the evidence is false;
(6) counsel or assist the client in conduct the lawyer knows to be illegal or fraudulent;
(7) engage in other illegal conduct or conduct in violation of these Rules;
(10) in trial, allude to any matter that the lawyer does not reasonably believe is relevant or that will not be supported by admissible evidence, assert personal knowledge of facts in issue except when testifying as a witness, or state a personal opinion as to the justness of a cause, the credibility of a witness, the culpability of a civil litigant or the guilt or innocence of an accused, but a lawyer may argue, on analysis of evidence, for any position or conclusion with respect to the matter stated herein;
(13) suppress any evidence that the lawyer or client has a legal obligation to reveal or produce;
(14) advise or cause a person to become unavailable as a witness by leaving the jurisdiction or making secret their whereabouts within the jurisdiction; or
(c) A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.
(d) In an ex parte proceeding, a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer which will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse.
Rule 3.4. Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel
(a) A lawyer shall not:
(1) unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person to do any such act;
(2) falsify evidence, counsel or assist a witness to testify falsely, or offer an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law;
(3) request a person other than a client to refrain from voluntarily giving relevant information to another party unless:
(B) the lawyer reasonably believes that the person's interests will not be adversely affected by refraining from giving such information.
Rule 3.5. Impartiality and Decorum of the Tribunal
(1) a lawyer connected therewith shall not communicate with or cause another to communicate with a juror; and
(h) A lawyer shall not give or lend anything of value to a judge, official, or employee of a tribunal, except those gifts or loans which a judge or a member of the judge's family may receive under Rule 65(C)(4) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and except that a lawyer may: make a gift, bequest, loan or campaign contribution to a judge that the judge is permitted to accept under the Code of Judicial Conduct, provided that no campaign contribution to a judge or candidate for judicial office may be made other than by means of a check, draft, or other instrument payable to or to the order of an entity which the lawyer reasonably believes to be a political committee supporting such judge or candidate, provided further, however, that the provision of volunteer services by a lawyer to a political committee shall not be deemed to violate this Rule.
(i) In an adversary proceeding, a lawyer shall not communicate, or cause another to communicate, as to the merits of the cause with a judge or an official before whom the proceeding is pending, except:
(1) in the course of official proceedings in the cause;
(2) in writing if the lawyer promptly delivers a copy of the writing to opposing counsel or to the adverse party if such party is not represented by a lawyer;
(3) orally upon adequate notice to opposing counsel or to the adverse party if such party is not represented by a lawyer; or
(4) as otherwise authorized by law.
Rule 4.1. Truthfulness in Statements to Others
In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not:
(a) make a statement of material fact or law to a third person which statement the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is false; or
(b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6.
Rule 4.2. Communication With Person Represented by Counsel
During the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not communicate or cause another to communicate on the subject of the representation with a party the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in that matter unless the first lawyer has obtained the prior consent of the lawyer representing such other party or as may otherwise be authorized by law.
Rule 8.2. Judicial and Legal Officials
(a) A lawyer shall not make a statement the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, adjudicative officer, public legal officer, or of a candidate for election or appointment to judicial or legal office.
Rule 8.3. Reporting Professional Misconduct
(a) A lawyer possessing knowledge not otherwise protected as a confidence by these Rules or by law that another lawyer has committed a violation of Rule 8.4(a)(3) or (a)(4) shall report such knowledge to a tribunal or other authority empowered to investigate or act upon such violation.
(b) A lawyer possessing knowledge not otherwise protected as a confidence by these Rules or by law that a judge has committed a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct which raises a question as to the judge's fitness for office shall inform the appropriate authority.
(c) Upon proper request of a tribunal or other authority empowered to investigate or act upon the conduct of lawyers or judges, a lawyer possessing information not otherwise protected as a confidence by these Rules or by law concerning another lawyer or a judge shall reveal fully such information.
(d) A lawyer who has been disciplined as a result of a lawyer disciplinary action brought before any body other than the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission shall report that fact to the Commission.
Rule 8.4. Misconduct
(a) A lawyer shall not:
(1) violate or attempt to violate these Rules;
(2) induce another to engage in conduct, or give assistance to another’s conduct, when the lawyer knows that conduct will violate these Rules;
(3) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;
(4) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;
(5) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. In relation thereto, a lawyer shall not engage in adverse discriminatory treatment of litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others, based on race, sex, religion, or national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status. This subsection does not preclude legitimate advocacy when these or similar factors are issues in the proceeding;
(6) state or imply an ability to influence improperly any tribunal, legislative body, government agency or official;
(7) assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that the lawyer knows is a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct;
(9)(A) violate a Federal, State or local statute or ordinances that prohibits discrimination based on race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status by conduct that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s fitness as a lawyer. Whether a discriminatory act reflects adversely on a lawyer’s fitness as a lawyer shall be determined after consideration of all the circumstances, including (1) the seriousness of the act, (2) whether the lawyer knew that it was prohibited by statute or ordinance, (3) whether it was part of a pattern of prohibited conduct, and (4) whether it was committed in connection with the lawyer’s professional activities.
(B) No complaint of professional misconduct based on an unlawfully discriminatory act, pursuant to paragraph (9)(A) of this rule, may be brought until a court or administrative agency of competent jurisdiction has found that the lawyer has engaged in an unlawfully discriminatory act, and that the determination of the court or administrative agency has become final and enforceable and the right of judicial review of the determination has been exhausted.
(b) A lawyer who holds public office shall not:
(2) use that office to influence, or attempt to influence, a tribunal to act in favor of a client; or
Rule 8.5. Disciplinary Authority; Choice of Law
(a) Disciplinary Authority. A lawyer admitted to practice in this jurisdiction is subject to the disciplinary authority of this jurisdiction, regardless of where the lawyer's conduct occurs. A lawyer may be subject, for the same conduct, to the disciplinary authority of both this jurisdiction and another jurisdiction where the lawyer is admitted.
(b) Choice of Law. In any exercise of the disciplinary authority of this jurisdiction, the Rules of Professional Conduct to be applied shall be as follows:
(1) for conduct in connection with a proceeding in a court before which a lawyer has been admitted to practice (either generally or for purposes of that proceeding), the rules to be applied shall be the rules of the jurisdiction in which the court sits, unless the rules of the court provide otherwise; and
(2) for any other conduct,
(i) if the lawyer is licensed to practice only in this jurisdiction, the rules to be applied shall be the rules of this jurisdiction, and
(ii) if the lawyer is licensed to practice in this and another jurisdiction, the rules to be applied shall be the rules of the admitting jurisdiction in which the lawyer principally practices; provided, however, that if particular conduct clearly has its predominant effect in another jurisdiction in which the lawyer is licensed to practice, the rules of that jurisdiction shall be applied to that conduct.
this is just some of the professional conduct activities that I believe took place, please note there is another criminal side of this also such as but not limited to, aiding and abetting, cover up, accessory
ARTICLE VIII. ILLINOIS RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
Preamble
The practice of law is a public trust. Lawyers are the trustees of the system by which citizens resolve disputes among themselves, punish and deter crime, and determine their relative rights and responsibilities toward each other and their government. Lawyers therefore are responsible for the character, competence and integrity of the persons whom they assist in joining their profession; for assuring access to that system through the availability of competent legal counsel; for maintaining public confidence in the system of justice by acting competently and with loyalty to the best interests of their clients; by working to improve that system to meet the challenges of a rapidly changing society; and by defending the integrity of the judicial system against those who would corrupt, abuse or defraud it.
To achieve these ends the practice of law is regulated by the following rules. Violation of these rules is grounds for discipline. No set of prohibitions, however, can adequately articulate the positive values or goals sought to be advanced by those prohibitions. This preamble therefore seeks to articulate those values in much the same way as did the former canons set forth in the Illinois Code of Professional Responsibility. Lawyers seeking to conform their conduct to the requirements of these rules should look to the values described in this preamble for guidance in interpreting the difficult issues which may arise under the rules.
The policies which underlie the various rules may, under certain circumstances, be in some tension with each other. Wherever feasible, the rules themselves seek to resolve such conflicts with clear statements of duty. For example, a lawyer must disclose, even in breach of a client confidence, a client's intent to commit a crime involving a serious risk of bodily harm. In other cases, lawyers must carefully weigh conflicting values, and make decisions, at the peril of violating one or more of the following rules. Lawyers are trained to make just such decisions, however, and should not shrink from the task. To reach correct ethical decisions, lawyers must be sensitive to the duties imposed by these rules and, whenever practical, should discuss particularly difficult issues with their peers.
Timely, affordable counsel is essential if disputes are to be avoided and, when necessary, resolved. Basic rights have little meaning without access to the judicial system which vindicates them. Effective access to that system often requires the assistance of counsel.
It is the responsibility of those licensed as officers of the court to use their training, experience and skills to provide services in the public interest for which compensation may not be available. It is the responsibility of those who manage law firms to create an environment that is hospitable to the rendering of a reasonable amount of uncompensated service by lawyers practicing in that firm.
Service in the public interest may take many forms. These include but are not limited to pro bono representation of persons unable to pay for legal services and assistance in the organized bar's efforts at law reform. An individual lawyer's efforts in these areas is evidence of the lawyer's good character and fitness to practice law, and the efforts of the bar as a whole are essential to the bar's maintenance of professionalism.
The absence from the proposed new rules of ABA Model Rule 6.1 regarding pro bono and public service therefore should not be interpreted as limiting the responsibility of attorneys to render uncompensated service in the public interest. Rather, the rationale for the absence of ABA Model Rule 6.1 is that this concept is not appropriate for a disciplinary code, because an appropriate disciplinary standard regarding pro bono and public service is difficult, if not impossible, to articulate. That ABA Model Rule 6.1 itself uses the word "should" instead of "shall" in describing this duty reflects the uncertainty of the ABA on this issue.
The quality of the legal profession can be no better than that of its members. Lawyers must exercise good judgment and candor in supporting applicants for membership in the bar.
Lawyers also must assist in the policing of lawyer misconduct. The vigilance of the bar in preventing and, where required, reporting misconduct can be a formidable deterrent to such misconduct, and a key to maintaining public confidence in the integrity of the profession as a whole in the face of the egregious misconduct of a few.
Legal services are not a commodity. Rather, they are the result of the efforts, training, judgment and experience of the members of a learned profession. These rules reflect the sensitive task of striking a balance between making available useful information regarding the availability and merits of lawyers and the need to protect the public against deceptive or overreaching practices. All communications with clients and potential clients should be consistent with these values.
The lawyer-client relationship is one of trust and confidence. Such confidence only can be maintained if the lawyer acts competently and zealously pursues the client's interests within the bounds of the law. "Zealously" does not mean mindlessly or unfairly or oppressively. Rather, it is the duty of all lawyers to seek resolution of disputes at the least cost in time, expense and trauma to all parties and to the courts. good character and fitness to practice law, and the efforts of the bar as a whole are essential to the bar's maintenance of professionalism.
Terminology
"Belief" or "believes" denotes that the person involved actually supposed the fact in question to be true. A person's belief may be inferred from circumstances.
"Confidence" denotes information protected by the lawyer-client privilege under applicable law.
"Contingent fee agreement" denotes an agreement for the provision of legal services by a lawyer under which the amount of the lawyer's compensation is contingent in whole or in part upon the successful completion of the subject matter of the agreement, regardless of whether the fee is established by formula or is a fixed amount.
"Disclose" or "disclosure" denotes communication of information reasonably sufficient to permit the client to appreciate the significance of the matter in question.
"Firm" or "law firm" denotes a lawyer or lawyers engaged in the private practice of law in a partnership, professional corporation, or other entity or in the legal department of a corporation, legal services organization or other entity.
"Fraud" or "fraudulent" denotes conduct having a purpose to deceive and not merely negligent misrepresentation or failure to apprise another of relevant information.
"Knowingly," "known" or "knows" denotes actual knowledge of the fact in question. A person's knowledge may be inferred from circumstances.
"Partner" denotes a lawyer who is a member of a partnership, or a shareholder or officer in a law firm organized as a professional corporation.
"Person" denotes natural persons, partnerships, business corporations, not-for-profit corporations, public and quasi-public corporations, municipal corporations, State and Federal governmental bodies and agencies, or any other type of lawfully existing entity.
"Reasonable" or "reasonably" when used in relation to conduct by a lawyer denotes the conduct of a reasonably prudent and competent lawyer.
"Reasonable belief" or "reasonably believes" when used in reference to a lawyer denotes that the lawyer believes the matter in question and that the circumstances are such that the belief is reasonable.
"Reasonably should know" when used in reference to a lawyer denotes that a lawyer of reasonable prudence and competence would ascertain the matter in question.
"Secret" denotes information gained in the professional relationship, that the client has requested be held inviolate or the revelation of which would be embarrassing to or would likely be detrimental to the client.
"Substantial" when used in reference to degree or extent denotes a material matter of clear and weighty importance.
Rule 1.1. Competence
(a) A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation necessary for the representation.
(b) A lawyer shall not represent a client in a legal matter in which the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the lawyer is not competent to provide representation, without the association of another lawyer who is competent to provide such representation.
Rule 1.2. Scope of Representation
(a) A lawyer shall abide by a client's decisions concerning the objectives of representation, subject to paragraphs (c), (d) and (e), and shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued. A lawyer shall abide by a client's decision whether to accept an offer of settlement of a matter. In a criminal case, the lawyer shall abide by the client's decision, after disclosure by the lawyer, as to a plea to be entered, whether to waive jury trial and whether the client will testify.
(b) A lawyer's representation of a client, including representation by appointment, does not constitute an endorsement of the client's political, economic, social or moral views or activities.
(c) A lawyer may limit the objectives of the representation if the client consents after disclosure.
(d) A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent, but a lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with a client and may counsel or assist a client to make a good-faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law.
(e) A lawyer shall not present, participate in presenting, or threaten to present criminal charges or professional disciplinary actions to obtain an advantage in a civil matter.
(2) advance a claim or defense the lawyer knows is unwarranted under existing law, except that the lawyer may advance such claim or defense if it can be supported by a good-faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law; or
(3) fail to disclose that which the lawyer is required by law to reveal.
(g) A lawyer who knows a client has, in the course of the representation, perpetrated a fraud upon a person or tribunal shall promptly call upon the client to rectify the same, and if the client refuses or is unable to do so, the lawyer shall reveal the fraud to the affected person or tribunal, except when the information is protected as a privileged communication.
(h) A lawyer who knows that a person other than the client has perpetrated a fraud upon a tribunal shall promptly reveal the fraud to the tribunal.
Rule 1.3. Diligence
A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.
Rule 1.4. Communication
(a) A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.
(b) A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.
Rule 1.7. Conflict of Interest: General Rule
(b) A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client may be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client or to a third person, or by the lawyer's own interests, unless:
(1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not be adversely affected;
Rule 1.8. Conflict of Interest: Prohibited Transactions
(a) Unless the client has consented after disclosure, a lawyer shall not enter into a business transaction with the client if:
(1) the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the lawyer and the client have or may have conflicting interests therein; or
(2) the client expects the lawyer to exercise the lawyer's professional judgment therein for the protection of the client.
Rule 1.16. Declining or Terminating Representation
(a) A lawyer representing a client before a tribunal shall withdraw from employment (with permission of the tribunal if such permission is required), and a lawyer representing a client in other matters shall withdraw from employment, if:
(1) the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the client is bringing the legal action, conducting the defense, or asserting a position in the litigation, or is otherwise having steps taken, merely for the purpose of harassing or maliciously injuring any person;
(2) the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that such continued employment will result in violation of these Rules;
(3) the lawyer's mental or physical condition renders it unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out the employment effectively; or
Rule 3.1. Meritorious Claims and Contentions
A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good-faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. A lawyer for the defendant in a criminal proceeding, or the respondent in a proceeding that could result in incarceration, may nevertheless so defend the proceeding as to require that every element of the case be established.
Rule 3.2. Expediting Litigation
A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client.
Rule 3.3. Conduct Before a Tribunal
(a) In appearing in a professional capacity before a tribunal, a lawyer shall not:
(1) make a statement of material fact or law to a tribunal which the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is false;
(2) fail to disclose to a tribunal a material fact known to the lawyer when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client;
(3) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel;
(4) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer has offered material evidence and comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures;
(5) participate in the creation or preservation of evidence when the lawyer knows or reasonably should know the evidence is false;
(6) counsel or assist the client in conduct the lawyer knows to be illegal or fraudulent;
(7) engage in other illegal conduct or conduct in violation of these Rules;
(10) in trial, allude to any matter that the lawyer does not reasonably believe is relevant or that will not be supported by admissible evidence, assert personal knowledge of facts in issue except when testifying as a witness, or state a personal opinion as to the justness of a cause, the credibility of a witness, the culpability of a civil litigant or the guilt or innocence of an accused, but a lawyer may argue, on analysis of evidence, for any position or conclusion with respect to the matter stated herein;
(13) suppress any evidence that the lawyer or client has a legal obligation to reveal or produce;
(14) advise or cause a person to become unavailable as a witness by leaving the jurisdiction or making secret their whereabouts within the jurisdiction; or
(c) A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.
(d) In an ex parte proceeding, a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer which will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse.
Rule 3.4. Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel
(a) A lawyer shall not:
(1) unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person to do any such act;
(2) falsify evidence, counsel or assist a witness to testify falsely, or offer an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law;
(3) request a person other than a client to refrain from voluntarily giving relevant information to another party unless:
(B) the lawyer reasonably believes that the person's interests will not be adversely affected by refraining from giving such information.
Rule 3.5. Impartiality and Decorum of the Tribunal
(1) a lawyer connected therewith shall not communicate with or cause another to communicate with a juror; and
(h) A lawyer shall not give or lend anything of value to a judge, official, or employee of a tribunal, except those gifts or loans which a judge or a member of the judge's family may receive under Rule 65(C)(4) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and except that a lawyer may: make a gift, bequest, loan or campaign contribution to a judge that the judge is permitted to accept under the Code of Judicial Conduct, provided that no campaign contribution to a judge or candidate for judicial office may be made other than by means of a check, draft, or other instrument payable to or to the order of an entity which the lawyer reasonably believes to be a political committee supporting such judge or candidate, provided further, however, that the provision of volunteer services by a lawyer to a political committee shall not be deemed to violate this Rule.
(i) In an adversary proceeding, a lawyer shall not communicate, or cause another to communicate, as to the merits of the cause with a judge or an official before whom the proceeding is pending, except:
(1) in the course of official proceedings in the cause;
(2) in writing if the lawyer promptly delivers a copy of the writing to opposing counsel or to the adverse party if such party is not represented by a lawyer;
(3) orally upon adequate notice to opposing counsel or to the adverse party if such party is not represented by a lawyer; or
(4) as otherwise authorized by law.
Rule 4.1. Truthfulness in Statements to Others
In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not:
(a) make a statement of material fact or law to a third person which statement the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is false; or
(b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6.
Rule 4.2. Communication With Person Represented by Counsel
During the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not communicate or cause another to communicate on the subject of the representation with a party the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in that matter unless the first lawyer has obtained the prior consent of the lawyer representing such other party or as may otherwise be authorized by law.
Rule 8.2. Judicial and Legal Officials
(a) A lawyer shall not make a statement the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, adjudicative officer, public legal officer, or of a candidate for election or appointment to judicial or legal office.
Rule 8.3. Reporting Professional Misconduct
(a) A lawyer possessing knowledge not otherwise protected as a confidence by these Rules or by law that another lawyer has committed a violation of Rule 8.4(a)(3) or (a)(4) shall report such knowledge to a tribunal or other authority empowered to investigate or act upon such violation.
(b) A lawyer possessing knowledge not otherwise protected as a confidence by these Rules or by law that a judge has committed a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct which raises a question as to the judge's fitness for office shall inform the appropriate authority.
(c) Upon proper request of a tribunal or other authority empowered to investigate or act upon the conduct of lawyers or judges, a lawyer possessing information not otherwise protected as a confidence by these Rules or by law concerning another lawyer or a judge shall reveal fully such information.
(d) A lawyer who has been disciplined as a result of a lawyer disciplinary action brought before any body other than the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission shall report that fact to the Commission.
Rule 8.4. Misconduct
(a) A lawyer shall not:
(1) violate or attempt to violate these Rules;
(2) induce another to engage in conduct, or give assistance to another’s conduct, when the lawyer knows that conduct will violate these Rules;
(3) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;
(4) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;
(5) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. In relation thereto, a lawyer shall not engage in adverse discriminatory treatment of litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others, based on race, sex, religion, or national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status. This subsection does not preclude legitimate advocacy when these or similar factors are issues in the proceeding;
(6) state or imply an ability to influence improperly any tribunal, legislative body, government agency or official;
(7) assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that the lawyer knows is a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct;
(9)(A) violate a Federal, State or local statute or ordinances that prohibits discrimination based on race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status by conduct that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s fitness as a lawyer. Whether a discriminatory act reflects adversely on a lawyer’s fitness as a lawyer shall be determined after consideration of all the circumstances, including (1) the seriousness of the act, (2) whether the lawyer knew that it was prohibited by statute or ordinance, (3) whether it was part of a pattern of prohibited conduct, and (4) whether it was committed in connection with the lawyer’s professional activities.
(B) No complaint of professional misconduct based on an unlawfully discriminatory act, pursuant to paragraph (9)(A) of this rule, may be brought until a court or administrative agency of competent jurisdiction has found that the lawyer has engaged in an unlawfully discriminatory act, and that the determination of the court or administrative agency has become final and enforceable and the right of judicial review of the determination has been exhausted.
(b) A lawyer who holds public office shall not:
(2) use that office to influence, or attempt to influence, a tribunal to act in favor of a client; or
Rule 8.5. Disciplinary Authority; Choice of Law
(a) Disciplinary Authority. A lawyer admitted to practice in this jurisdiction is subject to the disciplinary authority of this jurisdiction, regardless of where the lawyer's conduct occurs. A lawyer may be subject, for the same conduct, to the disciplinary authority of both this jurisdiction and another jurisdiction where the lawyer is admitted.
(b) Choice of Law. In any exercise of the disciplinary authority of this jurisdiction, the Rules of Professional Conduct to be applied shall be as follows:
(1) for conduct in connection with a proceeding in a court before which a lawyer has been admitted to practice (either generally or for purposes of that proceeding), the rules to be applied shall be the rules of the jurisdiction in which the court sits, unless the rules of the court provide otherwise; and
(2) for any other conduct,
(i) if the lawyer is licensed to practice only in this jurisdiction, the rules to be applied shall be the rules of this jurisdiction, and
(ii) if the lawyer is licensed to practice in this and another jurisdiction, the rules to be applied shall be the rules of the admitting jurisdiction in which the lawyer principally practices; provided, however, that if particular conduct clearly has its predominant effect in another jurisdiction in which the lawyer is licensed to practice, the rules of that jurisdiction shall be applied to that conduct.
Blagojevich, should have been mayor of Palatine
They can nab Blagojevich for talking about a bribe, but let pass, the x-Palatine mayor and others who, were paid off, took bribes, gifts, consulting fees, grants, what ever you want to call it, go free, with the help of Attorney General Madigan and her staff of lawyers, Cook County States Attorney Alveraz and her staff of lawyers, Cook County judges, Law bars, even the judge that he is in front of now, add a supreme court justice (I think that was him - that ruled in the Illinois senate kick out, but then we go into the Burke matter I reference to (someplace), in connection with Scotillo, why else in the world, would a Illinois supreme court justice play along with a crooked judge in Cook County, by the name Scotillo and his wife's law bar, about a cop that washallucinating on a traffic stop and the cover up to follow?), and the new gov and his staff of who ever?
We need judges, but we don't need judges that play hodge podge with the law, I don't know, I assume they once or twice read and said out loud, their oath to a law bar or 2 or something? Their oath to the United States Government? Did the judges, I contacted forget their oath to the United States Government?
You got to have law and order from the gut, not some piece of paper handed to you on a silver platter, once in the gut, always in the gut, if never was in the guy, it'll never be.
But, perhaps judges forget, forgot it, or just don't care any more?
Their cannon, pledge, ethics, conduct, maybe they should review (continuing education), retire or some how get fired or arrested (congress could pass a law on how to deal with corrupt judges of all kinds).
But, I contacted every state senator (see posting below) , and there don't seem much intrest on any of this, so I guess the senate don't give a hoot if a federal judge or any judge for that matter, forgot their oath, has morals or ethics, respects the law (9 to 5, or 10 to 12, or 12 to 3, full time, part time, every other day, once a week) or if a federal judge, would sleaze around with a crooked sleaze ball county prosecutor (ain't that where judges come from?).
hummmmm..... maybe mayor Schwantz will or could invite them all, add some babies, teacher unions, veterans (yea the Palatine Legion, the one's, that screwed me... (seems to be the mode ofoperandi) theft of services, with the aid of x park district leader? head? boss? (chief drunk at the bar now? or bar manager, I forgot which, maybe both), they like to liquor up war veterans, then send then on there way (Palatine's master plan), add some grand ma and pa's, mothers against drunk drivers, FOP and fire department reps, a couple other chiefs (besides a chief drunk or 2), some balloons, a band, to a photo op, with the .
WORLD FAMOUS BUDWEISER CLYDESDALES . then, perhaps, be apart of, and pound down, a few, of the 25,000 drinks per weekend quota, the village is trying to squeeze out.
.No matter what,
Sounds like a lynch mob out for Blogo, to me, but than who am I? hummmmm.....
.Blago aught to say, this was all a miss understanding, it was a consulting fee I was seeking, not a bribe. He should say, how come, those in Palatine, can take bribes and here I get the book thrown at me for talking about it, geeze Obama's wife got kick backs, and it called a bonus, Obama was giving all this free money away, what about the kick backs there? Blago's judge, received my email, so, I would think, that makes the federal judge up to his neck in wire fraud, accessory, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, cover up and a bunch of others, none the less another disgrace to the bench, court, law bar cannon, ethics, oaths he took, pledge, to serve this country. Ditto applies to every us judge in that federal court house. http://us-court-northern-district-of-ill.blogspot.com/ . (There were some post emails from several of the judges offices).
I found that Palatine has (I think) a extremely high number of tax exempt /off shore bank accounts, higher, than most other villages. hummmmm.....
Personally, I think Tatooles giving Chief Bratcher $120k (who's son in court says he extracts false confessions, as part of his job on the Palatine police force) to recommend Haas (deputy chief of Palatine) for top cop job in Inverness, hummmmm..... suspicious. Amazing what a tax write off called "consulting fee" will cover.
I would bet Bratcher (wanting some free, easy money) black mailed Tatooles, he was going to expose Wenrich's perjured testimony, that Jack's brother (my defense lawyer #1 of 5) knew about, and knowingly allowed false testimony and documents to the court, and that Jack was apart of this cover up.
How many people did Haas, the police chief of Inverness, extract false confessions from? What form of torture did he use? or because of the close FOP and union brother relation ship said nothing, still says nothing, don't think it's wrong or did Haas just watch? go get coffee? clean up the mess? take notes? Tatooles, his village council, Mullins and her village council, right there in the thick of things.
This is why Inverness residents along with Palatine residents, aught to open up their eyes, wise up and stop playing dumb. Look who is running their community and what they're doing. I don't know any where this is right, except here. in this, village, town, county, state? Citizens have to take some responsibility for being apart of the corruption, shady or what ever you want to call it, deals, that their leaders partake in. How can we or you or any one sit buy when a crooked elected official, cop, judge, is leading us down, his or hers twisted and some times lawfulpath?
Is it the real wish of the Palatine people or any level headed person, to have 25,000 drinks served in down town Palatine and let these people drive home, with the risk of killing some one?
Maybe Bratcher black mailed Judge Scotillo, assistant states attoreny Chandra and Andre also, why stop with the Tatooles brothers? He could ruin several others or make $1/2 million bucks, it's legal and he has the police force to ruff up any one that got in the way.
To expose this perjured testimony would cause major problems for the Tatooles brothers and who ever. So, Bratcher to Tatooles, give me $120k as a consulting fee, you want a top cop, you can have the deputy chief, (I'll hit Haas for a finder fee) and I will let this matter with Mars, Hunter and Wenrich pass, let you off the hook. But then, Tatooles probably figured, why should I pay this money, when I can let the saps of Inverness pay, disguise it as the catch all consulting fee. Whew, thank goodnes the board are a bunch of saps also.
I would bet Tatooles has documents that this is a one time payment or Tatooles will blackmail the blackmailer back, certainly don't want to go to the press or to the authorities (that's where, pay off problems occur, the crime gets so huge, sooner of later, no one knows, who paid who off).
The cover up is always worse than the crime, we add, accessory, conspiracy, wire fraud, cover up. Because the nature of the conspiracy, this crime is, as, it happened yesterday (statue of limitations). I was in Arizona and reported this to authorities there also.
But then I witness and reported (to Scotillo, Illinois and Arizona authorities), plotting to murder, murder for hire, insurance fraud, workman's comp fraud, labor wage fraud, extortion,immigration law violations, auto theft, workers disability fraud and nobody gave a hoot, I feel real bad for the guy that painted the curbs, that might have got his head bashed in or brains splattered all over, cause he wanted to get paid, and the other people didn't want to pay him. I notified the authorities, that I thought might make a difference (the green card Italian showed me a get out of jail card from the Mesa police chief), but nothing took place (not sure, but I would bet on it).
Done partly by a some Italians from Chicago with only green cards. Maybe they are apart ofScotillo's family?
Chicago's dirt runs very deep.
Some one could poke around and I'm sure find a bunch of other crimes that I blog about and others that yet are un known to me).
A lot of jail time and a lot of fines. The state could make a lot of money if they would clamp down on this stuff.
I can't recall if I shared this with Todd Strogers or not, maybe I should send him a link, hate to bother him though, and besides, what is he going to do, forward this to Alveraz, who is up to her neck in the same crime?
I could be reporting a murder, rape, and terror (which I think it is) and the results would be the same.
Gov Quinn, got my email, what does this make him? As far as I can tell, nothing but a 2 timing crook (once again, at least, as a member of the court he has a duty and obgligaiton to up hold the law, to take action, upon receipt of my email, he has a ethic obgligation, law bar code of conduct, a oath as a elected official), more wire fraud?
Why have laws if half the country can get away with breaking em?
It makes me wounder, maybe crime is right and right is wrong? Maybe being a dirt bag, like the rest is a good thing and that is what every one is trying to tell me. Maybe some day, I will get it, but until then, I will remain the same.
. Where would Todd Strogers go to have a crooked Alveraz arrested?.
. Where would Quinn go to have Madigan arrested? .
A assistant states attorney would probably loose their job, if they did such thing (that's assuming there are a few honest lawyers working for the state, that take the law, serious)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
