tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5764290.post6765439906451018280..comments2024-03-22T08:01:16.236-04:00Comments on Rebecca Tushnet's 43(B)log: Google v. StollerUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5764290.post-47352432792454102902010-05-13T01:41:31.954-04:002010-05-13T01:41:31.954-04:00U.S. DISTRICT COURT BANS LEO STOLLER
In a Memoran...U.S. DISTRICT COURT BANS LEO STOLLER<br /><br />In a Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Eastern Division) on April 26, 2010, Chief Judge James F. Holderman clarifies the effect of a December 4, 2009 order issed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit regarding the filing ban imposed on Leo Stoller.<br /><br />The December 4, 2009 order issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit banned Leo Stoller from further filings in that court– in what is commonly referred to as a ‘Mack’ bar– for engaging in deceitful behavior. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ordered that the Mack bar against Leo Stoller is to remain in effect until at least December 4, 2011.<br /><br />In the Opinion and Order issued by the U.S. District Court for the Northern of Illinois, the Honorable James F. Holderman notes that the Seventh Circuit ordered ”‘the clerks of all federal courts in this circuit… to return unfiled any papers submitted either directly or indirectly by [Leo] [Stoller] or on [Stoller's] behalf.’”<br /><br />Therefore, the U.S. District Court reasoned, the plain language of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ Order requires that Leo Stoller be barred from initiating any new lawsuits in the Northern District of Illinois, and that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois cannot permit Leo Stoller to litigate his claims in that court. <br /><br />Read the document at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/31292372/U-S-DISTRICT-COURT-BANS-LEO-STOLLER<br /><br />The Leo Stoller Truth Serum Blog<br />http://stollerexposed.blog.comChili Palmerhttp://stollerexposed.blog.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5764290.post-45402171311674793492010-03-21T04:10:05.864-04:002010-03-21T04:10:05.864-04:00On March 15, 2010, the Appellate Court of Illinois...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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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."<br /><br />The Leo Stoller Truth Serum Blog<br />http://stollerexposed.blog.comChili Palmerhttp://stollerexposed.blog.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5764290.post-59078597116472028222010-02-20T06:47:22.153-05:002010-02-20T06:47:22.153-05:00On February 11, 2010, the Illinois Appellate Court...On February 11, 2010, the Illinois Appellate Court (First District) granted an order taking judicial notice that Leo Stoller had been deceptive.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Chili Palmerhttp://stollerexposed.blog.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5764290.post-58550564226805914372009-12-06T14:06:35.323-05:002009-12-06T14:06:35.323-05:00On December 4, 2009, the United States Court of Ap...On December 4, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit entered an order (1) finding that Leo Stoller had been deceptive and dismissing his appeal; (2) reinstating the Mack Bar against Stoller for at least two years; and (3) ordering that the matter be referred to the United States Attorney to consider whether Leo Stoller should be prosecuted for perjury. <br /><br />The Leo Stoller Truth Serum Blog<br />http://stollerexposed.blog.comChili Palmerhttp://stollerexposed.blog.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5764290.post-52445249564642695542009-04-09T23:01:00.000-04:002009-04-09T23:01:00.000-04:00It's important to remember that Leo Stoller's lack...It's important to remember that Leo Stoller's lack of credibility--according to the courts-- "is a matter of public record." The Leo Stoller Truth Serum Blog is dedicated to exposing the REAL Leo Stoller. <BR/><BR/>The Leo Stoller Truth Serum Blog<BR/>http://stollerexposed.blog.comChilihttp://stollerexposed.blog.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5764290.post-19543768574510619232007-03-22T02:35:00.000-04:002007-03-22T02:35:00.000-04:00It looks like Stoller has lost already. TTABlog is...It looks like Stoller has lost already. TTABlog is reporting that the Judge in the case rejected Stoller's motions and entered a permanent injuction. Google has done a public service.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5764290.post-49591684547677681922007-01-30T21:52:00.000-05:002007-01-30T21:52:00.000-05:00Actually, Stoller's claim was that his companies h...Actually, Stoller's claim was that his companies had been using "Google" as a mark since 1981 and demanded that Google pay him money. TTAB found his assertion of rights to that mark, as well as many hundreds of others, to be "baseless."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5764290.post-51468271667463010552007-01-29T16:42:00.000-05:002007-01-29T16:42:00.000-05:00He is chalenging "google" is now a descriptive ter...He is chalenging "google" is now a descriptive term. I think he is right but I doubt he will be able to win against the army of lawyers google has.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com