Nos.

1-09-1868, 1-08-3560, 1-09-0353, 1-09-0624, 1-09-0846, 1-09-0956,1-09-1059, 1-09-1066, 1-09-1894, 1-09-2002, 1-09-2003, 1-09-2061,1-09-2062,1-09-3368,1-09-3369, 1-10-0089, 1-10-0333 Not Consolidated

IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

LEO STOLLER, )

)

Plaintiff-Appellant, )

)

v. ) )

LANCE G. JOHNSON, et.al., )

)

Defendants-Appellees. )

ORDER

Appellant Leo Stoller sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis in the following

seventeen appeals, Nos. 1-09-1868,1-08-3560,1-09-0353,1-09-0624, 1-09-0864, 1-09-0956,

1-09-1059, 1-09-1066, 1-09-1894, 1-09-2002, 1-09-2003, 1-09-2061, 1-09-2062, 1-09-3368,

1-09-3369,1-09-3428,1-10-0089,1-10-0333. This court initially allowed Mr. Stoller to

proceed in jorma pauperis on these cases, except on appeals 1-09-0846 and 1-09-2062, where

the Court denied the pauper petitions and Mr. Stoller then paid the fees. The matter now comes

on the court's own rule to show cause why Mr. Stoller should not be held in contempt and the

above appeals dismissed (with the exception of appeals 1-09-0846 and 1-09-2062, where the

docketing fees have been paid).

Mr. Stoller is a highly litigious individual in both state and federal courts and usually seeks

leave to proceed injorma pauperis Recently, on December 4,2009, the United States COUIt of

Appeals for the Seventh Circuit entered an order dismissing Mr. Stoller's appeal upon finding that

Mr. Stoller falsely claimed indigency and was deceptive in seeking to proceed injorma pauperis.

1-09-1868, et al.

In re Leo D. Stoller, No. 08-4240 (7th Cir., Dec. 4, 2009). The Court of Appeals also reimposed a bar against Mr. Stoller pursuant to In re City of Chicago, 500 F. 3d 582, 585-86 (7th Cir. 2007) and Support Systems International, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F. 3d 185, 186 (7th Cir. 1995) (per curiam), which directed all federal courts in the seventh circuit to return unfiled any papers submitted either directly or indirectly by Mr. Stoller or on his behalffor a minimum of two years.

On January lq, 2010, appellees, Lance G Johnson. David Abrams, Alfred Goodman, Roylance Abrams, and Berdo & Goodman, LLP, et al., filed a request for this court to take judicial notice of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit's order finding that Mr. Stoller was deceptive about his in forma pauperis status. Mr. Stoller filed his objection on February 1, 2010. This court entered an order on February 11, 2010, granting the request to take judicial notice and, on the court's own motion, ordered Mr. Stoller to show why, in the above listed appeals, he should not be held in contempt of court and these appeals should not be dismissed in view of the December 4, 2009, federal court order that Mr. Stoller was deceptive in regard to his in forma pauperis status. Mr. Stoller filed a response on February 19, 2010. For the reasons that follow, we find that Mr. Stoller does not meet the requirement to proceed in forma pauperis.

Mr. Stoller may not proceed in forma pauperis on the basis that evidence indicates he was deceptive regarding his indigency status. This finding is based on several factors First, we have taken judicial notice of the federal court order on this issue. "Matters susceptible to judicial notice include facts capable of immediate and accurate demonstration by resort to easily accessible sources of indisputable accuracy." People v. Davis, 65 III. 2d 157, 151 (1976). Our supreme court first declared in Walsh v. Union Oil Co., 53 Ill. 2d 295 (1972), that a court may take judicial notice of other proceedings in other courts, at least where those proceedings involve

2

1-09-1868, et al.

substantially the same parties and are determinative of the case sub judice Walsh, 53 Ill. 2d at 299. Illinois courts may take judicial notice of public documents which are included in the records of other courts because such documents constitute readily verifiable facts which are capable of "instant and unquestionable demonstration." May Department Stores, Inc. v. Teamsters Union, 64lll. 2d 153,159 (1976). Judicial notice is proper where such notice will aid in the efficient disposition ofa case Muller v. Zollar, 267 Ill. App. 3d 339, 341 (1994).

Here, we took judicial notice of the order entered by the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in In re Leo D. Stoller, No. 08-4240 (7th Cir., Dec. 4, 2009), a public document that found Mr. Stoller was deceptive in seeking status as an indigent. Mr. Stoller was the only party subject to that order and he is a party in each of the pending appeals addressed herein. Furthermore, the facts of which we are taking judicial notice are dispositive of the issue presently before this court, i.e., whether Mr. Stoller may proceed injorma pauperis. We conclude that he may not.

Second, the attachments that Mr. Stoller filed with his response to the rule to show cause contradict Mr. Stoller's claimed indigency. The attachments portray Mr. Stoller as a "nationally known trademark expert" and "nationally recognized constitutional and legal scholar.' Mr. Stoller lists the three books that he has published and the consulting company that he founded, and of which he is the president, Rentamark The attachments describe Mr. Stoller's commercially offered services as a consultant and as an expert witness. Therefore, Mr. Stoller's own submissions to this court undermine his claim of indigency

3

1-09-1 868, e tal.

Third, we note that on February 23,2010, Mr. Stoller paid the $25 docketing fee for each of seven additional appeals with this court, totaling $175 This fact clearly contradicts Mr. Stoller's assertion that he is indigent.

Accordingly, we conclude after reviewing the December 4, 2009, order of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the report and recommendation of special master, U.S. Magistrate Judge Geraldine Soat Brown, Mr. Stoller's response with attachments to the rule to show cause, and his recent payment of $175 in docketing fees to this court, along with his payment of docketing fees in 1-09-0846 and 1-09-2062 upon being denied leave to file as a pauper, that Mr. Stoller does not meet the requirements necessary to proceed in forma pauperis. Based on the foregoing, we dismiss without prejudice: Leo Stoller v. Lance G. Johnson, 1-09- 1868; Leo Stoller v. Lighthouse Financial, 1-09-2061; Leo Stoller v. Robert Tepper, 1-09-3368; Leo Stoller v. Countrywide Bank and Bank of America, 1-09-3369; and, Leo Stoller v. Countryside Bank, 1-10-0333. Appeal 1-10-0089 was dismissed on motion of appellee on February 11,2010. (Appeals 1-09-0846 and 1-09-2062 remain pending because Mr. Stoller paid the docketing fees)

Mr. Stoiier also has pending eleven additionai appeals, several of which have been consolidated. In re Marriage of Leo Stoller, 1-08-3560; Nancy Reich v. Leo Stoller, 1-09-0353 and 1-09-0624 (consolidated); Nancy Stoller v. Leo Stoller 1-09-0846, 1-09-0956 and 1-09-1059 (consolidated); Leo Stoller v. Wendy Morgan, 1-09-1066 and 1-09-2062 (consolidated); Nancy Reich v. Leo Stoller, 1-09-1894; In re Marriage of Nancy 1 Reich and Leo Stoller, 1-09-2002; and In re Marriage of Nancy 1 Reich and Leo Stoller, 1-09-2003. We dismiss without prejudice

4

1-09-1868, et al.

those appeals based on Mr. Stoller's stipulation in his own marital settlement agreement, paragraph 17.2 (05 D 007216), that was entered on July 15,2009.

Mr. Stoller filed his marital settlement agreement as an attachment to his response to the rule to show cause. In paragraph 17.2 of his marital settlement agreement, Mr. Stoller agreed to

a restraining order that prohibited Mr. Stoller, his agents, assigns, family members, and heirs, from filing any state or federal civil court motions, pleadings, complaints, administrative actions or lawsuits, against Nancy Reich, Wendy Morgan, the Wendy Morgan Law Firm and its staff, Nancy Reich's parents, Dr. Alan Jaffe, and attorney Joel Levin, without obtaining leave of the circuit court of Cook County. We find that his agreement is a judicial admission that conclusively binds Mr. Stoller. See Furniss v. Rennick, 181 Ill. 2d 395, 406 (1998). A judicial admission is a "formal concession in the pleadings in the case or stipulations by a party or its counsel having the effect of withdrawing a fact from issue and dispensing wholly with the need for proof of the fact." Knauerhaze v. Nelson, 361 Ill. App. 3d 538, 558 (2005); see also 1. Stong, McCormick on Evidence §254, at 142 (4th ed. 1992); 1. Wigmore, Wigmore on Evidence §l064, at 536 (2d ed. 1923). Moreover, Mr. Stoller's voluntary submission of his marital agreement as an attachment

for this court to consider further convinces us that Mr. Stoller assents to the matter contained in

the agreement and reaffirms that he is bound by that document.

Me Stoller must therefore obtain leave of the circuit court of Cook County prior to filing any appeals involving the parties named in paragraph 17.2 of the marital settlement agreement. A thorough review of the records in these cases revealed no evidence that Mr. Stoller sought the requisite leave of circuit court of Cook County in order to file the instant appeals. This court is without jurisdiction to hear any appeals against these parties absent an order from the circuit court

5

1-09-1868, et al.

granting Mr. Stoller leave. Based on this admission and absent any showing that leave was

sought, we dismiss these cases without prejudice.

Based on all of the foregoing reasons the following cases are hereby dismissed without

prejudice: Leo Stoller v . Lance G. Johnson, 1-09-1868; Leo Stoller v. Lighthouse Financial,

1-09-2061; Leo Stoller v. Robert Tepper, 1-09-3368; Leo Stoller v. Countrywide Bank and Bank

of America, 1-09-3369 and 1-10-0089 (consolidated); Leo Stoller v. Countryside Bank,

1-10-0333; In re Marriage of Leo Stoller, 1-08-3560; Nancy Reich v . Leo Stoller, 1-09-0353 and

1-09-0624 (consolidated); Nancy Stoller v. Leo Stoller 1-09-0846, 1-09-0956 and 1-09-1059

(consolidated); Leo Stoller v . Wendy Morgan, 1-09-1066 and 1-09-2062 (consolidated); Nancy

Reich v. Leo Stoller, 1-09-1894; In re Marriage of Nancy J. Reich and Leo Stoller, 1-09-2002;

and In re Marriage of Nancy J. Reich and Leo Stoller, 1-09-2003. Appeal 1-10-0089 remains

dismissed. Appeals 1-09-0846 and 1-09-2062 remain pending.

ORDER ENTERED MAR 1 s 2010

APPELLATt CDURT, FIRST DISTRICT

Justice <'

Justice

Justice

6