Thursday, October 8, 2020

Serenades And Handshakes

The Illinois Administrator has filed a complaint alleging misconduct in  federal court matters involving an attorney's emails and messages to opposing counsel

 Between September 2018 and July 2019, Respondent engaged in a pattern of conduct including, but not limited to, sending harassing and threatening emails to several attorneys who were involved in litigation with Respondent...

On October 8, 2019, the Executive Committee disbarred Respondent from the practice of law in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois until further order of the court.

In a case defended by an assistant corporation counsel

Prior to the court hearing, Respondent also left several voice messages on Ritter’s office voicemail, including one voice message in which he said that Ritter would be the cause of him crashing his car as he tried to email and call her while driving, and another voice message in which Respondent simply sang the lyrics to the song "99 Bottles of Beer on the Wall."

Respondent’s voice messages that he left on Ritter’s office voicemail, including one voice message in which he said that Ritter would be the cause of him crashing his car, and another voice message in which he sang the lyrics to the song "99 Bottles of Beer on the Wall," had no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden Ritter.

When Ritter appeared in court for the hearing, Respondent approached her, introduced himself and held out his hand. When Ritter declined to shake Respondent’s hand, Respondent became upset and told Ritter that, as a public employee, she worked for him.

Respondent’s statement to Ritter that she worked for him had no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden Ritter.

The underlying litigation in one of the matters

Respondent filed a complaint on behalf of Arthur Gomez in the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, against the Charles Schwab Corporation ("Schwab"), and several of its corporate officers, for the alleged improper conversion of a Uniform Gift to Minors Act ("UGMA") custodial account that Arthur Gomez had created for the benefit of his son. The matter was docketed as case number 19-CV-0540, Arthur James Muellman Gomez v. Charles Schwab Corp., et al. Vincent P. "Trace" Schmeltz III ("Schmeltz"), a partner at Barnes & Thornburg, LLP ("B&T"), represented Schwab in the matter.

Emails when counsel raised an issue regarding subpoenas

"Happy Easter Schmatlz [sic] you are being referred to the FBI today. You are insane to have done this, clear attempted obstruction. Maybe you should watch the news, obstruction is a big topic. I will also motion this up for her Honor to weigh in re [sic] protective order. What country do you live in? Here, a subpoena is inviolate and you violated the authority of the Court.

You sir are despicable and unfit to practice law and I pledge to bring the full weight of Justice down on you. Disgusting."

"Dear Perp: We have determined you are engaged in active tampering and obstruction, and I have a second opinion from former law enforcement counsel in agreement.

We demand you stop any communication with BA [BOA], and you formally withdraw your letter for which you undiscovered email despite all other comms [sic] being email, further highlighting your incredibly stupid subterfuge that seems to have no substantial benefit.

You and your firm are on notice we consider you an active criminal and are impeding a federal subpoena with malice forethought and intent to hide the Truth from your own client Arthur and The People.

Schmuchs [sic]:

I will prosecute you into bankruptcy and prison. I. Gurantee. [sic] It."

Later that day

"I will not pursue you if you self report [sic] them plea to what you did immediately. RICO allows parallel prosecution but you and Barnes weren’t and are not my primary Targets, you just fd [sic] up big time and i [sic] report active crooks i [sic] run across if they do not abate on the shot across the bow.

You have quadrupled down and again it appears you have put economic self interest [sic] ahead of your client’s. You will be reported of course that cannot be settled it isn’t my claim.

Resign and plea to the FBI and i [sic] don’t name and flay you on a public pillory for all to see so as to discourage scum like yourself."

After the firm's deputy general counsel contacted him

Stop emailing me now or i [sic] call police. You are barred from direct contact with me or co plantiff [sic]. Cc only. Shut up please."

"FYI. Your firm will be prosecuted by me if Justice sits on its hands again and this is second and final chance at doing its job without again being ordered to after I gave them a chance to not be commanded by the Boss. Any further attempt to influence the USA or any other schmaltzing will be met harshly."

"Sir: You are being prosecuted, there is zero "threat". Just like the bs [sic] opinion that the MIDP prevents my MANDATORY FRCP 13 and 19 investigation which your firm thinks entitles it to tell a witness what to do in response to a subpoena, you misrepresented the truth. I want and get zero advantage from enforcing the law and you cannot cite the advantage you claim because it doesn’t exist. Having you NOT take advantage is all i [sic] seek.

And parroting the false walls you keep setting up by falsely accusing me of violating my Oath and the Rules, while you blatently [sic] twist and ignore them, is in my opinion, more dispicsble [sic] conduct from a firm that thinks it can violate the law and then accuse the referrer of being a crooked attorney.

You shouldve [sic] kept you [sic] mouth shut. I am plaintiff not just an attorney on the case. I plaintiff, will add you, new perp, when and if I have to RICO the individual attorneys.

I suggest you shut up."

The next day

"With zero respect, idiot, I told you not to contact me. I am a plaintiff. You are barred, and you just violated the Rules again.

You obey no rules or no one. I remember what scum BT is from 10 years of suing scum polluters and then having outside counsel run up the bill in unethical manner until i [sic] had to leave the sharks in the room repeating themselves to each other. You are entitled to be heard. Once.

Dont [sic] pull your crap on me. Shmuckz [sic] and your firm are scum of the Earth and need to be abated. Under RICO I am private AG and am doing the abating, since you seem very cozy with the USA here and since this office seems frozen, except for letting crooks like Shock [sic] get off and then allow him to attack a fellow AUSA who wanted to do the right thing and prosecute that piece of poop.

BT is in my opinion a scumbag firm as evidenced by the repeated flaunting of the Rules whilst impugning a named party for not following them.

You will be pursued for harrassing [sic] me after i [sic] told you to bug off.

Get outside Counsel. Be an Attorney not a thug.


In another matter to a partner at Fox Rothschild, LLP:

"I am plaintiff pro se in this case. Your firm has violated my rights as a litigant and abused the process as indicated by your attorney apparently lying re calling chambers (Carolyn was out of town) and scamming bad notice, and the motion to dismiss labled [sic] a motion for sanctions. All for profit as i [sic] am sure you didn’t do it for free.

See eg [sic] 19cv0540 and 18cv4818. I RICO scum bag firms that lie and cheat. I also released both the Smollett and Foxx dumps myself. I am FOIAg [sic] the court re sanscamsfelipe [sic] alleged ex parte comms [sic] to see if she is telling the truth…I think she lied to me and the court. The filer picks the year not the system, she screwed up and tried to cover up.

Once i [sic] have the evidence i [sic] am going to Chief Judge Castillo to complain and request discipline as the LITIGANT, as I am pro se.

I am open to settling this case which has bad UCC notice thus your client must renotice [sic] and start over. 5,000 non negotiable [sic]. I will not agree not to complain as that is illegal so do not even go there.

You sir are a Subject along with Ms. (In my op [sic]) Liar.

Fyi [sic] i [sic] released both the Smollett and Foxx dumps to WGN then Fox then NYT (I will. [sic] copy you on the Smollett releases to prove I do FOIA for The People. I will expose your firm next.

Settle dude or rip y’all [sic] a new one.

I will not deal with sanliarippo [sic].

You or ax [sic] senior partner or i [sic] proceed to her and your firm."


"Yo Jeff. You ignored my terms in the first signed doc. NOTE THE NOON DEADLINE FOR THE WIRES.



The complaint alleges violations of Rule 4.4 and 8.4(d).  (Mike Frisch)

Bar Discipline & Process | Permalink


Post a comment