The continuing Saga of Mr. Amu’s Disciplinary case for allegedly lying about corruption in the courts

See the decision from his Tribunal and my comments and THEN please post your comments:

Decision from Atty Lanre Amu’s tribunal:

Atty Amu’s timeline of events in the cases:

Again, it is critical if you are going to post you first be familiar with the case.  If you are going to post any first amendment restrictions on cases, plse use proper case citations (NOT trial court or administrative hearing decisions, please use appellate case law language from the federal appellate courts or the US supreme ct).  thanks



4 thoughts on “The continuing Saga of Mr. Amu’s Disciplinary case for allegedly lying about corruption in the courts

  1. The IL appellate court has issued it’s rule 23 order in this matter, it’s under Yehouenou v. St. Joseph Hospital.

    I stand beside my comments that Mr. Amu is deserving of sanction. The full opinion is available at the below website, and I’ve copied and pasted the holding summary, including the court upholding Mr. Amu’s contempt and Rule 137 sanctions.

    HELD: (1) The dismissal of a complaint against one defendant doctor was affirmed where it was barred by res judicata because the court in a pending case for the same cause
    of action had already dismissed that defendant due to the expiration of the one-year statute of limitations after plaintiff’s prior voluntary dismissal of that doctor. The dismissal of the other defendant doctor was affirmed because any cause of action against him was barred by the statute of limitations. Dismissal of the defendant hospital on the basis of the other pending action was not abuse of discretion and was affirmed where this action was for the same cause and involved the same parties. (2) The denial of a motion for substitution of judge as of right was appropriate because it was untimely where a hearing on the defendants’ motion to dismiss had already commenced and the judge had indicated to plaintiff which way she would rule. (3) The award of costs to defendants in connection with the litigation was affirmed as appropriate under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 219(e) (Ill. S. Ct. R. 219(e) (eff. July 1, 2002)) where the filing of this action after a prior voluntary dismissal was an attempt to circumvent the orders in the prior voluntarily dismissed action. (4) The award of Rule 137 sanctions was affirmed where plaintiff’s counsel made numerous allegations in pleadings accusing the court of corruption that were baseless and not well grounded in fact or law but were interposed for an improper purpose to harass the court. (5) The two orders of direct criminal contempt imposing sanctions were affirmed based on plaintiff’s counsel’s statements about the judge and conduct in the courtroom, including shouting at the judge and waving a Bible.

    • Hey, thanks for sending that along and let me take a look at it. I’m not sure whether Mr. Amu had to be completely right or never make a mistake, but let’s see what he has to say. Further, if there was an issue of joint parties and res judicata, the proper sanction is attorneys fees.
      I have to say standing in court and waiving a bible doesn’t even rank from what I’ve seen attorneys do. Just a few weeks ago, I was in 1401 (and I forget the judge’s name), but the attorneys before me got into a shouting and shoving match over some heated collections matter. (We just chuckled and said “breakfast and a show”)
      It’s not the first time I’ve seen something like that or even have been a subject of an attorney’s over the top wrath, ire and stream of conscious expletive deletives, so I’ll take the bible waiving any day.
      But thanks for the comment. I still think all of this pales in comparison to the probate cases I’ve seen running without jurisdiction for years (Sykes, Wyman, etc.) and millions falling off inventories (Sykes, Gore, Drabik) and everyone looks the other way, but I appreciate your comment.

      More to add, okay I just took a look at Judge Brewer and I think you should too. It’s not looking good. I don’t know if Mr. Amu touched on her “out damn spot” issues, but it wasn’t hard for me to find. I can’t tell you more because this is a whole system and I believe it extends to the Court of Appeals, first district, but I think we need to hold that decision for awhile until I get done with my “reporter’s privilege” and “atty work product.” That’s all I will say at this time. It ain’t over until the fat lady sings, all I’m saying.
      And another issue I would like to bring up, it seems that all this happened to the plaintiff in 2009 and the case is based in med mal which has a ton of rules and is difficult to bring, etc. He reinstate the case (or tried to) in 2011 and got booted out. But it seems to me he should have been allowed to amend the complaint to try a different theory such as fraud, breach of contract, etc. which have much longer statutes of limitations periods. Hospitals make you sign contracts, right? They have this ton of paperwork which basically consists of waiving everything and says the staff doesn’t work for them and all sorts of legal nonsense. the limitations period for breach of contract is 10 years! And you can’t waive your own negligence, nor can you say one party to a contract can’t ever sue, right? I think Mr. Amu had a right to look at what other actions he might have brought besides med mal and he should have been allowed to have time to do that instead of 7 days with a death in his family.
      The bible waiving is nothing and I’ve seen plenty of attys and litigants alike do the loud voice thing, at least the court reporter’s not claiming she can’t hear and speak up.
      I don’t mean to play devil’s advocate, but yes, maybe I do.
      In any case, a loud voice, asking for 28 days to respond, etc. is not out of place when you have to amend a complaint and drop some claims. The pltff whose operation was botched (allegedly) is entitled to her day in court. It appears she just needed to find a different cause of action that had a longer statutes of limitations.

      • Mr. Amu seems at best incompetent and, at worse, a terrible attorney determined to yell ‘racism’ to disguise his own malfeasance. I didn’t do civil lit (Thank God), but I can’t imagine this grandstanding (waiving a bible?) in a court I tried cases in. This is an attorney who had a contempt finding upheld on appeal. That puts him in a fairly ‘elite’ category. Your continued defense of this individual does not help your cause.

        Oh, and I’m not a JAG. I’m enlisted infantry.

      • Okay, that’s your opinion, and I defend your right to publish it on my blog.

        There are plenty of dull crayons in a crayon box, but sometimes we need to use them.

        In any case, Mr. Amu probably handles immigrant clients others won’t touch because he is an African immigrant. I know a lot of African immigrants and they do see the world differently.

        But aren’t you glad you can publish some scathing comment on a blog that in the end might turn out to be completely 180 degrees wrong? If Mr. Amu had wealthy connected friends, he could sue us both, get a ton of money and the blog would be gone. You would be booted out of the armed forced with a dishonorable discharge and no law license.

        Madam Bovary was a good book.

        And don’t get me going about the Illinois Court of Appeals, First District. The Sykes case is clearly without jurisdiction, there is no affidavit of service and it is highly unlikely Mary was served. Supposedly she was “served at the window” which you’re not supposed to do, but when she came back, she was furious and told Kathie and Gloria both she “wanted an attorney” and “wanted to fight this” but unlucky for her Judge Connors (stated in her deposition) said she only appoints attorneys for a ward if she really thinks their serious about that and of course, that’s not the law. So what did the Court of Appeals do with Gloria’s brief on jurisdiction on this point? Peter Schmiedel filed a motion to dismiss claiming it was “law of the case” which of course it wasn’t and there are plenty of Ill. cases that say if it’s “law of the case” and it’s wrong, it can still be fixed. Not with this Ill. Ct of App., first district, they didn’t seem to look or care or whatever. A summons and petition means nothing to them, so they granted with a rubber stamp the BS motion Peter Schmeidel filed.

        You see, in Illinois, there are two court systems in probate, one for the poor people which is honest and careful, and then for those with money to steal in probate, they get a whole other treatment, which, apparently you have not figured out. Keep on trying.

        And btw, Mr. Smart and Important DO YOUR RESEARCH. In the end it may turn out when you are claiming Mr. Amu is incompetent, that mirror might be YOURS.

        Keep on asking questions tho, and you might figure it out. I’m rooting for you.

        But right now, I have to go back to my research which should be published soon.

        take care and have a great evening.


        PS–so why AREN’T you on the JAG core? What’s up with that?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s