January 22nd 2016
Honorable Timothy C. Evans, Circuit Judge Chief Judge
Daley Center, 50 W. Washington St., Rm. 2600, Chicago, Illinois 60602
RE Notice of Judicial impropriety case 13 CH 17457, (Abramson v Abramson)
I am writing you at the advice of retired attorney Bernard Hammer
My name is Paul Abramson and I am the Defendant being sued in Chancery court (judicial notice case 13 CH 17457) by my father and well known Chicago attorney Floyd Abramson for alleged breach of contract arising out of the settlement of my late mother’s estate (judicial notice case 08P000335). The reason for my communication is because I believe the Judge assigned to the Chancery case, Judge Kathleen Pantle has been intentionally engaging in a course of conduct through out this case that favors the Plaintiff and is prejudicial to my case and a violation of my civil rights as follows:
1 Judge Pantle allowed without good cause for process service of the Plaintiff’s summons and complaint by electronic mail to Defendant
2.Judge Pantle denied Defendent’s motion to have the case removed to Probate court even though the probate settlement order stated it retained jurisdiction
3 Judge Pantle has granted every request the Plaintiff has made and denied all of Defendant’s other than a motion to strike which was re plead by Plaintiff.
4 Judge Pantle has made biased comments in open court including stating that the Plaintiff has breach of contract monetary damages even though none have ever been plead to date
5 Judge Pantle has given legal advice to help the Plaintiff stating they should file a Motion to Quash a scheduled deposition of one of Defendant’s s key witnesses which was thereafter filed by the Plaintiff and the motion to quash was granted by Judge Pantle.
6 During the course of this case Judge Pantle testified as a character witness in a non judicial personal matter in front of the ARDC on behalf of Plaintiff’s counsel P Andrew Fleming without ever disclosing this material fact to the Defendant or Defendant’s counsel or voluntarily recusing herself from the case. (ARDC document – relevant page attached)
7. Defendant timely filed a petition for Substitution of Judge for cause when discovering Judge Pantle had acted on behalf of Plaintiff’s counsel in a personal matter. On 1/22/16 Judge Pantle refused to allowed the petition for Substitution of Judge to be transferred to another judge for determination and instead ruled to deny it.
Therefore for and including the above reasons I respectfully request an investigation into my complaint against Judge Pantle as well as my previously filed petition for Substitution of Judge be timely transferred and determined by a third party judge, Please be advised failure to take immediate action could forever prejudice my rights. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Glendale CA 91210, telephone 818-******
cc Judge Moshe Jacobius
June 24th 2016 FAX 312-814-5719
ATTENTION Kathy D Twine Executor Director and General Counsel
JUDICIAL INQUIRY BOARD
RE Judge Kathleen Pantle
Ms Twine Esq
I am in receipt of your letter of 6/13/16. When I contacted your office
regarding the closing letter I was told to “read between the lines”. Indeed
since the Judge is still on the bench I can only assume no action of reform
was ever taken.
I was very surprised under the circumstances due to the very serious
allegations raised regarding Judge Kathleen Pantle that the investigation
was closed only after being opened about a month prior. Indeed the
investigator in my opinion (Wade Crossin) did not take the matter very
seriously if at all. I had one conversation with him then he never took or
returned a phone call. I did reach him one other time but he said he was
leaving and when I asked him to attend a hearing in my case to observe the
Judge he stated he was too busy to attend. Further in his conversation with
my Counsel Ms Margaret Lundahl he made light of and was dismissive of
the numerous biased complaints lodged against this Judge (mostly from
Attorneys). The bottom line is I do not think any due diligence was used in
investigating the Judge and the fact she was removed from the Criminal
bench as well as apparently the post Judge for appeals alone should raise
red flags for investigation and action being taken. As I understand It is rare
that the JIB even investigates a Judge but to “white wash” an investigation
is not only unjust but against the public interest