Drew Peterson’s complaint against Chase dismissed

Drew Peterson has a new reason for wishing he hadn’t listened to his lawyer. His complaint against JPMorgan Chase Bank has been dismissed and they are asking to recover costs from Peterson.

Back in November of 2007, shortly after Stacy Peterson went missing, Drew was seen making preparations for what seemed to be his imminent arrest. His son Stephen arrived at his house to collect the youngest children and to receive funds. Drew’s friend Ric Mims told the Enquirer, “I watched Drew write a check for a little over $200,000 from a home equity line and give it to Steve in case something happened to him.”

By May 2008 Peterson’s lawyer, Joel Brodsky, was telling people on a message board that Drew had replaced the money. His description of the reason for the withdrawal veered a bit from Mim’s. Brodsky wrote, “Drew initally pulled that money out to prevent Stacy from getting it to enjoy with her paramour, but now he put it back because if she pulls it out then she has shown herself and Drew is off the hook so to speak.” It might be safe to assume that the money was returned on Brodsky’s recommendation.

Not surprisingly, Stacy has yet to attempt to withdraw any money from that account, but in the fall of last year, Peterson tried again to access his HELOC; this time to pay for his defense after being charged with murdering his third wife, Kathleen Savio. JPMorgan Chase Bank denied him the funds and cited “imprisonment” as the reason for suspending his home equity line, saying that Drew’s arrest for murder constituted a material change in his financial condition.

Peterson filed a suit against JPMorgan Chase, asking not only for access to the credit line but also for $75,000 in damages. Lawyer Walter Maksym was hired to argue the case.

After numerous amendments to the complaint and seemingly contradictory arguments that attempted to prove that Peterson’s detention constituted no change in his financial condition while also asserting that he was in dire need of cash to pay for his defense, Judge Ronald Guzman dismissed the complaint on September 8.

Yesterday, Chase filed a motion for a judgment against Peterson to be entered which included this proposed judgment:

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL ACTION

The Court has ordered that Plaintiff Drew W. Peterson recover nothing, the action be dismissed on the merits, and that the Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. recover costs from the Plaintiff.

This action was decided by Judge Ronald A. Guzman on Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that final judgment is entered granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint and dismissing this action with prejudice.

Case dismissed!

~By commenting you agree to be bound by the rules of this blog. You can contact admins directly by sending an email to petersonstory@gmail.com.~
Line and paragraph breaks are automatic in comments. The following HTML tags are allowed:
<a href=""> <abbr> <acronym> <b> <blockquote> <cite> <pre> <em> <i> <q> <strike> <strong>

About these ads

90 thoughts on “Drew Peterson’s complaint against Chase dismissed

  1. Yeah, wonder where it is? Aren’t we supposed to be monitoring his son’s suspension/investigation because Peterson says he’s a victim of vindictiveness and persecution? Is anyone working on that? You know, making sure that Peterson’s problems are theirs? If not, get with it. ;-)

  2. I am wondering the same thing, when the next letter shall appear. It is never a dull moment with Skunk, and Rotsky! I am sure they are cooking, and scheming something up behind the scenes.

  3. So Chase wants their court costs from Drew. Guess their lawyers don’t work solely for media exposure like the Seven Samurai (oops, SIX Samurai — forgot about the whole Reem thing). Maybe Drew will opt to sell that “sold” motorcycle that’s still in his garage — but for a fair price this time.

  4. Granny, you must have missed the photos of the bike still in his garage three months after the supposed sale.

    The auction was pulled from eBay so it definitely did not sell there. Joel claimed it had been sold to a private party for a “good price”. :)

  5. What a farce, If this wasnt about 2 mothers, silenced by this poor excuse of a human being, It would be funny. LIES LIES and MORE LIES… Wonder how this tribe of misfits will get paid now? My guess is that they are NOT!That goose is slowly cooking, and soon it will be done, as in bye bye Drew! Of course, this is only my opinion.. Keep sleeping on the job Brodsky. Brodsky,gives even bad lawyers a bad name.

  6. Heh, Meirish, true dat. The SA’s office probably has a shrine set up in their office, in which they chant daily, “please don’t fire Brodsky, Drew, please don’t.”

  7. Looks like Walter Maksym is not going to get paid either then.

    Good thing he still got a 2nd job as an Orgasm Expert; at least he’s got another income (!!)

  8. justanotherhen :

    Looks like Walter Maksym is not going to get paid either then.

    Good thing he still got a 2nd job as an Orgasm Expert; at least he’s got another income (!!)

    You mean the guy who came up with the stupid idea to rent out Drew’s house to the media while his trial was to be taking place 20 miles or so away? Yeah, he’s a real pip, he is.

  9. rescueapet :

    justanotherhen :
    Looks like Walter Maksym is not going to get paid either then.
    Good thing he still got a 2nd job as an Orgasm Expert; at least he’s got another income (!!)

    You mean the guy who came up with the stupid idea to rent out Drew’s house to the media while his trial was to be taking place 20 miles or so away? Yeah, he’s a real pip, he is.

    Oh Yes that’s right, that was another novel marketing idea of his.

    It appears they are just desperately scrounging around to get some money somewhere, anywhere or from anyone for that matter !!

  10. Facs, you’re right. I missed that one totally, but I did remember that Brodsky had bragged about getting a great price for it.

    Do I want to know what kind of second job Maksym might have to qualify him as an “Orgasm Expert”?

    Where in the world does Drew FIND these losers? I agree with Rescue about the Prosecution lovin’ this Dream Team, but it seems obvious now that anyone who expects to get paid for their work has absolutely no interest in the sideshow that is Brodsky & Peterson.

  11. Thomas Peterson turns age 18 on January 2, 2011 or thereabouts.

    Thomas Peterson possibly stands to gain control of his mother’s life insurance proceeds allegedly held in a Trust account, by his father, Trustee, in the approximate amount of $500,000.

  12. Oh Granny, I just can’t bear to put the links up again…but if you Google “One Hour Orgasm” or “Total Body Ecstacy” plus “Walter Maksym” you’ll see his other area of expertise. From what I’ve read he looks way more qualified in that area than law… LOL

  13. NOTICE OF MOTION
    To: WalterP. Maksym, Jr.

    PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, September 28, 2010, … counsel for JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. shall appear before the Honorable Judge Ronald A. Guzman in Courtroom 1219, … and then and there present JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.’s Motion To Have Judgment Against Plaintiff Drew W. Peterson Set Forth On A Separate Document And Entered, a copy of which has been filed electronically and was previously served upon you.

    Date: September 14, 2010 Respectfully submitted,
    JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
    By: Isl Michael G. Salemi

  14. judgin :
    Thomas Peterson turns age 18 on January 2, 2011 or thereabouts.
    Thomas Peterson possibly stands to gain control of his mother’s life insurance proceeds allegedly held in a Trust account, by his father, Trustee, in the approximate amount of $500,000.

    God, keep Drew away from this money.

  15. facsmiley :Oh Granny, I just can’t bear to put the links up again…but if you Google “One Hour Orgasm” or “Total Body Ecstacy” plus “Walter Maksym” you’ll see his other area of expertise. From what I’ve read he looks way more qualified in that area than law… LOL

    Thanks for not posting the links. I was just asking how in the world someone could be considered an “orgasm expert.”

    You’ve given me enough…..thanks.

  16. cyrhla :

    judgin :Thomas Peterson turns age 18 on January 2, 2011 or thereabouts.Thomas Peterson possibly stands to gain control of his mother’s life insurance proceeds allegedly held in a Trust account, by his father, Trustee, in the approximate amount of $500,000.

    God, keep Drew away from this money.

    Isn’t that part of the Savio family’s suit against Drew — that he has never been able to prove that he’s kept that money separate and distinct from other funds?

  17. cyrhla :

    judgin :
    Thomas Peterson turns age 18 on January 2, 2011 or thereabouts.
    Thomas Peterson possibly stands to gain control of his mother’s life insurance proceeds allegedly held in a Trust account, by his father, Trustee, in the approximate amount of $500,000.

    God, keep Drew away from this money.

    You got that right! Keep him away from it, and Joel! I can see it now, using his poor son to get bail money!

  18. From the complaint above:

    …On December 10, 2007 in an interview conducted by Mark Fuhrman for Fox News, Pastor Schori recounted the details given him by Stacy Peterson relating to defendant Peterson’s role in Kathleen Savio’s death, and Stacy’s fear of defendant Peterson, including:

    1 That during the night of February 28 – March 1, 2004 Stacy woke up and Drew was gone. She checked the house and couldn’t find him.

    2 That in the early morning hours of March 1, 2004 Stacy observed defendant Peterson standing in front of the washing machine, dressed in all black, and holding a bag – defendant Peterson then removed his clothes and put them in the washer, and emptied the contents of the bag he was holding, which appeared to be women’s clothing, into the washer also.

    3 Defendant Peterson told Stacy how he hit Kathleen on the back of the head, making her death look like an accident.

    Too bad, Neil never got to give that bit of testimony at the Hearsay Hearings. *sigh*

  19. “2. Damages are also sought for the mismanagement, breach of fiduciary duty and dissapation of estate assets..”

    “17….[Carroll] proceeded to turn over all of Ms. Savio’s marital assets, that were to go to her estate, to defendant Peterson…”

    “18. The marital assets that defendant Carroll turned over to defendant Peterson included, but were not limited to, …proceeds from various life insurance policies…”

    “54….[Carroll] agreed to permit all of the assets of the marriage to pass to Drew Peterson, Kathleen Savio’s ex-husband and away from the Estate of Kathleen Savio, and its intended beneficiaries.”

    There is no specific mention of the money not being accounted for, but it is implied that the insurance proceeds were mismanaged. I am pretty sure that there had been mention early on that while Drew said that he had squireled the money away for the boys, nobody could verify it.

  20. In this article, http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/05/savio-estate-opposes-peterson-bond-reduction.html, it seems they wanted “to make sure that no money was used for wife number 5 or to spend on Drew and his whims,” …

    JMO
    If the money was put in separate accounts, that would have been easy enough for Drew to show. And if that were the case, I would think Joel would have been all over the news showing the financial records to prove it. However …

    JMO
    If money was withdrawn from those accounts or if the money was not put into separate accounts, that is where things get a little stickier. That might account for the silence.

  21. That same story also says:

    …Also of concern to the estate in any bail reduction, Kelly said, is his understanding that Peterson has access to trust-fund accounts–seeded with $1 million from Savio’s life insurance–that are set up for the children’s college expenses.

    Of course, Kelly only says that it’s his ‘understanding’ that Drew has access to the boys’ trust funds. So, that’s still not 100% confirmed but at least it’s a mention.

  22. Drew was the guardian of the boys’ estate IIRC. So it would make sense as such that he had access to the funds.

    It’s how they were used that will be interesting.

  23. Also, I don’t mean to confuse anyone with post 26.

    The reference to “wife 5″ was meant to be “wife 4″ in reference to Stacy.

    Related to a Post 16 above, by Judgin:

    Is it a fact that Drew’s son will gain control of the entire $500k trust when he turns 18?

  24. You know, this whole thing w/Chase sort of reminds me of a skit that Gallagher used to do about trying to borrow money from a bank. Mr Gotrocks doesn’t need the money, so the bank of course wants to loan it to him. Mr Average Joe needs it, but the bank says no.
    Chase was perfectly willing to loan it until Drew needs it.
    Not that I want Drew to get it, but it kind of leaves a bad taste in my mouth where it comes to Chase.
    Just looking at things from the other side of Alice’s looking glass, I guess.

  25. Geez, awful quiet lately, not a word from the MadHatter and the Scream Team. Wonder if they are finally rethinking their stratagy? Naw, its always quiet before the storm. But I have to admit, it’s been nice not seeing or hearing from them.

  26. Hi Dill. The prosecution appealed the Judge’s ruling on the hearsay statements that can be allowed as evidence (he only wants to allow a few of them) so that needs to be heard and decided by the Illinois appellate court before the trial can proceed. It’s going to take a while!

  27. cheryl jones :You know, this whole thing w/Chase sort of reminds me of a skit that Gallagher used to do about trying to borrow money from a bank. Mr Gotrocks doesn’t need the money, so the bank of course wants to loan it to him. Mr Average Joe needs it, but the bank says no.Chase was perfectly willing to loan it until Drew needs it.Not that I want Drew to get it, but it kind of leaves a bad taste in my mouth where it comes to Chase.Just looking at things from the other side of Alice’s looking glass, I guess.

    I agree with what you are say with average joe needing/not getting and Gotrocks not needing/getting…but the statment about beging willing to loan to drew until he needs it, is confusing. Why would chase be willing to lend someone money when they may never get it back?? He’s a high risk! Sure he needs it now, but he wouldn’t have to be trying to rip off the banks if he didn’t kill his wives–IMHO!!!!

  28. Plus, didn’t drew want his homeowners insurance (or something like that)to pick up the tab on his legal bills? Or am I confusing this with the same Chase issue…

  29. The banking industry puts the screws to the least well off always. Whole nations are abused and robbed in this way. The better off a person or a country is, the lower interet rate they pay as well. I keep tellin’ ya that the money marketeers are not only ripping us off in grand style, they’re laughing at the rest of us as they relax with prostitutes and intoxicants, waving their six-figure bonus cheques in the air.

    Rant over. ;)

  30. Hey everyone. Attorney Karen Conti has always been gracious when asked questions that many of us have had. She’s so successful in everything she does, it seems.

    Karen Conti hired as WFLD-Channel 32 legal expert

    Attorney Karen Conti has been hired as a contributing legal expert at Fox-owned WFLD-Channel 32. The new deal formalizes what had been a more informal arrangement between WFLD and Conti for the past decade.

    Going forward, Conti said she expects to appear twice a week on Channel 32’s 9 p.m. flagship late news to discuss various stories from a legal perspective. She also expects to show up on WFLD’s morning show “Good Day,Chicago.” Conti is now part of a team that are attempting to boost ratings for WFLD’s late news. The station is trying a newscast format that offers longer, more-in depth segments, often including extended discussions of certain news stories.

    Conti and Greg Adamski, her legal partner and husband, also are in their fourth year of co-hosting “Legally Speaking” on news/talk WGN-AM (720). And Conti and Adamski are in their 20th year of practicing law together, as well as serving as adjunct law professors at the University of Illinois.

    http://blogs.suntimes.com/media/2010/09/karen_conti_hired_as_wfld-chan.html

  31. Bucket said: “…waving their six-figure bonus cheques in the air…”
    LOL, Bucket! And their fingers.
    ***
    Sureyouwill: I guess what I’m thinking is that since his income has not changed, there’s the same chance for payback.
    On the other hand, I agree with you 100%. Drewpy is a bad risk for anything good!

  32. While Drew’s income may not have changed, his expenses certainly increased dramatically because of his detention. Chase cited a “material change in his financial condition” as the reason for freezing the HELOC which I think would mean his whole financial situation — not just his earnings. I’m sure that was part of what was considered in the decision to dismiss his suit against Chase.

  33. cheryljones – It is true that Drew’s income may not change – but his expenses absolutely have changed. It is very expensive to pay for an attorney when you are charged with murder. Banking is all about risk versus reward. I would think that his knee-jerk reaction to pull the whole amount out right away didn’t help his case any either.

  34. As an aside ( ;-) ), Karen Conti’s office received a congratulatory response from Joel Brodsky to a PR they sent out. In the response, he congratulated her on behalf of the entire Drew Peterson defense team. Noticeably absent from the list of attorneys was Reem Odeh. Five attorneys were named. Mess with the driver, guess you’re off the bus.

  35. Heh. You’ve got that right, Facs.

    Just keep a good thought and hope that Peterson and/or his supporters don’t smarten up and kick Brodsky to the curb, replacing him with a real attorney. We wouldn’t want that to happen.

  36. This is off topic. Police have identified remains found Monday as belonging to Theresa Parker, the 911 dispatcher who went missing in 2007. Her husband, Sam Parker, was convicted of her murder WITHOUT A BODY!!!

  37. Random and amusing Tweet posted today by a lawyer:

    …Watching Drew Peterson’s attorney in a civil trial. Having an infamous client definitely doesn’t make you impressive in the courtroom.

    Of course, he doesn’t say which of the team he’s looking at…but I think I know.

  38. Hi everyone.

    Well, isn’t that just hilarious, Bratsky sucking up to Karen Conti. (please have me as a guest, please invite me on your show, please let me be on your show, please..)

  39. Congratulations to Karen from me, too.

    Denise :
    This is off topic. Police have identified remains found Monday as belonging to Theresa Parker, the 911 dispatcher who went missing in 2007. Her husband, Sam Parker, was convicted of her murder WITHOUT A BODY!!!

    Thank you for the news, Denise. It’s so sad, but an end to a successful physical search opens new doors to recovery for the bereaved. God bless ‘em.

  40. Isn’t the gist of the lady attorney’s comments pretty much what we’ve been saying all along about her law partner? See, we DO know what we’re talking about here.

    Still, folks, remember to do the chant: Please don’t fire Joel, Drew, please don’t fire Joel. Repeat.

    From Facebook:

    Reem Odeh Tying up this last loose end and extra Haggage that invaded my office (I mean baggage) and moving my legal career forward and working with real professionals with honesty and integrity. My new office is now located at 134 N. LaSalle for all my clients.

    “Haggage” was Reem Odeh’s slip for a term she unlovingly calls Elizabeth Brodsky. Wonder why Brodsky has such a hard time playing nice with the other kids?????

    Hahahahahaha. You just can’t make this stuff up.

  41. Brodsky is a real professional. We just haven’t decided which kind of real professional he is. Maybe the clown variety, like Bozo was? At least Bozo had buckets and gave prizes for getting the little ball in them. What does Brodsky have to offer Drew, but a day-in and day-out existence in a county detention center, with merely a contention that he’s being vindictively persecuted. Maybe Brodsky can get him some buckets and a ping pong ball for excitement.

    Doing the chant…….

  42. DP got himself into that day-in and day-out existence in a little county detention center cell.

    JB sure is doing a bang-up job of slowly digging DP’s grave for him! Maybe that is JB’s claim to fame… the ‘Con’ conning the ‘Con’!

  43. Also from today.

    Reem Odeh:
    …Its been stressful. I was able to experience first hand how evil people could be towards one another and my patience and temper was really put through a big test.

    You know, it’s really too bad Reem didn’t listen to her gut a long time back when she was telling the media she didn’t care for Joel’s style of representation.

    “I don’t think it’s appropriate. I think it is in the client’s best interest to keep it quiet and focus on the case. But he (Joel Brodsky) just says the case is going to make us famous and we’re all going to get book deals.”

    I’m just disappointed that she stayed in that dysfunctional partnership as long as she did. I hope now she realizes that there are more honorable ways to achieve fame and that any boob can write a book.

  44. Hey Judgin

    I loved this. So True, IMO.

    “Maybe that is JB’s claim to fame… the ‘Con’ conning the ‘Con’”!

  45. Heh. The list of fallouts on the Brodsky Wall of Defame is growing. Can they all be defective, or is the master of deceit the one to watch?

    Patience is a virtue. We here at Justice Cafe have repeatedly been putting up accurate research and facts which show that Peterson is the evil creep that is getting the defense he so deserves. Not only is Peterson himself the main event, but his goofball of an attorney takes the show to the Nth degree.

    We’ve covered these issues about Brodsky many times on this blog. We were appalled that Brodsky endorsed a date-scheme on a radio show, and a fight match with both the boyfriend of Peterson’s “love interest,” and Geraldo Rivera. We were equally disgusted that Brodsky used his client as a bargaining tool for interviews to promote his personal business. We were stunned that he tried to sell Steph Watts personal video footage of Peterson and his latest love interest for $200,000. Mind you, the woman child actually admitted the “engagement” was all a stunt until Brodsky buttoned her lips by saying she was confused.

    Brodsky has come across as a man of intimidation. He seems to thrive on making trouble for anyone that he thinks is getting in his face. He thrills upon being known for his unorthodox antics rather than, obviously, being known as reserved, professional, having integrity, honest and effective. Brodsky’s latest focus of intimidation appears to be Reem Odeh.

    I believe he thinks he is the one that is responsible for the end of the FindStacyPeterson forum, even though he’s patting himself on the back erroneously for the ending of it. Peterson, through Brodsky said: “The site, he says, had intruded on his personal life and Peterson filed two complaints against the blog–one with the FBI and one with local authorities. (http://www.prnewschannel.com/absolutenm/templates/?z=4&a=548)

    He’s intimidated, through his ugly cease and desist nonsense, Matt Phelps, Geoff Pinkus, Michelle LeFort, and Lisa Ward (Vicki Connelly’s daughter). He’s tried to make trouble for Joe Hosey by attempting to get him fired. (BTW, Brodsky’s pie hole seems to be stuck on stupid by telling any idiot that will listen to him that I am really Joe Hosey, posting under a pseudonym. What I will say is that Joe Hosey is an honorable and ethical individual, someone that Brodsky couldn’t come close to being!!)

    Two attorneys have left the defense team, one who has been publicly vocal about the reasons. Now, a years-long law partnership has ended, with one half of the team inferring that her former partner is anything but ethical and professional.

    We told you so.

  46. *Applause*

    I would just add to your Rescue’s comments, that even some members of the new defense team have been observed trying to put some distance between themselves and Brodsky (in the courtroom yet!) and who can forget the recent angry hiss of “STFU!” from his own co-counsel.

  47. “I’m not certain if the complaints we made caused the authorities to take the blog down or if it was something else,” says Joel A. Brodsky, Peterson’s criminal defense attorney, “but they crossed the line with the site there’s no doubt about it.”

    Man, if you took away Brodsky’s phone line to the FBI, the ISP, the Tribune and the Daily Herald, he’d be reduced to what he is. Nothing. He’s had plenty of chances to prevail in court (that is when he stays awake), and we know how far that’s gotten him.

    P.S. Lest we not forget his new found buddy, Sneed. She luvs those letters!

    LMAO!!!!

  48. facsmiley :

    *Applause*

    I would just add to your Rescue’s comments, that even some members of the new defense team have been observed trying to put some distance between themselves and Brodsky (in the courtroom yet!) and who can forget the recent angry hiss of “STFU!” from his own co-counsel.

    Heh ~ I think Lopez refusing to sit at the defense table with Brodsky isn’t exactly Brodsky’s shining moment either!

  49. What kind of stuff is this to say by a member of the legal profession, while posting on a forum?

    Author Topic: Ashley Blog Discussion # 2 (Read 7,102 times)
    joelbrodsky
    Member
    member is offline

    Joined: May 2008
    Gender: Male
    Posts: 167
    Re: Ashley Blog Discussion # 2
    « Result #15 on Jul 13, 2008, 6:20am »

    ——————————————————————————-
    What I meant about Geraldo (Gerry) is that everything about him is fake, his name, his pretend hispanic ethnic background, as well as his stories. The whole Geraldo persona is a marketing creation. Gerry is a jewish guy from Queens who even got bar mitzva, not some hispanic from south of the border. The point I was trying to make is that Geraldo (Gerry) is a fake from the ground up.

  50. Result 16 of 163:
    Page 1 of 52 » Jump to page Go

    Author Topic: Ashley Blog Discussion # 2 (Read 7,102 times)
    joelbrodsky
    Member
    member is offline

    Joined: May 2008
    Gender: Male
    Posts: 167
    Re: Ashley Blog Discussion # 2
    « Result #16 on Jul 12, 2008, 8:54pm »

    ——————————————————————————–
    I just saw Geraldo Rivera (I mean Gerry Rivers, the bar mitzva boy from Queens) interview Matt Phelps the lying author about Drew trying to pin Kathy’s death on Stacy. Notice that Phelps said “well thats not what they said, but thats what I felt”. Well I felt Phelps was an honest guy who told the truth, but I guess my feelings were wrong too. And then all of a sudden Drew is some poor guy on a pension that can’t pay his lawyer. Wait, Geraldo, didn’t you do a story about Drew giving $250,000 to his son? What is it, is he a poor guy on a pension or a guy that can transfer a quater million. Geraldo wouldn’t know the truth if it bit him on the behind. Hey Gerry Rivers, go back to your bible studies, you know the part about not bearing false witness.

  51. This is how Joel Brodsky likes to flex his beer muscles by intimidation. Can you believe a member of the law profession would write things like this?

    Author Topic: Q&A Joel Brodsky (Read 10,497 times)
    joelbrodsky
    Member
    member is offline

    Joined: May 2008
    Gender: Male
    Posts: 167
    Re: Q&A Joel Brodsky
    « Result #38 on Jul 1, 2008, 6:43am »
    ——————————————————————————–
    Heres the response to Phelps I just posted in crimerant:

    Hey Phelps,
    In your June 30, 2008 at 3:19 pm post you just ADMITTED you recorded us without our permission. Also our phone log from the conference calling company shows that you called in from your CT phone number, so CT law governs. The defense of the call to your NY agent won’t hold up. (why do you feel you need a defense anyway? Because you know you did somthing illegal thats why!) Basically you just admitted that you broke the law in writing and on the internet. Your really not very bright, are you? I am forwarding all of this to the CT Attorney General requesting prosecution. Maybe your next true crime book can be done from inside the joint. Maybe next time you promise discussions are confidential you should keep your word, liar. This should be a warning to anyone who is going to deal with you in the future. I was dealing with a liar who surreptitiously records confidential telephone coversations; Yuk, I need a shower.

  52. Let’s not forget Joel Brodsky going after potential witnesses (like Len and Paula, Sharon Bychowski, Cassandra and Yelton Cales, etc.) on blogs and forums and using the blog of P.I. Paul Huebl to aid him in his smear campaigns. The sleaze factor is mind boggling! What kind of lawyer thinks that this is professional conduct?

    Author Topic: Ashley Blog Discussion # 2 (Read 7,111 times)
    joelbrodsky
    Member

    Joined: May 2008
    Gender: Male
    Posts: 167
    Re: Ashley Blog Discussion # 2
    « Result #2 on Jul 26, 2008, 7:32pm »

    ——————————————————————————–
    Did you see Len/Ashely’s new (July 26) post on the drewpeterson1.blogspot.com blog? More proof he is a bad liar. He starts out by saying that yes he did file a bankruptcy, but that was because of his sick mother, and that he voluntarily dismissed the case because he made arrangements to voluntarily repay the creditors. What a crock.
    Go to http://www.crimefilenews.com/2008/07/len-wawczak-responds-to-crimefile-news.html and you will see the actual bankruptcy court documents. Wawczak’s bankruptcy was dismissed on the motion of his mortgage bank because he and Paula Stark were trying to commit Bankruptcy Fraud. Documents don’t lie. This proves that not only is Wawcak a liar, but he is a bad liar. Wawczak says he can’t wait until I cross examine him at a trial. Well all I can say is too bad it will never happen because, now more than ever, I am sure Drew Peterson will never be charged.

  53. I, for one, want to thank Brodsky for giving us so much material in which to bop him on his noggin.

    Author Topic: Peterson Case Discussion #1 (Read 11,761 times)
    joelbrodsky
    Member
    member is offline

    Joined: May 2008
    Gender: Male
    Posts: 167
    Re: All Peterson Related Here
    « Result #160 on May 15, 2008, 9:04am »

    ——————————————————————————–
    Looks like the FSP crazies have found that I am posting on this board. They really have got to get lives. Whoever can spend the time to stalk my blog posts has too much time on their hands. I speculate that the reasons they may be cleaning up the fourm are (1) after my complaint about cyberstalking to the fbi, the bureau was monitoring the fourm and may have made some contact with the administrators, and (2) the negative publicity from their posting was effecting the fund raising efforts (and perhaps raising questions about the fact that they have yet to form a not-for-profit corp, or registger as a charity, or account under oath for where the money is going.) As to the fsp poster who came on this board to say that my career will be over because of this case, guess what. I get overwhelming approval and support from my peers (the criminal defense bar, the general bar, and judges), who really know what is going on and know me and my abilities. (There is reasoned debate on Drews media appearances, but it is reasoned debate and the bar is split on this issue) Comments by people who have no knowledge of the criminal defense field, or my practice, or my win/lost record, really don’t bother me. I just laugh off their ignorance. Before I took Drews case we (Brodsky & Odeh) had so much business that my partner and I turned down 1 out of 5 cases offered to us. (20%) And don’t worry about my buisness, it has never been better. In fact we are expanding.

    Yeah, sure you are expanding. Windbags do expand.

  54. …I get overwhelming approval and support from my peers (the criminal defense bar, the general bar, and judges), who really know what is going on and know me and my abilities.

    I’m not going to bother repasting the comments from other defense attorneys who have commented on Joel’s poor performance in the courtroom and poor choices outside of it. I’m sure you all remember those comments well. :)

    OK, just this one from last Thursday (this is two years after Joel posted the above. You would think his skills would have improved over time…):

    …Watching Drew Peterson’s attorney in a civil trial. Having an infamous client definitely doesn’t make you impressive in the courtroom.

  55. When I went over the posts of Brodsky relevant to Matt Phelps, I can’t help but wonder what is so important about those so-called recordings that sent Brodsky into a tizzy. Brodsky went apeshit over it, threatened him legally, denying it happened, trying to post on the author’s website, posted on SYM, everything he could do to disspell the myths Brodsky claims were put forth by Phelps.

    What I’d like to know is if there really are recordings, and, if so (AFAIK, Phelps was not arrested and/or charged with anything illegal in association with this mess), are the recordings in the hands of the State? WHAT is on those recordings? I wonder if they can actually be used as part of the case against Peterson if there is anything useful to the SA on them.

    Brodsky sounds like Blago! PLAY ALL THE TAPES.

    Gender: Male
    Posts: 167
    Re: Peterson Case Discussion # 3
    « Result #44 on Jun 29, 2008, 11:23am »

    ——————————————————————————-
    Author Topic: Q&A Joel Brodsky (Read 10,497 times)
    joelbrodsky
    Member
    member is offline

    Joined: May 2008
    Gender: Male
    Posts: 167
    Re: Q&A Joel Brodsky
    « Result #40 on Jun 30, 2008, 2:53pm »

    ——————————————————————————-
    Here is the response to Mr. Phelps that I just posted on the http://johngrant.wordpress.com/2008/06/3….-vs-
    the-author/

    Guess what Mr. Phelps, we do DENY that we asked you to slam Drew’s ex-wifes, and we do DENY that we wanted to put Kathleen’s death on Stacy. You lied when you said that. We are glad that you recorded the conversation, even though it is illegal for you to do so. (BTW if you recoded the phone conversation you should consult your lawyer because conneticut is a two party notification state. Did you just admit that on the internet that you committed a crime? Not to smart for a “True Crime Author” and “Investigative Reporter”.) But don’t just play snippits, play the whole thing if you are going to play anything. And go ahead and release any e-mail you want. We have nothing to hide.

    **********

    Author Topic: Q&A Joel Brodsky (Read 10,497 times)
    joelbrodsky
    Member
    member is offline

    Joined: May 2008
    Gender: Male
    Posts: 167
    Re: Q&A Joel Brodsky
    « Result #30 on Jul 3, 2008, 6:10pm »

    ——————————————————————————-
    Thinkaboutit: In answer to your question, (put twice) we never asked Phelps to trash anyone. We talked very little about the content of any potential book. It was mostly buisness arrangments and a the structure of any potential deal. Thats why I am so pissed off, because Phelps makes it seem like we were discussing the cases or what angle we wanted the book to take, which is untrue, (because no author will give up editorial control of his book unless he is a ghost writer), when we barely touched on that subject matter.

  56. Result 24 of 100:
    Page 1 of 43 » Jump to page Go

    Author Topic: Peterson Case Discussion # 3 (Read 6,644 times)
    joelbrodsky
    Member
    member is offline

    Joined: May 2008
    Gender: Male
    Posts: 167
    Re: Peterson Case Discussion # 3
    « Result #24 on Jul 11, 2008, 4:27pm »

    ——————————————————————————-
    We are finishing our prepreation for the hearing on the Motion To Dismiss the weapons case under 18 USC 926B (Law Enforcement Officer Saftey Act – LEOSA) which will be heard on Monday afternoon at the Joliet Illinois Courthouse. We (Andrew Abood and I) are very confident that the motion will be granted (even though the Judge may take a few weeks to render his opinion). The State has worked very hard to defeat our motion, and to his credit ASA John Conner has done as good a job as anyone can do in these circumstances. For those that actually like the law and legal arguments about real cases, Monday’s court should be very interesting. I will post on what happend in court on Monday evening. Of course for those that are just interested in scorn, lynch mob vengence, argument by insult, and garbage, stay on those other blogs. You have no business being on Speak Your Mind.
    « Last Edit: Jul 11, 2008, 4:28pm by joelbrodsky »

    :-) Pot. Kettle. Red. I mean Black.

  57. Neil Schori guest wrote a piece for the Time’s Up blog yesterday. Go Neil!:

    …Sadly, before Stacy Peterson disappeared, I was mostly oblivious to the domestic violence in this world. I didn’t understand the insidious nature of the violence that is perpetrated upon these women (and some men) in their own homes. I didn’t understand that they couldn’t “just leave.” I didn’t understand how isolated they had become. I didn’t understand that this was happening in the church at nearly the same rate as the rest of the population. I didn’t understand that these women are literally dying for attention and true and tangible assistance. I didn’t understand that pastors were complicit in women’s continued subjugation in these dangerous and dark homes.

    But now I know. And because I know, I’m responsible. And I’m making a difference in and through my church and in my networking with incredible leaders and advocates in the field of domestic violence. It is my desire to continue to bring peace and hope to women across this country who feel terrified and anxious and hopeless. It is also my desire to educate pastors and church leaders about their role in helping to go on this journey with these women, so that they can come out of isolation and into the light of a supportive community…

    http://timesupblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/chris-rainey-domestic-violence-church.html

  58. Author Topic: Proposed ‘Hearsay’ Law Discussion (Read 2,198 times)
    joelbrodsky
    Member
    member is offline

    Joined: May 2008
    Gender: Male
    Posts: 167
    Re: Proposed ‘Hearsay’ Law Discussion
    « Result #85 on Jun 7, 2008, 6:21am »

    …….This is what blogging is supposed to be about, learning and questioning, (as opposed to name calling and insulting, which are the tactics of the ignorant)

    I feel assured this attorney’s day will come, as well as those that place their confidence in him, and it won’t be for his or their brilliance.

  59. Nice post from Pastor Schori. Abusers take on many forms, unfortunately. Bullying. Name calling. Attempts at humiliating someone, especially for an opposing point of view.

    We’ve even seen some very low, degrading, lewd and disgusting remarks, posts, and pictures posted about those of us that blog here, merely because we put our faith in the belief that Kathleen and Stacy were the victims, not the murder defendant. He has a voice. He has many voices. They’re called lawyers. Kathleen and Stacy didn’t have a chance to survive, and we see that clearly.

  60. Thanks, Judgin!

    http://www.willcosheriff.com/pages/cimis/details.asp?lname=Peterson&Submit=Submit&CIMIS_NUMBER=20090003825#Visit

    Name: PETERSON , DREW W
    CIMIS Number: 20090003825
    Bail Amount: $2,007,500.00
    Housing Location: MM
    CASE NUMBER COURT DATE
    M09CF1048 10/01/2010
    M08CF1169 10/01/2010

    willcosheriff.com reflects a Hearing Date 10/1/2010
    09CF001048 – People of the State of IL vs. Drew Peterson, Defendant MURDER/INTENT

    APPELLATE COURT APPEAL FILED SEALED & PENDING re: ‘Hearsay’
    MECZYK RALPH EUGENE

    08 CF 1169 - State of IL vs. Drew Peterson, Defendant GUN CHARGES – Proceed to Trial Or Case Dismissed
    BRODSKY JOEL ALAN 10 1 10 930 405 PETERSON DREW W 08CF001169 RCS
    PETERSON DREW W 10 1 10 405 930 08CF001169 0 RIFLE <16 IN/SHOTGUN 1 Decision
    PETERSON DREW W 10 1 10 405 930 08CF001169 0 RIFLE <16 IN/SHOTGUN 2 Decision

  61. Reem Odeh:
    …Its been stressful. I was able to experience first hand how evil people could be towards one another and my patience and temper was really put through a big test.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Whatever Reem is going to do in future will always be a big improvement on what she did with Joel Brodsky !

  62. For you who are local. There is not a Team Stacy this year, but it’s still a worthwhile cause. It’s not too late to sign up!

    Groundwork’s Second Annual Angels Against Abuse 5K Walk
    Hosted By: Groundwork Domestic Violence Program & Suzy’s Caring Place Transitional Housing Program

    Hammel Woods
    Crumby Recreation Area
    Black Road, Shorewood, IL
    Enter .25 miles east of Rt. 59

    Sat. October 9, 2010
    8:00AM: On-Site Registration/Check-In
    8:45AM: Opening Remarks-Will County State’s Attorney James W. Glasgow & The Honorable Judge Marilee Viola
    9:15AM: Walk Begins

    http://www.events.org/angelsagainstabuse/cpage.aspx?e=29669

  63. Facs@ #85. Are you kidding? Reem has seen first hand what her ex-law partner is all about. She knows what he’s capable of doing. He thrives on making trouble where there is none. The question is, is she up for the repercussions? It’s not just a matter of walking away from a broken partnership, it’s a matter of dodging the slime that is going to be coming her way. Whew.

  64. It is almost going to be predictable what slime is going to come Reems way.

    We’ve seen it all before with others that left the fold or were no longer in favor !

Comments are closed.