Joel Brodsky sues Steve Greenberg, news media and reporters for defamation

Steve Greenberg and Joel Brodsky

Steve Greenberg and Joel Brodsky

Oh, the drama!

Former Drew Peterson lead attorney, Joel Brodsky, has filed a defamation law suit against former co-counsel Steve Greenberg, the Tribune company, AOL, Patch Media Corporation as well as reporters Stacy St. Clair and Joseph Hosey.

The law suit alleges that Greenberg suffers from pathological narcissism and because of this malady, he wrote and distributed a letter to the media which called out Joel Brodsky for lying to Drew Peterson, putting money ahead of his concerns for his client, and making a irreversible blunder by calling attorney Harry Smith to the witness stand during Peterson’s trial for murder.

Brodsky is suing the Tribune and AOL Patch, as well as reporters St. Clair and Hosey for publishing excerpts of the letter and knowingly spreading falsehoods about him which have resulted in a loss of revenue for his legal practice.

Read the filing:

Meanwhile, Mrs. Brodsky keeps it classy on Twitter…

ellie-keeps-it-classy

…and attorney Greenberg has replied to Brodsky’s lawsuit in a press release”

2/10/2013

Although we have not yet been served with a copy of the frivolous lawsuit filed by Joel Brodsky, we have learned enough information to appropriately comment. The items he complains of are two fold: a letter written that was released to the media and a filing made in court. With respect to the latter, it is protected by immunity. Furthermore, other members of Mr. Peterson’s defense team reviewed the statements made in all court filings. Each and every allegation made is true and thus not subject to this action. If Mr. Brodsky believes they are not, a court hearing has been set on these allegations for February 19 and 20. That Court will determine whether they are meritorious. With respect to the letter to Mr. Brodsky, to the extent there are statements of fact they are true and will be supported by evidence. To the extent it contains statements of opinion they are not actionable.

Mr. Brodsky has also chosen to sue two well-respected reporters, purely out of spite. Neither has done anything wrong. The allegations he has made against them, as they relate to myself, are false and I encourage each of them to file counter-suits.

Mr. Brodsky has demonstrated through his statements, actions, and legal work (sic), that he is willing to say or do anything, regardless of the truth or the consequences. This case is no different. He has no regard for the integrity of the legal system and little respect for others. It is a shame he has chosen to bring this action and he is urged to withdraw his claim, and just go back to wherever he came from.

Some background to the story:

Steve Greenberg Fights Back
Drew Peterson fires Steven Greenberg from defense
Joel Brodsky withdraws from Peterson Defense
Claims of ineffective assistance against Joel Brodsky
Will Drew Peterson walk because Joel Brodsky stinks?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~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.~

About these ads

128 thoughts on “Joel Brodsky sues Steve Greenberg, news media and reporters for defamation

  1. …Brodsky’s lawsuit accuses Greenberg of distributing the 15-page “substantially false” letter, as well as a memo that Greenberg filed after Peterson’s conviction that questioned Brodsky’s effectiveness as counsel in Peterson’s trial for the murder of third wife Kathleen Savio.

    The lawsuit alleges that Greenberg filed the post-trial memo “to cover up his poor performance during the Savio Murder Trial,” as an attempt to position himself as a media commentator on legal issues.

    “We haven’t seen the lawsuit, but thinking back to my law school days I believe truth is a defense,” Greenberg said when reached Wednesday afternoon.

    “You can add that he’s starting to annoy me,” the attorney said.

    Brodsky also alleges that AOL’s Patch and reporter Joseph Hosey carried out a “defamatory smear campaign” against him in a series of articles published on suburban outlets of the hyperlocal news website.

    In his lawsuit, Brodsky, who is represented by attorney Walter P. Maksym, claims false light and violations of the Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act against Greenberg, his law practice, the Tribune, AOL’s Patch and both reporters.

    It further claims defamation by Greenberg and the Tribune defendants. The suit seeks at least $50,000 in damages.

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/18059240-418/drew-peterson-lawyer-brodsky-files-defamation-suit-vs-fellow-defense-lawyer-tribune.html

  2. This sounds like a very “Maksym” law suit. Sue everyone and see if something sticks.

    Remember the Lifetime movie lawsuit where Maksym included Rob Lowe and Disney?

  3. Brodsky is represented by Chicago attorney Walter P. Maksym, who said in a statement Wednesday that he is confident Brodsky will win the case and “that his good name will be cleared and his professional reputation will be restored.”

    :lol: Don’t you have to have a “good name” to begin with, in order for it to be restored? This is just funny to me.

    Can’t wait to see the counter claim! :)

  4. The letter put Brodsky’s law office “in a false light in the public eye”?

    More evidence of a sociopathic personality. Brodsky’s law office was a laughingstock long before Greenberg ever joined the Peterson team.

    I wonder if the attorneys that fled the case before Greenberg arrived will be sued as well, considering each one pointed to Brodsky as their rationale for leaving.

    I envision a new term coming out of all this nonsense: “To Brodsky a case”, meaning creating such drama around the periphery of a case that the original crime gets lost in the white noise.

    Maybe Brodsky will get his legacy after all.

  5. will this ever end?? i mean how many years have we put up with crap from brodsky .. sentence drew and be done with it already .. brodsky doesnt have a pot to piss in .. maybe he’s missing the limelight … hot wings anyone? ugghh

  6. So when do they challenge each other to a cage fight match in Vegas? The crap just never ends!

    And Joel knows full well he can’t win a law suit against the media (or reporters) for reporting the news. They get to do that. It’s their jobs. :roll:

  7. FACS….that would mean he bites the hand that feeds him…the media is his ticket to stardom….maybe he wants a spot on in session or Nancy Grace…I just can’t think of a title for the show….I’ll give it some thought….

  8. Thank you for the music. That’s nice.

    I wonder if SG is aware that JB is the only person since 1874 to successfully sue for alienation of affection. He’s a mean suing machine.

  9. Harleyjoey, I’d be mildly interested in watching SG and JB opposing one another in litigation, but after DP’s arse is in prison.

  10. Great memory bucket! JB was rewarded with $75,000 through the ‘Alienation of Affection’ of his first wife when the guy didn’t show up to defend in court.

  11. OMG…is that true….somebody tell me where to look it up….he made a remark once that he hadn’t seen his 1st wife in 15 years….no wonder …a mean suing machine…LOL….

  12. Brodsky sued a man for “alienation of affection” for allegedly having an affair with Brodsky’s first wife. A judge awarded Brodsky $75,000 in 1998 when his wife’s alleged lover failed to show up in court. Brodsky said he later settled the case for a few thousand dollars but doesn’t regret bringing the suit.

    “He came over to my house, pretending to be my friend,” Brodsky said. “Then he pulls that [expletive]. … I thought he had to pay for what he did.”

    From an old Tribune story

  13. Anna, you wouldn’t believe what’s happened, what’s been said, what we’ve learned over the past 5 years.

  14. I’m bugged because there was a time when the filings for these things were available online…but I’ve long since lost the links, or they no longer work.

    We’ll just have to rely on Bucket’s stellar memory!

  15. I had never heard about the alienation of affection suit before. Drew better look out! ‘Ole Joel may just file a similar suit against him! :lol:

  16. I believe this was all pre-planned in case they lost.I did not see any of these lawyers saying anything about Brodsky during the trial.If they thought he was doing something wrong they should have notified the judge during the trial..I remember seeing a bunch of idiots all dressed alike talking to the press when the “Stacy who?”comment came out and they all laughed.
    Seems like they were all getting along then.He had 8 lawyers C’mon judge do the right thing!!

  17. I don’t think my memory is ‘stellar’ lol, but this detail had me in fits. I imagined him turning up to court wearing a high collar and handle mustaches, his wife in an Edwardian gown, weeping into the crook of her arm……subtitles.

  18. Does Joel think calling Steve Greenberg “mentally ill” in a Court document is not defamatory ?

    And what “profit” is Joel referring to in his law suit – profit from what ??

  19. He’s alluding to expected (or current?) lack of income from clients that may have been put off by how he and his practices were, er, laughed at.

  20. Pretty strange Joel start suing about “profit” when his financial records are under scrutiny as we speak.

    Doesn’t that give more ammunition to the other side ?

  21. Not quite, I don’t think. In this context he’s talking about his income from other clients as in the normal course of events.
    This suit gives ammunition to anyone who says JB is a fool.

  22. Don’t know how Joel can sue for loss of income (Joel calls that “profit”) when Joel officially “resigned” from the case “for the good of his client”

  23. Yeah, Joel seems to be claiming that Greenberg’s biting words have effectively swayed the hordes of potential clients that Joel had lined up after his spectacular performance at the Peterson trial.

    And YES, Joel Brodsky not only said that Greenberg was mentally ill but actually handed down an amateur diagnosis of “pathological narcissism”, not IMO, “could it be”, “sure looks like”, he just stated it flat out.

    1. Attorney Geenberg is acting not out of a desire to act in the best interest of his client, but is acting in such a manner in the post-trial proceedings because Greenberg suffers from a severe mental illness known as pathological narcissism (DSM—IV-TR 301.81)

    1. Because of this mental illness Attorney Greenberg has irrationally fixated on Joel Brodsky because, among other things, Greenberg resents the attention paid to Mr. Brodsky by the press during the trial of the Savio murder case, as Greenberg’s mental illness leads him to believe that only he, and he alone, is entitled to, and worthy of, the attention of, and praise of, others.

    2. Further, Attorney Greenberg, because of his pathological narcissism, also developed a hatred and resentment of Joel Brodsky which is causing him to ignore the best interest of his client and to become irrationally Fixated and obsessed with Joel Brodsky because, among other things, Mr. Brodsky,

    (A) prevented Mr. Greenberg from appearing on a daily cable TV segment during the trial known as “Greenberg v. Karas” on TruTv’s In Session program because it was giving away defense strategy, (which also interfered with Greenberg’s personal intimate relationship with Beth Karas, the TruTv reporter in this segment which he developed during the trial to get more attention for himself,

    (B) prevented Greenberg from traveling to New York during the trial to appear on the Piers Morgan T\/ program to talk about the defense strategy,

    (C) criticized Mr. Greenberg for spending a great deal of time in the press room at the Courthouse during the trial, even when witnesses for the prosecution were on the stand, instead of preparing for his cross-examinations and arguments

    (E), publicly disclosed that Mr. Greenberg was unprepared for the cross-examination of witnesses and making of objections during the trial.

    ( I don’t know what happened to D. there)

  24. I still have to disagree with any “preplanned” or “scheme” theories for this mess.

    Based on numerous reports from within the courthouse there was plenty of friction between Joel and Steve during the trial. It’s real.

    Sure, Greenberg could have always known he was going to try to kick Brodsky to the curb if Drew was convicted. That’s good legal strategy. After all, Joel’s behavior has been called into question from day one.

    These are two very competitive, abrasive guys and they both want to win. If you think that either one of them is willing to take a fall to save Drew, I have to disagree.

  25. The alleged defamation by Greenberg, the suit claims, held Brodsky up to “great public scorn, hatred, contempt, ridicule, humiliation, distress, anguish, anxiety, disgrace” and led Brodsky to “suffer great injury to his dignity, honor … and reputation.”

    In his Sept. 24 letter, Greenberg hit equally hard.

    “You wafted the greatest case by ignorance, obduracy and ineptitude,” Greenberg wrote. “Your effort to blame me is suggestive of a six-year-old child changing the rules of the game when he falls behind. … You are nothing more than a bully.”

    In a statement Thursday, Greenberg called the defamation suit “frivolous.”

    “It is a shame he has chosen to bring this action,” Greenberg said about Brodsky. “He is urged to withdraw his claim, and just go back to wherever he came from.”

    In a written statement, Tribune Editor Gerould W. Kern said, “We stand behind our reporting and our reporters, and we intend to defend this suit vigorously.”

    Patch spokesman Joe Wiggins said in an email, “We do not comment on litigation matters.”

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jaAtCjLp5sLNRTSltDzWNJRB9RkQ?docId=677f8614709d48e4b9808433063f2849

  26. A day after his former colleague on Drew Peterson’s defense team filed a libel lawsuit against him, lawyer Steven Greenberg fired back in a news release, calling Joel Brodsky’s complaint “frivolous” and filled with accusations made “purely out of spite.

    Greenberg said in his news release that he had not been served with the complaint but knew enough about it to comment.

    “With respect to the letter to Mr. Brodsky, to the extent there are statements of fact they are true and will be supported by evidence. To the extent it contains statements of opinion they are not actionable,” Greenberg said.”

    “Mr. Brodsky has demonstrated through his statements, actions, and legal work (sic), that he is willing to say or do anything, regardless of the truth or the consequences,” Greenberg continued in his release. “This case is no different. He has no regard for the integrity of the legal system and little respect for others.”

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-brodsky-target-says-lawsuit-filed-out-of-spite-20130207,0,1073185.story?track=rss

  27. I try not to make comments of a personal nature about poeple and events I witnessed at the courthouse, I can not let this thread go with out using my favorite comment from my aunt….. “She looks like the most untidy bridesmaid ever” I think you all know who was being refered to.

  28. From the law suit:

    “At all times relevant prior to the Tribune Defendants false and defamatory statements Brodsky had a good professional reputation in his community…”

    Oh yeah? Back in 2010 I asked a Chicago defense attorney what the legal community thought of Joel Brodsky and this was his reply:

    Among the best criminal defense attorneys, yes, Peterson’s attorney is seen as a bad joke. He’s crazy, a media whore, says all kinds of stupid things that he thinks are clever but actually hurt his client.

    What I would do if I were Peterson’s attorney is

    1. Get him under control.
    2. Turn him into a mannequin.
    3. Win the case by pounding the hell out of reasonable doubt.

    I would not speak to the press, other than to make simple and inoffensive, generic remarks when necessary. I would not file frivolous motions; I would only file motions that would give me some kind of strategic advantage or, if there were any, give me a chance of winning the case before trial. I would not blow my credibility with the judge or the jury pool.

  29. Sheesh, that filing sounds like a bitter little child who is pissed off at the world.

    Brodsky should look in the mirror before he calls other people mentally ill.

  30. Okay, so I am not an attorney, nor do I play one, as JB does, but couldn’t the others on the defense team have called for sidebars during the trial to state their objections to the Court on bringing up certain items or witnesses, or is it only the lead attorney that can ask for these?

  31. who’s the coach….between brodsky and greenberg…I’m the good guy ..no I’m the good guy….they are both idiots … u r right Harley…they need to look in the mirror….

  32. Sure, they have both said some very nasty things about each other but I could give a rat’s ass whether either of them finds themselves defamed. They can sue each other “back and forth forever”.

    "))<>(("

    (and if you know what movie that’s from you get extra points in my book!)

    The shenanigans are amusing to watch but the only aspect of this stuff that is really important to us is the part about Drew trying to get himself a new trial based on how crappily Joel Brodsky did his job.

    In fact, you have to wonder why Joel Brodsky is spending so much time and energy on a personal law suit when he really should be concentrating on how he is going to defend himself on the 19th, in front of his old client. I don’t think the judge is going to let him go on about how it’s really Greenberg who is the ineffective one.

    There is just so little to respect about the way any of the lawyers defending Peterson have behaved (excluding the ones who saw the writing on the wall and withdrew after working a while with Brodsky).

  33. While I don’t care much about how Greenberg and Joel Brodsky treat each other, I do think that when Brodsky starts going after people like Stacy St. Clair and Joe Hosey for doing their jobs, he’s really going too far.

    Reporters have a right to do their jobs and get paid; something you might think Joel would respect, seeing as his wife, as recently as last week, was taking to Twitter and defending Joel’s right to make money off his defense of Drew.

    Joel’s naming St. Clair and Hosey in his lawsuit is just petty, personal and frivolous. I’m sure he realizes that by naming them that it is having a negative impact on their ability to do their jobs. Until this is settled, they are certainly muzzled when it comes to reporting anything related to the Peterson case.

    This move is not unllike Brodsky putting Joe Hosey on the witness list at Drew’s trial. He knew they would never call him to testify. It was just a petty attempt to keep him out of the courtroom (which was unsuccessful).

    I hope the two reporters can seek damages against him for this frivolous law suit.

  34. I totally agree with you Facs. Like I said, he is acting like a child pissed off at the world. He seems to think he is clever and will have the last word with anyone that has ever ticked him off. I just don’t see this lawsuit going anywhere except maybe into a circular receptacle.

    I do find it all rather amusing, because it is just so childish. I do hope they tie each other up with this crap for years to come! :) In fact, I expect nothing less! :lol:

    He really is his own worst enemy.

  35. Concerned Carol, I think you’ve hit on exactly why the claim of ineffective assistance against Joel is not going to fly.

    Drew had six lawyers on his team and while one or more may argue that they didn’t want Harry Smith to take the stand, he was still called.

    I don’t think you can peel off one attorney from the bunch and say he’s responsible for everything that got your client convicted.

    And besides, I don’t think they’ll be able to prove that calling Smith to the stand was actually a legal “error”. It was a defense decision and it was based on the theory that they could use his testimony to impeach that of Stacy. It just didn’t work.

    Drew shouldn’t get a new trial because of that.

  36. Yeah, Judgin, the sentencing will be a wonderful way to get the emphasis off the sideshow and back to the tragic murder of Kathleen Savio and the impact it had on her friends, her family and her children.

    Imagine how disgusted they must be to have to wait and wait for sentencing while these idiots mud wrestle in front of the cameras..

  37. So now that I’ve had my high-minded moment can I get back to the gossip for a minute?

    What kind of law suit spends a paragraph to say that Steven Greenberg hates Karen Conti? Even if that’s the case (which I wouldn’t know one way or another) don’t people have the right to dislike whoever they want? According to Brodsky, steve resented her for getting some gig doing commentary that he wanted.

    And this damages Joel Brodsky HOW?

    For the record, Karen Conti has long been a friend to us at the blog and helped out with legal questions whenever asked. She is marvelous!

  38. after reading the tweets….joe lopez is going to be on in session on Mon…and steve greenberg will be on Nancy grace…talking about the arias case…who cares what they think….I say that because it another attempt to get their views out…they are media whores with one tract minds…it’s like they are on a crusade to stroke their egos….

  39. Well, they do have a right to try to further their careers. If they are good on TV, I don’t begrudge them the opportunity to make a $ off of it. Just like Joe Hosey writing a book about a case that he knew so much about. It’s a way to make a living.

    As much as I hated the way Greenberg behaved on camera before and during the Peterson trial (especially the way he misrepresented some things) even I can admit that he was good during his bits with Beth Karas.

    I think doing commentary is a lot different than what Joel Brodsky did with Drew Peterson. Brodsky really did trot Drew onto shows like a novelty act when it would have been best for his client to stay home and shut up.

    That’s miles away from sitting in as part of a panel of pundits taking sides over the latest in the Jodi Arias trial, for instance.

  40. From Facebook:

    Joseph Lopez I did Nancy Grace 2x and all we did was scream at each other
    Wednesday at 7:16pm

    Joseph Lopez Her shtick is to get guests she can beat up and then edit it to her delight. She is show biz not news. I like watching her and enjoyed being ridiculed on National Tv only because its part of the game.
    Wednesday at 7:20pm

    Joseph Lopez and I got under her skin she is great at what she does
    Wednesday at 7:22pm

    There’s no denying that people eat this stuff up. They love to watch Nancy Grace go after people. It makes them feel good.

  41. after reading the book Joe Hosey wrote..I wanted to move there and stand at the courthouse in support for Stacy and Kathleen…when I listened to their remarks everyday..I wanted to throw raw eggs…

  42. Funny comment from the Huffington Post story:

    cyanmanta·
    I’m always in favor of lawyers suing lawyers. It’s like watching two snakes trying to eat each other…

  43. “In fact, you have to wonder why Joel Brodsky is spending so much time and energy on a personal law suit when he really should be concentrating on how he is going to defend himself on the 19th, in front of his old client.”

    That’s what I was thinking too, but why am I even surprised ………

  44. Right? If that motion is successful (God forbid) and Drew gets a new trial because Brodsky is deemed to have provided ineffective counsel or had a conflict of interest, then his career is over and it’s not due to any sort of libel or slander.

  45. If my memory serves me right, I very distinctly remember it was DREW insisting Harry Smith were to be called for the Defense as it was imperative to him to put Stacys character in a bad light, to make her out to be greedy for money and a liar; the type of character assassination both Drew and Joel value so highly and that’s how the Defense Team ended up with Harry Smith on the stand – they did what they were instructed to do …….

  46. Keep in mind that it’s Joel who says Drew insisted that Harry Smith take the stand. IIRC he said that Drew threatened to take the stand if he didn’t call Harry Smith. However, I haven’t heard anyone else back up that assertion.

    It could be true but it’s going to be hard to know one way or another since I have a feeling Lopez and Greenberg would never admit that was the case…even if they heard Drew say it.

    Even if they did concede that Drew asked for it they could always say that it was Joel who convinced him it was necessary.

  47. Joel said it was a joint decision and a decision that was obviously sanctioned by their client, unless they forgot to tell him – LOL !

  48. We love Karen Conti! She’s so professional and helpful with questions the public has had about this case.
    My guess is she was mentioned to spoil any possibiity of Greenberg getting a guest invitation to appear with her, knowing very well that this motion would be in the papers and passed along on the blogs.

  49. Hmmm… I wonder how long the list would be if we started posting all of the comments Joel Brodsky and Drew Peterson have made to the media in an attempt to discredit witnessess, victims, and family members refusing to back down from this case?
    Pay back is a bitch, Joel. IMO

  50. when I read Joe Lopez’s remark…Nancy screams at me and I screamed back….in my eyes I saw her ask a question and he didn’t answer ….and when he did her eyes rolled and cut him off…maybe I wasn’t hearing or seeing so well that night…lol..it’s always turned around to their benefit…all the interviews….are we going to see them walk on water next…..I want the concession stand….

  51. I asked Steve Greenberg for a copy of the press release that was sent out in response to Brodsky’s lawsuit and he provided it so I’ve added that to the post at the top of the page.

  52. Greenberg’s response brings up a few points that we’ve discussed here, such as, if Brodsky disagrees with the allegations laid out in the claim of ineffective assistance, he’ll have the opportunity to defend himself in court on the 19th.

    Also, that the claims against reporters are made purely out of spite.

  53. Joels timing for this supposed law suit is really bad – a pre-emptive strike that serves no purpose, but perhaps it’s proven to be difficult to live on 99 cents (!)

  54. OH happy days….may his day in court be miserable…his judge be disgusted and mad…his defense frustrated and bad and his memories be nothing but sad….ode to Brodsky…

  55. If Brodsky has lost future clients and income, it’s his own doing, not Greenberg’s. My opinion of Brodsky has been formed by his own actions and foolishness. Hard to believe anyone could watch this trial play out without coming to the same conclusions. It’s impossible to respect a cry baby who blames all his problems on other people, and IMO his lawsuit is complete hogwash. I hope he gets counter sued up to his eyeballs.

  56. I have to say, Steve Greenberg kept it professional in his press release. He didn’t need to make childish statements, and he didn’t.

    I like that he is encouraging Stacy St. Clair and Joe Hosey to countersue. They should!

    This part is the absolute truth! –

    that he is willing to say or do anything, regardless of the truth or the consequences

    Wouldn’t it be a hoot, if now that Brodsky has filed this suit – HE ends up being the one losing and all the countersuits win?

    Karma Baby!

    My opinion of Brodsky has been formed by his own actions and foolishness
    Ditto Winsome!!!! :)

  57. I do not give Greenberg a pass on this childness. While his statement this time around may have been more adult like, his original 15-page letter was as juvenile as a scorn teenager whose crush picked her best friend. I am tired of the distraction. The fact remains Drew was found guilty, the trial was fair, and he has been given far to much attention. Kathleen is dead and Stacy has still not been found, but what is important is Joel and Steve got their feeling hurt. They should be embarassed. Just saying Steve joined this team when the circus tent was already pitched, he knew what he was getting into.

  58. I agree Charmed! THIS time, I think he kept it professional. Not giving him a pass for all of the other jackassery! ;)

  59. I don’t give SG a pass, either.
    He’s got thrice the vocabulary of JB, so he does make a better impression, but he joined up for the same personal advancement reasons. He doesn’t hold any high ground. There is no higher ground on the defense side, just abuse of the victims and the justice system.

    Hosey and St Clair, of course, should spike this absurd over-reaching by JB, and I hope JB loses everything.

    Overhears. ;)

  60. Yeah, as far as this whole post-verdict, pre-sentence lawyer feud, there are no good guys, and the calliope music is in constant accompaniment, but unfortunately it’s all that is going on while we wait for Drew Peterson to finally be sentenced and for something (anything!) to happen with Stacy’s case.

    Everyone should feel free to celebrate the fact that Joel Brodsky is finally being taken to task over the years of unprofessional behavior he has displayed – even if it is being dredged up as a desperate attempt to get Drew a new trial by a current defense attorney. Brodsky’s actions were not only questionable in regards to his client but they were often hurtful and disparaging towards Cales and Savio family members and witnesses for the prosecution. (The fact that he took to the blogs and forums to launch attacks against people like us doesn’t win him any brownie points either)

    No one should feel that a healthy enjoyment of seeing Joel slapped in the face means a sudden embracing of the current Peterson defense team. We all know that everyone who jumped on the Brodsky Bus was happy to have their names connected to this high-profile case and to profit from the association. The idea of booting and blaming Brodsky should they lose might have been in the works from the moment they joined up (although I don’t think Joel knew it).

    To me this whole episode feels a lot like the pre-indictment days, when there was nothing going on with the case so it was either don’t post anything or check my disgust and write about the Brodsky/Peterson publicity stunts. I felt like little bits of my soul were being chipped away every time I posted about that stuff, but at the time it was all there was to talk about.

    In retrospect, I’m glad it’s all documented and that we all stuck it out and chatted together even when the immediate focus was not on Stacy or Kathleen.

    I believe that everyone here knows what’s important in this case and that it’s never far from our thoughts, even when the theatrics and side shows are taking place. So feel free to talk about whatever, and take some jabs when jabs are deserved and don’t worry that your words might be misconstrued. We all know who the bad guy is.

  61. I don’t think I have lost the focus..even with the circus around it…after reading the book by Mr.Hosey…the fear DP threatened on everyone..I really appreciate all the different avenues we have explored..I commented on in session but all they wanted to do is hang him…its nice to converse with a group… wanting to take the high road..to find Stacy and a conviction for Kathleen…thanks facs..I’m hoping for 60 years and JB lose his license to practice law….why.. because he’s lousy at it….

  62. When I began researching this site info, going back to old posts and reading docs, I was amazed to see how many “old timers” are still around :-) Thanks to all for hanging in there and keeping the faith, and especially for all the insight and facts. Hopefully we’re about to turn one page with Drew’s sentencing, and see justice for Stacy on the next.

  63. LOL Facs, I felt like I was watching a porn flick today, and her lawyer seemed to really enjoy pondering all the “details”

  64. Trust me …..one will come out of the woodwork…..but then again since he’s calling all the shots…he has a perfect opportunity to make a bigger fool of himself…..

  65. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS vs. PETERSON DREW W 2009CF001048
    02/11/2013 Objection to Defendant’s Motion to Strike
    02/11/2013 Notice of Filing Objection to Defendant’s Motion to Strike
    02/11/2013 Motion In Limine to Bar the Defense form Calling State’s S Attorney
    02/11/2013 Notice of Filing Motion to Bar the Defense from Calling State’s

  66. 02/08/2013 Notice of Filing Filed By Atty Steven A Greenberg
    02/08/2013 Motion to Strike Joel Brodsky’s Motion to Quash and for Santions

  67. The man who won the Drew Peterson case wants no part in taking the witness stand at a hearing next week to decide whether the convicted wife-killer should get a new murder trial.

    Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow filed court papers asking Judge Edward Burmila to bar Peterson’s lawyers from calling him as a witness.

    The motion says Peterson’s lawyers revealed their plans to call Glasgow as a witness nearly two weeks ago, but that the state’s attorney should not have to testify.

    “A prosecutor, judge or news reporter is a ‘special witness,'” the motion says. And if Peterson’s lawyers want to get any of those kind of people on the stand, they must disclose what the witness is expected to say, why the testimony would be relevant, and what efforts they made to get the information from another source.

    “In the case at hand, the defense has not satisfied a single one of those requirements,” the motion says.

    Besides filing a motion in hopes of staying off the witness stand, Glasgow also submitted an objection to the arguments for a new trial. That filing claims Peterson and his attorneys are now directly contradicting statements they made prior to the guilty verdict.

    On the same day as Peterson’s hearing for a new trial, a judge will address the wrongful death case filed against him in 2009.

    The lawsuit was brought by Savio’s father and sister. Brodsky had been representing Peterson in the civil matter but bailed after the murder trial was lost.

    When he quit the case in December, Brodsky filed a bizarre, rambling motion to withdraw. Brodsky devoted much of the motion to attacking attorney Steve Greenberg, whom he claims “suffers from a severe mental illness.”

    Greenberg also represented Peterson during the murder trial and remains on the case. He was not involved in the wrongful death lawsuit.

    During a hearing for the wrongful death case Wednesday morning, Judge Michael Powers scheduled the matter to coincide with Tuesday’s proceedings and ordered both Peterson and Brodsky to be present.
    Brodsky likely would have been there anyway, as he is expected to testify at the hearing for a new trial.

    http://bolingbrook.patch.com/articles/top-prosecutor-wants-to-stay-off-witness-stand-in-drew-peterson-case

  68. I don’t know who this guy is except that he mostly posts about earthquake activity. He does like to attend the Drew Peterson court dates and I’ve seen him post his drawings in the past. I find them charming if not always completely accurate!

  69. “Peterson has legal troubles that extend beyond his criminal case. On Wednesday, Judge Michael Powers continued a hearing in the wrongful death lawsuit filed by Savio’s family to Tuesday in Burmila’s courtroom.

    That day, the judge will likely hear a motion from Brodsky to withdraw as Peterson’s lawyer in the civil case, as well as motions from both sides for summary judgement.

    In a motion filed last fall, Brodsky said the civil case should be dropped because Peterson’s sons with Savio, Tom and Kristopher, signed releases removing themselves as plaintiffs.

    The Savios say the case should not be dropped, as Peterson’s two oldest children, Eric and Steven, stand to benefit from Savio’s will. They also say the releases Tom and Kristopher signed were tainted, as Brodsky notarized one of the releases himself.”

    http://southtownstar.suntimes.com/news/18205892-418/glasgow-wants-to-avoid-testifying-in-peterson-bid-for-new-trial.html

Comments are closed.