Stilley Disbarred

[Joey Smith]

http://www.taxlawhome.com/Tax-News/8002 ... -evasion--

[webhick]

It's about time.

[.]

The wheels of justice grind slowly, but exceedingly fine.

No, wait, no fineness was needed in this case. Just wheels. The wheels ground way too slowly.

[notorial dissent]

And couldn't have come to a more deserving recipient.

[LPC]

The Arkansas Supreme Court opinion can be cited as 2010 Ark. 418.

And, judging by the reasoning of the court, Stilley may have an action against himself for malpractice. Some brief quotes will illustrate some of the problems with Stilley's arguments:

This argument reflects a fundamental misunderstanding on Stilley’s part about the nature of evidence.

Finally, while Stilley may disagree about whether the exhibits admitted by Ligon
constitute sufficient evidence to support the special judge’s specific findings, he has not
engaged in any meaningful analysis on this issue. In other disbarment cases, we have refused
to engage in a comprehensive review of the findings of fact where the respondent failed to
specifically challenge or contest them.

However, Stilley does not raise this as an argument on appeal, and we will not address issues that are not argued.

We will not second guess the special judge with respect to his findings on the merits of these arguments because Stilley has made no argument as to why the judge was in error. It is well settled that we will not address arguments that are insufficiently developed and lack citation to authority.

We decline to address Stilley’s argument on this point because he has not presented any evidence that he was prejudiced by the Committee’s treatment of the Marschewski and Tabor Complaints.

Get the picture? Stilley's arguments were full of conclusions but real short on actual facts and authorities.

[Pottapaug1938]

Reading the opinion, I got this vision of Oscar Stilley standing in front of a Common Law Court, established in some rundown warehouse, and pretending that he was still an attorney and able to practice in front of a "constitutionally legitimate court" (or something equally absurd). I also got a vision of Stilley standing before a real court, charged with the unauthorized practice of law, trying to relitigate the same old issues yet again and being unable to understand why the courts won't listen to him.

[notorial dissent]

Dan, I think Stilley’s arguments were more in the line of missing ANY actual facts or authorities, and his conclusions were more in the realm of wishful thinking.

Everything of his that I have read so far reads like bad Soverunidiot gibberish mixed up with some harkening back to what might have been an early 19th century attempt at law practice. I keep wondering what correspondence school he got his degree from, since I can’t believe that any one actually trained as a lawyer in this day and age would produce the utter nonsense that he has generated and continues to generate. I still do not understand his continued attempts at using forms and styles in documents, that have been out of date for decades at the very least, and then using them incorrectly in the bargain. It is kind of like he slept most of the way through law school and then bought a cheap, read very outdated, forms book to make up for it, and look where it got him.

I will admit, I can picture Stilley trying to practice law before a Common Law court in an outhouse, but that is about as far as my imagination will take me.

[wserra]

I can’t believe that any one actually trained as a lawyer in this day and age would produce the utter nonsense that he has generated and continues to generate.

Orly Taitz?

[Gregg]

I can’t believe that any one actually trained as a lawyer in this day and age would produce the utter nonsense that he has generated and continues to generate.

Orly Taitz?

Al Hodges?

[The Operative]

I can’t believe that any one actually trained as a lawyer in this day and age would produce the utter nonsense that he has generated and continues to generate.

Orly Taitz?

If I am not mistaken, I do believe that Orly Taitz actually did get her law degree from a correspondence/distance-learning school. Currently, and to the best of my knowledge, California is the only state that accepts correspondence/distance-learning law degrees as eligible to take the bar exam.

[LPC]

Dan, I think Stilley’s arguments were more in the line of missing ANY actual facts or authorities, and his conclusions were more in the realm of wishful thinking.

If the Supreme Court opinion is an accurate reflection of Stilley's brief, then he was simply replaying two favorite tax denier songs:

1. There was no evidence against me; and

2. The judge never really considered or addressed my arguments.

So, for example, Hendrickson keeps insisting that there was no evidence that he had received "wages," despite the testimony of officers of his employer that he did indeed work for them, and was paid what was on the W-2s, while also claiming that no court has ever really addressed his arguments in CtC, while numerous courts have explicitly considered (and rejected) his claims.

[Dezcad]

If the Supreme Court opinion is an accurate reflection of Stilley's brief, then he was simply replaying two favorite tax denier songs:

1. There was no evidence against me; and

2. The judge never really considered or addressed my arguments.

So, for example, Hendrickson keeps insisting that there was no evidence that he had received "wages," despite the testimony of officers of his employer that he did indeed work for them, and was paid what was on the W-2s, while also claiming that no court has ever really addressed his arguments in CtC, while numerous courts have explicitly considered (and rejected) his claims.

The brief is posted here. The first 90+ pages are just introductory and contain 70+ pages of "ABSTRACT OF TESTIMONY AND PROCEEDINGS".

You are right about his argument being similar to Petey's - see below.

Therefore it is plain to see that Mr. Ligon’s failure to cite and rely upon any evidence whatsoever in support of the first 26 counts is fatal to his case. These 26 counts are the substantive accusations that this Court required both parties to brief.

p.104


If you really have a desire to waste your time, you could read the 720+ page Addendum that Stilley filed. I haven't.

[LPC]

If the Supreme Court opinion is an accurate reflection of Stilley's brief, then he was simply replaying two favorite tax denier songs:

1. There was no evidence against me; and

2. The judge never really considered or addressed my arguments.

From Stilley's brief:

POINTS ON APPEAL

I. The Special Judge erred in recommending disbarment despite the complete and total absence of evidence in support of Petitioner's claims.

II. The Special Judge erred in refusing to meaningfully adjudicate legal arguments presented by Respondent.

III. The Special Judge erred in refusing to require the accuser of Respondent to appear and sit for depositions.

Did I call it?

The third "point on appeal" sums up the whole story. Stilley is being disbarred for (among other things) suing and harassing judges who ruled against him. So, in his disbarment proceedings, he wants to depose (and harass) one of the judges who ruled against him and then filed a disciplinary complaint against him.

[Dezcad]

Stilley has now filed a RENEWED MOTION FOR ACCESS TO THE COURTS, RENEWED MOTION FOR RECUSAL, WITH RESPECT TO PETITION FOR REHEARING, AND FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE PETITION FOR REHEARING with the Arkansas Supreme Court.

One of the requests he has is:

WHEREFORE, Stilley prays that the Court order Eric Holder, US Attorney General; Harley Lappin, Director of the DOJ-BOP; and Warden Timothy Outlaw to grant Stilley access to the courts, by permitting him the right to access his computers, computer files, computer programs, printers and peripheral devices, internet service, internet legal research services whether free or available pursuant to contract with Stilley or a benefactor, and all hard copy files directly or indirectly relevant to this cause, securely and without substantial interference; that such access and rights be accorded to DOJ-BOP inmates as a matter of policy;

[wserra]

Montrachet is nice, too.

[Joey Smith]

10) Stilley requests that all members of this Court recuse from the consideration of this
cause, with special justices to be appointed by the governor.

"I demand recusals until somebody rules in my favor! Waaauuuggghhh! Waaauuuggghhh!"

[notorial dissent]

So, in other words, until he gets an acquittal, which means he's right, he's going to keep on complaining about how abused he is. Since I don't think the court will recuse itself and i sure don't think he is ever going to be acquitted, this could take a while, or until they order him to start filing through a real lawyer.