WHAT MAST AND POPOVICH DID TO DULBERG IN ORDINARY, SIMPLE LANGUAGE: 1) Mast and Popovich intentionally and consistently worked against the interests of Paul Dulberg to weaken and destroy his cases. 2) Mast and Popovich conspired with the 2 opposing attorneys using secret agreements and plans to consistently work against the interests of Paul Dulberg to weaken and destroy his cases. 3) (The private attorneys got help from court reporting agencies and court administration (other officers of the court) or they couldn't have done what they did.) This same process described in general... 1) in general: Get the plaintiff's attorney to weaken or destroy the plaintiff's case. (This happened in both underlying cases and in the current malpractice case. As Dulbergs attorneys, Mast and Popovich consistently worked to weaken and destroy his case. In the current case, Williams and Clinton consistently worked to weaken and destroy his case.) 2) in general: Plaintiff's attorney does it by making secret agreements and plans with opposing attorneys to consistently work against the interests of plaintiff to weaken and destroy his case. 3) in general: The private opposing attorneys need the cooperation of court reporting agencies to craft look-alike depositions. They need the cooperation of a Judge for oversight and final approval. Another way to describe it is that during a civil lawsuit the plaintiff is targeted by ... everybody. Firstly, the plaintiff is targeted by the plaintiff's own attorney. Secondly, they are targeted illegally by the opposing attorney or attorneys who are secretly cooperating with the plaintiff's attorney. Lastly, they are targeted by the Judge, court reporters and court administration. The conveyer belt of insurance claims through attorney's offices and through the court system: From injury to settlement. 1) Injury 2) Disagreement 3) Plaintiff approaches attorney 4) Discovery: interrogatories, request for production, depositions 5) Settle And do it over and over and over and over again Over a long time people are going to learn how to fuck with the process to make money on the side. People will develop secret techniques to fuck with the plaintiff or the defendent. Ways to steal money that is coming to the plaintiff. LEGAL TERMS TO DESCRIBE WHAT POPOVICH AND MAST DID TO DULBERG: Legal terms for sentence #1: Malpractice, Concealment of key evidence from Dulberg, made offer to settle without client's consent or knowledge, staged impersonation of court reporter as an officer of the court during deposition processes, crafted deposition look-alikes intentionally and presented them as authentic, concealment of key evidence from future attorneys, concealment of key evidence from opposing attorneys in underlying case, didn't conduct proper discovery, discovery abuse, settlement abuse.....fraud on the court....document forgery, signature forgery.....perjury Legal terms for sentence #2: Conspiracy .... with 2 opposing attorneys......consistently weaken and destroy Dulberg cases ...using secret agreements and plans....malpractice and professional misconduct......fraud on the court....impersonating court reporters as officers of the court....document forgery.....signature forgery....... Legal terms for sentence #3: Fraud on the court by officers of the court ..... conspiracy.....between opposing attorneys...and between attorneys and court reporting services.......impersonate court reporters and officers of the court.....document forgery.....signature forgery....Judge Meyer didn't recuse.... concealment of evidence......discovery abuse......settlement abuse.......perjury WHAT OTHER PARTIES DID TO DULBERG IN ORDINARY, SIMPLE TERMS AND IN LEGAL TERMS: Other parties that worked against Dulberg's interests illegally and contrary to rules of conduct include: BARCH, ACCARDO, BULKE, BOUDINS, REDDINGTON, GOOCH, WILLIAMS, CLINTON, FLYNN, VAHL, URBANSKI, FISHER, JUDGE MEYER, MCHENRY COUNTY COURTHOUSE In ordinary, simple terms, what did each of these parties do to Dulberg? In legal terms what did each party do to Dulberg? BARCH What he did in simple terms: He must have known the depositions were not real in any legal sense. Since the same patterns shows up in all 10 depositions no matter which attorney is calling for them, the patterns must have been coordinated together in some type of secret agreement between each opposing attorney. What he did in legal terms: conspiracy.....between opposing attorneys...and between attorneys and court reporting services.......impersonate court reporters and officers of the court.....document forgery.....signature forgery ....... concealment of evidence....alteration of evidence......discovery abuse......settlement abuse...professional misconduct ACCARDO What he did in simple terms: He must have known the depositions were not real in any legal sense. Since the same patterns shows up in all 10 depositions no matter which attorney is calling for them, they must have been coordinated together in some type of secret agreement between each opposing attorney. What he did in legal terms: conspiracy.....between opposing attorneys...and between attorneys and court reporting services.......impersonate court reporters and officers of the court.....document forgery.....signature forgery....concealment of evidence.......alteration of evidence......discovery abuse......settlement abuse..... professional misconduct BULKE What he did in simple terms: He was with Dulberg too short a time to directly weaken or destroy his case. He presented himself as independent of the Popovich law firm but there is evidence he is a type of Popovich associate. What he did in legal terms: ? BOUDINS What they did in simple terms: They must have known that the deposition look-alikes could not be used in a trial. So they knew they had no actual testimony from any of the 10 depositions to use at trial. They also knew they didn't have any interrogatory answers from Gagnon. They knew they had almost no discovery material to use against Gagnon. So they knew they had a severely weakened or destroyed case against Gagnon. But they never informed Dulberg of any of this. They didn't inform the presiding judge Dulberg declared bankruptcy. (true or false? possibly false) They entered Dulberg into an arbitration hearing against his will. They entered Dulberg into an arbitration award limit agreement against his will (low end $50,000 and high end $300,000). They misinformed a bankruptcy judge and Judge Meyer that Dulberg consented to enter arbitration. They knowingly presented forged deposition look-alikes to the arbitration judge as authentic, so they participated in forgery. What they did in legal terms: Knowledge of discovery abuse by Popovich and Mast. Knowledge of settlement abuse by Popovich and Mast. Knowledge of forged documents provided by Popovich and Mast. Knowledge of rules of conduct violations by Popovich and Mast.....They never informed their client of any of these facts about his case file as Mast and Popovich produced it. Document forgery. Settlement fraud. Misrepresenting their client's consent to arbitration to 2 different judges in 2 different courts. Lying to client about how he was placed in an arbitration hearing. REDDINGTON What she did in simple terms: She presented forged deposition look-alikes to the arbitration judge as authentic. She couldn't have done this accidentally. Accardo must have had active knowledge that the deposition look-alikes were not authentic since the forgeries and unknown perple impersonating court reporters and officers of the court couldn't have taken place without him knowing about it. What she did in legal terms: Document forgery. Settlement fraud. GOOCH What he did in simple terms: He did not name Thomas J. Popovich as a defendent. This couldn't be a simple mistake. What he did in legal terms: Malpractice, intentionally acting against client's interests WILLIAMS What she did in simple terms: She intentionally participated in the manipulation of key evidence (exhibit 12) to weaken Dulberg's case during the Mast deposition. She let the opposing counsel claim he had no way to upload documents during an online deposition. She must have entered into some type of secret agreement or plan with the opposing counsel to weaken or destroy Dulberg's case since both these actions require coordination between opposing attorneys. She left out key evidence from the bates-stamped documents. She intentionally wasted at least 3 of Dulberg's interrogatory questions about expert witnesses to weaken his case. What she did in legal terms: Malpractice, concealment of evidence, document forgery, alteration of evidence, lying to client, made some secret agreement or plan with opposing counsel without Dulberg's knowledge or consent and against the interests of Dulberg. CLINTON What he did in simple terms: Was active, direct supervisor to Williams and owner of law firm. He couldn't have not known what was really going on. What he did in legal terms: Malpractice, concealment of evidence, document forgery, altering evidence, lying to client, made some secret agreement or plan with opposing counsel without Dulberg's knowledge or consent against the interests of Dulberg FLYNN What he did in simple terms: Knowingly accepted a forged document from the opposing attorney (Williams) and presented it to the court as authentic. Presented the Saul Ferris forged document to the court as authentic. What he did in legal terms: Document forgery, discovery abuse, professional misconduct VAHL What she did in simple terms: When asked for transcripts of depositions, they produced forged documents (transcript look-alikes) with forged signatures and presented them as authentic. What she did in legal terms: Document forgery, signature forgery, alteration of evidence, concealment of evidence, perjury, breach of professional duty URBANSKI What he did in simple terms: When asked for transcripts of depositions, they produced forged documents with forged signatures and presented them as authentic. What he did in legal terms: Document forgery, signature forgery, alteration of evidence, concealment of evidence, perjury, breach of professional duty, Conspiracy (with unknown female) to impersonate a person named "Carrie Vahl" by email and over the telephone as a person managing the records of Vahl Reporting Agency. FISHER What they did in simple terms: ? What they did in legal terms: JUDGE MEYER What he did in simple terms: Didn't recuse himself (2 times). Approved the Dulberg-McGuire $5,000 settlement. Oversaw court verbatim transcripts that could not identify speakers on at least 16 occasions in underlying cases. Use of private communication channels to issue orders. What he did in legal terms: Judicial misconduct, concealment of professional misconduct MCHENRY COUNTY COURTHOUSE What they did in simple terms: Destruction of underlying case notes and other files. Oversaw court verbatim transcripts that could not identify speakers on at least 16 occasions in underlying cases. Allowed a Judge who had earlier resused himself from a case involving Popovich because he claimed to be a friend of Popovich sit over underlying cases and current case. Alter county courthouse search engine to make it hard to find certain cases involving Popovich. What they did in legal terms: