Beermann Pritkin Mirabelli Swerdlove Enrico MirabelliShawn D. Bersson Katz & StefaniKevion O'Reilly Enrico Mirabelli Unethical Lawyer Deceives Client out of $ 5,000,000.00 Chicago Illinois

  Supreme Court 01-15. 40-Pages 9771 words. Oprah Winfrey. In 1964 Oprah is a poor black, little girl, living in an apartment in Milwaukee. Her mom works, cleaned homes. 01-09-2018 Oprah is the 1st black woman to win the Cecil B. DeMille Award! Oprah’s Acceptance Speech. Our Free Press must have the insatiable dedication, to uncovering the absolute truth. Truth - that keeps us from turning a blind eye, - to corruption, - and to injustice. To Tyrants, - and victims, - and secrets, - and lies. Speaking the truth, is the most powerful truth, we have. I, meanwhile have 4-Children to feed, and bills to pay, and dreams to pursue. Reece Taylor in 1984 was a wife, mother, just walking home from church, when 6 -white -men, left her raped, and beaten. NAACP. Rosa Parks was the leading investigator.

The 6-White Men were, - never persecuted. Rosa Parks, just died at 98, 10-days ago. Our society is broken, by brutally powerful men. The ability to maintain Hope, for the light of a better morning, even during, our darkest nights. The Supreme Court, of the State of Illinois must rebuild the faith, in our fundamental right as human beings, as United States Citizens, As Americans. The public Trust must be restored. Video of the children narrated by me Plaintiff: Robert J. Skertich Father without his children for 13-years. Mariya ( Wan Pen Thipkoi ) Skertich Mother of 4 without her own children. Noon Thipkoi Adult 22-years old Nuat Thipkoi Adult 19-years old Naat Thipkoi Adult 19-years old Nickole Skertich Child 18-months old Defendant: Anne E Borkowski ( 2001 D 018249 Cases: ( 2003 D 005260 Enrico Mirabelli ( 2003 L 010189 Shaun Bersson Nadler, Pritiken & Mirabelli ( Law Firm ) All Partners at the time Robert Skertich was being represented by ( Nadler, Pritikin & Mirabelli ) Martha Steele Secretary to Enrico Mirabelli Martha Steele as employee to Nadler Pritiken & Mirabelli Martha Steele Personally Laura Stranski Chicago Police Officer Personally Chicago Police Department Institutionally Sheldon Minkow Personally & Professionally Schuller Ducanto & Fleck Law Firm Brian Telander Lawyer Steven Komie Lawyer Personally & Professionally. William Boyd Judge Personally & Professionally. Charles Winkler Judge Personally & Professionally. Cunningham Judge Personally & Professionally. ARDC Attorney Registry & Disciplinary Board Attorney General Illinois Judiciary Inquiry Board Cook County Court System Cook County Small Claims FBI Federal Bureau of Investigations Charles Shepherd Lawyer Personally & Professionally • Condo Fire Insurance Lawsuit • Richard Zipperstein 356 W. Superior Lawsuit • Mariya Thipkoi Immigrations Lawsuit This lawsuit, paints a crystal-clear picture, of an entire legal system, that is systematically corrupt.

A legal system that operates and conducts business as a rogue organization, completely outside the laws, laws that must protect the public. I argue ,that these charges I make against all parties involved are of the most diabolical crimes that can ever be wielded upon any citizen. That these crimes, do not fall under any statutes of limitations. That the public, has a limitless timeline to seek justice under these extreme circumstances. That, to allow officers of the court, access to any timeline to be prosecuted, would be an even greater crime wielded against Robert Skertich and his family and society in its entirety. "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence. The phrase gives three examples of the "unalienable rights" which the Declaration says has been given to all human beings by their Creator, and for which governments are created to protect.

Crimes Count 1: Class 1 Felony. Theft by deception: generally, means, the use of deception, to obtain control, over the property or services of another. The following is an example of a state statute governing theft by deception: A person commits theft if he obtains property of another by deception. A person deceives if he intentionally: (1) Creates or reinforces a false impression, including false impressions as to law, value, intention, or other state of mind; but deception as to a person's intention to perform a promise shall not be inferred from the fact alone that he did not subsequently perform the promise; or (2) Prevents another from acquiring information which would affect his judgment of a transaction; or (3) Fails to correct a false impression which the deceiver previously created or reinforced, or which the deceiver knows to be influencing another to whom he stands in a fiduciary or confidential relationship; or (4) Uses a credit card, charge plate, or any other instrument which purports to evidence an undertaking to pay for property or services delivered or rendered to or upon the order of a designated person or bearer (a) where such instrument has been stolen, forged, revoked, or canceled, or where for any other reason its use by the actor is unauthorized, or (b) where the actor does not have the intention and ability to meet all obligations to the issuer arising out of his use of the instrument. The word deceive does not include falsity as to matters having no pecuniary significance, or statements unlikely to deceive ordinary persons in the group addressed.

Count 2: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. Often, when involved in an accident or after sustaining an injury, one can suffer more than just physical pain. Many individuals will also suffer emotional harm from the experience. Under Illinois law, it is possible to obtain money damages as compensation for emotional harm (also called emotional distress). This money is paid by the person or company who caused the injury or, in most cases, by that person’s or company's insurance provider. Emotional distress can take many different forms after an accident and can have a myriad of causes.

For example: • Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) • Depression • Anxiety as a result of the fear caused by the accident • Insomnia In these and other situations, there must be a clear and direct link between the emotional harm one experiences and the accident or injuries that person has suffered. It is unlikely that someone could recover for emotional distress in the form of an eating disorder caused by a car accident, but post-traumatic stress and anxiety are much more likely.

There are generally two types of claims for emotional distress: for injuries which are intentionally inflicted and for harm which is accidental, or negligently inflicted. The elements of a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress are: (1) that the defendant's conduct was extreme and outrageous; (2) that the defendant intended to cause or recklessly or consciously disregarded the probability of causing emotional distress; (3) that the plaintiff suffered severe or extreme emotional distress; and (4) that the defendant's conduct actually and proximately caused the plaintiff's emotional distress. By contrast, the elements of a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress are much more variable. If one is a direct victim of negligent infliction of emotional distress, they would need to establish the elements of negligence (duty, breach, causation, and damages), with the emotional distress serving as the damages. Indirect victims, on the other hand, would need to show: (1) that he or she was in the zone of physical danger; (2) that he or she reasonably feared for his or her own safety because of the defendant's negligence; and (3) that he or she suffered a physical injury or illness as a result of the emotional distress caused by the defendant's negligence. While proving the occurrence of the incident that caused an injury is relatively easy and relies on the same principles as any other personal injury claim, establishing emotional distress is more difficult because of the nature of the injury. In order to obtain compensation for emotional distress, one must prove that the emotional issues that person is experiencing are real and that they are caused by the person or company that caused the accident or other incident.

Of course, since emotional distress is often mental and leaves no outwardly visible scars, it can be very difficult to establish. Usually, some physical manifestation of the emotional harm will be required in order to prove its existence and to quantify its impact on one's health and well-being. For example, a heart attack or stroke, rapid weight loss, sudden graying or loss of hair, etc. After all, a court can only award money to compensate one for their injuries; it cannot cure the injury itself. That compensation must be based on some demonstrable evidence and, for compensatory damages, must have some identifiable dollar tag attached to it. Without something to point to in order to prove that the injury to one's emotional health has occurred, it will be very difficult to establish damages.

Since it is very hard to put a price on how much your emotional harm is worth, emotional distress damages can be very difficult to calculate. The person claiming such injury will need to clearly show how the emotional problems are affecting them if they wish to obtain compensation. The best option is to consult with an experienced, qualified personal injury attorney who can explain the process of establishing emotional distress and can help you coordinate appointments with psychiatric professionals who can help to document your injuries. (720 ILCS 5/16H-65 new) Sec. 16H-65. Period of limitations. The period of limitations for prosecution of any offense defined in this Article begins at the time when the last act in furtherance of the offense is committed. (720 ILCS 5/16H-60 new) Sec. 16H-60. Sentence. Count 3. A financial crime, the full value of which exceeds $100,000, is a Class 1 Felony. When a charge of financial crime, the full value of which exceeds $100,000, is brought, the value of the financial crime involved is an element of the offense to be resolved by the trier of fact as either exceeding or not exceeding $100,000. Count 4. (720 ILCS 5/16H-50 new) Sec. 16H-50. Continuing financial crimes enterprise.

A person commits the offense of a continuing financial crimes enterprise when the person knowingly, within an 18-month period, commits 3 or more separate offenses under this Article, or, if involving a financial institution, any other felony offenses established under this Code. Count 5. (720 ILCS 5/16H-55 new) (720 ILCS 5/16H-35 new) Sec. 16H-35. Concealment of collateral. A person commits the offense of concealment of collateral when the person, with intent to defraud, knowingly conceals, removes, disposes of, or converts to the person's own use or to that of another, any property mortgaged or pledged to or held by a financial institution. Count 6. Conspiracy. My position is that, in each and every instance: My lawyers, Enrico Mirabelli and Shaun Bersson and their staff, Martha Steele and the Judge involved collectively, intentionally and as a group: (Collectively and Independently,) In each court case, Intentionally and knowingly made decisions intentionally fraudulent and criminal decisions that were intentionally; (Not in their client Robert Skertich best interest.)

Therefore, these are not isolated instances, but, a plethora of so many, horrific decisions, time and time again, made against Robert Skertich direct orders and demands, and moreover, made by every lawyer involved, constituting a Well-executed, and intentional conspiracy with the specific intent to defraud Robert Skertich and his entire extended family. These well executed legal maneuvers deprived Robert Skertich out of every tangible asset along with the complete and total destruction of his reputation and his financial credit. In each instance, where Robert Skertich lawyers, Enrico Mirabelli and Shaun Bersson and the staff of Nadler, Pritiken & Mirabelli made a decision, ask yourself the following questions.

1. Is the Lawyer in question stupid? 2. Is the Lawyer in question sloppy? 3. Is the Lawyer in question experienced in his profession? 4. Is the decision the Lawyer made in this instance, reckless? 5. Does the lawyer take proper legal means to rectify the negative event at a later date to protect his clients best interest? 6. Is the decision the Lawyer made, In his client, Robert Skertich’s best interest? 7. Is the decision the Judge made one sided? 8. Is the decision the Judge made fair and reasonable? 9. Does the decision the judge made create and un-level playing field?

CONSPIRACY In the law, a conspiracy refers to an agreement between two or more people to a. Commit an unlawful act, or to b. deprive another person of his legal rights. • The agreement to act must be moved toward a conclusion, • whether or not it is actually accomplished. • Plans made by a certain combination of people for unlawful or secret purposes may also be considered a conspiracy. To explore this concept, consider the following conspiracy definition. Definition of Conspiracy Noun 1. An agreement between two or more people to commit a crime. 2. The act of conspiring together to an unlawful end. Origin 1325-1375 Middle English What is Conspiracy. A conspiracy is • an agreement or plan, • made between two or more people, • to engage in an illegal act, • to obtain an unlawful objective, • or to deprive another person of his legal rights. • A conspiracy may be engaged in to move a plan forward, • each person involved aware of his or her part. • It is not necessary for each person involved in a conspiracy to engage in – or even be aware of – each stage or act involved in gaining the objective.

The criminal act of conspiracy may be charged if: 1. Legal means are used to accomplish an illegal result; or 2. Illegal means are used to accomplish a legal result. Incomplete Crimes When most people think about crime, it is often assumed that the accused person has completed the crime and is at the point of prosecution and punishment. There are certain phases a person goes through before the actual accomplishment of a criminal act. 1. Idea – the wrongdoer comes up with an idea for an illegal act. 2. Evaluation – the wrongdoer considers the pros and cons of the idea and decides whether or not to proceed. 3. Decision – the wrongdoer decides to move forward with the idea or plan. 4. Preparation – the wrongdoer makes preparation to commit the crime or wrongful act, perhaps creating falsified documents, contacting potential victims, or obtaining a weapon. 5. Commencement – the wrongdoer launches the plan. 6. Completion – the wrongdoer completes the plan or obtains the objective. The law does not punish people for the ideas that float through their heads – even if they put in the effort to refine them, with the idea of committing the act. It does, however, punish people for completing an illegal act. Incomplete crimes encompass the steps in the middle of the process. These incomplete crimes include such acts as:  Conspiracy – an agreement between two or more people to engage in unlawful acts, or to use lawful means to achieve an unlawful goal.  Attempt to commit a crime – a crime that the wrongdoer failed to complete, either by being unable to achieve the goal, or by changing his mind after committing the early steps.  Solicitation – the act of inviting, encouraging, or commanding another person to engage in a criminal act.

Criminal Conspiracy A criminal conspiracy involves an agreement made between two or more people to commit a crime, or to engage in illegal activity to achieve even a legal end. Such plans are not required to have been in secret to be defined as criminal conspiracy or does any party to the conspiracy need to be aware of the entire plan. In most jurisdictions, in order for an activity to rise to the level of criminal conspiracy, at least one party must have engaged in an overt act toward accomplishing the unlawful or wrongful goal. For example: Linda and Bob took in an entire litter of puppies when a neighbor was unable to care for them. Although the puppies were a mixed breed, they make a plan to advertise and sell the puppies as "registered” lab puppies. Stacy, having responded to an online ad for the puppies, picks out her favorite, and pays the couple $300. With the puppy, Stacy is given a falsified registration document. In this example of conspiracy, Linda and Bob made an agreement to fraudulently induce people to pay a premium price for crossbreed dogs.

Further, they engaged in the overt acts of advertising the puppies as purebred labs and creating fraudulent registration documents. Civil Conspiracy A civil conspiracy is a civil tort that involves an agreement between two or more parties to either deceive someone for the purpose of obtaining an illegal objective, or to deprive someone of his legal rights. The concept of civil conspiracy allows a victim to file a civil lawsuit against conspirators who sought to deprive him, whether or not there was an actual crime that might result in criminal prosecution. A plaintiff in a civil conspiracy lawsuit must prove that the accused conspirators made an agreement together to commit illegal acts, in order to achieve their unlawful goals. Unlike criminal conspiracy, it is not necessary for a plaintiff to prove that a conspirator committed an overt act in furtherance of the unlawful goal. In addition, it is not generally necessary to prove that the defendants (conspirators) had the intent to harm any specific person. Rather, the law defines civil conspiracy as an agreement to engage in illegal activity toward an unlawful goal.

For example: David and Josh come up with a plan to sell a certain cleaning product to consumers – a product that does not exist. Their plan is to mix water with a little ammonia and put it into spray bottles with home-printed labels. The pair recruit four people to sell the bogus product door-to-door, promising them a percentage of each bottle sold. It’s not long before the consumers who bought the product begin complaining, and someone files a complaint with a law enforcement agency. In this example of conspiracy, David and Josh had the intent to deprive consumers of their money. The salespeople, however, knew nothing of the conspiracy, and did not intend to harm anyone. In addition to possible criminal charges, the pair may be subjected to lawsuits for civil conspiracy. Punishment for Conspiracy Many people look at charges of conspiracy as a lesser crime to the actual criminal act. While that may be true to some degree, conspirators of serious crimes do not get off easy.

In most jurisdictions, the crime of conspiracy is punished in line with the seriousness of the actual crime (the "target act”). Conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor act is a misdemeanor, and conspiracy to commit a felony is a felony. For example: Malcom and Stephanie make a plan to steal certain medications from the pharmacy in which Stephanie works. While Malcom actually performed the burglary, Stephanie gave him the combination for the locked cabinet in which the medications were stored. In this example of conspiracy, Malcom’s crime is a first-degree felony. Stephanie is charged with criminal conspiracy, which is a second-degree felony.

This is common – charging conspiracy as one step lower than the actual completion of the crime. Conspiracy Example in Gang Activity In 2014, police in New York City arrested rapper Bobby Shmurda, whose real name is Ackquille Pollard, for his involvement with a gang, including drug activity and weapons. Pollard was charged with fourth degree conspiracy, and conspiracy in criminal possession of a weapon. Although the rapper claimed the gun police found in his apartment was a prop for a video, he ultimately pled guilty to possession of a loaded gun with the intent to use it "unlawfully against another.” As part of the plea agreement, Pollard also pled guilty to conspiracy. Pollard was sentenced to 7 years for criminal possession of a weapon, and 1-3 years for conspiracy. These terms were ordered to run concurrently, which means the 1-3 years tolls during the 7 years. After his prison term, Pollard is to be on supervised release (parole) for five years.

Additional Defendants Pollard’s indictment was just a small portion of the more than 15 gang members charged with violent and drug-related crimes. Fellow gang member Alex Crandon was charged for his involvement in various shootings and other violent acts, as well as his participation in a murder. Crandon refused a plea deal, taking his case to trial. The jury convicted him of conspiracy, murder, attempted murder, among other charges. Crandon was sentenced to spend more than 53 years in prison. Another fellow gang member, Santino Boderick, also refused a plea deal in exchange for a 15-year sentence. The jury convicted Boderick of attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder, possession of a weapon, and a long list of other felony charges. Before the judge announced Boderick’s sentencing, the gang member spewed profanities to the judge. He was escorted out of the courtroom, after which the judge issued a sentence of 17-130 years in prison Conspiracy 720 ILCS 5/8-2 (from Ch. 38, par. 8-2) Sec. 8-2. Conspiracy. (a) Elements of the offense.

A person commits conspiracy when, with intent that an offense be committed, he agrees with another to the commission of that offense. No person may be convicted of conspiracy to commit an offense unless an act in furtherance of such agreement is alleged and proved to have been committed by him or by a co-conspirator. (b) Co-conspirators. It shall not be a defense to conspiracy that the person or persons with whom the accused is alleged to have conspired: (1) Has not been prosecuted or convicted, or (2) Has been convicted of a different offense, or (3) Is not amenable to justice, or (4) Has been acquitted, or (5) Lacked the capacity to commit an offense. (c) Sentence.

A person convicted of conspiracy may be fined or imprisoned or m both not to exceed the maximum provided for the offense which is the object of the conspiracy, except that if the object is an offense prohibited by Sections 11-15, 11-16, 11-17, 11-19, 24-1 (a) (1), 24-1 (a) (7), 28-1, 28-3 and 28-4 of the "Criminal Code of 1961", approved July 28, 1961, as amended, or prohibited by Sections 404 or 406 (b) of the "Illinois Controlled Substances Act", enacted by the 77th General Assembly, or an inchoate offense related to any of the aforesaid principal offenses, the person convicted may be sentenced for a Class 3 felony however, conspiracy to commit treason, first degree murder, or aggravated kidnapping shall not be sentenced in excess of a Class 2 felony, and conspiracy to commit any offense other than those specified in this subsection, and other than those set forth in Sections 401, 402, or 407 of the Illinois Controlled Substances Act, shall not be sentenced in excess of a Class 4 felony. (Source: P.A. 86-809.) Attorney Misconduct Behavior by an attorney that conflicts with established rules of professional conduct and is punishable by disciplinary measures. More than any other profession, the legal profession is self-governing. That is, it is largely regulated by lawyers and judges themselves rather than by the government or outside agencies. In particular, the American Bar Association (ABA), the largest professional association for attorneys, governs the Practice of Law through its establishment of rules ofconduct.

These rules are then adopted, sometimes in a modified form, by state courts and enforced by court-appointed disciplinary committees or bar associations. Attorneys found to be in violation of professional standards are guilty of misconduct and subject to disciplinary procedures. Disciplinary action by a state bar association or other authority may include private reprimands; public censure; suspension of the ability to practice law; and, most severe of all, disbarment permanent denial of the ability to practice law in that jurisdiction. The state supreme court is the final arbiter in questions of professional conduct in most jurisdictions. Since 1908, the ABA has been responsible for defining the standards of proper conduct for the legal profession. These standards, many of them established by the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, are continuously evolving as society and the practice of law change over time. In 1969, the ABA passed its Model Code of Professional Responsibility, guidelines for proper legal conduct that were eventually adopted by all jurisdictions. The ABAmodified the code by adopting theModel Rules of Professional Conduct in 1983. The model rules have been used by 40states to create official guidelines for professional conduct; 11 states or jurisdictions, including Washington, D.C., and theVirgin Islands, have continued tobase their ethical codes on the earlier model code. California has developed its ownrules ofprofessional conduct.

Whatever their basis, these codes or rules define the lawyer's proper role and relationship to the client. It is essential that lawyers understand the ethical codes under which they must operate. Failure to do so may result in notonly disciplinary action by the relevant professional authorities but also Malpractice suits against the lawyer. A malpracticesuit may result in loss of money or the ability to work with specific clients. Rule 8.4 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct contains the following statements on attorney misconduct: It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: (a) Violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another; (b) Commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; (c) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, Fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; (d) Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; (e) State or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official; (f) Knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conductor other law. Besides issuing these general statements, the model rules set down many specific requirements for attorney conduct indifferent situations. Because of an attorney's special relationship to the law, he or she is held to a special standard of conduct before the law, asthe ABA asserts in its Lawyers' Manual on Professional Conduct: As members of the bar and officers of the court, lawyers are beneficiaries of the privilege of the practice of lawand also are subject to higher duties and responsibilities than are nonlawyers.

A lawyer's fiduciary duties arise from his status as a member of the legal profession and are expressed, at least in part, by the applicable rulesof professional conduct. The word fiduciary in this quotation comes from the Latin word fiducia, meaning "trust"; as a fiduciary, then, the attorney actsas the trusted representative of the client. Trust is thus a defining element of the legal profession, and without it, the practiceof law could not exist. For that reason, the legal profession has created strict rules of conduct regarding the attorney'srelationship with the client. Attorney-Client Relationship The model rules set forth specific guidelines defining the attorney-client relationship. An attorney will be guilty of misconduct, for example, if she or he fails to provide competent representation to a client, to act with diligence and promptness regardinga client's legal concerns, or to keep a client informed of legal proceedings. Charging exorbitant fees or overbilling is alsoconsidered misconduct, as is counseling a client to commit a crime. For example, trial lawyer Harvey Myerson was suspended in 1992 from the practice of law by the New York Supreme Court after he was convicted of over-billing Attorney-Client Sexual Relations The American Bar Association (ABA) has recognized sexual relations between attorneys and their clients as a significantethical problem for the legal profession. The ABA's Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility addressedthis issue in 1992 by issuing a formal opinion (no. 92-364). Although the opinion acknowledged that the Model Rules ofProfessional Conduct do not specifically address the issue of attorney client sex, it argued that an attorney's sexualrelationship with a current client "may involve unfair exploitation of the lawyer's fiduciary position and presents a significantdanger that the lawyer's ability to represent the client adequately may be impaired, and that as a consequence the lawyermay violate both the Model Rules and the Model Code." Becoming sexually intimate with a client, the opinion adds, undermines the "objective detachment" necessary for Legal Representation because "[t]he roles of lover and lawyer arepotentially conflicting ones."

In addition, the opinion argued, attorney-client sex introduces a clear conflict of interest into acase, and it may also compromise Attorney-Client Privilege, the principle that ensures the confidentiality of lawyer-clientcommunication. Any secrets revealed to an attorney by a client outside of their legal relationship may not be protected byattorney-client privilege. Proponents of professional rules against attorney-client sexual contact argue that the legal profession should follow theexample of other professions such as psychology and psychiatry and create strict sanctions against sex with clients. Legalclients, these proponents say, are often vulnerable when dealing with attorneys, particularly in such areas of legal practice as FamilyLaw. A lawyer who becomes sexually involved with a client in a Divorce proceeding can take advantage of the clientunder-going emotional trauma. That lawyer may hinder any attempts at reconciliation between a couple and complicatematters for any children involved. Sexual r elationships between lawyer and client may also affect custody and child visitationdecisions in the case. The American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, in its Standards of Conduct in Family Law Litigation, specifically prohibits attorney-client sex: "An attorney should never have a sexual relationship with a client or opposingcounsel during the time of the representation" (§ 2.16 [1991]). Some attorneys object to such rules, arguing that they interfere with their First Amendment rights to FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION.They bristle at the notion of state bar associations regulating the private affairs of consenting adults. Nevertheless, attorneysare increasingly being disciplined for becoming sexually involved with clients, and state bar associations are drafting clearerand more stringent rules against attorney-client sexual contact. Wisconsin's Supreme Court, for example, in 1987, revoked the license of an attorney in part because he had sex with a client (In re Hallows, 136 Wis. 2d 72, 401 N.W.2d 557). Theattorney, the court argued, was "placing his interests above" those of his client. In 1990, the same court for the first time suspended the license of a criminal lawyer who had sex with a client (In re Ridgeway, 158 Wis. 2d 452, 462 N.W.2d 671). Oregon and Minnesota have adopted outright bans on attorney client sexual contact.

Rule 1.8(k) of the Minnesota Rules ofProfessional Conduct, which became effective July 1, 1994, forbids attorney-client sexual contact during the conduct of aprofessional legal relationship. It allows exceptions to the rule only for relationships beginning before legal representation hascommenced or after it has ended. In the case of clients that areorganizations rather than individuals, an attorney may nothave sexual contact with any member of the client organization directly overseeing the case. Further readings Awad, Abed. 1998. "Attorney-Client Sexual Relations." Journal of the Legal Profession 22 (annual): 131–91. Kane, Andrew W., et al. 1992. "Attorney Sexual Misconduct." American Journal of Family Law 6 (fall): 191–95. Shirey, William K. 1999. "Dealing with the Profession's 'Dirty Little Secret': A Proposal for Regulating Attorney-Client SexualRelations." Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 13 (fall): 131–60. Struzzi, Melissa A. 1999. "Sex Behind the Bar: Should Attorney-Client Sexual Relations be Prohibited?" Duquesne LawReview 37 (summer): 637–57. by millions of dollars (In re Myerson, 182A.D. 2d 242, 588 N.Y.S.2d 142 [N.Y. App. Div.1992]). Many types of attorney misconduct involve a conflict of interest on the part of the attorney. A conflict of interest arises whenan attorney puts personal interests ahead of professional responsibilities to the client.

The model rules specify the potentialfor conflict of interest in many different situations. Thus, for example, an attorney who by representing one client adverselyaffects another client has a conflict of interest and is guilty of misconduct. Conflict of interest rules also forbid an attorney toenter into a business transaction with a client unless the client is fully aware of how the transaction will affect his or her Legal Representation and agrees to the transaction in writing. Similarly, an attorney is guilty of misconduct if he or she makes adeal with the client for acquisition of the book, film, or media rights to the client's story. Providing a client with financial assistance also introduces a conflict of interest into the attorney-client relationship. If an attorney is related to another attorney as parent, child, sibling, or spouse, that attorney may not represent a client inopposition to the related attorney except when given consent to do so by the client. This type of conflict of interest hasbecome increasingly common as more women enter the legal profession and the number of marriages between attorneysgrows. State bar associations, such as that of Michigan, have held that these guidelines also apply to lawyers who are living together or dating but are not married. The potential for conflict of interest when the opposing attorneys are married orromantically involved is clear. Imagine a woman representing a client in a personal injury lawsuit seeking millions of dollarsworth of damages from a manufacturer, with her husband representing the manufacturer. As a couple, they have a monetaryinterest in gaining a large settlement from the manufacturer, thereby giving the husband an incentive to lose his case.

Given this conflict of interest, the couple is obligated to reveal to their clients the fact that they are married. If the clients agree to goahead with the case regardless of the conflict of interest, then the attorneys may decide to continue their representation. Special examples of conflict of interest have arisen in cases involving indigent defendants who must use publicly provideddefense attorneys. In many jurisdictions, it is considered misconduct for an attorney to refuse court appointment as a publicservice defender for a poor client, even when a spouse's legal associate or firm is involved on the opposing side of the case.Normally, for example, state bar associations allow a district attorney to prosecute persons defended by partners orassociates of the district attorney's spouse as long as the client is notified of the situation; similarly, they will allow a districtattorney's spouse to defend persons prosecuted by other members of the district attorney's staff. Nevertheless, in a 1992case, Haley v. Boles, 824 S.W.2d 796, the Texas Court of Appeals found that a conflict of interest gave a court-appointedattorney grounds to refuse appointment as a public defender for a poor client. The prosecutor was married to the court appointed counsel's law partner, creating a potential conflict of interest. According to the court's decision, a poor defendantwho must rely on a public defender has fewer choices for legal representation than a defendant who can afford to employ heror his own attorney.

Therefore, an attorney who has a conflict of interest must be able to refuse to represent a client as apublic defender without being charged with misconduct, thereby ensuring that the client receives legal representation free of a conflict of interest. Any breach of the trust by the attorney that underlies the relationship between that attorney and the client can be consideredmisconduct. For example, an attorney is often called upon to hold or transfer money for a client, and in this situation, the client places an extraordinary amount of trust in the lawyer. Any misuse of the client's money by the attorney—calledmisappropriation of client funds—constitutes a serious breach of trust and a gross example of misconduct. This offenseincludes stealing from the client, mingling the attorney's money with that of the client, and controlling client funds withoutauthorization. The model rules require that funds given to a lawyer by a client be kept in an account separate from thelawyer's own account.

To encourage clients to inform their attorneys of all details relevant to a case, ethical codes also entrust attorneys withpreserving the confidentiality of the information their clients give them; any failure to do so constitutes misconduct on the partof the attorney. The law protects attorney-client confidentiality with the principle of Attorney-Client Privilege, and under very few circumstances is it lawful to breach this privilege of confidentiality. The privilege may be revoked to prevent the client from "committing a criminal act that … is likely to result in imminent death or substantial bodily harm"(Model Rules ofProfessional Conduct, Rule 1.6 1983), or to respond to civil or criminal proceedings made by the client against the attorney. Except for these rare cases, only the client may waive the attorney-client privilege of confidentiality. Sexual contact between an attorney and a client is almost always considered a breach of conduct. Sexual contact representsa clear breach of attorney-client trust.

It is also a clear conflict of interest because it can easily result in the attorney's placinghis or her own needs above those of the client, and it makes it difficult for the attorney to argue the client's casedispassionately. Other Types of Misconduct As the model rules indicate, an attorney may be charged with misconduct if she or he commits a criminal act. However, notall violations of the law may result in professional censure. According to the ABA, a lawyer is professionally responsible "onlyfor offenses that indicate lack of those characteristics relevant to law practice." These include violations involving "violence, dishonesty, breach of trust, or interference with the administration of justice" (Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3). Nevertheless, violations of the law may seriously impair an attorney's professional standing. Ethical rules also govern the conduct of attorneys before courts. Thus, an attorney is guilty of misconduct toward the court ifhe or she brings a frivolous, or unnecessary, proceeding to court; makes false statements to the court; offers false evidence; or unlawfully obstructs another party's access to evidence.

It is also considered misconduct if an attorney attempts toinfluence a judge or juror by illegal means, such as Bribery or intimidation, or states personal opinions regarding thejustness of a cause or the credibility of a witness. Special rules govern trial publicity as well. These forbid an attorney to make statements outside of court that will influence a court proceeding. For example, an attorney may not make statementsrelated to the character, credibility, guilt, or innocence of a suspect or witness in a court proceeding. Attorneys are forbiddento communicate directly or indirectly with a party represented by another lawyer in the same matt, unless they receivepermission from the other attorney. This law is designed to protect laypersons involved in legal proceedings from possiblyhurting their cases by speaking with the opposing lawyer. Federal and state laws also define attorney misconduct and empower judges to discipline wayward attorneys.

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (28 U.S.C.A.), for example, requires sanctions for lawyers and clients who file frivolous orabusive claims in court. In a 1989 case, Nasco, Inc. v. Calcasieu Television & Radio, 124 F.R.D. 120 (W.D. La.), a federaldistrict judge suspended two lawyers and disbarred another for "illegal and fraudulent schemes and conspiracies" designed to slow a case in court for the benefit of their client. Beginning in the late 1980s, attorneys have been required to report the misconduct of other lawyers, with failure to do soconsidered to be misconduct in itself and resulting in serious disciplinary measures. A 1989 Illinois Supreme Court ruling, Inre Himmel, 125 Ill. 2d 531, 533 N.E.2d 790, found that attorneys have a duty to report another lawyers' misconduct even whena client has instructed them not to do so. The Illinois Supreme Court suspended James H. Himmel from the practice of lawfor one year after he failed to report a misappropriation of client funds by another lawyer, a violation of rule 1-103(a) of theIllinois Code of Professional Responsibility. Himmel's failure to report, the court found, had allowed the offending attorney tobilk other clients as well. The attorney guilty of misappropriating funds was disbarred.

Lawyers have also been found guilty of misconduct with regard to the advertising of their services. It is legal and ethical for attorneys to advertise, but if that advertising is false, deceptive, or misleading, makes unsubstantiated comparisons to another lawyer's services, or proposes means contrary to rules of professional conduct, the attorney can be charged withmisconduct. For example, an attorney was disbarred in Maryland for publishing misleading advertisements soliciting customers for "quickie" foreign divorces and misrepresenting his competence and knowledge of the law (Attorney GrievanceCommittee v. McCloskey, 306 Md. 677, 511 A.2d 56 [1986]). Further readings American Bar Association (ABA). 1994. Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Chicago: ABA.American Bar Association(ABA). Center for Professional Responsibility. 1984–94. ABA/BNA Lawyers' Manual on Professional Conduct. Chicago: ABA. Andrews, Carol Rice. 2001. "Highway 101: Lessons in Legal Ethics That We Can Learn on the Road." Georgetown Journalof Legal Ethics 15 (fall): 95–125. Freedman, Monroe H. 1999. Understanding Lawyers' Ethics. New York: Matthew Bender. Hazard, Geoffrey C. 1994. The Law of Lawyering. 2 vols. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Lieberman, Hal R., and Ronald W. Meister. 1999. Serving Clients Well: Avoiding Malpractice and Ethical Pitfalls in thePractice of Law. New York: Practicing Law Institute. Liebman, Lance M., and Philip B. Heymann. 1988. The Social Responsibilities of Lawyers: Case Studies. Eagan, Minn.: Foundation. Oldham, Lindsay M., and Christine M. Whitledge. 2002. "The Catch-22 of Model Rule 8.3." Georgetown Journal of LegalEthics 15 (summer): 881–94. Powell, Sonya. 1993. "Intent as an Element of Attorney Misconduct." Journal of the Legal Profession 18: 407–15. Steinberg, Marc I. 1999. Lawyering and Ethics for the Business Lawyer. St. Paul, Minn.: West. Wolfram, Charles W. 1986. Modern Legal Ethics. St. Paul, Minn.: West. Cross-references American Bar Association; Attorney-Client Privilege; Civil Procedure; Ethics, Legal; Legal Representation; Malpractice; Model Rules of Professional Conduct; Public Act 93-0440 SB1053 Enrolled LRB093 10166 RLC 10420 b AN ACT in relation to criminal law. Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly: Section 5. The Criminal Code of 1961 is amended by changing Section 17-24 and adding Article 16H as follows: (720 ILCS 5/Art. 16H heading new) ARTICLE 16H. ILLINOIS FINANCIAL CRIME LAW Q: When the court system we have, is without any checks and balances, that protect the public, where does the public go to be protected? The tragedy is that, No one knows the answer!

Ask a lawyer this question. I, Robert Skertich spent thousands of hours asking, literally asked a few dozen well connected lawyers, and not one Lawyer could or would give me any other advice other then, you have no options now. Q: "Where does a client go for protection, if, - his lawyer is conspiring against him? I, Robert Skertich could not get a single lawyer in 10-years to answer that simple / or maybe complex question that maybe, there is no answer to. My hope, at the very least, is that, The Supreme Court of the State of Illinois will make this very dark area in the court system, clear to the public, for the future protection of the public. This story before the court is a story of tragedy, not just wielded on Robert Skertich. This tragedy destroys the lived of many people.

These events continue today and, have no end. These criminal actions are continuing in a direct attempt to stop Robert Skertich from ever being on level ground, into perpetuity. Wan Pen Thipkoi, now Mariya Skertich meets Robert during the 2004 Tsunami in Asia. A little over a year later, imagine, Wan Pen, with little English and a 7th grade education, leaves her 3-children, uneducated and poor, and travels 12,000 miles and comes to America. Wan Pen witnesses, the man she loves, and is to marry, being victimized by his government, to a point that, Wan Pen fears, for her own life. Mariya ( Wan Pen ) and Robert are, shortly after her arrival into the United States, blessed with a new child. But their real fear of the government, and what is happening to Robert Skertich, put Robert Skertich and Mariya Wan Pen Thipkoi Skertich in a mindset where, they are in fear for their very lives, and with this real fear, they decide to abort their new child in week-8 of Mariya’s pregnancy, A B O R T E D!!! Mariya Thipkoi has 3-children in Thailand that were 8 and 10-years old when she came here. It is now 11-years later, and they do not have their children with them, and are forcible being held, financially and emotionally destitute, and have their lives set in daily peril trying to escape this life ending set of events wielded on them. Basis: 1. Illinois is a No-Fault State. • That at the very least, this case represents a second bite at the preverbal apple. 2. This Battery case logically, should have been settled during the divorce, if, at all. • outside the fact that the case should have never gone to trial. 3. Enrico Mirabelli, my Divorce Lawyer and battery lawyer files the Appeal of this case. • Which makes no sense. • No lawyer files an Appeal on a case he tried and lost. • It’s not logical that Enrico Mirabelli and Shaun Bersson are going to admit, nor introduce in Appeal, a single mistake they made. • This would put them in jeopardy of being sued for malpractice. 4. Then, Enrico Mirabelli and Shaun Bersson lie to the Appellate Court in writing in the appeal. 5. Attachment: 6. Then I, Robert Skertich, file a complaint with the ARDC, notifying the ARDC that officers of the court and the head of a law firm has intentionally deceived the court. 7. Then I file a complaint with the Judiciary Board. 8. Then the Appellate Court actually tells me to let Enrico Mirabelli and Shaun Bersson refile their appeal. • The Appellate Courts reasoning is that: o The Appellate Court has not ruled on the case yet, and so, no harm is done. • I’m mortified and afraid! I just informed the Appellate Court that my lawyers both lied to me. • and the court, in writing.

My Appeal filed by Enrico Mirabelli and Shaun Bersson has intentional lies contained in the Appeal they wrote, with the specific purpose of withholding evidence o Enrico Mirabelli is intentionally deceiving the Appellate courts. o Enrico Mirabelli is intentionally deceiving Robert Skertich, his client. • The Appellate Courts do nothing to protect Robert Skertich. • Enrico Mirabelli’s partner in the law firm, Mr. Pritiken is on the e board of the ARDC. • The ARDC does nothing to investigate this matter. • The Judiciary Board does no investigation. • The FBI does nothing to investigate this matter. 9. That, at the very least, this Battery case should have been decided during the divorce and not after the divorce. 10. That Robert Skertich was refused funds from his own Marital Estate to seek proper council to defend himself. 11. Defendant was not allowed to use evidence that would have proven that this case was falsely filed and tried. • The Judge denied Robert Skertich access to the adoption records. • Robert Skertich and Anne E. Borkowski were in the very final stages of adopting 3-children from outside the United States. • The adoption records, were filed out in entirety by his then wife, Dr. Anne E. Borkowski. * Adoption Center of Illinois 5828 N. Clark St. Chicago, IL. 60660 773-334-2300 is one of Dr. Anne E. Borkowski’s biggest clients. * Every one of Dr. Anne E. Borkowski’s clients and North Shore Fertility Clients that does not get pregnant is referred to this Adoption Agency as a last result. • That Robert Skertich was denied the enforcement of a court ordered subpoena to allow a forensic accounting firm access to all financial records. • That this court granted subpoena was to grant a forensic accounting firm access to all financial records from all business and personal records covering the years of the marriage between Robert Skertich and Dr. Anne E. Borkowski. • That this action by the court is not only inexcusable, but moreover, unexplainable and reckless, at every level.

• That the fact that Robert Skertich 2 lawyers, Enrico Mirabelli & Shaun Bersson did nothing to overturn this decision is reckless and unexplainable from any legal standpoint. 12. Enrico Mirabelli told the jury his client Robert Skertich was a Martial Arts Expert. * Robert Skertich has no Martial Arts training. 13. After trial concluded my lawyers interviewed the Jury. When asked, "what were the deciding factors?” • The Jurors stated. "Robert is a Martial Arts Expert. We thought he could pull a punch.” Judgement: $ 900,598.00 plus interest. As of 04-01-2018 $ 2,145,461.00 14. This ruling is the highest dollar amount granted in Illinois History. 15. That the ruling, so financially outrageous in every aspect, makes Robert Skertich an Indentured Servant, to his ex-wife, Dr. Anne E Borkowski, into perpetuity. 16. That the ruling cannot be removed through bankruptcy, therefore, going forward in time, collecting interest. 17. Unjustly, forcing Robert Skertich to leave court broke, no insurance, no credit and an indentured servant. 18. Professionally diagnosed mental condition that prevents Robert from working in his profession. 19. Robert Skertich is labeled forever, a man in the public eye, a social deviant by the very person who is coercing him into adopting 3-children the day he leaves her. 20. That this crime purported in a collective conspiracy makes Robert Skertich broke and unable to seek employment and therefore unable to support himself and his 4-children. 21. That the court should take into consideration the grave consequences the internet has imposed on Robert Skertich, Mariya Skertich and Nickole Skertich collectively due to these officers of the court criminal actions. 22. After both parties rested in the battery case, the prosecution asked the Judge for a change in the original proceedings.

• Plaintiff’s Lawyer, Kevin O’Reilly asked that the Judge to grant punitive damages. • Defendant Lawyer, Enrico Mirabelli argued that the prosecution had 2-years to ask for punitive damages. • The Defense did not prepare for punitive damages. • The Judge granted the jury the right to limitless punitive damages. • The Punitive Damages were the highest award in Illinois History. 23. Robert Skertich repeatedly demanded that his legal team subpoena witnesses in his behalf. Credible witnesses from past long-term relationships. • These witnesses would testify that Robert has not had a single event of violence toward any woman in his entire life. ** Enrico Mirabelli told Robert Skertich. Robert, "No one cares what you past relationships were like. They only care what Anne has to say. 24. Robert Skertich lawyers refused to interview the only 2 other -men Dr. Anne E. Borkowski, ever dated. a. Lawyer Mark, whom she propertied also brutalized her. b. I second man Dr. Anne E. Borkowski admitted dated for some time, who is in prison to this day, for murder. • She did not mention these abuses to her personal psychologist. • She never mentioned these alleged abuses while attending joint council with Robert 25. There was not a mark on Anne E. Borkowski’s face arms, neck or body. Picture of Dr. Anne E. Borkowski 1-hour after this purported Violent Attack 1. Occam’s razor.

• Plaintiff, Anne E. Borkowski was coercing her husband, the Defendant, Robert Skertich over this entire period 12-2001-05-2004 of time to adopt 3-children from a foreign country. • The Plaintiff, Dr. Anne E. Borkowski filled out all of the Adoption Records entirely. • We can assume that these adoption records would obviously contain legal documents stating a solid, safe, loving family environment for 3-children coming from a foreign country and needing a stable, loving, family environment. • The Judge stated in open court that if Dr. Anne E Borkowski does not want her husband Robert Skertich to have these Adoption records, Robert Skertich cannot have access to these Adoption Records to use in his own defense. • That this ruling by the Judge proceeding over this trial is not just negligent, o but criminal o The unexplainable position taken by the Judge is un-defendable. • That Robert Skertich lawyers are not stupid. 1. Enrico Mirabelli is the founding partner of Nadler Pritiken & Mirabelli and as tried thousands of cases, boasting clients Juanita Jordan, the former wife of Legendary basketball player Michael Jordan and Duane Wade during both of their divorces. • That Enrico Mirabelli, Shaun Bersson, and the staff at Nadler Pritiken & Mirabelli lied repeatedly to: o The Appellate Court in writing. o To their client Robert Skertich. o To the Court Reporter, Barbara Small ** in a direct attempt to destroy their own client. • That Robert Skertich reported these violations to The Illinois Bar Association.

• That Robert Skertich reported these violations to The Illinois Judiciary Board. • That Robert Skertich reported these violations to The Illinois Judiciary Board. • That Robert Skertich reported these violations to The FBI. • That Robert Skertich reported these violations to The Attorney General. That, Not one of these agencies did as much as call Robert Skertich, not one time to interview Robert Skertich, or to ask Robert Skertich, a single question. Not one agency reprimanded the Lawyers and Judges Involved in any way. • That Mrs. Borkowski was, at this very period in her life, coercing, Adoption Center of Illinois 5828 N. Clark St. Chicago, IL. 60660 773-334-2300 to find her and her husband, Robert Skertich o fit to be the loving parents, o to 3-FOREIGN o NON-ENGLISH-SPEAKING CHILDREN. • That Dr. and Wife, Anne E. Borkowski’s Fertility practice, North Shore Fertility, • refers all patients, who do not get pregnant, to this Adoption Center of Illinois 5828 N. Clark St. Chicago, IL. 60660 773-334-2300 on a daily basis. • That North Shore Fertility and Dr. Anne. E. Borkowski represent the largest single revenue stream, to this specific Adoption Agency, Adoption Center of Illinois 5828 N. Clark St. Chicago, IL. 60660 773-334-2300

• That this attempt to mislead the Adoption Center of Illinois 5828 N. Clark St. Chicago, IL. 60660 773-334-2300 into giving Dr. Anne E. Borkowski and her husband Robert Skertich sole legal control, over 3-unsuspecting, foreign, children, should be grounds, in itself for disbarment by all lawyers involved, and disbarment by Dr. Anne E. Borkowski, of her Medical license to practice in the State of Illinois., or any other state, for the public safety. • That Dr. Anne E. Borkowski, is purporting, to Adoption Center of Illinois 5828 N. Clark St. Chicago, IL. 60660 773-334-2300 that their marriage, household, relationship, finances and spiritual culture in their home will provide a special, safe, loving, stable environment, for Three, foreign, non-English-speaking, children.

• That it is illogical and illegal, morally and legally to then deny Robert Skertich, the use of the adoption records in his own Legal defense in both cases. That the verdict left Robert Skertich: 1. Morally Bankrupt. 2. Financially Bankrupt, without any future recourse of any kind. 3. Ostracized in society. 4. Federal & State Taxes for both Robert Skertich and Robert Skertich Business, not filed and unpaid from 2001-2008 5. Not one single bill paid that was in Robert Skertich name. Evidence never submitted in any form to the court both cases: 1. Robert Skertich has medically diagnosed ADD, ADHD, Bipolar Disorder, Tretts Syndrome. 2a. That noting in Robert Skertich medical history was entered into the court record at any time during the Divorce Trial or Battery trial. 2b. That noting in Robert’s medical history was entered into the court record at any time during the Battery Trial. 1. That Dr. Anne E. Borkowski as Dr. & Wife purported to Robert Skertich, that she dated a lawyer in Chicago named Mark who owned a strip club and beat her and terrorized her.

• It is illogical and indefensible that Enrico Mirabelli and Shaun Bersson, collectively made no attempt to contact this lawyer to get his side of who Dr. Anne E. Borkowski is. a. Ms. Borkowski is purporting the same story from the past. b. Dr. Anne E. Borkowski stated she dated a man in prison for murder but this man in prison for murder that she admits she dated is never interviewed. 2. Dr. Anne E. Borkowski is prescribing medication for here unsuspecting husband Robert Skertich and the dosage described: • The #1 side effect of the highest allowed dosage of this prescription drug is • "Heart Attack”. Is Dr. Anne E. Borkowski trying to kill her husband Robert Skertich? This is never entered into the court record. • Robert Skertich went to the ARDC and filed a formal complaint. No reply and no action taken. • Robert Skertich went to the Judiciary Board and filed a formal complaint. No reply and then Robert Skertich was told he had had no right to a copy of the record. • Robert Skertich went to the FBI office on Roosevelt in Chicago. They have no record of Robert Skertich ever being there. 3. If this Battery case is not overturned Robert J. Skertich cannot go forward in life and the lives of my 4-children and wife Mariya are forever marred.

• The court must take into consideration that the internet and its evolution today destroy Robert Skertich ability to find employment to support his family. • A battery case that should have never gone to court. Illinois is a No Fault State. • ROBERT SKERTICH was not represented with adequate council. My Lawyers acted against my safety. • Robert Skertich had no means by which to hire anyone to properly Appeal when both cases ended. • That Enrico Mirabelli and Shaun Bersson actually deceived their client and told Robert that they could not find the Court Reporter for the 1st 2 days of the battery trial, Barbara Small. • That Enrico Mirabelli, Shaun Bersson and Enrico Mirabelli secretary, Martha Steele all told Barbara Small the court reporter that they were sending funds for the transcripts of the court case to be made and lied to the court reported until she stopped calling their law office. • That these lawyers lied to the Appellate Court in Robert Skertich appeal stating on the record. "We cannot find Barbara Small. We hired a private investigator and the Private Investigator cannot find her and, so we do not have a full and complete set of the court records.” • That these lawyers lied to the Appellate Court and no punishment was brought against them by the ARDC or the Judiciary Board.

• That they then lied to their client Robert Skertich and then admitted to the lie once Robert Skertich found Barbara Small. That Robert Skertich found Barbara Small the court reported in California in 5-minutes and that Barbara Small stated that Shaun Bersson and Martha Steele, Enrico’s Secretary both independently lied to Barbara Small and their client Robert Skertich and told Barbara Small that were trying to get money from Robert Skertich $ 2,000.00 to pay her. • That they told the appellate court in the appeal that they could not find Barbara Small. That this entire case and all of the proceedings constitutes Perjury and a Class 1 Felony Conspiracy and collusion and all aspects that constitute a conspiracy. Robert Skertich is unwillingly Labeled and is forced to carry the label of a Woman Beater, Lowlife, Wife Beater, Abusive a*****e no one in society will work with or hire or interact with socially.

That this socially deviant label also destroys Robert Skertich family. Robert Skertich has diagnosed mental issues. Not one single Doctor, Psychiatrist, Psychologist testified in Robert Skertich 2-trials. Neither the divorce proceedings or the Battery proceedings about his medically diagnosed needs. Robert Skertich requested that the court allow him funds to see a private Psychiatrist while he lived in California during these 2- separate court cases and over 5-year S. Judge Winkler refused Robert Skertich the meager funds to do so. How is this legal or logical with over $ 7,000,000.00 in the marital estate and an annual income of over $ 1,500,000.00? How does this happen and why would Enrico Mirabelli, in every instance, do nothing? Why? The Plaintiff, Dr. Anne E Borkowski is actively petitioning an Adoption Agency and purporting that the household is so stable that 3-little innocent children would be safe and well taken care of by both Robert Skertich and Dr. Anne E. Borkowski That the Adoption Center of Illinois 5828 N. Clark St. Chicago, IL. 60660 773-334-2300 has gotten hundreds of referrals from Dr. Anne E. Borkowski and her Fertility Practice. Dr. Anne E. Borkowski is a Reproductive Endocrinologist. 4. Illinois is a No – Fault - State. How is it that Robert is allowed to be sued in a separate court by his rich wife and the judge will not even allow Robert Skertich legal counsel that specializes in this Battery defense? The Marital Estate is worth $ 3,758,460.00 by Dr. Borkowski’s own account on the day she files for the divorce.

How is it allowed by his own lawyer to accept the evaluation of the Marital Estate some 5-years later for a very suspicious $ 2,800,000.00? What right does the Judge have to bar Robert Skertich from hiring a Forensic Accounting firm access to the Marital financial records in his right to evaluate his own assets during the divorce. Enrico Mirabelli and Shaun Bersson both individually and collectively watch and allow every above action until Robert Skertich is finally left financially ruined. Outcome. Taxes for some 10-years not formulated, nor filed nor paid. No Bills Paid. Not one single asset turned over to Robert during the divorce. Robert Skertich is directly in the path of the 12-26-2004 Tsunami at 10.35am in Phuket Thailand.

Robert is continually trying to adopt Mariya Thipkoi’s children from Thailand. 3 Children he saved and enrolled in Saint Joseph’s Catholic School on the Island of Koh Samui Thailand at 6 and 9 years old. 3 children that are now adults some 12-plus years later. 3 adults that Mariya Thipkoi Skertich is the biological mother to and cannot see but when they have funds to travel some 11,000 miles to the other side of the earth to see. Robert Skertich was deceived by his lawyers, Enrico Mirabelli and his associate, Shaun Bersson both formerly of Nadler Pritiken & Mirabelli the law firm that was founded by Enrico Mirabelli. The conspiracy and diabolical crime these lawyers participated in was so completely orchestrated, that the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois can only draw one conclusion. All lawyers on both sides of these 2 cases where involved in the conspiracy along with all Judges presiding over both court cases outrageously and unexplainably managed.

Each and every decision was so outrageous that the decision created an uneven playing field and, in every instance, the decision, was always one sided and in the favor of Dr. Anne. E. Borkowski. As time passes everyone’s advice is "Get on with your life! It’s over! In this scenario, after years of struggle I have a much clearer understanding of what really happened. My divorce concluded and left me with the following unexplainable and unresolved, life changing issues. a. I was not allowed access to marital funds to prepare tax returns for my business or personally during the entire divorce. 8-years of unpaid taxes. How can my lawyer, Enrico Mirabelli, the Founding Partner of Nadler Pritiken and Mirabelli allow this without not even an appeal? This is unexplainable that the Judge and both my lawyers would independently and collectively come up with a decision and then not even one person sees it as wrong.

Who defends Robert Skertich when his own lawyer is deceiving him and working against him? We are going to list decisions that were made in both cases and then ask this very same scenario of questions. The goal is to develop a very clear pattern, that all lawyers and Judges followed in every instance. Then this is not a coincidence but the very definition of "A Conspiracy to intentionally defraud your own client. Intentional. Only when every decision you make is outrageous and everyone is in unison. b. Judge Winkler refused to allow Robert Skertich to even use marital funds to seek professional counseling out of Network. c. Robert Skertich had a court order to have a forensic accounting firm review our marital estate and my wife’s Business Interests. Judge Winkler refuses to allow a forensic accounting firm access to inspect any marital assets, businesses, the home and all financial stocks and assets. Judge Winkler, out of nowhere states, The Forensic Accounting Firm is banned from access to all financial records. This is my wife with an income maybe near $ 2,000,00.00 per year and assets that only a forensic accounting firm has the best chance to clarify. This is a fundamental procedure in all divorce cases, especially when we have 2 adults, with no children and all of the assets were acquired during the marriage. This is illegal. No Judge has the right to deny Robert Skertich access to financial evaluation from an expert, which is a forensic accountant. The right of each individual to have a clear picture of the Marital Assets is a fundamental party of divorce proceedings. The most important. * All of which were started during out marriage. North Shore fertility. North Shore Day Spa. d. Dr. Anne E Borkowski was in the final stages of Coercing Adoption Center of Illinois 773-334-2300 5828 N. Clark to sponsor us in the adoption of 3-children from the Ukraine. * I would think it is logical that the adoption records would contain detailed account of our family makeup at home, financially and from a stability and safety platform.

• These adoption records were filled out 100% by Dr. Anne E. Borkowski and therefore these records would be fundamental and paramount to Robert Skertich defense. With an estate at $ 3,758,541.00 on the day the divorce is filed and my wife, Dr. Anne. E. Borkowski running a business that paid her $ 981,000.00 in 2001 and 1,340,000.00 in 2002 I would think it is logical that the marital estate 5-years later would be around $ 9,000,000.00 The judge bars me from access to all financial records and then values the estate at some 2,340,000.00 and gives me $ 750,000.00 The court highly suspect decision ends my marriage. Within 2-months I am in court being accused of Battery, which should be illegal and unenforceable in Illinois. I trusted my lawyers. I have ADD ADHD Bipolar Disorder, but my Psychiatrists and doctors were never brought to o court to testify as to my mental state. How is this possible? I am forced to use Enrico Mirabelli and Shaun Bersson and am not allowed to hire a lawyer specializing in this type of defense. No witnesses are called in my defense. Anne E. Borkowski shared stories of dating 2 unique men.

One Mark a Lawyer in Chicago Man, in prison. Neither was ever questioned. So, there are no checks and balances in place to protect the public and Robert Skertich as a client. The actions are outrageous. The ability to deceive a client and orchestrate these events in open public is a crime of the highest magnitude. To think, Robert Skertich lawyer, Enrico Mirabelli, was so tight with the all of the Judges in both cases, that Enrico Mirabelli knew, no one would question him. Enrico Mirabelli had an understanding, as to what they were doing to his own client, Robert Skertich. Shaun Bersson, is not stupid and never made a single attempt to ever steer Robert away from a single bad decision.

During the entire, intentional, felonious management of these 2 inter-twined and unexplainable cases, Robert Skertich life, and safety were put in imminent peril. Robert Skertich wife at the time, Dr. Anne E. Borkowski, o was being picked up in a Blue & White Chicago Police Dept. by the same on duty Chicago Police officer, Laura Stranski, for the entire duration of both cases, covering over 4-years of court appearances. o Every court appearance, Dr. Anne E. Borkowski was escorted from her home, by Police Officer Laura Stranski. Uniformed, driving a marked, blue and white Chicago Police Car. Picked up and driven to court. Escorted into court and escorted out of court and home. This went on for 5-years and during the entire history of both cases. o Chicago Police Officer, Laura Stranski, is now the Office Manager of North Shore Fertility, owned solely, by Dr. Anne E. Borkowski. Robert Skertich, moved to San Francisco, Ca. in 11-2003 in fear of his very life.

In late 2004, Robert Skertich travels to Thailand to go scuba diving. Robert Skertich immediately booked a live-a-board dive-trip upon arriving at the airport in Asia, off the island of Phuket. Robert Skertich is caught directly in the path of the 12-26-2004 Tsunami at 10.30 am on the Island of Phuket. The taxi Robert Skertich is riding to the beach is washed away. My life is spared as I escape to the 5th floor of a hotel. I stay for 6-months in Thailand, assisting in the rescue and restoration. I fly 3-children off of the Island of Phuket and take them to the Island of Koh Samui and enroll Pen’s 3-children in St. Josephs grammar school and pay for tuition for the semester along with renting a home for 6-months for $ 3,000.00 A year later I bring their mother, Wan Pen, to the US. This is where the tragedy continues. With an estate in the millions and 2 people getting divorced on the cusp of adopting 3-children, I find myself with true love in the most extreme circumstances.

I now have twin 6-year old boys and a daughter 8-years old and their mother coming to America. My lawyers do nothing to help me and I am financially destitute. Mariya "Wan Pen Thipkoi and I are destitute, in Burlingame California with no means to make a living and Mariya gets pregnant. We make the life changing decision to abort the pregnancy. Sitting outside the Abortion Clinic, on the curb, in fear, we go through with aborting our daughter. This is a life experience that will crush us to this day. Mariya, after being in the US for over 2-years, is forced into Voluntary Departure and kept out of the US for another 3-years. 2 lawyers do the unexplainable and intentionally screw up her paperwork and give her the wrong advice and she ends up being forced to leave the US. We save some $ 80,000 and invest in a first home. Our home burns down. We have to sue our insurance. We go to court and after the defense rests. My lawyer, Charles Shepherd rests. He does not introduce a single receipt, photo or any of the hundreds of pieces of evidence but rests before our case is even presented. The Cook County Court system is a criminal enterprise. Today 01-14-2018 It is clear to me now, that my life and freedom are in danger.

My wife Mariya and I moved out of Chicago and to Crown Point, IN. What I did, was file complaints against very powerful Judges and Lawyers, and so it is logical that they have also taken action to protect themselves. We are dealing with men who have also demonstrated highly unethical, criminal lifestyles, in both the Public and Legal professions. This battery case should be dismissed with prejudice. How can my wife be allowed to sue me for battery in a second court during our divorce? They actually divorced us and gave her 90% of the estate. I have a Judgement for battery 900,458.00 That is collecting interest, that cannot be removed through bankruptcy. I am an indentured servant to Dr. Anne E. Borkowski and have to raise my children and be a member of my community, the rest of my life, as a man who was convicted of battery, and awarded the highest-monetary-award, in Illinois History. My wife Mariya, and all of our children, some entering the working world today, has to also carry the label of being married to such a man. I have an 18-month old daughter Nickole, who will be forever marred throughout her life, for an event that never took place. I met my wife Mariya "Wan Pen Thipkoi” in Phuket Thailand.

We were both on the Island of Phuket Thailand at 10.30am on 12-26-2004 and in the direct path of the Tsunami that killed over 240,000 people I flew there on an impulse and landed the night before the Tsunami 12-26-2004 I saved Wan Pen’s life and flew her 3-children to another Island and enrolled them in St. Joseph Catholic School. Twin boys 6-years old and her daughter Noon then 8. Here we are 13-years later, and I still cannot afford to bring our 3-children to America. During this Conspiracy, Mariya, poor and looking to come to America, this country everyone dreams of coming to, Mariya comes here and I am broke. So, broke, in desperation and feeling so helpless and afraid, we decide we cannot take care of this new baby that is coming and decide to have an abortion. Abort our own child.

Can you please take a moment and think of your own children, if you have any and put yourself in that mind-set? Mariya is her for 3-months and is so afraid that we both make this devastating decision. One that will carry an enormous burden 11-years later, today! For the rest of our lives. Here we are just forced to accept that we cannot even have our 3-children with us financially and or due to their very safety. We have no medical insurance. I have mental issues that were present during my divorce but none of these issues were ever evaluated or discussed in court. I was banned from working in the construction industry during my marriage. In court the Judge and my lawyers just assumed I would go right back into the construction business. My lawyers refused to and brought no witnesses in my behalf in either case. Enrico Mirabelli and Shaun Bersson both lied to me throughout my case. When I brought these lies to the ARDC and the Judiciary board. They all got buried. No investigation. No copy of any investigation. Judge Winkler denies our court approved Forensic Accounting Firm access to our marital records. We are adopting THREE Children from the Ukraine My wife is a Fertility Dr. making 1,500,000.00 per year working 4-days a week.

My wife owns a Beauty salon. My wife after 2-years in Business has amassed a net Worth of $ 3,687,560.00 Dr. Borkowski has hired a Divorce Attorney, Sheldon Minkow and Sheldon Minkow has completed divorce papers ready to be filed before this alleged Battery. This is a premeditated plan to destroy her unsuspecting husband, should I ever decide to leave her. Dr. Anne Comes home with premeditated plans to stage a fight and have her husband arrested. She goes to the police and files a complaint stating that her husband Robert, hit her with a closed fist, in a fit of rage, upon the face and chest. This report she files is a lie. Look at the photo of her taken right after this alleged event. Not a mark on her anywhere. She drops these charges. She talks her husband into adopting 3-children and when he backs out she has him arrested again for abuse over 1 ½ years later and the court not only allows it but will not allow Robert Skertich to have his own adoption records in his defense. I tell my lawyer Enrico Mirabelli she purported this same event on her last boyfriend to me.

Mark a lawyer in Chicago she stated she lived with. Enrico Mirabelli never spoke with Mark to get his story. Enrico Mirabelli is caught lying to the appellate court in writing. I file a complaint with the Illinois Appellate Court. I file a complaint with the ARDC. I never get a reply from the ARDC and when I repeatedly call them and or write them to get a copy of the investigation they tell me I have no legal right to this investigation. I called and met with the FBI. They also stated that I have no right to any report and or investigation. have my wife talking me into adopting 3-children from the Ukraine Let’s talk about intentional deception with a client where the head of a Law Firm specializing in Marital representation, a Lawyer and the founder of the firm, a lawyer who represented Duane Wade and Juanita Jordan as clients. Judge Winkler out of know where rules that. The Forensic Accounting Firm that was hired by Robert Skertich Lawyers and the Law Firm of Nadler Pritiken & Mirabelli will be denied access to investigating these marital records. The Court should logically reason that this forensic investigation is exactly what is the most important financial numbers in an estate of over $ 6,000,000.00 and an annual income of over $ 1,200,000.00 Enrico Mirabelli did not make mistakes. Enrico Mirabelli was not sloppy or stupid. Enrico Mirabelli must have had premeditated knowledge.

Enrico Mirabelli maneuvered the case (docket sheet) to a Judge he has a long relationship with. Enrico Mirabelli donated to both Judge Cunningham and Judge Winkler’s fundraising campaigns. Judges Cunningham and Winkler’s Work Product that was developed and wrote down explaining calculation of the way the marital estate got divided. I’m in Thailand landing on the island of Phuket on 12-25-2004. I get up the next morning, decide to buy this Wan Pen, who is going to the bus for a 10-hour trip to Bangkok. I buy Pen a ticket to see her father who is in Bangkok in a life-threatening condition the hospital. The Tsunami came ashore just a few hours later. There were dead people everywhere. No food or water and I see these 3 little kids. Twin six-year old boys and their sister Noon who is 8. I’m thinking: They should be in school? I ask someone on the street, where is there’s a Catholic school? Someone said Koh Samui an interior Island, not hit by the Tsunami, so we all go to the airport and fly there. I’m married and my wife, beautiful, successful, shy or conniving and in reality, a sociopath. Strong words but let’s look at this outrageous story and the reality is it’s hard to conceive that such treachery can OPEN EXIST IN OUR LEGAL SYSTEM.

Imagine. Here I am and thinking. I am rich and therefore money is no object in my ability to financially protect myself with complete and sound legal protection at any cost. That’s a luxury. What happened to me cannot be explained. No checks and balances. No accountability. Shaun Bersson, a young, fairly new lawyer is Enrico Mirabelli’s assistant. Enrico Mirabelli is not just any average lawyer. He’s a founder of the law firm. He represented Dwayne Wade – NBA and Juanita Jordan, Michael Jordan’s wife. Not only were each and every of his decisions not in my favor but Shaun Bersson also went along with Enrico Mirabelli in every instance. They would not spend a dime on a private investigator. They brought no witnesses in my defense I repeatedly had Enrico request our Abortion record showing Anne was trying to adopt 3-children from the Ukraine 3 Children and she is allowed to walk into court and tell a jury I hit her. The police report is therefore a bad fabrication Her photo shows not a mark on her 1-hour after this alleged incident. How is this even legal. Its planned to be 2 bites at the Apple.

Moreover, it’s too convenient that I get divorced. Not one decision was made and all at once the judge awards me $ 750,000.00 I have a learning disorder and the judge is ending a marriage where I’m being found guilty of hitting my wife where there is no evidence. Now I’m an indentured servant. My ex-wife has a judgement that is almost $ 2,000,000 and cannot be removed by bankruptcy. Bankruptcy!! Imagine. Anne walks away with everything and Bob with all these problems walks away and his taxes have not even been filed in some 7-years, in debt and bad credit All the while; I am trying to keep Mariya in the United States, but 3 lawyers have all intentionally mismanaged her paperwork and now she has to leave the US for 2 plus years. I have 3 children in Thailand I just thought would naturally be with. The Judge never considered this. I realize now what happened to me happened to Mariya, our 2 boys and our daughter.

These monsters did this out of evil and also financial gain. I had a court order ordering access to all financial documents and tax returns from 1997-2003. Then, for no logical reason after our forensic Accounting firm calling to schedule access the judge said’ Order stricken. Your forensic accounting firm has taken too long. I’m like. They have been calling her office repeatedly. This is absolutely outrageous. My lawyer, who is no idiot should at the very least go to the Appellate court No forensic accountant. No private, out of network Psychiatrist funds. Basically, every time I want to do anything I have to go ask the judge, while Anne has open spending spree of some $ 39,0000 per month, buys a $ 1650,000 home in Glenwood The tragedy is that, I have missed 10-years of life with my children. Every moment. Why. I sit here worrying for Mariya and my daughter Nickole. I’m broke. In and out of Insurance. Haven’t paid taxes for over 15-years. Bad Credit. Realizing that I should be proud of who I am, but the court system can be so evil that its leaders can openly ruin a citizen’s life for financial gain. I look at the people who really made a positive impact on my life. They were men who believe that their foundation is in God. I’m an athlete and a good friend.

I’m heartbroken in knowing I might miss the rest of their lives, which would be a tragedy When the system is broken the first action must be to fix the issue so that no one ever has this happening to them ever, under any circumstances. I’m a good man. I told Enrico Mirabelli and & Shaun Bersson on a plethora of separate occasions. "I have never been unfaithful in Love or Friendship, ever.” Witnesses I offered to my Lawyers. a. I dated Marietta LeSage. I told Enrico; subpoena the women I dated over the last 30-years. They are all classy successful woman in general. They’ll all tell you stories that are funny about Bob, but no one will have a story of Bob ever intimidating, let alone ever touching them in any threatening manner, ever. Enrico’s reply. No one cares what you didn’t to another woman, just what you purportedly did Charles Shepherd. He rests, before presenting a single word or document or any of the 100 photos of our investment in my defense.

This legal Misrepresentation by the law firm of Nadler Pritiken & Mirabelli, perpetrated by the founding partner, Enrico Mirabelli, a lawyer who has boasted representing Michael Jordan’s former wife Juanita Jordan along with countless high-profile clients. Enrico Mirabelli is a deviant, sociopath who should be immediately disbarred from the legal practice in every state in the United States. Shaun Bersson, here we have a lawyer who has been out of law school for maybe 2-years. Shaun Bersson goes along with every step in this deception to the point he actually deceives his client and lies repeatedly to Barbara Small, the very court reported who is dictating the first 2-days of this trial. The court can only draw the simple conclusion that Shaun Bersson knew he was going to get away with this deception and was thoroughly coached by Enrico Mirabelli top do so. Especially art such a neophyte stage in his legal career. To be so utterly devoid of any semblance of character, dignity, loyalty to his client, loyalty to his very oath of office. is the truest and most complete depiction of conspiracy, treachery, theft by deception.

All defendants came together and agreed to, for a price, whatever that price was and sell out your own client. Everyone was involved in this conspiracy. That is the only way this conspiracy could have taken place. No one was protecting Robert J. Skertich Victim: Mariya (Wan Pen Thipkoi ) This poor, uneducated, good woman, with 3-children leaves her country and her 3 children to come to America. Wan Pen, with very little English, not a citizen yet She arrives and within a few months is pregnant with their daughter. Robert and Mariya abort their child. How utterly f**ked up is that!!! These rich, powerful, evil lawyers and Judges, in all and collectively wielded the most outlandish moral less, conspiracy against their very client. No one ever came forward to protect Robert Skertich. In the end Mariya Thipkoi Skertich is forever and permanently victimized along with her husband Robert J. Skertich Their unborn child is a murder victim. 3 children, back in Thailand, grow up without their parents from 2005 -2017 Some 12-years with no remedy outside the action of the Supreme Court. And the sad part is that, to this day, no one is the slightest bit remorseful. The Supreme Court of The State of Illinois must act swiftly and investigate these facts and then right this wrong. Or. Robert and Mariya Skertich lives will never be back on track again. Robert Skertich & Mariya Wan Pen Thipkoi Skertich, must be reunited with our 3 -children in Thailand. No Taxes paid since 2000 No Insurance. No credit. Bad Credit. No Education. Robert Skertich has Mentally diagnosed psychological problems that were never brought up in court and never taken into consideration by either court. We have the Cook County Court System, previously, and throughout history, described as a Criminal Enterprise. The Cook County court system that is aware, lying in wait to disrupt and maybe end Robert Skertich & Mariya Skertich Lives.

Restitution: We are asking that: THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS INTERVENE IN BOTH CASES. 1. Order and Initiate a thorough investigation into both cases before the courts. 2. Dismiss the battery case with prejudice. 3. Grant Robert Skertich the ability to file suite for restitution against all parties mentioned as defendants. a. Battery Case # b. Divorce Case # 4. Immediately order the Judgement amount of $ 750,000 in the divorce to be paid, with interest, from the day of the court ruling. 5. Grant Subpoenas: a. Adoption Center of Illinois 5828 N. Clark Chicago, IL. 60660 773-334-2300 All adoption records under the names of: Robert J. Skertich and or Anne E. Borkowski, collectively and or individually. b. IRS - Tax returns for: * Anne E. Borkowski - 2000-2008 * North Shore Fertility. - 2000-2008 * North Shore Day Spa. - 2000-2008 * Anne E. Borkowski. – 2000-2008 Personally. c. Dr. Anne E. Borkowski’s Accountant 2003-2008 during the divorce. o Any and all financial and tax records, financial records, notes, texts, emails, letters of transmission of any kind pertaining to Anne E. Borkowski and or any business interests Anne E. Borkowski and or any other business holdings she may have had any interest in during this time, he may be in possession of pertaining to the above 6 a-b. d. Man, in prison. Deposition. e. Mark, the lawyer who owned a Strip Club, Adult Night Club. Deposition. f. Robert Skertich filed extensive, detailed claims with the following agencies. Robert Skertich was denied a copy of any files these agencies might have in reference to Robert Skertich numerous complaints.

Subpoena all records of any and all complaints, files, transcripts, investigations by the following entities. a. The Illinois Bar Association. b. The Illinois Judiciary Board. c. The Attorney Registry & Disciplinary Commission ( ARDC ). d. The FBI. e. The Attorney General. f. All Partners of Nadler Pritiken & Mirabelli g. The Illinois States Attorney’s Office g1. All emails between Robert Skertich to any and all persons at Nadler Pritiken & Mirabelli personally , through their business and at any other law firm g2. Robert Skertich to Shaun Bersson and his new law firm g3. Robert Skertich to Enrico and his new firm g4. Enrico Mirabelli to anyone in reference to me, my case ort any subject pertaining to my Robert Skertich 6. All Robert Skertich Business & Personal, Federal & State Taxes are filed, negotiated and paid from 2000-2018 7. All Robert Skertich bills to date are to be negotiated and paid to date. Robert Skertich be funded to IMMEDIATELY purchase a Home for his wife and 4-children. $ 600,000.00 8. Robert J. Skertich and Mariya Wan Pen Thipkoi Skertich have 3-children in college in Thailand.

That these 3-biological children are immediately funded to bring their children from Thailand to the USA and their college education funded in full. $ 600,000.00 9. 70% of Anne E. Borkowski’s estate to date be turned over to Robert Skertich Punitive damages. We are asking that the court allow Robert J. Skertich to file suite separately, and under the complaint contained above, for Punitive Damages. That Robert Skertich will petition the court for a full Trial, by Jury, and ask a Jury of Robert J. Skertich Peers decide, what is fair and reasonable compensation, what sanctions and remedies be made, for the compensation of these actions that were wielded upon Robert Skertich, his entire family, extended family and reputation in Society.

Robert Is seeking these Punitive Damages: 1. 70% of Anne E. Borkowski’s 1-years of wages for a period of 14-years going forward from 2019-2033 paid to Robert Skertich. a. This is the amount of time Robert Skertich was also a victim. b. This is the amount of time Robert Skertich is forced and made broke. 2. All Defendants are to be stripped of their professional licenses. All Lawyers, judges and office staff. 3. Financial compensation from all defendants individually, and professionally, as the Jury of Robert Skertich’s Peers sees just and reasonable. (Jury Demand ). 4. Robert Skertich and Mariya Thipkoi Skertich Credit repaired immediately. 5. Dr. Anne E. Borkowski’s Medical License to be revoked, Permanently. That every lawyer involved be permanently barred from ever practicing law in any state, as an agreed order. These Officers of the court have openly and without regard for the public, deceived the public and their clients, for the sole purpose of financial gain and the sociopathic abuse of power. The Illinois court system is broken.

The abuse of power and the right to practice law has been severely and openly abused. If we do not step forward and address this broken legal system, the public is forever criminalized. When a citizen goes to the FBI, and then the Department of PROFESSIONAL REGULATION AND THEN THE ILLINOIS JUDICIARY BOARD AND IN THE END, NOT ONE PERSON FROM ANY OF THESE AGENCIES CONTACTS THE COMPLAINTENT A SINGLE TIME, then the system is forever flawed. Conclusion: Without the Supreme Court, of The State of Illinois positive action, to nullify this Judgement of battery, Robert Skertich will not be able to properly support and protect Mariya Skertich and their 4-children. Without the Supreme Courts intervention, these officers of the court are allowed to destroy the lives of countless other unsuspecting clients and citizens, without any consequences. Final Protection Clearly spelled out to the Public. We are petitioning the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois to formulate and enact a New Law that will clearly protect the public from these events ever taking place again. Agency set up to protect the public. There needs to be a clear path set up and published by the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois. This must be a clear path law, that the citizens have access to, that will protect every citizen, in the future, and permanently prevent, what happened to Robert Skertich, from ever happening to anyone, ever again.

This man is a sociopath. Caught lying to his client, the Appellate court in writing and then his law firm split due to the verocity of this sociopaths actions. call me if you want copies of Enrico lying in writing in court. His client lost over $ 4,000,000.00 Yes, over Four Million Dollars.