The Illinois Attorney General's Office has continued to send letters to Fred Nance Jr. stating there is nothing they can do about these attorney's actions or behavior. This office continues to put the responsibility for the attorney's behavior on the shoulders of the court.
June 12, 2005
Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois
130 East Randolph Drive, Suite 1500
Chicago, Illinois 60601-1625
Re: Estate of Romeo Ashford – #00 P 1267
Attorneys Michael Bergmann #91139 & Theresa Christine Ceko #13122
Dear Sir or Madam:
I, Fred Nance Jr., am a pro se litigant in case number 00 P 1267, room 1806, Daley Center respectfully requesting an investigation into the professional conduct of Attorneys Michael Bergmann & Theresa Ceko. I believe the following Rules of Professional Conduct are applied here and being violated:
RULE 1.2 Scope of Representation
(d) A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent.
(e) A lawyer shall not present, participate in presenting, or threaten to present criminal charges or professional disciplinary actions to obtain an advantage in a civil matter,
(f) In representation of a client, a lawyer shall not: (1) file a suit, assert a position, conduct a defense, delay a trial or take other action on behalf of the client when the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that such action would serve merely to harass or maliciously injure another; (3) fail to disclose that which the lawyer is required by law to reveal
(g) A lawyer who knows a client has, in the course of representation, perpetrated a fraud upon a person or tribunal shall promptly call upon the client to rectify the same, and if the client refuses or is unable to do so, the lawyer shall reveal the fraud to the affected person or tribunal, except when the information is protected as a privileged communication.
RULE 1.4 Communication (a) A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.
RULE 3.1 Meritorious Claims and Contentions: A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good-faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law.
RULE 3.3: Conduct Before a Tribunal
(a) In appearing in a professional capacity before a tribunal, a lawyer shall not: (1) make a statement of material fact or law to a tribunal which the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is false; (2) fail to disclose to a tribunal a material fact known to the lawyer when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client;
(3) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; (6) counsel or assist the client in conduct the lawyer knows to be illegal or fraudulent; (7) engage in other illegal conduct or conduct in violation of these Rules; (9) intentionally degrade a witness or other person by stating or alluding to personal facts concerning that person which are not relevant to the case; (11) refuse to accede to reasonable requests of opposing counsel that do not prejudice the rights of the client; (12) fail to use reasonable efforts to restrain and to prevent clients from doing those things that the lawyer ought not to do; (13) suppress any evidence that the lawyer or client has a legal obligation to reveal or produce; (14) advise or cause a person to become unavailable as a witness by leaving the jurisdiction or making secret their whereabouts within the jurisdiction.
RULE 3.4 Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel (a) A lawyer shall not: (1) unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person to do any such act.
RULE 4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others: In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not: (a) make a statement of material fact or law to a third person which statement the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is false; or (b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6.
RULE 4.3 Dealing With Unrepresented Person: In dealing on behalf of a client with a person who is not represented by counsel, a lawyer shall not state or imply that the lawyer is disinterested. When the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the unrepresented person misunderstands the lawyer's role in the matter, the lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to correct the misunderstanding.
RULE 4.4 Respect for Rights of Third Persons: In representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person, or use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such a person.
RULE 8.4 Misconduct (a) A lawyer shall not: (1) violate or attempt to violate these Rules; (2) induce another to engage in conduct, or give assistance to another's conduct, when the lawyer knows that conduct will violate these Rules; (4) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; (5) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. In relation thereto, a lawyer shall not engage in adverse discriminatory treatment of litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others, based on race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status. This subsection does not preclude legitimate advocacy when these or similar factors are issues in the proceeding; (6) state or imply an ability to influence improperly any tribunal, legislative body, government agency or official; (7) assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that the lawyer knows is a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct; (9)(A) violate a Federal, State or local statute or ordinance that prohibits discrimination based on race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status by conduct that reflects adversely on the lawyer's fitness as a lawyer. Whether a discriminatory act reflects adversely on a lawyer's fitness as a lawyer shall be determined after consideration of all the circumstances, including (1) the seriousness of the act, (2) whether the lawyer knew that it was prohibited by statute or ordinance, (3) whether it was part of a pattern of prohibited conduct, and (4) whether it was committed in connection with the lawyer's professional activities. (B) No complaint of professional misconduct based on an unlawfully discriminatory act, pursuant to paragraph (9)(A) of this rule, may be brought until a court or administrative agency of competent jurisdiction has found that the lawyer has engaged in an unlawfully discriminatory act, and that the determination of the court or administrative agency has become final and enforceable and the right of judicial review of the determination has been exhausted.
FACTS:
Attorney Bergmann is representing Julia Johnson in this matter. Attorney Ceko (GAL) is representing Romeo Ashford, a minor. Attorney Bergmann & Ceko are officers of the court. Attorney Bergmann and Ceko are not enforcing the court of order of June 27, 2000 in this matter regarding visitation. Attorneys Bergmann & Ceko appear to be neglecting their duties as lawyers, in that, they seem to be assisting, Julia Johnson, in violating, circumventing, and evading the visitation order issued on June 27, 2000. Attorney Bergmann and Ceko are not attempting to contact Julia Johnson to enforce the visitation order.
First, regarding the Rule 3.3. (2): On or about August 2, 2002 Nance filed an appeal with the 1st Judicial District Appellate Court of Illinois. On page 4 of the courts opinion it states “…The trial court entered an order directing that the issue of visitation by Fred Nance be mediated by the Cook County Department of Supportive Services. Subsequently, on June 27, 2000, the court entered an order allowing Fred Nance to visit Romeo on alternate weekends from Friday to Sunday and mandating that he pick up and return the child to Johnson for each visitation.”
Attorney Ceko never facilitated or obeyed the court order for mediation by the Cook County Department of Supportive Services. To cause undue harm and embarrassment Attorney Ceko, with the support of Attorney Bergmann and court ordered by Judge McGury, requested in her Guardian ad litem report of May 20, 2005 that Nance participate in a home study with the Cook County Department of Supportive Services to support his continued visitation, altering the court order of June 27, 2000.
The complainant in this matter, Fred L Nance Jr., has continuously contacted both attorneys by phone and motions to the court informing them that Julia Johnson is not in compliance with the visitation court order. Attorneys Bergmann & Ceko have refused to contact Fred by telephone after making an agreement last year (2004) that when matters of visitation arise instead of calling the police to enforce the court order, as Fred has done in the past, Fred should call Attorney Bergmann & Ceko to attempt to work out the differences. Attorneys Bergmann & Ceko violated this agreement.
Fred has filed various written motions in open court about this issue of visitation. Attorneys Bergmann & Ceko have refused to answer the written motions in writing, therefore, I have no written reply to illustrate to the ARDC or to the Appellate Court. On June 10, 2005, I presented this issue of the attorneys to respond with written replies to my motions to Judge Kathleen M McGury #1670 suggesting that if I had to take these issues to the Appellate Court, I would have to file a bystanders report, which would be arduous for me and the court system. Nothing was done by the court on June 10, 2005 to facilitate my immediate visitation.
Attorney Bergmann states that he does not have to answer the motions in writing. Judge McGury agreed with him. Attorney Bergmann instead has decided to respond orally to the motions. There is no court reporter in courtroom 1806. Fred has stated in open court that an oral response to the motions cannot be addressed with a written reply by Fred, nor can it be addressed by this entity because I have nothing in writing from the attorneys to the issues raised in the written motions to the court.
I believe there are ethical issues as well as legal and professional practice issues violated. Attorneys Bergmann & Ceko, through their non-actions to the court’s order in 2000 for Cook County Supportive Services intervention in the temporary guardianship and visitation issues, and the present motions filed in court by Fred, appear to be assisting Julia Johnson in violating the court order of June 27, 2005.
I will post this complaint on my website. Please examine the complaint accompanying this one submitted to the Judicial Inquiry Board. Regarding the Judicial Inquiry Board complaint, Nance is not suggesting this entity circumvent the proceedings by the Judicial Inquiry Board, but rely upon the Rules and Facts as if fully disclosed herein.
It is my belief that Judge Kathleen M. McGury and Attorneys Bergmann & Ceko are acting in a conspiracy and scheme to deny Nance’s visitation of the minor child, and to purposely discredit Nance’s efforts for relief through the judicial system.
cc: Judicial Inquiry Board
www.clickservices.org
June 28, 2005
Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission
of the Supreme Court of Illinois
Ms. Mary Robinson, Administrator
One Prudential Plaza
130 East Randolph Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60601-6219
Re: Case No. 05 CI 2826 (Michael Bergmann) & 2827 (Theresa Ceko)
Ms. Robinson:
I submitted allegations against Michael Bergmann and Theresa Ceko on June 12, 2005. This complaint was dismissed and closed without an investigation by Ms. Althea K. Welsh. These attorneys and their respective organizations retaliated against me on June 24, 2005 in open court for filing the complaint with the ARDC, and Attorney Ceko filed false information (petition) with the Court.
I talked to Theresa Waters on June 27, 2005 requesting clarity on Ms. Welsh’s last paragraph in her letter to me, which states “For the reasons stated above, this Commission will take no action with respect to your requests at this time.” I informed Ms. Waters I will file with the Court sanctions pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137 against Michael Bergmann and Theresa Ceko. I informed Ms. Waters I would submit a copy of the complaint to the ARDC as a supplement to my original complaint.
Ms. Waters informed me the case was closed. She also informed me that anyone can file a complaint in court, and that the ARDC needed a Court order stating there was a violation. I informed Ms. Waters a Court order would support a conclusion. I asked her if everyone who files a complaint with the ARDC, files statements that are conclusions. It was my understanding the ARDC investigates allegations leading to conclusions, and that, conclusions come from a thorough investigation.
Therefore, I have filed a motion for sanctions (attached) pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137, which is also additional information for complaint #’s 2826 and 2827 requesting the case be re-opened and thoroughly investigated for violations, that is, omitting or overlooking nothing alleged by the complainant, Fred L Nance Jr.
July 1, 2005
Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois
Ms. Mary Robinson, Administrator
One Prudential Plaza
130 East Randolph Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60601-6219
Re: Case No. 05 CI 2826 (Michael Bergmann) & 2827 (Theresa Ceko)
Ms. Robinson:
Attached is the letter addressed to the Honorable Judges Timothy Evans and Henry Budzinski regarding the continuing issues of this matter.
In addition, on July 1, 2005 my daughter and the minor child’s mother, Genesis Nance, called reporting the respondent in this matter, Julia Johnson, telling her “Ms. Ceko and I talked about the Affidavit you gave to your father. You are really in trouble now. You’re going to wish you had never gave him that.”
As you know, I did not send a copy of my motion that includes the Affidavit from Genesis to Julia Johnson as witnessed by the Notice of Motion. Julia Johnson could only have known about the letter in the discussion she reports to Genesis between her and Ms. Ceko.
I informed my daughter, Genesis, to look for retaliatory acts from Ms. Ceko but do not give up or shut up exposing the issues of these nefarious acts.
On July 2, 2005, I received a letter from Ms. Althea Welsh, Senior Counsel of ARDC Chicago, stating the ARDC has concluded this matter and the matters I am raising are appropriately addressed and resolved in the courts before any possible consideration by this Commission (letter attached). This is ludicrous. When does the Commission investigate? The Commission is a different entity. I am continuously complaining about ongoing matters that are being ignored by Judges. If the Commission ignores the issues and the Judges ignore the issues, there is no justice.
The public must be alerted to this lunacy. I have done nothing but attempt to litigate my issues, but “licensed” attorneys and “elected” Judges decide to issue out injustice with no one to prevent or stop them.
The continued harassment, intimidation, and oppression suffered through this judicial system, that is coordinated by a supervising Judge, Henry Budzinski, and the Chief Judge, Timothy Evans, is outrageous (this statement is not to suggest that Judges Budzinski and Evans are working in concert with the complaining issues), but what I do suggest is that no one is doing anything about it.
Therefore, as a social advocate for injustice I shall alert advocacy agents, such as Senators, State Representatives, and the like to assume responsibility for a social injustice system created by nepotism, racism, and indifferent treatment. The only way to combat such a system is through voting out laws and people who promote social injustice.
I have alerted the Daley Center Supervisor of the Probate Court, the Honorable Judge Henry Budzinski, and the Chief Judge, the Honorable Timothy Evans, of the indifferent treatment and the outrageous statements of Judge Riley, such as “...your Affidavit is meaningless in this court…; and I don’t want to hear from your witnesses…” and the other issues submitted. Judge Riley totally ignored me. He talked to the opposing counsels as if I was not even in the courtroom. Is this where I am supposed to get and see justice? To allow a sitting Judge to act in such a manner is disgraceful and shameful. Judge Riley made these statements in front of my children and my mother. My mother is about 74-years-old. I know this reminded her of the racism and just pure indifferent treatment she saw so prevalent in her day.
Ms. Althea Welsh reports that the ARDC has concluded its considerations of my issues. This is ridiculous and absurd. The non-actions of the ARDC promote this behavior. This is why Ms. Ceko and Ms. Benson continue to act in an unprofessional manner promoting issues that are unsupported getting their results from the Daley Center Probate Court Judges because of favoritism and friendships. It is obvious.
Mr. Obama, Judge Budzinski, and Judge Evans I am not the only one. It just so happens I am trained in advocacy work and I know how to address issues with my writings. Others address them in ways that our social world does not adhere too, and subsequently, the issues become mute because the address brought further havoc upon our social world.
Mr. Obama: When Justice O’Connor resigned, you presented President Bush with a challenge. WMAQ-TV refers to you making a statement about whom President Bush should think about appointing. You state, in part, “…just a judge who is in the mainstream of judicial thinking.” Is mainstream judicial thinking presented here, in your backyard? I challenge you to provide a template for President Bush of mainstream judicial thinking with a similar public statement of the issues presented here in this writing.
Who will step forward to stop the madness presented here? Who will step forward to address the issues saving our democracy and freedom? I believe each entity, that is, the Courts, the ARDC, the Judicial Inquiry Board, and Senator Barack Obama took oaths to uphold our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Everything else flows from these works. The retaliation of Ms. Ceko and Ms. Benson, along with the Judges continues.
cc: Judicial Inquiry Board; Senator Barack Obama; Honorable Judge Timothy Evans; Honorable Judge Henry Budzinski; Operation Push; Cook County Department of Supportive Services; Reuters News; WMAQ-TV (Dick Kay); Associated Press; USA Today; Chicago Tribune
