Fraud on the Court

WARNING TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC:

BE AWARE OF FRAUD SCHEMES BY COVERT NETWORKS OF LAW FIRMS TARGETING MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC!

1) intentional collapsing of personal injury (or any) claims among covert networks of collaborating law firms

2) intentional collapsing of all legal malpractice and fraud claims among covert networks of collaborating law firms

a) intentional destruction and concealment of key evidence

b) intentional misrepresentation of Illinois law to the victim (such as calculation of statute of limitations and application of case law)

c) Intentionally filing complaint(s) on behalf of victim in a way that does not meet basic requirements of Illinois law

d) intentionally stripping complaint of core claims when filing and setting the victim up to be sued for sanctions

e) secretly allowing opposing parties and opposing counsels to view and edit victim's complaint before filing complaint in victim's name (under penalty of purjury)

f) focusing only on one defendant in underlying cases while ignoring everything related to other defendants

g) using a sophisticated system of document and information suppression against client

h) making depositions with forged court reporter signatures on certification pages

i) intentionally faking technical difficulties during depositions to avoid key issues and evidence

j) staging depositions with witnesses intentionally misled

k) intentionally concealing former law firm(s) frauds and intentional torts

l) refusing to subpoena or pursue discovery toward key witnesses

m) completely losing memory of clients key evidence after being informed of it in writing over 10 times

n) intentionally destroying any attempt to appeal ruling

o) intentional deception to conceal federal bankruptcy court jurisdiction over case and claims

p) not informing client that defendant already admitted negligence on the court record for injuring victim

q) accepting a retainer to pursue claims while doing nothing toward the claims and lying to the Illinois Supreme Court about ever accepting the retainer money or about being retained for those claims

r) deceptively posing as the victim's attorney during appeal while secretly filing victim as a pro se litigant during the appeal

s) stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees from victim for committing the above mentioned acts (listed a to r) on the victim

t) stating client "often remarked to (attorney) while litigating his numerous cases, that he will bring down the entire justice system in Illinois and that he and (attorney) will make much money for the movie rights" to the Illinois Supreme Court about your client

u) stating victim's claims against attorneys (acting as described above in a to t) are “an amalgam of manifestos, amorphous conspiracy theories ... and minute details of irrelevant evidence” that cannot serve as any well pleaded fact in court

These videos and the following documents tell the story of what happened to (permanently disabled) Paul Dulberg for over 1 decade in McHenry County and in Chicago, Illinois (where all of the techniques listed above were used):

• intentionally wrote the 17LA377 Complaint and Amended Complaint to fail the minimum standard for legal sufficiency twice.
• intentionally misinformed client how to calculate the Statute of Limitations.
• never informed target that the case record contains an admission of negligence by defendant.
• focused only on the settlement with one defendants in underlying personal injury case.
• ignored everything related to other defendants.
• focused only on one element of PI case 12LA178 while ignoring the entire bankruptcy case 14-83578.
• was informed of key evidence at his first meeting with Dulberg that he never used or raised (that Mast told Dulberg that the McGuires were not liable for Dulberg’s chainsaw injury because the case Tilschner v Spangler demonstrates the Restatement of Torts 318 is not applicable in Illinois).
• was given key evidence at his first meeting with Dulberg that he never used or raised (a certified slip opinion of the Appellate Court ruling on Tilschner v Spangler, a rare document. Dulberg told Gooch that Mast gave Dulberg the document when Mast told Dulberg that Dulberg has no valid claim against the McGuires).
• intentionally placed factually incorrect statements in complaint known to be untrue in client's name.

• intentionally misinformed target how to calculate the Statute of Limitations.
• never informed target that the case record contains an admission of negligence by defendant.
• focused only on the settlement with one defendants in underlying personal injury case.
• ignored everything related to other defendants.
• focused only on one element of PI case 12LA178 while ignoring the entire bankruptcy case 14-83578.
• intentionally and systematically suppressed key evidence of a certified slip opinion of the Appellate Court ruling Tilschner v Spangler (while being informed by client in writing on at least 10 different occasions of its central importance).
• acted as if neither Clinton or Williams have any memory of being informed at least 10 times in writing by client of the key evidence Tilschner v Spangler.
• was informed repeatedly in writing of “smoking gun” evidence of defendants offering to settle the McGuire claim on behalf of Dulberg with McGuires’ attorney Barch for $7,500 on October 22, 2013.
• used a sophisticated system of document and information suppression (including: Suppression of key evidence Tilschner v Spangler, suppressing over 3,400 pages of documents from May 30, 2019 to July 9, 2020 and producing them to opposing counsel after taking 2 depositions and about 3 weeks before Clinton and Williams resigned as counsel.
• intentionally suppressed large sections of emails before producing emails to opposing counsel).
• never informed target of or addressed issues around missing signatures on the certification pages in depositions purportedly created by VAHL REPORTING SERVICE LTD.
• never informed target of 2019 dates found on depositions taken in 2013 with missing signatures of court reporters on the certification pages1 in depositions purportedly created by URBANSKI REPORTING CO., INC.
• intentionally placed factually incorrect statements known to be untrue.
• informed target they cannot issue a subpoena to bankruptcy trustee Megan Heeg because she already retired (so subpoenaed documents are unavailable to client).
• deliberately waited until after deposition to provide target with requested documents subpoenaed months earlier and in their possession.

• discovered that presiding Judge Meyer self-recused in at least one previous case based on being friends with defendant, but never raised the issue in court.
• discovered depositions with forged court reporter signatures on certification pages but never raised the forgeries in court.
• was informed in detail that Clinton and Williams deliberately suppressed key evidence of a certified slip ruling of Tilschner v Spangler that Dulberg provided to them and asked them to raise in court.
• was notified that Clinton and Williams and Gooch were all informed in writing on many occasions of the importance of this key evidence to Dulberg’s claims in 17LA377 (listed in Complaint ¶ 137 and Table 10).
• was provided with evidence of a sophisticated system of document and information suppression used by Clinton-Williams against Dulberg and collaboration with opposing counsel Flynn (on November 9, 2022) but never raised the issue in court.
• deviously listed Dulberg as a Self Represented Litigant in the 17LA377 Notice of Appeal without Dulberg knowing it.
• represented himself to Dulberg as if Talarico was Dulberg’s acting attorney during the 17LA377 appeal process.
• continued to charge and collect Dulberg’s fees the entire time.
• intentionally destroyed Dulberg’s Supreme Court Petition while also deviously posing as Dulberg’s retained attorney.
• held himself out to Dulberg as Dulberg’s retained attorney during the appeal process.
• held himself out to Dulberg as Dulberg’s retained attorney during the final appeal.
• held himself out to Dulberg as Dulberg’s retained attorney for purposes of preparing and attempting to file the Supreme Court Petition.
• accepted retainer to pursue claims against Clinton and Williams and Gooch for “Fraud on the court, Civil rights violations, Reopening the bankruptcy, Etc” on September 26, 2023.
• intentionally lied to the Illinois Supreme Court about ever being retained to pursue claims against Clinton and Williams on May 29, 2024.
• called the same claims against Clinton and Williams (that Talarico was retained to pursue) a “fantasy” “conspiracy theory” by Dulberg and Thomas Kost.
• stated to Illinois Supreme Court that Dulberg "often remarked to Mr. Talarico while litigating his numerous cases, that he will bring down the entire justice system in Illinois and that he and Mr. Talarico will make much money for the movie rights."

• made a strange ‘breach of contract’ argument during the hearing which had nothing to do with the complaint draft target gave to him to file.
• was clearly informed that his ‘breach of contract’ argument is logically and legally wrong by his clients and that his clients did not agree with his theory concerning the claim ‘breach of contract’. Talarico never informed the court (to the present time) that Talarico was informed by his clients in writing that Talarico’s ‘breach of contract’ argument against ADR Systems of America and Allstate is logically and legally wrong and does not represent our opinion.
• added a Count 4 and 5 of the complaint, ‘Breach of Contract’ against ADR Systems and Allstate in the last edit of the complaint while claiming an internet outage and for the client to "trust his judgment".
• got target to sign the certification page under these conditions.
• secretly allowed opposing parties and opposing counsels to view and edit victim's complaint before filing complaint in victim's name (under penalty of purjury).
• sent client a retainer contract for Alan Kravets as expert witness.
• claimed to target by telephone that Talarico was already consulting with Kravets on preparations for 22L010905 as early as September, 2022.
• was provided amended Complaint draft written by targeted client which attorney will never file with the court. Target never used any ‘breach of contract’ argument in the Amended Complain and correctly identified the Binding Mediation Agreement forgery, the admission of negligence for Dulberg’s chainsaw injury by Defendant Gagnon in March, 2013 and the forged deposition certification pages as the basis for any claim against ADR Systems of America.
• never informed the court that the attorney was already given an Amended Complaint written by the targeted client less than a month after Judge gave leave to file an Amended Complaint.
• told target not to attend the hearing scheduled for October 31, 2023 in 22L010905 before Judge.
• intentionally lied to make sure that the Amended Complaint his clients wrote for him was never filed.
• acted, after resigning as counsel, to intentionally misstate Dulberg’s position toward the “breach of contract” claim throughout the document Talarico filed with the court on February 8, 2024.
• secured the sanctions punishment against his permanently disabled client by intentionally lying to the court on February 8, 2024 by filing “PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT ADR SYSTEMS OF AMERICA, LLC’S RULE 137 MOTION FOR SANCTIONS” after resigning as target's counsel.
• intentionally set his client up for sanctions following this 5 step process:

1. Establish a “breach of contract” claim,
2. Refuse to file the Amended Complaint written by his clients and provided to him,
3. Establish a sanctions claim,
4. Secure the sanctions claim and
5. Destroy any appeal attempt using intentional deception against target in each of the 5 distinct steps.

• redirected medical lien liability from the Defendants to Plaintiff
• destroyed and concealed key evidence (Walgreens RX receipts and timestamps)
• corrupted the interrogatory and document production process to sabotage client’s case and to benefit defendants (in collaboration with opposing attorneys)
• suppressed information on mental health issues related to Dulberg’s injury
• corrupted the deposition process to sabotage client’s case and to benefit defendants (in collaboration with opposing attorneys)
• knew Defendant Gagnon effectively admitted to negligence for Dulberg’s injury in the court record but never informed Dulberg
• knew Defendant Gagnon committed perjury in his deposition (based on the concealed and destroyed key evidence)
• knew Defendant Carolyn McGuire committed perjury in her deposition (based on the concealed and destroyed key evidence)
• violated federal bankruptcy laws to sabotage client’s recovery and benefit defendants

• contracted with Dulberg and not with the Bankrupty Trustee
• told Dulberg (about 11 weeks later) he would withdraw counsel if Dulberg does not settle with Allstate for $50,000

• contracted with Dulberg instead of with the Bankruptcy Trustee
• moved to cap the value of PI case 12LA178
• closed the deal with an upper cap
• coerced Dulberg to agree and misinformed him of where the ‘upper cap’ came from
• moved to contract with Bankruptcy Trustee only after capping value of 12LA178
• misled Bankruptcy Judge that Dulberg wants Binding Mediation (about 11 weeks after the deal was closed)
• somehow arranged Dulberg’s signature to be forged onto the Binding Mediation Agreement
• coerced Dulberg into signing Release

Detailed Timelines of Law Firm Actions in Underlying Cases (Personal Injury 12LA178 and Bankruptcy 14-83578)

A Sophisticated System of Document and Information Suppression Used Against Dulberg's Personal Injury Claims Mapped in Detail (also described in the video series "Being targeted by a network of Illinois attorneys"):

A Sophisticated System of Document and Information Suppression Used Against Dulberg's Legal Malpractice Claims Mapped in Detail (also described in the video series "Being targeted by a network of Illinois attorneys"):

Record of Notifying Illinois State and Federal Authorities of Fraud and Fraud on the Court:

WARNING THE GENERAL PUBLIC THAT YOU, TOO, ARE IN DANGER:

COVERT NETWORKS OF LAW FIRMS EXIST AND ARE NOT SIMPLY THE PRODUCT OF OUR IMAGINATIONS

1) The general public

2) Elected representatives of the Illinois legislative branch

3) Agencies of the Illinois executive branch

4) Federal judicial and legislative officials