IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

COUNTY DEPARTMENT - LAW DIVISION

CHRISTOPHERSTOLLER,
Plaintiff,
No. 14 CH 6759
vs.

(transferred from
Chancery)
MARK STOLLER, individually, and dlb/a
STEALTH CUES DEFCON INDUSTRIES,
LLC (Limited Liability Company Arizona)
ANDREW HAYS, ANTONIA HAYS,
SARAH BUCK, HAYS LAW FIRM LLC,
JOHN DOES 1 through 10, Et Al.,
Defendants.
PETITIONER'S PETITION FOR ADJUDICATION
OF INDIRECT CRIMINAL CONTEMPT
NOW COMES Petitioner, CHRISTOPHER STOLLER (hereinafter referred to as
"CHRISTOPHER"), by and through his attorneys, KISS & ASSOCIATES, LTD., and files his Petition
for Adjudication of Indirect Criminal Contempt against Andrew Hays, individually; Antonia Hays,
individually; Sarah Buck, individually; and the lawfirm of Hays Firm LLC (hereinafter collectively
referred to as "Respondents") and in support of his Petition for Adjudication of Indirect Criminal
Contempt states as follows:
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1. CHRISTOPHER is a 65-year-old disabled citizen. CHRISTOPHER is the father of
Defendant, MARK STOLLER (hereinafter referred to as "MARK"), who is 43 years old.
CHRISTOPHER suffers from depression and emotional stress over the loss of his wife of 38 years due
to suicide on June 2, 2007. On August 6, 2011, CHRISTOPHER's youngest son, David, 29, died due
to an over dose of drugs. CHRISTOPHER's lady friend was killed in a train accident on July 4, 2011.
Page 1 of 12
He was married to Bernice McKillip for 38 years. He had four children: Mark, 43; Janine, 39; Max,
34 and David. Bernice Stoller was CHRISTOPHER's high school sweet heart. Bernice graduated
from Trinity High School; River Forest, Illinois, in 1966. CHRISTOPHER took Bernice to his high
school prom at Elgin Academy in 1967.
2. CHRISTOPHER was incarcerated from January 20, 2009 in Phoenix, Arizona until he
was released from Dixon Correctional Center on August 30, 2013.1
3. Leo Stoller, 68, brother of CHRISTOPHER (hereinafter referred to as "LEO"), filed a
Petition for Guardianship of Christopher Stoller's estate and person in 2009 in Lake County, Illinois,
Case No. 09 P 957. On April 1, 2010 a guardian ad litem was appointed for CHRISTOPHER. See
attached Exhibit 1. CHRISTOPHER was declared "totally without understanding or capacity to make
and communicate decisions regarding his person and totally unable to manage his estate or financial
affairs" on February 20, 2011 when the Lake County Probate Court appointed a Plenary Guardian for
CHRISTOPHER. See attached Exhibit 2. CHRISTOPHER was restored to competency on October
30, 2013.2
4. CHRISTOPHER was incarcerated from January 29, 2009 until August 30, 2013 g . On
October 30, 2013 CHRISTOPHER was ordered restored to competency. See attached Exhibit 2.
5. On or about November 17, 2017 MARK called his father, CHRISTOPHER, and said he
could get his father a 20% return on CHRIESTOPHER's retirement money from a mutual fund he knew
of MARK asked his father to send him all of his retirement funds so that he could invest them for his
dad. MARK told his dad that he could have his money back any time he asked for it and that MARK
would not spend it on anything other than to invest it for his father. CHRISTOPHER sent MARK
$67,000.00. See attached Exhibit 3.
1
CHRISTOPHER's criminal matter is currently before the United States Supreme Court Case No. 14a190.
2
Exhibit 2.1
CHRISTOPHER's Case No. 117330 is on Appeal before the Illinois Supreme Court.
Page 2 of 12
6. In December of 2013 CHRISTOPHER called MARK and requested that his son send
him a copy of the brokerage account showing the mutual fund account. MARK said if
CHRISTOPHER would have to pay the capital gains on the increase in the value of the mutual fund.
MARK said that he had to meet with his accountant to discuss it. On or about December 31, 2013
CHRISTOPHER called his son, MARK, and requested his $67,000.00 to be immediately returned.
MARK said that CHRISTOPHER wastes his money, and that he could invest the $67,000.00 in
brokerage account and that by the time he would be ready to retire he could have $750,000.00!
MARK said he wasn't going to return CHRISTOPHER' s retirement money from his retirement
account. MARK said he was going to invest CHRISTOPHER's retirement funds in Defcon to buy
pool cues. See a true and correct copy of MARK's Stealth Cues website marked as Exhibit 4. MARK
told his father, CHRISTOPHER, "Go
f*k
yourself', causing CHRISTOPHER severe emotional
stress. On January 4, 2014 CHRISTOPHER sent MARK a letter demanding his money back. See
attached Exhibit 5. MARK admitted commingling CHRISTOPHER's $67,000.00 in the accounts of
Defcon and Stealth Cues. MARK is a one-man operation who regularly commingles his personal
funds into the accounts of his "shell" corporation, Defcon.
7. MARK called his father, CHRISTOPHER, on or about January 5, 2014 and said that he
"would return his father's retirement money of $67,000.00, and not to call him until January 16, 2014."
8. CHRISTOPHER called him on January 15, 2014. MARK refused to answer his phone
after January 16, 2014.
9. LEO sent an e-mail to MARK, demanding return of the said retirement monies on
January 16, 2014. MARK refused to respond. See attached Exhibit 6.
10. On or about January 16, 2014 CHRISTOPHER made a police report to the Northiake
Police Department in Northlake, Illinois, to Officer Wojniz, Report No. 14-01403. Officer Wojniz
Page 3 of 12
called MARK. MARK refused to talk with Officer Wojniz. MARK said he was "taking the 5th
Amendment!"
11. On January 21, 2014 CHRISTOPHER filed a Complaint with the Illinois Securities
Department, Mr. Frank Loscuito. See attached Exhibit 7. Mr. Loscuito sent to MARK an lie letter.
MARK's lawyer, Andrew T. Hays, sent correspondence (Exhibit 8) back to Mr. Loscuito, falsely
claiming that the retirement monies that CHRISTOPHER sent MARK was a gift. The correspondence
(Exhibit 8) contains many misstatements of material fact and also contained a perjured Affidavit of
MARK (Exhibit 9).
12. Respondents are charged not only with committing indirect criminal contempt but also
with subornation4 of perjury. Persuading MARK to swear under oath in an affidavit (which is part of
Exhibit 9) that was not true, falsely claiming that the $67,000.00 was a gift when Respondents knew or
should have known that MARK defrauded his father out of the $67,000.00 and was told by
Respondents to claim that it was a gift to create a fraudulent affirmative defense.
13. On January 22, 2014 CHRISTOPHER filed a mail fraud complaint against MARK for
mail fraud which involved the said $67,000.00 that MARK defrauded CHRISTOPHER out of, with the
U.S. Postal Inspection Service. See attached Exhibit 10. CHRISTOPHER also filed a complaint
against MARK for defrauding him out of $67,000.00 with the Illinois Attorney General's Office
Senior Citizen Fraud Division. See attached Exhibit 11.
14. MARK has refused to return the said retirement funds of $67,000.00, causing
CHRISTOPHER severe emotional stress and financial hardship. CHRISTOPHER has since been
4 In American law the subornation of perjury is the crime of persuading a person to commit perjury the swearing of a
false oath to tell the truth in a legal proceeding, be it spoken or written. 18 U.S. Code 1622 - Subornation of perjury
"Whoever procures another to commit any perjury is guilty of subornation of perjury, and shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than five years, or both."
Page 4 of 12
forced to move out of his retirement complex, which provided meals, furniture and housekeeping, into
an old peoples' home, low-income apartment, where he has no furniture and no meals provided.
CHRISTOPHER does not have enough money to pay for his living expenses, food and current bills
because of the injury caused by MARK and Respondents.
15. On information and belief on or about January 18, 2014 MARK contacted his
attorneys, Respondents, Andrew Hays, Antonia Hays and Sarah Buck (MARK's lawyers), and
informed them that he had taken $67,000.00 from CHRISTOPHER under false pretense, claiming that
he would invest his father's $67,000.00 while he had no intention of doing so.
16. On information and belief Respondents then coached MARK to lie under oath, sign a
perjured affidavit submitted as Exhibit 9. The perjured affidavit was drafted by Respondents as
admitted to by Sarah Buck. Sarah Buck stated in a letter incorporated herein by reference submitted to
ARDC on August 22, 2014 on Page 4, Paragraph 3, "I drafted Mark Stoller's Sworn Statement after a
lengthy phone conversation with him in February 2014." The Respondents then submitted the false
Affidavit of Mark Stoller to Mr. Frank Loscuito, an Enforcement Attorney with the Illinois Securities
Department, on February 13, 2014 in response to the Complaint that CHRISTOPHER had filed with
the Illinois Securities Department, claiming that MARK had defrauded him out of $67,000.00 under
the guise that MARK would invest CHRISTOPHER's $67,000.00 in stock that would return to
CHRISTOPHER a return of 20% or more.
17. On information and belief Respondents coached MARK to lie under oath. Respondents
told MARK in January of 2014 "not to worry", that if MARK merely claimed that the monies
($67,000.00) that CHRISTOPHER gave him to invest was really a "gift" and not to worry, that they
would handle this matter, just like they did the previous matter for MARK in Lake County when
"...I drafted Mark Stoller's sworn statement after a lengthy phone conversation with him in February 2014" Paragraph 3
page 2 of 4 from an August 22, 2014 Sarah Buck letter to ARDC Case No. 2014 IN 03331 marked as Exhibit
Page 5 of 12
MARK had previously sued CHRISTOPHER successfully. When in fact MARK's lawyers knew that
the said $67,000.00 was not a gift because CHRISTOPHER had filed four criminal complaints against
MARK for taking the $67,000.00. It was clear that MARK defrauded CHRISTOPHER out of
$67,000.00, aided and abetted by Respondents. See Thornwood v. Jenner & Block, 344 NE.2d 15
(I11.App.2003). In January of 2014 MARK informed CHRISTOPHER that the Hays Firm told him that
the Hays Firm would prevail by claiming that CHRISTOPHER gave his son the money as a gift, so
that he was not worried. See Christopher Stoller Affidavit Exhibit 12, Paragraph 22.
18. On April 28, 2014, CHRISTOPHER filed a Complaint alleging that MARK defrauded
him out of $67,000.00, CHRISTOPHER's entire retirement funds, and that this fraud resulted in
CHRISTOPHER's injury and damages. MARK never answered the Complaint and filed a Motion to
Dismiss. On June 17, 2014 the Court granted MARK's Motion to Dismiss in part and denied in part
that Counts 4 and 5 were stricken without prejudice.
19. CHRISTOPHER amended his Complaint on July 7, 2014 and added new Defendants,
Andrew Hays, Antonia Hays, Sarah Buck and Hays Firm LLC, as necessary parties asserting a
conspiracy and aiding and abetting counts against the new Defendants. See attached Exhibit 13.
Defendants', Mark Stoller, individually and dba Stealth Cues, Defcon Industries, LLC, answer to the
Amended Complaint was due on August 6, 2014.
20. Defendants, Andrew Hays, Antonia Hays, Sarah Buck and Hays Firm LLC, were served
by the Cook County Sheriff on July 16, 2014 (see attached Exhibit 14); and their answer was due on
August 18, 2014.
21. As of August 22, 2014 no answer or response was filed by Respondents to Petitioner's
Second Request for Admissions. See attached Exhibit 15.
22. CHRISTOPHER is entitled to his Request to Admit deemed admitted due to
Respondents' failure to respond to the Rule 216 Request to Admit. All the facts contained in that
Page 6 of 12
Request should be deemed admitted and thereby leave no issue of material fact with respect to
Defendants' alleged fraud.
23. CHRISTOPHER filed and served upon Respondents a written request for second set of
admission(s) of fact (request to admit), pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 216 (Rule 216). See 134 I11.2d
R. 216. This second request to admit propounded 25 questions with respect to the alleged fraud and
sought Respondents' response to each, served upon Defendants, Mark Stoller, Stealth Cues and Defcon
Industries, LLC on July 7, 2014. None of the Respondents have responded to Petitioner's Second Set
of Admissions nor have they requested that the Court grant any additional time for them to respond;
and therefore, Petitioner's Second Set of Admissions should also be deemed admitted. See attached
Exhibit 15.
DISCUSSION
Contempt of court is any act which is calculated to embarrass, hinder or obstruct a court in its
administration of justice, or to derogate from the court's authority or dignity. People v. Campbell 123
Ill.App.3d 103 (1984). Criminal contempt is concerned with preserving the dignity of the court while
civil sanctions aim to enforce rights of private parties. In re Marriage of Wilde, 141 Ill. App. 3d, 464,
(1986).
Indirect criminal contempt is distinguished by the fact that it occurs outside the presence of the
judge or as to matters of which he does not have personal or constructive notice. In re Marriage of
Betts 161 Ill.Dec. 892. The discussion most frequently arises where defendants are trying to classify
contempt as indirect rather than direct because of the greater procedural protections afforded a
defendant who is accused of indirect criminal contempt including the requirement of proof beyond a
reasonable doubt. See e.g. Id.
Indirect criminal contempt encompasses a broad range of conduct, including: spitting on a
petitioner as the respondent exits the courtroom (where the judge did not witness the act), In re
Page 7 of 12
Marriage of Madary, 519, NE 2d, 509 (1988), failure to return to court after a recess (where the court
did not have knowledge of the reasons for the defendant's absence), In re Marriage of Slingerland,
347, Iii. App. 3d, 707, the filing of the a civil law suit against a trial judge, People v. Kaeding, 192 Ill.
App. 3d, 660 (1989), the presentation of a falsified transcript (where the judge did not have judicial
notice the defendant's mental state), People v. Gerard, 146 N.E.2d 229 (1957) and other willful
misrepresentations People v. Penson, 557 N.E.2d 230. The filing of contemptuous documents can be
indirect criminal contempt. People v. Kaeding, 239 Ill. App. 3d, 851 (1993). Whether the contempt is
direct or indirect hinges on whether the judge has personal or constructive knowledge of all of the
elements necessary to prove the offense. Id.
When indirect criminal contempt is premised on the violation of a court order, Totten explains
the necessary elements. See People v. Totten, 118 Ill. 2d, 124, (1987). "To sustain a finding of
indirect criminal contempt for the violation of a court order, outside the presence of the court," it must
be proved that there is a court order and a willful violation of that order (Emphasis added). Id.
[People v. Wilcox, 5 Ill. 2d, 222, (1955)]. The case on which Totten relies elucidates the scope of
Totten. As the Court explained in Wilcox, it is necessary to distinguish between two types of contempt,
contempt that "consists of unseemly conduct" and contempt that is contemptuous disobedience of an
order of the Court. The existence of an order of the Court and proof of willful disobedience are
essential to a contempt of the latter type. Id. Totten places no restriction on the type of indirect
criminal contempt at issue in this case, which does not involve the violation of a court order.
ARGUMENT
The Respondents in this case created a contemptuous document, the perjured Affidavit of Mark
Stoller which is attached to Exhibit 9. The Respondents filed MARK's perjured Affidavit with the
Illinois Securities Department on February 13, 2014. The false Affidavit was contemptuous because it
contained a willful misrepresentation that was "calculated to embarrass, hinder, or obstruct the court in
Page 8 of 12
the administration of justice." The Respondents were acting with intent to obstruct the Illinois
Securities Department in the administration of justice by coaching their client, Mark Stoller, into
falsely admitting that the $67,000.00 that MARK deceived CHRISTOPHER into giving him under the
false pretense that MARK would invest the $67,000.00 into securities that would give
CHRISTOPHER a 20% return on his investment. After the Respondents were successful in defeating
the Petitioner's Complaint with the Illinois Securities Department, which stated that MARK defrauded
CHRISTOPHER out of $67,000.00 by MARK claiming that he would invest CHRISTOPHER's
$67,000.00 into securities with a high rate of return for CHRISTOPHER.
The Respondents then, outside of the purview of this Court, during the course of this litigation
again submitted MARK'S perjured Affidavit to the ARDC on August 22, 2014. See attached Exhibit 9.
THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE THAT RESPONDENTS ENGAGED IN
INDRECT CRIMINAL CONTEMPT
Probable cause is a level of reasonable belief, based on facts that can be articulated, that a
person committed the offense charged. Here, the actus reas is that a false representation was made in
MARK's false Affidavit that the money ($67,000.00) that MARK received from CHRISTOPHER was
a "gift." The mens rea is that the misrepresentation was willful and was calculated to hinder and
obstruct the Illinois Securities Department Investigation of the Securities Complaint that
CHRISTOPHER filed. Again Respondents filed the same Mark Stoller perjured Affidavit in a
response to an ARDC complaint that CHRISTOPHER filed against Respondents during the pendency
of the on-going litigation. Respondents filed the false Mark Stoller Affidavit with the ARDC to thwart
the ARDC investigation of Respondents' professional misconduct and the ARDC administration of
justice.
Page 9 of 12
Now, on the record there are two conflicting affidavits, MARK's February 13, 2014 affidavit
(Exhibit 9) and CHRISTOPHER's Affidavit (Exhibit 12), which refutes each and every perjured
statement of MARK marked as Exhibit 9.
Given the respective motives of CHRISTOPHER who had nothing to gain by perjuring himself
when he swore that MARK defrauded him out of $67,000.00 and had filed four complaints with law
enforcement agencies stating that CHRISTOPHER was in fact defrauded out of $67,000.00 (Exhibit
12) by MARK is probable that the Affidavit of CHRISTOPHER (Exhibit 12) accurately reflects the
exchange between himself and MARK. It is probable that the Affidavit of MARK (Exhibit 9)
contains the false representations.
In light of the long history of Respondents in thwarting the administration of justice in this case,
there exists a reasonable belief that the alleged false misrepresentation(s) that were orchestrated by
Respondents, who drafted MARK's Affidavit, were made willfully and not innocently. It is clear that
Respondents had the motive to make the false affidavit (Exhibit 9) for MARK representation in order
that they might protect themselves, their firm and their partners. It is reasonable to conclude that
Respondents willfully made the misrepresentation in order to hinder and obstruct the Court in its
administration of justice. There exists a reasonable belief, based upon the facts which have been
articulated, that Respondents committed the offenses charged. The standard of probable cause has
been met.
Respondents' drafting and filing MARK's false sworn pleading (Exhibit 9) attached hereto falls
under the category of contempt, Winning Moves, Inc., v. Hi! Baby, Inc., 238 Ill. App. 3D 834, 179 Iii.
Dec. 12 605 N.E.ed 1026 (2d Dist. 1992) which is punishable under Indirect Criminal Contempt 18
U.S.C. Section 401(2) or (3). The filing of false sworn pleadings (Exhibit 9) and/or an attorney
representing a party who attests to the false sworn pleading falls under the category of indirect criminal
contempt and is punishable by the Indirect Criminal Contempt as a separate criminal violation, which
Page 10 of 12
this Court must issue an order sending this matter to the Chief Judge for re-assignment for an Indirect
Criminal Contempt hearing.
Lastly the Hays Law Firm no standing to defend Mark Stoller in this lawsuit. Petitioner
contends that the law firm of Hays was not registered to practice law in the State as required by
Rule 72 1(c) at the time they filed their appearance in this case. Recently the consequences of a law
firm's failure to obtain a Rule 72 1(c) certificate of registration from the Illinois Supreme Court were
addressed in Ford Motor Credit Company v. Sperry, Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District, No.
2-02-0462, Decided: November 3, 2003. In Illinois. it is well established that only persons duly
admitted to practice law in this State may appear on behalf of other persons. The normal effect of a
person's unauthorized practice on behalf of a party is to require the dismissal of the cause or to treat
the particular actions taken by the representative as a nullity." Patt-Holdampf, 338. App. 31) at 1083,
Ill. Dec. 708, 789 N.E.ed. Ford Motor Credit Company v. Thomas B. Sperry No. 2-02-0462 Decided
November 3, 2003, Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District. To enforce court orders entered by
unlicensed and therefore unregulated law firms would abrogate the State purpose of the Rule 721(c)
certificate of registration.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, CHRISTOPHER STOLLER, prays:
A. That this Court order this case to be re-assigned for a hearing on
Petitioner's Petition for Adjudication of Indirect Criminal Contempt; and
B. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just under these
circumstances.
Page 11 of 12
Philip M. Kiss
KISS & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Attorneys at Law
5250 Grand Avenue - #14-408
Gurnee, Illinois 60031
(815) 385-4410
VERIFICATION
Under penalties as provided by law pursuant to Section 1-109 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
the undersigned certifies that the statements set forth in this instrument are true and correct, except as
to matters therein stated to be on information and belief, and as to such matters the undersigned
certifies as aforesaid that he truly believes the same to be true, and the attached documents are true and
correct copies of the originals.
Christopher Stoller
Page 12 of 12