Guardaley | X-Art
How copyright troll Mary K Schulz deceived the court… 600+ times
The latest notice of appearance also indicates “Schulz Law” as Ms. Schulz’s law firm.
There is one small problem with it. According to the Illinois Secretary of State portal, “Schulz Law, P.C.” was involuntarily dissolved on 10/10/2014:
(Screenshot was taken on 4/19/2014)
I would understand a case when a law firm was dissolved for not paying proper fees on time (which was the most likely reason here), but diligent steps were promptly taken to correct the problem. Unlike a voluntary dissolution, this kind of situation is mendable. I waited for the correction to happen for six months, but it seems that Ms. Schulz simply doesn’t care.
Note that in every case she filed at least five documents, all signed as “Schulz Law, P.C.,” so essentially she deceived the court more than 600 times.
These people are not only evil in their assault on the productive population, but also sloppy and disrespectful to the tribunal.
I just found out that the involuntarily dissolution problem is now moot as Ms. Schulz started filing using a new entity in her signature block, “Media Litigation Firm”:
This doesn’t excuse the deceit: for nearly six months Schulz had been knowingly submitting false information to the court (and to the IARDC: she apparently found time and money to renew her bar registration), so this is an update, not a correction.
“Media Litigation Firm,” yet another beast’s head, was registered by a Chicago attorney James T. Derico, Jr. of Derico & Associates, P.C. on 4/06/2015 using his firm’s address. I have no idea how this attorney is related to the shakedown cartel. Time will tell.
15 responses to ‘How copyright troll Mary K Schulz deceived the court… 600+ times’
According to our president and attorney general, we can decide which laws to follow and which to ignore as best serves our particular purpose at any given time.
Well this ought to be interesting. Remember with Good Man Productions was dissolved and then after it was brought up on FCT the trolls were tripping over themselves to get a new entity registered so they could proceed with trolling.
It ought to be interesting to watch the panic set in unless Schultz has a new troll firm name up and running Asshole and associates maybe…rings familiarity. I am sure the trolls will be in a panic to get this rectified as usual.
Amazing how sloppy the trolls are getting the last while with the details.
Oh here is a question, don’t firms have to carry insurance?
Of the entity is defunct does that mean perhaps they were practicing without things required by the law? One can not insure that which does not exist.
Well this just does support the idea that the law only matters to them when it benefits them, and does not apply otherwise.
The downside is the courts will just issue a slap on the wrist at best given the history. They accused Does of connections to bestiality & CP videos and that only cost them $200, lying about a corporate entity would barely be a blip.
But the courts still have to “trust” its officers are actually operating within the law, and far be it for them to dare question these fine upstanding members of the bar while not extending any consideration to those accused by those who blatantly flout the law.
Time to send a visitor, google street view, and a snail-mail ping or two to that state street address, and see what is there! My bet is a little square metal door with a key in it, a suite no more than a foot on a side!
It’s a UPS box.
If you do a search for UPS store Geneva, IL, that address minus the number on the suite is one of three choices.
The trolls sure do like their dropbox mail addresses. Interesting, I wonder if Troll Schultz will be rushing to fix these , or maybe Troll central in Florida didn’t get the memo not to use that addy anymore.
We will see, you know the trolls come to the IHG group sites to find all their fuck up’s and then race like the devil to fix them before they get caught with their pants down looking like imbeciles
This is already “fixed” two weeks ago: I missed it. (See the update.)
I guess Suite A260 sounds more legitimate that mailbox A260. Guess you have to try and be classy somehow
I guess she holds conferences with clients next door at the wine & liquor store.
Is it ethical for an attorney to use a postal box as a work address, deliberately modifying it to appear as an office?
I don’t see a problem with any other type of small business doing so, but a litigator should reasonably expect to be physically served court documents.
Pingbacks & Trackbacks