ORDER IN THE APPELLATE COURT, STATE OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT Nos." 09-1868, 08-3560, 09-0353, 09-0624, 09-0956, 09-1059, 09-1066, 09-1894, 09-2002, 09-2003, 09-2061, 09.3368, 09-3369, 09-3428, 10-0089, 10-0333 Not Consolidated ) LEO STOLLER, ) Plaintiff-Appellant, ) v. ) LANCE G._ JOHNSON, et al, ) Defendants-Appellees. ) ORDER ‘This cause coming to be heard on the January 19, 2010 Request of Defendants-Appellees in Stoller v, Johnson, 09-1868, for Judicial Notice of A Seventh Circuit Order Finding that Leo Stoller Was Deceptive About His /n Forma Pauperis Status; a response having been filed by Plaintiff-Appellant, IT IS ORDERED that the Request for Judicial Notice of A Seventh Circuit Order Finding that Leo Stoller Was Deceptive About His Jn Forma Pauperis Status is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, on the Court's own motion, that Leo D. Stoller is ordered to show cause why, in the above listed unconsolidated appeals, he should not be held in contempt of Court and these appeals should not be dismissed in view of the December 4, 2009 decision entered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in In Re: Leo D. Stoller, No. 08-4240, on appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, No. 1:07-cv-05118, where, after referring the matter to a special master to take evidence and make a report and recommendation regarding the disposition of Mr. Stoller’s appeal, the Court of Appeals held that Mr. Stoller had been deceptive in regard to his in forma Page | of 2 pages "Since 2008, in addition to these cases, Mr. Stoller has filed in the Illinois Appellate Court, First District:(a) two appeals in which the appellant’s $25 docketing fee was paid (09-0846 and 09-2062); (b) two recent appeals in which the fee has not yet been paid, nor has a motion to waive fee been filed (10-0115 and 10-0222), and ( c) eight appeals which are now closed, in which the docketing fee was waived pursuant to motions by Mr. Stoller (08-0366; 08- 0943; 08-1570; 08-2111, 08-2929, 09-0048, 09-1156, 09-2392),08-1868 ef al, ‘pauperis status? * Mr. Stoller is directed to file a response, no longer than five pages, to this rule ‘to show cause on or before s. O ___. Mr Stoller may file his response under appeal 09-1868, and it shall be deemed — to the rule in all of the other aise the top of this order. Mr. Stoller’s response shall be no more than five page: wt bee no sthension, Justice ORDER ENTERED FEB 11 2010 [APPELLATE COURT, FIRST DISTRICT Page two of two pages STEVEN M. RAVID, CLERK OF THE APPELLATE COURT, FIRST DISTRICT * Based on this finding, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, reinstated a Mack bar (see Support Sys. Int'l, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185,186 (th Cir. 1995)) except for criminal cases and applications for writs of habeas corpus, and further ordered that the special master’s report be forwarded to the U.S. Attorney for the Norther District of Illinois for consideration as to whether a perjury prosecution was warranted. “In his latest motions to waive fees, filed in appeals 10-0089 on January 9, 2010, and 10- 0333, filed on February 3, 2010, Mr. Stoller refers to several Courts where he Says that he was previously allowed to proceed as a pauper, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of llinois. Mr. Stoller does not, however, mention the District Court or Appeals Court decision referenced in the first paragraph of this order.