Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
A potential pro se litigant who unsuccessfully attempted to bring suit against talk-show host David Letterman and other parties in Milford, Conn., Superior Court has been barred from passing himself off as an “officer of the court” in his flawed legal documents. Ruling in November on a complaint initiated by the Statewide Grievance Committee, Milford Superior Court Judge Richard E. Arnold also ordered respondent Stanton Jolley to stop using “Legal Services, Inc.” letterhead for the purposes of engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. Court officials alerted the grievance committee after Jolley allegedly tried to serve a bogus claim for $100,000 on a Milford branch of the formerly named Bank of Boston in June 1999. Jolley allegedly had signed the claim as “an officer of the court.” The bank’s legal counsel called the court with questions about the claim’s validity, according to a June 29, 1999 letter from Milford Chief Clerk Nellie Jo Dubin to Trial Court Administrator Nancy L. Kierstead. The letter is one of the exhibits Arnold relied on in making his ruling. Jolley, who is listed in court papers as living in Milford, but doesn’t have a listed telephone number, could not be reached for comment. Prior to the bank incident, Jolley, according to Dubin’s letter, had visited the Milford court at least 20 times in connection with his attempts to file three suits, including one against Letterman and CBS, which airs Letterman’s late-night talk show. A one-page letter, which Jolley apparently thought was a complaint adequate to launch a suit against Letterman, charged the TV personality and CBS with harassment and acquiring unspecified “Photo-graphic and or Pictorial material” without Jolley’s consent. In separate letters he presented to the court, Jolley also stated his intention to bring action against the former Bank of Boston and the sheriff’s department in Waterbury, Conn., which he claimed had failed to procure money that Jolley alleged was owed to him as part of a bank execution. None of the papers, however, could be accepted by the court because they didn’t resemble a complaint, and Jolley refused to pay filing fees, Dubin stated in her letter to Kierstead. After claiming he was indigent, Jolley, according to the letter, was granted a fee waiver on the condition that he file proper complaints, which he never did. Upon viewing the words “Legal Services, Inc.” on Jolley’s letterhead, a court clerk requested his juris number. Jolley responded by saying “he didn’t believe in them,” Dubin noted.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.