April 21, 1997

Ms. Mary Robinson, Administrator
Attorney Registration and
Disciplinary Commission
130 E. Randolph Dr. - #1500
Chicago, IL 60601-6219

Dear Ms. Robinson:

Re: Theodora Gordon

These charges of attorney misconduct are being filed against attorney Theodora Gordon for the ethical violations stated below.

Our Supreme Court has established a Rule that an attorney must make a full, complete, separate, and independent serious inquiry into the facts of a case before filing any pleading, and may not rely on the allegations made by their client. Supreme Court Rule ("SCR") 137. An attorney does not have to be sanctioned to be engaged in conduct in violation of SCR 137.

As an attorney, Theodora Gordon knew, or reasonably should have known, that SCR 137 applies to all oral misrepresentations as well as all written representations. Fremarek v. John Hancock Mut. Life. Ins., 272 Ill.App.3d 1067 (1995) and other citations referred to therein.

Our Supreme Court has also made it a mandatory requirement that attorneys must not make any misrepresentation to the court. Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct Rules 3.1 and 3.3. Courts have ruled that misrepresentation, on the part of an officer of the court, includes the commission, omission, silence, and concealment of any facts to the court.

Attorney Theodora Gordon appeared before Judge Allen S. Goldberg on December 6, 1997, filing her appearance on behalf of Phyllis Alpern in case no. 96-CH-5651. At that court hearing Ms. Gordon requested time to review the purported "voluminous" record of case no. 91-D-5122. To provide Ms. Gordon sufficient time, she requested and received sufficient time and until January 21, 1997 to file her answer. (see Transcript of December 6, 1996 hearing).

Ms. Gordon represented to the court that she needed sufficient additional time to review the purported "voluminous" record of the 91-D-5122 case, Phyllis Alpern v. Eugene Alpern. If Ms. Gordon did not make a full and complete review of the entire record of the 91-D-5122 case, then Ms. Gordon made an intentional misrepresentation to the court, unless she notified the court that she had not made a full and complete review of the record of the 91-D-5122 court. Ms. Gordon did not so inform the court.

Mrs. Gordon had a separate and independent duty to make a full and complete review of the 91-D-5122 action, and of all other actions that she relied on, pursuant to SCR 137 and the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct ("Rule(s)"). Ms. Gordon knew, or reasonably should have known, of her duties under SCR 137 and the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct Rules 3.1, 3.3, 8.3, and 8.4.

Ms. Gordon knew, or reasonably should have known, that she voluntarily and intentionally was engaged in a course of conduct in violation of Rules 3.1 and 3.3.

If attorney Gordon had reviewed the entire record of the 91-D-5122 case, as she was required, and had a duty, to do under law, she would have found that her client had filed an identical case, Phyllis Alpern v. Eugene Alpern, under case no. 90-D-2724, on February 23, 1990, which had been assigned to Calendar B (Judge Gustafson).

Ms. Gordon knew or reasonably should have known that attorneys have no lawful authority to file multiple actions, to obtain the judge of their choice. (See GILL, MICHAEL JON and MARKS, JONATHAN L., Disciplinary case no. 94 CH 00530).

Once a litigant has filed a case, there is no lawful authority for any attorney to file a second identical case, while the first action is pending. Ms. Gordon knowingly and intentionally failed to advise any court of the previous filing. Theodora Gordon had a separate and independent duty to inform the Disciplinary Commission of the additional court filing(s) by attorney Allen S. Gabe, in addition to all courts before which the 90-D-2724 and the 91-D-5122 actions had been brought.

Ms. Gordon knew, or reasonably should have known, that she voluntarily and intentionally was engaged in a course of conduct in violation of Rules 3.1, 3.3, 8.3 and 8.4.

If attorney Gordon had reviewed the entire record of the 91-D-5122 case, as she was required, and had a duty, to do under law, she would have found that attorney Allen S. Gabe appeared before Judge Gustafson in case no. 90-D-2724 on March 23, 1991 and presented to the court a one-party purported Agreed Order, an Order submitted under the name of another attorney, that of Neil A. Robin, the actual attorney of record. Attorney Allen S. Gabe is not from the same law firm as Neil A. Robin, but represented himself as Neil A. Robin.

The transcript of the March 23, 1991 hearing, filed with the court, disclosed to Ms. Gordon that Judge Gustafson stated in open court that he would not sign the Agreed Order since it was not signed by both parties and that he would not sign the Agreed Order unless both parties agreed to that Order.

As the purported respondent in the 90-D-2724 case, I did not sign nor authorized any one to agree to that purported Order. As I did not have an attorney at that time, I had no legal representation and no other person had the lawful authority to represent me in that action. At no time was I served with notice of the purported Agreed Order, or with a copy of the purported Agreed Order.

Theodora Gordon knew, or reasonably should have known, that attorney Allen S. Gabe had no lawful authority to represent Eugene Alpern, nor to appear in his behalf without his authority.

Courts have repeatedly held that an Order issued without notice is void.

Attorney Theodora Gordon failed to notify this Commission, nor any court of the fraudulent action of attorney Allen S. Gabe, in appearing before Judge Gustafson as attorney Neil A. Robin. Further attorney Theodora Gordon failed to notify this Commission, nor any court of the fraudulent action of attorney Allen S. Gabe, in his filing a purported Agreed Order that had not been agreed to by all parties.

Ms. Gordon knew, or reasonably should have known, that the Order was void and that Allen S. Gabe knowingly and intentionally engaged in a course of conduct in a fraud upon the court.

Ms. Gordon acted in connivance with Allen S. Gabe, and others, in the filing of a void order and concealment of the fact that an attorney, without lawful authority, falsely represented himself as another attorney before a tribunal. Ms. Gordon is as guilty as Allen S. Gabe in making a misrepresentation to the 90-D-2724 court.

Theodora Gordon voluntarily and intentionally engaged in an action in violation of Rules 8.3 and 8.4. Further, Ms. Gordon voluntarily and intentionally engaged in action as an accessory to the fact of the filing of a void order in the 90-D-2724 court. Ms. Gordon knew, or reasonably should have known, that she voluntarily and intentionally was engaged in a conspiracy to the presentation of a non-lawful Order to the court, and in the coverup of the misconduct of attorney Allen S. Gabe.

Ms. Gordon knew, or reasonably should have known, that she was engaged in actions in violation of Rules 8.3 and 8.4.

If attorney Gordon had reviewed the entire record of the 91-D-5122 case, as she was required, and had a duty, to do under law, she would have found that no valid Petition was filed in that case, pursuant to 735 ILCS Sec 201. She would have also found that the Chief Deputy Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, as well as three Justices of the First District Appellate Court, Fourth Division, found that their inspection of the record of the 91-D-5122 case resulted in a finding that no Petition could be found in the record of the case.

Attorney Theodora Gordon had a separate and independent duty to advise the 96-CH-5651 judge that no Petition existed in the 91-D-5122 court, and therefore under the decisions of the Illinois Supreme Court and the Illinois Appellate Courts that, in any action without a Petition, or with a Petition not complying with or filed pursuant to law, the court has no lawful authority to hear or rule in that case. Ms. Gordon knew, or reasonably should have known, that no justiciable controversy had been properly placed before the Circuit Court of Cook County under case no. 91-D-5122.

Attorney Gordon knew, or reasonably should have known, that she voluntarily and intentionally engaged in an action in violation of Rules 3.1, 3.3, 8.3, and 8.4.

If attorney Gordon had reviewed the entire record of the 91-D-5122 case, as she was required, and had a duty, to do under law, she would have found that under General Order 90-D-2 of the Domestic Relations Division, upon the refiling of an action, the action must be assigned to the same court calendar as the previous action was assigned.

In the 91-D-5122 action, the case was assigned to court Calendar C, while the 90-D-2724 case had been assigned to court Calendar B.

Theodora Gordon knew, or reasonably should have known, that the First District Appellate Court, on October 30, 1996, affirmed that General Order 90-D-2 had been the law of this circuit. Blair v Mackoff, Berland, and Blair, 1-95-1434, sl.op. (October 30, 1996).

Attorney Gordon did not inform any court that attorney Allen Gabe had engaged in actions in violation of the law of this circuit, and she knowingly acted in violation of Rules 3.1 and 3.3.

Further, attorney Gordon did not report the actions of attorney Allen S. Gabe to this commission, in violation of Rules 8.3 and 8.4.

Ms. Gordon knew, or reasonably should have known, that she had a separate and independent duty to inform each of the courts wherein the purported 91-D-5122 action had been brought, and the ARDC, of the unethical conduct of Allen S. Gabe.

Ms. Gordon acted in connivance with Allen S. Gabe, and with others, in the cover-up of the filing of multiple identical actions contrary to law and to the known decisions of the ARDC and the Illinois Supreme Court.

Ms. Gordon knew, or reasonably should have known, that she was an accessory to the fact that multiple filings of the same case had been made to the Circuit Court of Cook County in violation of current law, and that she was a voluntary principal in the scheme to coverup the multiple filings of, and the ethical misconduct of, attorney Allen S. Gabe.

Ms. Gordon knowingly and intentionally engaged in actions in violation of Rules 3.1, 3.3, 8.3 and 8.4.

Ms. Gordon failed to cite adverse authority to the 96-CH-5651 court, in violation of Rule 3.3.

Attorney Gordon knew, or reasonably should have known, that all courts have jurisdiction to inquire into the jurisdiction of another court. Old Wayne Mut. L. Assoc. v. McDonough, 204 U.S. 8, 27 S.Ct. 256 (1907).

As an attorney, Ms. Gordon knew, or reasonably should have known, that any fraud committed in the attempt to procure the court's purported jurisdiction deprives the court of any jurisdiction. Vulcan Materials Co. v. Bee Const. Co., Inc., 101 Ill.App.3d 30, 40, 427 N.E.2d 797 (1st Dist. 1981).

Theodora Gordon knew, or reasonably should have known, that the Illinois Supreme Court has repeatedly held that "Whatever the rank of the court exercising a special statutory jurisdiction, it is governed by the same rules as courts of limited jurisdiction." Brown v. VanKeuren, 340 Ill. 118, 122 (1930) and other cases citing to Brown.

Ms. Gordon knew, or reasonably should have known, that the Illinois Supreme Court has held that "Where a court is exercising special statutory jurisdiction the record must show upon its face that the case is one where the courts have authority to act. Before a decree can have vitality the court must have jurisdiction not only of the person but of the subject matter." Brown v. VanKeuren, 340 Ill. 118, 122 (1930) and other cases referring to Brown.

Ms. Gordon knew, or should have known, that she was acting to make it appear that a judgment issued without jurisdiction and therefore void, was a valid judgment. This action is contrary to all law, and constitutes a fraud upon the court.

Theodora Gordon knew, or reasonably should have known, that the Illinois Supreme Court has held that the "court derived its jurisdiction to proceed in a matter solely from statute, ordinary presumptions of jurisdiction do not obtain, and every fact necessary to support such jurisdiction must appear from the face of the record." People v. Heizer, 36 Ill.2d 438, 223 N.E.2d 128 (1967).

Ms. Gordon knew, or reasonably should have known, that the Illinois Supreme Court had ruled that "Where a court is exercising a special statutory jurisdiction, ... , jurisdiction is never presumed, and if it does not appear from the record, the judgment is void."

Ms. Gordon knew, or reasonably should have known, that the same Court held that as to the issuance of Summons: "Service of such notice as the county shall direct is jurisdictional. Lawful evidence that such service has been made must be preserved in the record, otherwise the court is without jurisdiction."

Theodora Gordon knew, or reasonably should have known, after reviewing the entire record of the 91-D-5122 case, that the record of the case does not contain any evidence that either a summons or a Petition had been served. She knew, or reasonably should have known, that in an inspection of the record by the chief deputy Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, and by three Justices of the First District Appellate Court, Fourth Division, they all confirmed that no Petition existed in the record of the 91-D-5122 case.

Ms. Gordon knew, or reasonably should have known, that the Illinois Supreme Court has held that "In determining whether a lack of jurisdiction is apparent from the record, we must look to the whole record, which includes the pleadings, the return on the process, ... , and the judgment or decree of the court." State Bank of Lake Zurich v. Thill, 113 Ill.2d 294, 497 N.E.2d 1156 (1986). Attorney Gordon did not make a full, complete, serious inspection of the record of case no. 91-D-5122 for her to assume that the judge had jurisdiction, in contradiction to the numerous prior decisions of the courts that one cannot presume that a court of limited jurisdiction has any jurisdiction. If she had, she should have made the same finding that the three Justices of the Illinois Appellate Court and the Chief Deputy Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County had found - that the record of the 91-D-5122 was void of a summons and a Petition. If she followed the law, Ms. Gordon had a fiduciary duty to inform the 96-CH-5651 court that the record of the 91-D-5122 case could not establish that the 91-D-5122 court held any jurisdiction.

Attorney Gordon had a duty to inform the court of these and other applicable rulings; instead she argued, contrary to all law, that the 91-D-5122 court held jurisdiction. She knew, or reasonably should have known, that she was voluntarily and intentionally perpetrating a "fraud upon the court".

Ms. Gordon has not cited even one case that supports her position. She willfully entered with others into a scheme to make misrepresentations to the courts, commit fraud upon the courts, file harassing motions, and knowingly and intentionally violate the law and the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct.

Ms. Gordon knowingly and intentionally engaged in conduct in violation of Rule 3.3, 3.4, 8.3 and 8.4.

Ms. Gordon knew, or reasonably should have known, that the other defendants' attorney, Benjamin Hyink, in case no. 96-CH-5651, had the same duty under Rule 3.3 to inform the court of the law relative to the above Charge VI, which also applied to Mr. Hyink.

Ms. Gordon acted in connivance with attorney Benjamin Hyink, and others, to engage in actions which were designed to not inform the courts of adverse controlling authority.

Theodora Gordon knew, or reasonably should have known, that she was engaged in a course of conduct in violation of Rules 8.3 and 8.4.

Your investigation will result in a finding that attorney Theodora Gordon knew, or reasonably should have known, that she had intentionally entered into a course of conduct which was in violation of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, in violation of the public policy of the State of Illinois, and in violation of the law.

Ms. Gordon knew, or should have known, that her actions were intentionally creating a fraud upon the court.

I would appreciate your conducting an investigation into the above complaints.

Yours truly,



Eugene Alpern




email:  clr@clr.org

        Return to Gordon Page

        Return to Home Page