WILLIAMSON CO.—Documents filed in the divorce case of Illinois State Representative John E. Bradley (D-117th) seem to support the allegation reported last month that the state rep might be headed for a collision course with Illinois’ Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission.
This comes on the heels of Bradley’s younger brother, attorney Josh Bradley, having his ARDC complaint against him amended to include a Marion woman who lost nearly everything she owned when her husband manipulated land documents, while Josh Bradley was her attorney and should have known the manipulation was going on.
The bitter divorce
According to court documents on file in Union County, where John Bradley’s divorce from his ex, Amy, has been moved after having been filed in 2011 in Hardin County, then booted to White before coming to rest inexplicably in Union, Amy Bradley, about a year after the divorce was commenced, was in the garage of the home the couple had shared for many years, retrieving some items to take away from the property, since Bradley was going to retain the residence in the divorce.
Amy Bradley found a statement from a bank in West Frankfort, the statement bearing information on an account entitled “John E. Bradley Trust.” In the interest-bearing trust account was a balance, as of January 2012, of $227,478.49.
“The notation on the account demonstrates it was opened exactly 31 days after the dissolution of marriage was granted,” reads a filing in the court case about the exhibit entered, being a copy of the statement. “John Bradley knowingly and intentionally concealed the amount of a very large settlement he received through his law practice, a portion of which was placed into the account described in (the exhibit).”
The claim on file, issued by Amy Bradley through her attorney Susan Burger, stated her belief that Bradley had other accounts in which he secretly deposited and deliberately concealed money from his law practice.
“Upon information and belief, John Bradley told the source of this money to hold the payment until after the divorce was final,” the documents show, and further state that Amy didn’t know the extent of Bradley’s law practice and financials, and that he refused to turn over tax return information.
Property of the marriage had already been “disposed” at the time Amy made the discovery, the court file reads, but Burger insisted that the “two-year statute is tolled by the fraud of John Bradley in concealing marital assets from his law practice,” and so in this filing, entered April 24 of this year, Burger asked that the portion of the dissolution which dispposed the property of the parties be vacated, and any settlement declared void by fraud over not making full disclosure of financials.
Fits the documents viewed
This filing in the divorce and custody case, which is growing exponentially with rebuttal filings from Bradley’s attorney JohnWomick, fits the documents Disclosure was able to view following the publication of material pertaining to John Bradley’s brother Josh Bradley, who is facing increasing counts against him by the state’s ARDC.
The document Disclosure viewed was a complaint against John Bradley regarding money he was alleged to have received for his work with Steve Stone, a Marion attorney who represented the estate of Walter Eickelman of Franklin County, after Eickelman was killed in a trench collapse in 2008 while working a construction job.
The lawsuit, conducted in St. Clair County, was one of the largest settlements of its kind, with Stone reportedly getting $600,000 for his representation of the estate.
A portion of this, the reputed document states, went to Bradley for his assistance in the case, no notation of which Disclosure can discover on file anywhere, prompting this publication to consider that the document viewed in June might not have been real. Calls to the ARDC turned up that there was nothing official on file; however, a spokesman for the agency said that a complaint could be on file, but until it reaches the “grievance” stage, it’s not made public. The spokesman further couldn’t confirm that the document Disclosure viewed (but did not retain a copy of) was real, nor could confirm that an official complaint was filed.
However, the document Disclosure viewed had all the elements that are present in the Bradley divorce file, including the exact dollar amount, down to the penny.
Josh’s ARDC complaint moving forward
John Bradley’s brother Josh, also an attorney, has found his troubles increased as of a recent amendment to the ARDC complaint filed against him, which Disclosure covered in the June issue.
Of note in the case is the addition of the case of Marion resident Ermal Basham, about whom Disclosure published an outline in 2012, as the case involving the elderly widow is rife with the kind of corruption that causes Marion movers and shakers to stink to high heaven.
Mrs. Basham became the victim of alleged fraud prior to having a divorce filed against her by her now-late (deceased October 2013) husband Charles Basham in early 2007. Josh Bradley was hired to represent her in late 2009.
The case dragged on over two years before entering the final judgment phase, at which time Bradley agreed to represent her in an appeal of the local court’s decision relating to her property. At issue was an alleged forged signature on a deed, which was acknowledged as legitimate by Williamson County officials and which turned all of Ermal Basham’s family property over to her husband, having been accomplished in the years leading up to the divorce and without Mrs. Basham’s knowledge.
In March of 2011, Mrs. Basham filed an appeal, through Josh Bradley, in the Fifth Appellate Court in Mt. Vernon.
From that time, Josh Bradley filed five motions for extensions of time to file Mrs. Basham’s brief. In August of 2011, the court grew tired of it and issued a Rule to Show Cause why the appeal should not be dismissed.
One more motion for extension of time was filed and granted, but in September 2011, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution (no follow-up on the part of Josh Bradley.)
As a result, Mrs. Basham lost her case and any possibility at all that she could prove the forging of the signature and recovery of her land.
Further, she didn’t even find out the case had been dismissed in the appeals court until January 5, 2012.
ARDC amends earlier complaint
With Josh Bradley already facing seven counts in his earlier ARDC complaint, Ermal Basham’s was added to that number.
The ARDC is accusing Josh Bradley of failure to abide by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives of representation by failing to obtain the client’s permission to abandon the appeal; failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, by failing to file an appellate court brief on behalf of the appellant; and failure to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of a matter, by failing to promptly tell his client that the appeal had been dismissed.
In addition to the eighth count now being a part of the overall ARDC complaint, two other counts have been added, these pertaining to the case of Natalie and Michael Hosick, who were injured in an auto accident in 2008. Details of that case will appear in upcoming issues.
The procedure through which ARDC complaints advance through the determination can take years to accomplish; Bradley continues in his practice, as does his brother the state rep.
However, Marion sources indicate that things have become strained for the two attorneys, as the pressure is on from multiple fronts and the tight little web of movers and shakers in that town has seemingly begun to unravel at the edges.
The pressure can be seen in a January 2014 filing in the divorce case of John and Amy Bradley, into which a Guardian ad Litem for their two minor sons, Patrick Duffy, was appointed.
Pertaining to the GAL’s report, Duffy stated that he wanted it sealed “because one or more news agencies are interested in the progress and outcome of the litigation, in all probability for no other reason than the occupation of the petitioner (Bradley).”
Duffy claimed the report was affording protection for the minors, despite the fact that their names, and interactions with both parents as well as Bradley’s new wife, Michelle Moore, were abundant throughout the ever-expanding file.
Duffy argued that what he was requesting was not “prior restraint” (seeking to keep public information from news organizations prior to the material even being available and the news being published), but was something that was in the best interests of the children.
He was granted sealing of some of the documents, including the report he himself issued on the situation.
There will be more regarding the divorce in upcoming issues, as there was an argument set to be heard in Union County on those matters August 15, 2014.