From Texas–changes to the guardianship laws

First the story:

http://watchdogwire.com/texas/2013/04/19/texas-guardianship-bill-seeks-to-close-current-due-process-loophole/

Now the most interesting quote:

A stream of witnesses told emotional guardianship horror stories alleging total disregard of any due process by the courts, denial of access to loved ones and expensive legal battles stemming from

questionable court actions.

While apparently the law did not pass, apparently there is much, much malcontent down in Texas on guardianship issues.  From the comments I get, it is the same here.  Illinois has a great law, the Illinois Probate Act, but for some Judges and court connected attorneys and agencies, it is in pristine condition, because apparently it is little used and quoted in the Illinois courtrooms.

Ruby Peterson–3rd Amended Complaint for an Injunction

From Candice Schwager in Texas, some great ideas for an injunction against harming disableds by targeting them, forcing them to live in a nursing home and then selling assets to pay court connected attorneys fees and nursing home fees, draining the estate and then plan of final demise via drugs and despondency:

http://elderlawadvocates.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/plaintiffs-3rd-amended-app-for-injunction.pdf

From Tom Fields — How the authorities in Australia are using the court system to limit damages to court abuse victims

Abuse compensation priority for commission

By Australian Associated Press

Published: 18:44 EST, 22 January 2015  | Updated: 18:44 EST, 22 January 2015

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/aap/article-2922629/Abuse-compensation-priority-commission.html

I think everyone can see the interesting parallels between cutting even modest damages paid to court abuse victims and church sexual abuse victims when the government wants to limit claims when they put kids in abusive state run facilities, and when the church has had abusive contact with children.

Both are seriously and ethically morally reprehensible and wrong.

JoAnne

And while the ARDC denies that corruption exists in the courtroom, Philadephia is facing the music…

http://www.sott.net/article/257560-Nine-Philadelphia-judges-arrested-on-charges-of-corruption

Apparently, legal problems aren’t over in Philadelphia when 6 judges are arrested for fixing tickets.  Some were for a set price and some just because they needed to take care of their friends.

It’s the hardest thing for an honest lawyer to charge your client when you know you get to court and there will be no justice for your client when everyone else has clout or an envelope of cash or some unfair bargaining form you’re not going to partake of, ever.

In most cases, the hard part is not that you’re going to lose, it will be that others will be gloating saying, “don’t you ever notice you never win” but you’re charging your client to go to a place where there will never be any justice, yet dozens of citizen complaints have been filed already regarding the practice and the FBI is silent and does not share, but the ARDC writes back letters that are nonsensical. (Sykes, Gore, Wyman, etc.)

Other cities and states have turned around 180 degrees when the public complaints just got too much for the authorities.  Let’s hope the turn around for the next state is Illinois.

Thanks for Atty Barbara Stone in Fla. for this article.

JoAnne

The Latest in the war against Disident honest attorneys in Illinois, JMD’s Petition for Interrim Suspension.

Dear Readers:

See below.  While the Petition for Interrim suspension was most likely written by SO, a champion against the rights of the public to a fair and just court system, and againt the First Amendment in all forms, the claims are that this blog “threatens irreparable harm to the public, my clients (I have no client complaints, please), and to the orderly administration of justice.”

No where in the 9 pages that were filed, is there any allegation made of a client willing to testify against me (many were contacted, and all politely declined, well, some not so politely, they told me), and how does a blog affect the orderly administration of justice.

Judges aren’t even supposed to read blogs.

The main claim to “orderly administration of justice” is that the Sykes case was “overly litigious” by Gloria due to this blog.  How is that?  It is never clearly explained.

The blog, as you well know, merely recites facts and laws so that people can judge for themselves and know their rights.

I think, the ARDC does not want the general public to know their rights, esp. in probate where the rule is to ignore the law (Sykes, Bedine, Wyman, Gore, Drabik, etc.) and grab all you can (Sykes, Bedin, Drabik, etc.)

See below and please explain to me if you can, how this blog “irreparably harms” you, the public, and how I irreparably harm my clients via blogging, and how a blog affects orderly administration of justice when the blog merely informs the reader of the statutes and case law.

If the playing field were fair, this would clearly be a frivolous pleading, but when you see the property records of Melissa Smart and Jerome Larkin, you clearly know what is going on.  And the appeal to the Ill. Supreme Court is no better. They denied my Citizens Participation Act petition and the ARDC wrongfully gloats about this illegal action against me.

JoAnne

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS
In the Matter of:
JOANNE MARlE DENISON
)
)
)
Attorney-Respondent,
) Commission No. 2013PROOOOI
)
)
No. 6192441 )
PETITION FOR INTERlM SUSPENSION
PURSUANT TO SUPREME COURT RULE 774
Jerome Larkin, Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission,
by his attorneys, Sharon D. Opryszek and Melissa A. Smart, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 774, respectfully requests that the Court issue a rule for Respondent Joarme Marie Denison to show cause why she should not be suspended until further order of the Court, effective immediately, for having engaged in conduct which threatens irreparable harm to the public, her clients, and to the orderly administration of justice. In support, the Administrator states:
1. SUMMARY
l, Respondent is a 57-year-old attorney who was admitted to practice law in Illinois
on May 8, 1986.
2. Respondent is currently the subject of a disciplinary proceeding in which she
initially appeared pro se; after four days of hearing, Nejla Lane filed her appearance as cocounsel.
Respondent participated in multiple pretrial hearings, filed multiple pre-hearing motions
with the Hearing Panel, the First District Appellate Court I and a motion for a supervisory order with the Supreme Court2, none of which was successful. The Hearing Board, following a six day hearing, has recommended that Respondent be suspended for three years and until further order.
‘In Re Denison v. ARDC and Larkin, docket number 1-13-1843 alleging a violation of 750 ILCS 110, the CItizens
Participation Act. On July 2, 2013. the Court dismissed the matter with prejudice.
, In re Denison v. tARDC. docket number 115688. On March 28, 2013, the Court denied Respondent’s motion.
of the Court. In re Denison, Commission No. 20l3PROOOOl. The November 21, 2014 Report and Recommendation of the Hearing Board is attached as Exhibit One.
3. The Hearing Board found that Respondent repeatedly made statements
concerning the integrity of judges, knowing that those statements were false, or made with
reckless disregard for their truth or falsity, engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, and
engaged in conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice. (Exh. One, at 24·35) The Board found that Respondent failed to appreciate the nature and seriousness of her conduct. (Id., at 51) Conversely, the Board found that the Administrator’s witnesses were credible and concluded that Respondent’s suggestions of bribery, impropriety and unethical conduct on the part of the judges and attorneys who testified against her were false. (Id., at 27)
4. The Board recommended that Respondent be suspended for three years and until
further order of the Court, finding that Respondent’s misconduct was serious, involved her
making numerous improper statements over a period of time, (Id., at 49) and that “the
circumstances as a whole leave us with very serious doubt whether or not Respondent is willing or able to conform her future conduct to proper legal standards.” (Id., at 50)
5. As described in additional detail, infra, Respondent’s misconduct meets the
requirements for an interim suspension under Supreme Court Rule 774(a)(2).
6. On December 12, 2014, Respondent filed exceptions to the Hearing Board’s
Report and Recommendation. As a result, the disciplinary proceeding is currently pending before the Review Board of the Commission.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE RESPONDENT’S MISCONDUCT
A. The Proven Misconduct
7. In the instant matter, the statements known to be false or made in reckless
2
disregard as to their truth and veracity are based on statements made by Respondent on a web log (hereinafter “blog”) concerning adult guardianship proceeding regarding Mary O. Sykes (hereinafter “Mary”) and persons involved at that proceeding. (Exh. One, at 1,3-4) In July 2009, one of Mary’s daughters, Carolyn Toerpe (hereinafter “Carolyn”) petitioned to be appointed guardian of Mary’s person and estate due to Mary’s dementia and memory loss (ld., at 4) Shortly thereafter, the Court appointed attorneys Cynthia Farenga (hereinafter “Farenga”) and Adam Stem as guardians ad litem (hereinafter “OALs”). Mary’s daughter Gloria Sykes (hereinafter “Gloria”) later filed counter-petitions contesting Carolyn’s appointment as Mary’s guardian. (ld.)
8. In November 2009, Respondent attempted to file her appearance on behalf of
Gloria in the probate proceeding; however, the court disqualified Respondent as Gloria’s
counsel. (Id., at 7) Gloria and Mary were involved in litigation (hereinafter “Lumbennan’ s case”) which involved settlement proceeds of $700,000 from the lawsuit. (ld., at 6) Respondent notarized Mary’s signature on the apportionment agreement, which relinquished Mary’s interest in approximately $700,000 in settlement funds, thereby turning over the entirety of the funds to Gloria. (ld., at 5-6) On December 7, 2009, the probate court disqualified Respondent as Gloria’s attorney due to her potential role as a witness related to the notarization of Mary’s signature on an apportionment agreement. (ld., at 7)
9. In December, 2009, after a multitude of probate court proceedings initiated by
Gloria. the probate court adjudicated Mary incompetent and appointed Carolyn her guardian.
(ld., at 5)
10. Beginning in November 2011, Respondent wrote and administered an internet
blog related to the Mary G. Sykes probate case (http://www.marygsykes.com) which alleged corruption in the probate court. particularly in relation to Mary’s guardianship proceeding. (ld.
3

at 8, 14)
II. Respondent’s blog included allegations of corruption by Judge Jane Louise Stuart,
Justice Connors (Exh. One. at 9) the GAls, and Carolyn’S attorney, Peter Schmiedel (hereinafter “Schmiedel”). (Id., at 7-16) Respondent’s allegations of misconduct were summarized on her blog in a “Table of Torts,” which accused the judges. attorneys and Carolyn of corruption, misfeasance, perpetration of misdemeanors and felonies, theft, forgery, and Greylord-type misconduct, including accusations of bribery and ex parle communications between GALs and the probate judge. (Id., at 8-15)
12. The Hearing Board found that Respondent authored all the statements charged in
the Administrator’s complaint, and that Respondent’s statements in her blog, “clearly convey the message that corruption affected the Sykes case and its outcome, with the judges and GALS benefitting, to Mary’s detriment.” (Id., at 25) Further, the Board found the suggestions made by Respondent in the blogs were false and that the statements impugned the integrity of the judges and attorneys in the probate matter. (Id.)
B. Findings of Misconduct by the Hearing Board
13. The Hearing Board found that Respondent’s statements were false, lacked any
legitimate factual basis, impugned the integrity of the judges involved in the Sykes guardianship matter and that Respondent made the statements with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity, in violation of Rule 8.2(a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct. (Id., at 25, 29-30) The Board further found that the statements accusing the judges, as well as the GALS, of serious misconduct in the Sykes matter were false and made with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity, and that by making the statements, Respondent engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the illinois Rules of Professional Conduct. (Id., at 25, 30) Finally,
4

the Board found that Respondent’s baseless accusations of misconduct by the judges and attorneys involved in the Sykes guardianship matter, her advising Gloria in filing of numerous frivolous motions often related to allegations on Respondent’s blog. undermined and interfered with the effective functioning of the judicial process and thereby prejudiced the administration of justice, in violation of Rule 8A(d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct. (Exh. One, at 33)
C. Aggravating Factors
14. The Hearing Board found that the “extent and relentlessness” of Respondent’s
“unfounded accusations of corruption by individual judges and lawyer,” caused significant harm and seriously impugned the integrity of Farenga, Stem and Schmiedel. (Id., at 42, 50) The Board found that Respondent neither understands the nature and seriousness of her misconduct, nor showed remorse, nor understood basic elements of practicing law. (Id., at 51-52)
15. The Board found that Respondent’s conduct during the pendency of the
proceedings represented a significant aggravating factor, as she repeatedly failed to follow the Chair’s orders, failed to comply with rules of the tribunal, and sought to have the Chair and opposing counsel communicate with her in a manner inconsistent with the rules of the tribunal.
(Id., at 52) The Board found that even while engaged in the disciplinary hearing, Respondent’s recklessness regarding the truth of her statements in the blog continued, as she accused others of serious wrongdoing, “without having a clue whether her allegations have any basis in reality.”
(Id., at 51)
16. The Board referred to Respondent’s blog post shortly before her March 9, 2014
cross-examination, wherein Respondent wrote that the office of the Cook County Public
Guardian had intentionally set a fire in which a number of persons died, for the purpose of
5
destroying records. (Exh. One, at 44) The Board found that in advance of the serious accusations, Respondent had not conducted any investigation into the truth of the accusation that the public guardian’s office intentionally set the fatal fire. (Id.)
17. The Board expressed concern over Respondent’s filing of multiple lawsuits, all of
which had been dismissed, against the persons involved in the Sykes guardianship case, as well as the disciplinary matter. (Id., at 43) On January 20, 2014, the day before Respondent’s disciplinary hearing began, a frivolous and specious lawsuit alleging civil rights was filed by Respondent, in the United States District Court, Northern District, entitled Ditkowsky and Denison v. Stern, Farenga, Larkin, and Schmiedel, docket number I: 14-CV -00375. The matter was assigned to District Court Judge Ronald Guzman, who, on April 21, 2014, dismissed the lawsuit for failure to state a claim. A copy of the order dismissing Respondent’s lawsuit is attached as Exhibit Two.
18. Respondent appealed Judge Guzman’s dismissal to the United Stated Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Ditkowsky and Denison v. Stern, el al., docket number 14- 1911. On November 19, 2014, the appellate court affirmed Judge Guzman’s dismissal of Respondent’s claims, calling the appeal, and lawsuit, frivolous and admonishing Respondent that while sanctions were not then being imposed; Respondent and Ditkowsky could not “move their campaign of vilification from the Internet to the courthouse and expect the judiciary to be unconcerned.” The Seventh Circuit’s opinion is attached as Exhibit Three.
19. On February 28, 2014, Respondent filed yet another lawsuit in the United States
District Court, Northern District, entitled Denison v. Larkin, Smart, Opryszek, Black Nextpoint, Inc., and the Dlinois Attorney Registration and DisCipline (sic) CommiSSion, docket number , The federal lawsuit was filed by Respondent and the now-suspended attOrney Kenneth Dilkowsky. In re Dllkcwsky, M.R. 26156, 12PRl4 (March 14,2014)
6
.’ .
1:14-CV-01470. That lawsuit alleged copyright infringement by the Administrator for using
portions of Respondent’s copyrighted blog as evidence against her in the instant matter. The matter was assigned to Judge Amy St. Eve, who, on August 13,2014, dismissed the matter for failure to state a claim. A copy of the order dismissing Respondent’s copyright lawsuit is attached as Exhibit Four.
D. Hearing Board’s Recommendation for Discipline
20. The Hearing Board had “serious doubt whether or not Respondent is willing or
able to conform her future conduct to proper legal standards.” (Exh. One, at 50) The Board found that even during the pendency of the hearing. Respondent continued with her recklessness. (Id., at 51-52) The Board found that Respondent’s misconduct continued during the course of the hearing. The Board concluded that Respondent engaged in the following misconduct:
a making a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with
reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the
qualifications or integrity of a judge, adjudicatory officer or public
legal officer. in violation of Rule 8.2 of the Illinois Rules of
Professional Conduct;
b. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation,
ill violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional
Conduct; and
c. conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, in
violation of Rule S.4( d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional
Conduct.
III. ARGUMENT
21. Supreme Court Rule 774(a)(2) allows the Administrator to petition the Court
during the pendency of a disciplinary proceeding for a rule to show cause why a respondent should not be suspended from the practice of law until further order of the Court. The petition must ailege that the Inquiry Board has voted a complaint; that the respondent committed a violation of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct which involves fraud or moral turpitude,

7

or which threatens irreparable injury to the public, his or her clients, or to the orderly
administration of justice; and that there appears to be persuasive evidence to support the charge.
22. In this case, the Inquiry Board voted a complaint against Respondent which was
filed on January 8, 2013. (Exh. One, at I) Following a six-day hearing in which Respondent
participated, the Hearing Board expressed serious doubt about Respondent’s willingness, or ability, to conform her behavior to comport with future legal standards, and found that
Respondent failed to understand the nature and seriousness of her misconduct. (Id., at 50-51)
23. Respondent’s misconduct meets the three requirements for an interim suspension
pursuant to Rule 774(a)(2). As discussed supra, the Hearing Board’s November 21, 2014 Report and Recommendation concluded that the Administrator proved misconduct warranting Respondent’s suspension for three-years and until further order of the Court. (Id., at 54) The Board recommended that Respondent’ s suspension continue until further order of the Court to protect the pUblic. (Id.) The Board expressly found that “Respondent’s lack of understanding of the ramifications of her conduct and of the importance of following proper legal procedures,” left the Board with “serious doubt as to Respondent’s ability to conform her future conduct to professional standards,” based in part, on Respondent’s continued accusations of others serious wrongdoing, “without having a clue whether her allegations have any basis in reality.” (Id., at 51, 54) The Board found Respondent’s continued, baseless allegations were available to a large
audience via her public blog which created a risk of harm to the reputations of the individuals criticized and damaged the public’s perception of the judicial system with unfounded allegations of corruption. (Jd., at 51)
24. The Court has imposed interim suspensions for similar misconduct. See, e.g., In
re Amu, M.R. 26545, II PR 106 (May 16,2014) (rule to show cause discharged and suspension
8
until further order of the Court for attorney who repeatedly made unfounded accusations
attacking judges’ integrity and expressed little comprehension of the harm caused by his actions) Like Amu, Respondent’s repeated false accusations against judges, her failure to conform her conduct to comport with the rules of professional conduct or acknowledge any misconduct on her part warrant an interim suspension.
25. The Seventh Circuit voiced their concerns over Respondent’s ongoing conduct in
filing frivolous appeals, as described in paragraph eighteen, supra.
VI. CONCLUSION
24. Based on the infonnation set forth above, the Administrator has established
grounds for this Court to issue a rule to show cause in this matter. A suspension until further order of court pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 774 is required for the purposes of protecting the public, the integrity of the profession and the administration of justice.
WHEREFORE, the Administrator requests that the Court issue a rule for Respondent
Joanne Marie Denison to show cause why she should not be suspended until further order of the Court pursuant to Rule 774.
Sharon D. Opryszek
Counsel for Administrator
One Prudential Plaza
130 East Randolph Drive, Suite 1500
Chicago, Illinois 60601-6219
(312) 565·2600
Respectfully submitted,
Jerome Larkin, Administrator
Attorney Registration and
Disciplinary Commission
By: Is/Sharon D. Opryszek
Sharon D. Opryszek

From Barbara Stone–Her list of Felonies or ‘Table of Torts” to help us all–victims and lawyers for probate victims

  • First degree felonies under Florida Statutes 825 committing financial fraud and exploitation in a sum of $100,000 or more from an eldery person
  • First degree felonies of abuse and aggravated abuse under Florida Statutes 825
  • Perjury
  • Tampering with evidence (spoliation of evidence)
  • Obstructing justice
  • Dereliction of Duty
  • Violation of Bill of Rights, 1st & 6th Amendment
  • United States Constitution Art 3 Sec 3 (right to jury trial often denied)
  • Conspiracy under 42 USC 371
  • Theft and Fraud, fraud on the court, intrinsic and extrinsic fraud and fraud in the inducement, misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, consumer fraud (nursing homes that lie and say a disabled person cannot leave without someone signing for them, or a doctor’s note or some nonsense)
  • Tampering with court records, transcripts and other records (see, spoliation of evidence)
  • Forgery (of POA’s and wills)
  • Securing writings by deception (also see the tort of intrusion upon seclusion–for violation of HIPPA, improper disclosure of private writings, etc.)
  • Fabricated evidence that victim lacked capacity to give consent
  • Kidnapping
  • Abduction
  • Unlawful Restraint (also unlawful chemical restraint by psychotropic drugs which are contraindicated by the FDA for those under 20 and over 60–report to doctor’s licensing authorities)
  • Elder Abuse and Aggravated Abuse
  • Elder Exploitation
  • Depriving crime victim of medical care
  • Discrimination (14th amendment.  must be in “suspect class” for race or sex.  discrimination against elderly in most states starts at age 60, 45 for employment)
  • Retaliation (under first amendment and ADA-Americans w/Disabilities 42 USC 22203)
  • Coercion, extortion, duress
  • Defamation, slander, false light and libel against protective family members that recognize quickly something is seriously wrong in court and with the court proceedings themselves.  Discovery is denied.  Homes sold without notice and bank accounts drained quickly.  Wards drugged.  If a family member speaks out, then they “aggitated the disabled” and must be banned from visitation, or worse yet, they must have a $150 per hour supervisor who plays with a cell phone or tablet for an hour.  The “supervisor” often gets $10/hr if working for a tied in agency.  Family members have been set up for felonies to disqualify them as guardians.  Tied in agencies make up fake stories of aggitation, the ward cried, etc.  Some make up fake stories that a family member swore at them.  Some lock others living in the house out of the house without a court order, etc.  (Of course, the ward cries and is aggitated as they are locked away in a nursing home and their homes sold and bank accounts drained, but they blame it on the family members).
  • Attempted Murder
  • Premeditated Murder
  • Official Misconduct
  • Abuse of Power
  • Color of Law Abuse (no jurisdiction, no summons and complaint properly served on disabled, no family members properly notified 14 days in adance of any hearing to guardianize relating time, date and place of hearing)
  • Criminal Racketeering
  • Human Trafficking
  • Money Laundering
  • False Arrest, False Imprisonment
  • Entrapment
  • Battery
  • Wire fraud, mail fraud (18 USC 1341) and bank fraud (all federal crimes); medicare fraud (for sending disabled back and forth between nursing home and hospital for false procedures, to fill beds, etc.)
  • Conversion, theft and embezzlement.
  • Breach of fiduciary duty, self dealing
  • Lying to the fed government and courts system to defraud the US government to obtain a right or benefit not entitled to 18 USC 1001
  • False imprisonment
  • Theft and Fraud, fraud on the court, intrinsic and extrinsic fraud and fraud in the inducement
  • Kidnapping
  • Abduction
  • Unlawful Restraint (see chemical restraint)
  • Discrimination
    Retaliation under the ADA and 42 USC 12203, First Amendment Retaliation for speaking out.
  • SLAPP action for being sued for speaking out.  Citizen’s Participation Act in Illinois 735 ILCS 110/5
    Attempted Murder (use of contraindicated drugs, isolation from family members and friends, suspicious  falls leading to confinement to bed, etc.)
  • 18 U.S. Code § 3 – Accessory after the fact.  Note a defendant can be an accessory or aider and abetter of a crime or tort, before the fact, during the act, and after the fact.
  • 18 USC 4 Misprison of felony for failure to report felonious activities promptly to the auhorities.
  • Official Misconduct
  • Color of Law/Due Process violations Abuse – 42 USC 1983
  • Criminal Racketeering
    Battery for repetitive fractures, administration of chemical restraints contraindicated by the FDA,
  • Wrongful implantation of a feeding tube without consent, and deprivation of the sensation of food and chewing against her will
  • Loss of consortium between parent and child (a tort in 13 states in the US, not Illinois–yet)
  • Torture under the international treaties against torture for: chemical restraints, implanting feeding tubes against a person’s will and deprivation of sensation of taste, chewing and swallowing food because a nursing home will not spend 15 to 20 min. per meal assisting an elderly person to eat and drink, it costs too much.  Torture can also occur by isolation from many friends and family members.  Torture can also occur when the disabled is deprived of dentures, partials, hearing aides and glasses when needed.  Sometimes a disabled is forced to wear thick glasses when not needed.  This makes the disabled person more confused, speeds up dementia and confusion and death.  It is used as a device to make the person feel more vulnerable and threated. Stockholming may occur (keeping an elder dependent, as a prisoner and restrained until they think of their captor as a savior and master, rather than a despot). When the disabled person or family members attempt to report felonies to the authorities, Martha Mitchell Syndrome may result (where the person is telling the truth but no medical personnel will believe them, esp. psychiatrists and psychologists, it is too fantastical.
  • In some instances, the disabled will cause to suffer a fall when first in the nursing home and will be deprived of medical care so hip and leg fractures do not heal and the disabled must be bed ridden with pain or in a wheel chair.  In other cases, disableds that can walk with a walker or shuffle are told never to stand up or walk, they are a fall risk and they put an alarm on them 24/7 to keep them in bed or a wheelchair because inadequate staff has no time to walk with them with a belt or assistance to provide necessary strength and balance.  Leg muscles quickly atrophy, making the person feel more frail and vulnerable than necessary.  Nursing home hours are likely illegal because a disabled cannot stay up and watch a movie or late night show, as she used to with friends and family.  In many cases, a disabled is barred from leaving a nursing home with friends and family and can no longer go to any familiy gatherings, chruch events, as they used to. Some disableds spend years in a nursing home indoors, never seeing the light of day and are told by staff and/or management they cannot or must not leave the facility, even to take a walk.
  • Deprevation of wholesome food and nutrients.  Most nursing homes have no diets that include many fresh, organic quality vegetables and nursing homes do not insist on testing residents for nutrients that are likely lacking such as vitamins B (prevent depression and anxiety) C (in lyposomal or lypospheric form to be easily absorbed.  C is an essential nutrient to all cells), D3 (sunlight is best, but residents should be tested and supplemented if levels are below 50 to 100 nGr/mL), probiotics and sulfur.  Nursing home diets are famously high in carbs and sugars contributing to obesity, dementia, heart disease, inflammation in joints and arthritis, etc.

I will update this list–thank you Atty Barbara Stone for starting it and all the input from all of you victims out there that have told me dozens and dozens of sneaky, underhanded and deceptive means for isolating, torturing and hastening the demise of the elderly, generally in for profit nursing homes across the US.

Why is Tim Lahrman a “disabled adult” in Indiana–read his press release!

Tim Lahrman is one of the most intelligent, thinking and philosophical persons I know.  His cognitive skills are excellent and have been through the many years that I and others have known him.  But, back when he was young, he built up a very successful and profitable electrnoics business.  He ran it successfully.  Bad news for him, he had an evil greedy brother with an evil greedy attorney and a rubber stamping court. So despite his prowess and business accumen, that meant nothing to a probate judge and next thing he knows, at approx. age 21, he is stamped a “disabled adult”, primarily due to the fact that the court was told he uses cannibis setiva for recreational purposes.  Now coming to the age when medical marijuana is starting to become a right and a recognized and effective treatment and cure for problems from depression and anxiety to cancer, and it it generally perceived as quite safe in use, the faud on the court of Tim Larhman being adjuicated disabled is fairly absurd and bespeaks very little about the Indiana probate system as being a massive, decades long fraud on the court.  Since his brother stripped every dime out of that business, together with court connected attorneys, and drove the business into the ground quickly,   Tim has dedicated his life to writing briefs, complaints, grievances and other advocacy items for probate victims and their terrorized families.

Recently, he has filed an Americans With Disabilities complaint in Federal Court in Indiana, an excellent pleading that even many highly skilled attorneys would be jealous of.  I will try to publish the complaint so that it helps other court victims in similar situations.

Here is his intelligent, well written Press Relase concerning his case.  Whatever the
State of Indiana thinks about him is “disabled” is light years from reality.  It bespeaks the ramapant corruption of probate laws when used in probate court where black can be white and all the judges and court connected attorneys will pat themselves on the back making such a superior agreement between themselves.

Tim L. and I am here to say the corruption of probate law usage has no clothes.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 21, 2015
Elkhart Indiana: DISABLED RESIDENT SUES TO BE INCLUDED
Not many people want to be named in a lawsuit but such is not the case for Elkhart County resident Tim Lahrman — he has sued to be included. That’s right, he has sued because he wants to be sued and in an odd twist of justice Lahrman, who is disabled, has sued the Elkhart County Superior Court No. 2 (Stephen R. Bowers, Judge) for excluding him from participating in an ongoing lawsuit involving Lahrman’s Elkhart home and residence of twenty-two-plus (22+) years.
Title II of the Americans’ With Disabilities Act 1990* (“ADA”) prohibits state and local governments from discriminating against the disabled and excluding the disabled from an equal opportunity to access, participate in, benefit from and effectively communicate with, any of the “services, programs and activities” of a public entity – the state and local courts included. In a 2011 Title II ADA case involving the City of LaPorte, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr. agreed with those disabled plaintiffs, who were suing over access to city sidewalks, and found that “everything government does is a program, service and activity of a public entity.” The ADA is not so completely one-sided however and there are exceptions and affirmative defenses recognized by the ADA which in fact limit a public entity’s liability under the ADA but, by and large, the U.S. Supreme Court has said, “[I]n sum, Title II requires … special accommodations for disabled persons in virtually every interaction they have with the State.”
Filed on January 20, 2015 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, Lahrman’s lawsuit did not stop with just Judge Bowers and the Elkhart Superior Court No. 2, Lahrman likewise sued the Elkhart County Circuit Court and Judge Terry Shewmaker who Lahrman says in his lawsuit – excluded Lahrman, because of his disability, from equal access to participate in equally, benefit equally from and effectively communicate equally effectively with, the services programs and activities of the public entity Elkhart County Circuit Court. The lawsuit also names defendant the Chief Judge of the Indiana Court of Appeals, the State of Indiana, the Office of Indiana Attorney General and the Indiana Supreme Court Division of State Court Administration which, according to Lahrman’s lawsuit, “serves the public in a consumer protection capacity by administratively regulating Indiana attorneys and judges so as to ensure for the Indiana public an educationally qualified and professionally competent judiciary” – a responsibility that according to Lahrman the state of Indiana as a public entity is failing miserably where disability discrimination and ADA compliance are involved.
In the ninety-plus (90+) page federal lawsuit filed by Lahrman who has no attorney and is appearing pro se in representation of himself, in addition to the Title II disability discrimination claims against state and local public entities Lahrman also sued the Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”), Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC and Green Tree Servicing LLC (as successors of GMAC Mortgage LLC) for; violations of the Fair Housing Act; violations of both
federal and state consumer protection laws; and, as relating to Fannie Mae, for violations of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act 2008 (“HERA”).
The case of Timothy J. Lahrman v. Elkhart County Superior Court No. 2, Stephen R. Bowers, Judge, et al. [Case No. 3:15-cv-026] will be one worth watching for it may well have far reaching implications for both the community of disabled individuals and American homeowners all across the nation. Residing quietly in the Michiana community since 1989 Lahrman has dedicated his retired life to the study and research of both the history and law of guardianship/conservatorship. Lahrman is among the nation’s leading advocates working for reform and accountability in the law and practice of guardianship/conservatorship which according to Lahrman is an experience he would not wish on his own worst enemy. According to Lahrman more than a million American adults are under guardianship/conservatorship is every state in the country and in ever y state in the country families are crying foul – just as are the shareholders in Fannie Mae crying foul — about the conservatorships/guardianships that are so negatively impacting the lives of millions of Americans.
____________________________________
For more information contact: timlahrman@aol.com