Something that may help Probate victims–accurately tracking deaths in the US

From the Washington Post comes an article regarding the recent postings of cell phone video on the internet where police officers have beaten, pepper sprayed and even tazered ordinary, unarmed citizens that actually came to them for help.  In one case, a 4 year old girl was shot after a police officer came to help her, but then decided to shoot a barking dog (yes, police officers are allowed to shoot barking dogs, and they do so at an outstanding rate that the animal right’s activists are openly up in arms against), but insted shot the 4 year old girl and shattered her leg with a bullet.  In other stories (see, the police apparently are shooting all kinds of unarmed and non threatening ordinary US citizens that just are in the wrong place at the wrong time, are just complaining to the police, are trying to film them, have filed grievances–nothing violent, nothing that would reasonably create fear in anyone, and nothing that isn’t just tacky or uncouth behavior by the general public.

The worst is when an innocent unarmed citizen comes to the officer and asks for help with a police matter, and ends up shot or beaten or raped.  Some 1300 rapes each year mostly against women and girls are caused by on duty and off duty police officers.  That has to end.  The police have already killed some 750+ citizens this year, and apparently a good chunk were unarmed, and those deaths have not been independently investigated for the most part.

The article:

The best part of the story is that Bureau of Justice Statistics (didn’t even know this existed) is going to start requiring police departments to report on all shootings and give detailed information on unarmed shoots.

As expected, with only 3% of police districts reporting, because reporting isn’t mandatory (why?), it appears that blacks and minoritys are killed at a much higher rate than whites while unarmed–a most important statistic.

As the article quipped, it’s amazing that we can get statistics on who and where people sat at sporting and theater and music events involving thousands of patrons each and every day, but the police department can’t keep track of who they shot, where, when and why.

This is very important becaue perhaps we can also petition the Bureau of Justice Statistics to also look into the disableds and seniors that die in and out of nursing homes with evidence of abuse that is not reported to the authorities, and even more important, where there is an advance abuse report, but nothing is done and the person dies quickly as a result.  (Jaycox, Sykes, Gore, etc.)  The Bureau of Justice should be requiring autopsies after reports of abuse and use of chemical restraints and these reports should be turned over to the authorities for a tox screen and autopsy to look at murder (Gore, Richards, Sykes, Jaycox, etc.)  Because there are so few statistics, the Bureau of Justice should be combing independent records of death–hospital and nursing home records, funeral director reports, abuse reports from all scources, etc. rather than just rely upon police reports

As noted in the article:it is important to gleen information from other sources when the data simply isn’t there.  And when data isn’t there, this situation should be deemed “embarrasing” and “ridiculous”.

Now GAL Adam Stern would like to cover this all up by quipping to the ARDC during his testimony “no reason to worry when an old person gets sick, because they get sick and die all the time”, but sickness coupled with reports of abuse should ALWAYS be investigated.


Sign the Petition–Judicial Immunity for criminal actions (theft, fraud, embezzlement, supression of free speech in probate) is a Lemon

Article III Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states: The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour (emphasis added), and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

In only two circumstances is a judge not immune from liability:

(1) for nonjudicial actions; and

(2) for actions, though judicial in nature, taken in complete absence of all jurisdiction.

Id. at 11-12; Schucker, 846 F. 2d at 1204.

Prosecutorial Immunity applies to the decision to prosecute a particular case; “This immunity covers the knowing use of false testimony at trial, the suppression of exculpatory evidence, and malicious prosecution.”

Milstein v. Cooley, 257 F. 3d 1004, 1008-09 (9th Cir. 2001).

An act done in complete absence of all jurisdiction cannot be a judicial act.

Piper v. Pearson, id., 2 Gray 120.

“It is no more than the act of a private citizen, pretending to have judicial power which does not exist at all. In such circumstances, to grant absolute judicial immunity is contrary to the public policy expectation that there shall be a Rule of Law.”

Application of immunity to judges who admitted under oath to engaging in a criminal scheme that lasted for years would indeed be “monstrous.” [Quoting Judge Learned Hand in Gregorie v. Biddle, 177 F.2d 579 (2d Cir. 1949)] To find immunity would denigrate the respect of the public for the judiciary, which is dependent upon judges making decisions based on the law and the facts, rather than personal, corrupt motives.

Whereby; the Tenth Amendment states:  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

We The People, hereby ask Congress to create a subcommittee to investigate and address the flagrant abuses of Judicial Immunity and Bad Behavior rampantly exerted by the Judicial Branch under the Color of Law.

From Joanne:

Judicial immunity for the strings of felonies occuring in Probate against disableds must end.  There is absolutely no reason for these felons to continue their cottage of industry of target-medicate-isolate-drain the estate-quietly eliminate-cremate without swift and secure prosecution of all involved that currently enjoy “judicial immunity”–from the judges to the court appointed counsel to the GAL’s to their assistants of torture and death in nursing homes. See my prior post on the illegal and toturous use of chemical restraints to restrain and kill off all the seniors and disableds.

Why curbing the use of psychotropic drugs and antibiotics is important to the health of everyone

From Ken Ditkowsky:

Indeed – it is a good day for reflection – but with Jerome Larkin and his co-conspirators out there unpunished and still assaulting the First Amendment Rights of citizens (including lawyers) I have to continue my campaign to get him some housing in a Federal correctional facility so others may enjoy America.
I did notice in the Wall Street Journal that the government is starting to notice that pharmaceuticals are being used indiscriminately.   A couple of cc’s of a chemical can eliminate – at either insurance company or government expense – many hours of nursing.   A few drops of a chemical and a vibrant (or obnoxious) patient is docile and co-cooperative.     PT can be simplified to moving the patient to a wheel chair and in front of TV screen.   The poor zombie does not know if he/she is watching the Bears or test pattern.    The costs go down dramatically and the $8000 a month base charge yields a profit of $6500.00 and each of the doses administered can yield 700 to 1000% pure profit.    The legal drug business is more profitable than the illegal – cocaine has less profit!  

In recent years, Medicaid has spent more money on antipsychotic drugs for Americans than on any other class of pharmaceuticals — including antibiotics, AIDS drugs or medicine to treat high-blood pressure.

One reason: Nursing homes across the U.S. are giving these drugs to elderly patients to quiet symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of dementia.

Nearly 30% of the total nursing-home population is receiving antipsychotic drugs, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, known as CMS. In a practice known as “off label” use of prescription drugs, patients can get these powerful medicines whether they are psychotic or not. CMS says nearly 21% of nursing-home patients who don’t have a psychosis diagnosis are on antipsychotic drugs.


That is what happened to a woman listed in New York state health department inspection records as Resident #18. The 84-year-old Alzheimer’s patient, who lives at the Orchard Manor nursing home in Medina, N.Y., likes to wander and roll her wheelchair around her unit, according to a report filed earlier this year, and sometimes she nervously taps her foot.

To address her behavior, which was considered disruptive, Resident #18 was given a powerful antipsychotic drug called Seroquel, a drug approved for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Resident #18 is not psychotic and Seroquel — like other atypical antipsychotics — carries a “black box” warning that elderly dementia patients using it face a higher risk of death.

“She is a handful,” says Thomas Morien, administrator of Orchard Manor. “Other residents complain about her because often at night, she will get up and go to their rooms.” The patient has since been taken off the drugs.

“You walk into facilities where you see residents slumped over in their wheelchairs, their heads are hanging, and they’re out of it, and that is unacceptable,” says Christie Teigland, director of informatics research for the New York Association of Homes and Services for the Aging, a not-for-profit industry group. Her research, which she believes reflects national trends, shows that about one-third of dementia patients in New York’s nursing homes are on antipsychotics; some facilities have rates as high as 60% to 70%. “These drugs are being given way too much to this frail elderly population,” Dr. Teigland says.

And that is exactly what you see when you go see Alan Frake and Judge Quinn doesn’t care and hands back reports of abuse right back to the abusers–Ted Rhodes, Cary Peck, Tom Kleinhenz and Rehab Assist.
 And the on the use of antibiotics in nursing home:

New Push to Stop Overuse of Antibiotics in Nursing Homes

Up to 75% of prescriptions are incorrect as heath officials open a new front in war on overuse

A nurse cares for an elderly woman in a nursing home.ENLARGE
Health officials and health-care executives, concerned by a rise in dangerous drug-resistant infections, are turning more attention to nursing homes, where antibiotics are some of the most frequently prescribed medications. They have concentrated over the past several years on curbing misuse of antibiotics in hospitals.
Up to 70% of nursing home residents receive one or more courses of antibiotics every year for urinary tract infections, pneumonia, cellulitis and other suspected conditions, according to researchers. Yet up to 75% of those prescriptions are given incorrectly—either unnecessarily or the prescription is for the wrong drug, dose or duration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says.
One of the biggest culprits, researchers say: misdiagnosed urinary tract infections. Only a quarter to a third of people in nursing homes who are diagnosed have actual symptoms, according to several studies. Most have only vague symptoms like confusion or bacteria in their urine that aren’t actually causing an infection, says David Nace, director of long-term care and flu programs at the University of Pittsburgh. UTIs are “the poster child of inappropriate antibiotic use,” he says.
Such practices spawn the spread of drug-resistant bacteria that can be particularly harmful to the elderly and are very difficult if not impossible to treat, researchers say.
Ken Ditkowsky
From JoAnne;
If you know anything about MRSA or anti biotic resistant infections, they are nearly 100% deadly. This is what nursing homes are incubating and spreading to the general population.
from Google:
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus is a bacterium responsible for several difficult-to-treat infections in humans. It is also called oxacillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Wikipedia

From Ken Ditkowsky–another Chicago pol in jail, another day in Chicago

But for crying out loud, this woman blames everything on casinos and tuition. Is she kidding?  Did her attorneys tell her no one wants to know her excuses.  We all have tuition, and therefore most of us skip the casinos or do so in moderation, once per year and then just a small amount, maybe $50.

Subject: Another day, another political figure from Illinois (Cook County) going to jail! Ho Hum!
Date: Oct 9, 2015 10:14 AM
Why does the Illinois Supreme Court justices and Jerome Larkin want to silence attorney compliance with 18 USCA 4?   The answer is simple.   There will be more cases such as the attached e-mail from the Chicago Sun-times!   
In the Sykes case all the protections of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10 (including the jurisdictional) were ignored.   In SYKES, Gore, Tyler, **** estates were looted while corrupt judges looked on an signed orders that protected the miscreants.   Avarice prevailed over common decency.   Gore represents the absolutely the most disgusting set of facts that one could imagine as a judge literally supervised a gold rush and harvesting of the gold from the teeth of a innocent senior citizen.   Not only was there no remorse, but as late as today there has been no HONEST investigation much less punishment of the culprits.   Indeed, the attorney who orchestrated the felonies walks about the 18th Floor of the Daley Center like the ‘cat who swallowed the canary’ flush with the knowledge that Jerome Larkin, the administrator of the lawyer disciplinary commission is protecting her.
The Suntimes article brings to mind another article.   It seems a crazy out West was aggrieved because his prayers were not answered.  Ergo – he sued God.    A judge dismissed his suit as he could not get summons on God and thus the judge ruled that he lacked jurisdiction.   Such would never occur in Cook County, Illinois.
In the Sykes case 09 P 4585, Judge Connors – now Justice Connors of the Illinois Appellate Court- ignored the fact that all the protections of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10 were ignored and therefore she lacked jurisdiction as she appointed two guardian ad litem, a plenary guardian and stripped Mary of all of her assets and humanity.    Connors had no problem making certain that Gloria Sykes and Mary Sykes could not receive honest representation and in her evidence deposition (approximate page 90 – 94) pointed out that if someone really objected and called this jurisdictional problem to her attention she would have the error corrected.   However, the judge admitted that the same result would have been reached anyway.\
Why is Jerome Larkin and his 18 USCA 242 co=conspirators including but not limited to the Illinois Supreme Court justices protecting this criminal activity and why does it not even rate a scintilla of remorse? 
Read the Sun-times Article!    Bribery is no longer the passage of a white envelope filled with cash.   It is much more subtle.    It is the offer of a job at some future time for either the person of interest or a member of his/her family.   It is the offer of an opportunity for someone near or dear.   It is a bargain purchase of real estate.  It is a campaign contribution.   It is a benefit of some kind or other that directly or indirectly affects the public official in the position to do a favor.   (It might even be the appointment of a lawyers as a GAL)\
Not only have the miscreants gotten away with their criminal activities but there are no tax consequences assessed.   Larkin owes based upon his overt acts in pursuance of protecting the miscreants engaging in elder cleansing well over a billion dollars of State and Federal Taxes.  (NB.  each of his co-conspirators have joint and several liability).   What efficacious collection activities are being carried out by our Bankrupt State of Illinois and are heavy in debt Federal government?
But for a fortuitous circumstance most of the bribed public officials get away with their crimes.   Even when the public shakes it head and rises up in disgust the public memory is short.   A high ranking official of the Clinton Administration (Rubin) got called before congress as the result of a scandal involving Citicorp.   He was it CEO and under oath he gave testimony that was so outrageous that most members of the public wanted to tar and feather him – But he got away with nary a scratch.   (He testified that he was not aware of the product that Citi was marketing that created the problem)   Yesterday the VW CEO tried to blame a couple of engineers for the decision to cheat on emissions tests – of course he and board were shocked to learn of the action.
Democracy is the only form of government that requires citizens to actively participate in their government and to weed out the corrupt public officials, corrupt political figures, corrupt jurists, corrupt *****.    It defines corrupt as a public official who will not do his/her job.    These people are taking money under false pretenses.    They are fiduciaries to the public trust.
It may sound old hat, but, Lawyers of all the members of society have the greatest obligation to work for the protection of the core values of America.   This does not mean hearing nothing, seeing nothing and doing nothing it means the full compliance with lawyer rule 8.3 even it means exposing the icons of the profession as criminals or saying things that are not politically correct.   It means that lawyers have to defend the rights of bad people to advance causes that are contrary to humanity.   The ACLU defends the right of Nazis to advocate hate and destruction of Jews.   Jewish lawyers are recruited to advance the Free Speech rights of these perfidious individuals.    All lawyers owe society such an obligation even if they are personally offended.  Such is the nature of the law.    Similarly lawyers including Jewish lawyers have an obligation to stand up and protect the rights of the targeted citizens (including Jews) to exercise their Constitutional Rights to voice opposition to the Nazis.    The unimpeded discourse is our American tradition.
The act of the Illinois Supreme Court, Jerome Larkin, and their 18 USCA 242 co-conspirators in their efforts to silence lawyers and stop them from exposing Justice Connors etc. Is wrongful and criminal.   They were placed in their positions of public trust not to enrich themselves, curry favor, or even enhance their reputations — they assumed a public trust – and the obligation to protect the public from their friends the two guardian at litem in the Sykes case, the guardian ad litem in the Gore case, the corrupt judges *****.    Their failure to honor their trust is the reason that we have to address the situation that appears in the Suntimes article.   We are getting the government we deserve! 

From: Chicago Sun-Times <>
To: “” <>
Sent: Friday, October 9, 2015 6:49 AM
Subject: Feds: Byrd-Bennett said ‘tuition to pay and casinos to visit’ led to kickbacks

…and more top headlines from Sun-Times.   |    View online   |    Add to your address book
News and Politics - Chicago Sun-Times
Even before she was hired to run Chicago Public Schools, Barbara Byrd-Bennett set up a scheme to get a 10 percent kickback on all the CPS contracts she could steer to a former employer, in part to set up a college fund for her twin grandsons, authorities said Thursday. The feds found damning, detailed emails […]

Rosemont v. Kentucky–Fax to the ARDC to drop all charges

From this decision, it is clear the ARDC has no jurisdiction to regulate my blog. All I have done is blog.  There are no client complaints and this blog does not lie.

ARDC Attys:
Jerome Larkin, Sharon Opryszek, Melissa Smart, Leah Black Guiterrez, Steven Splitt

Fax 312-565-2320    From:                      Admitted Ill*., N.  Carolina and Patent Bars
JoAnne M. Denison,      Pat.  Agent.  Reg.  No.  34,150
DENISON & ASSOCS., PC    FAX 312-553-1307
5940 W Touhy Ave, #120
Niles, IL 60714    PHONE 312-553-1300  or
Federal Patents, Trademarks & Copyrights
Important Notice
This facsimilie message contains attorney privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone, collect, and return the original message to the above address.  You will be reimbursed.  Your cooperation is immensely appreciated.
For transmission problems, please call 312-335-1300
A confirmation copy       WILL   ✔   will NOT be sent.
Pages in fax, including this coversheet – ( see header  )
October 8, 2015

RE:   ARDC v. JMD 13 PR 001 – Rosemont v. Kentucky

note my comments are in blue, the rest are case quotes
Dear Counsel;

Please read the attached decision which was recently render by a Federal District Court Judge in Kentucky.  Read below excerpts:

For nearly forty years, John Rosemond has written a newspaper column on parenting. No other newspaper column written by a single author has run longer.
Now, in an exercise of regulatory zeal, the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology seeks to prohibit Rosemond from publishing his column in Kentucky while referring to himself as a “family psychologist.” In an effort to avoid the State’s enforcement of K.R.S. § 319.005, the State’s statute regulating the practice of psychology, Rosemond protectively filed this action in which he asks that the Board be permanently enjoined from interfering with the publication of his column. Resolution of the case requires balancing the State’s interest in regulating the practice of psychology with constitutional protections of speech. As Rosemond’s speech deserves the highest level of constitutional protection, and because the State has failed to articulate compelling reasons for regulating that speech, the Board will be enjoined from further interfering with the publication of Rosemond’s column.

On May 7, 2013, the Board and Kentucky’s Attorney General jointly issued a “Cease and Desist Affidavit and Assurance of Voluntary Compliance” to Rosemond, hoping that he would agree to cease publishing his advice column in Kentucky as they alleged that he was engaged in the unlawful practice of psychology. [R. 1-4.] Rosemond refused to sign.

Rosemond does not challenge whether Kentucky may regulate the practice of psychology. Furthermore, the Board does not deny that its cease and desist order would have the effect of restricting Rosemond’s speech. What the parties disagree about is the nature of the restriction. Rosemond argues that the Board’s regulation of his column is a content-based restriction on his speech. The Board argues that its regulation is not content-based, but rather is a professional regulation barring conduct (i.e. practicing psychology without a Kentucky license) and that any stifling of speech that results from the enforcement of K.R.S. § 319.005 is merely incidental to the state’s legitimate aim of regulating the profession. [R. 30 at 6-8.] The Board argues that because Rosemond’s speech is either commercial or professional, its regulation of that speech should only be subject to intermediate scrutiny. Despite the aforementioned differences of opinion as to what framework applies, the parties agree that this dispute is governed by the First Amendment. [R. 47 at 2 (Hrg. Tr.)]

There is no question that what drew the Board’s attention in this case was Rosemond’s communicating of a message. The letter of complaint which spurred the Board’s action specifically criticizes his advice, and the cease and desist letter addresses the Board’s concern that he was responding to a specific, individualized question. [R. 1-4; R. 25-2 at 4.]

Commercial speech does “no more than propose a commercial transaction,” Virginia State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 762 (1976) or is an “expression related solely to the economic interests of the speaker and its audience.” Cent. Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of New York, 447 U.S. 557, 561 (1980).

It is not surprising that the Board has difficulty citing
to a case that lays the theory out in a coherent way, because cases addressing the intersection between professional speech and the first amendment are few and far between. See Daniel Halberstam, Commercial Speech, Professional Speech, and the Constitutional Status of Social Institutions, 147 U. Pa. L. Rev. 771, 834 (1999) (Courts have “rarely addressed the First Amendment contours of a professional’s freedom to speak to a client.”)

It has long been held that “[s]tates have a compelling interest in the practice of professions within their boundaries, and that as part of their power to
protect the public health, safety, and other valid interests they have broad power to establish standards for licensing practitioners and regulating the practice of professions.” Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U.S. 773, 792 (1975). This principle is unassailable.

But, also undeniable is the fact that, “[a]t some point, a measure is no longer a regulation of a profession but a regulation of speech or of the press; beyond that point, the statute must survive the level of scrutiny demanded by the First Amendment.” Lowe, 472 U.S. at 229-30.

Pursuant to this doctrine, the government is permitted to regulate speech in limited circumstances so as to protect the individual receiving advice— the client. As articulated by Justice White, without this professional-client relationship, the doctrine’s vices outweigh its virtues.

Comment: and what client exactly has the ARDC protected in its decision?  Gloria Sykes and Mary’s niece Kathy Bakken and her elderly sister Yolanda all testified they thought there were things wrong with the guardianization of Mary, a person appearing to be competent but possessing considerable wealth in her advanced age–a home worth more than $1 million which was to be sold for $213k to a real estate corporation, the disappearance of up to $1 million in valuable coins where both the probate court and the ARDC repeatedly quash subpoenas to find out where the coins went–who stole them or embezzled them.

Just how did the ARDC protect the “client” and what “client” testified against me?  Absolutely none.

Nobody knows if the teenager’s parents read the article or took the advice, much less if anyone was harmed. For all the Board knows, the “wake-up call” worked and, instead of harming the teenager, it served its purpose.

The relationship that is necessary between a professional and a client to trigger application of the professional speech doctrine just did not exist.

Two cases that the Board cites actually support Rosemond’s position by endorsing Justice White’s concurring opinion in Lowe that there must be a nexus between a professional and a client to legitimate professional regulations with such an impact on speech. See Accountant’s Soc’y of Virginia v. Bowman, 860 F.2d 602 (4th Cir. 1988) (Regulations affecting accountants are constitutional as they “restrict[] only accountants’
communications with and on behalf of their clients.”); Locke v. Shore, 634 F.3d 1185 (11th Cir. 2011) (“There is a difference, for First Amendment purposes, between regulating professionals’ speech to the public at large versus their direct, personalized speech with clients.”)

Even if, as the Board claims, Rosemond is potentially misleading readers by holding himself out as a psychologist, he retains the First Amendment right to make those statements in a non-commercial setting. K.R.S. § 319.005 bans individuals from using the term “psychologist” in a way that is deceptive.

In United States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 2537 (2012), Xavier Alvarez lied when he announced at a public meeting that he held the Congressional Medal of Honor, an act which the Court referred to as a “pathetic attempt to gain respect that eluded him.” Id. at 2542. In holding that The Stolen Valor Act, which criminalized making false claims about the receipt of military medals, was an unconstitutional content-based restriction, the Court reaffirmed its conviction that even false statements deserve First Amendment protection: The Nation well knows that one of the costs of the First Amendment is that it protects the speech we detest as well as the speech we embrace. Though few might find respondent’s statements anything but contemptible, his right to make those statements is protected by the Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of speech and expression.
Id. at 2551. The Board’s restrictions imposed on his tagline, like the content of his column, must also survive strict scrutiny if they are to be permitted.

As the Board has imposed “content-based restrictions on speech, those provisions can stand only if they survive strict scrutiny, which requires the Government to prove that the restriction furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.” Reed, 135 S. Ct. at 2231 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Greater New Orleans Broad. Association, Inc. v. United States, 527 U.S. 173, 183 (1999) (When considering restrictions on “commercial” speech, “the Government bears the burden of identifying a substantial interest and justifying the challenged restriction.”); see also Ohio Citizen Action v. City of Englewood, 671 F.3d 564, 571 (6th Cir. 2012) (“The governmental entity that enacts the regulation bears the burden of establishing each element of the analysis, and ‘the Court ordinarily does not supply reasons the legislative body has not given.’ ”).

This interest does not fall into one of the few categories where the law allows content-based regulation of speech. See Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. at 2544. Furthermore, while protecting the public is an enviable goal, the Board cannot demonstrate that its restrictions achieve the goal.

As explained in Edenfield v. Fane, “[t]his burden is not satisfied by mere speculation or conjecture; rather, a governmental body seeking to sustain a restriction on [ ] speech must demonstrate that the harms it recites are real and that its restriction will in fact alleviate them to a material degree.” 507 U.S. 761, 770-71 (1993); Pagan v. Fruchey, 492 F.3d 766, 771 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing Edenfield, 507 U.S. at 770–72) (“[T]he government must come forward with some quantum of evidence, beyond its own belief in the necessity for regulation, that the harms it seeks to remedy are concrete and that its regulatory regime advances the stated goals.”); Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Gov’t PAC, 528 U.S. 377, 392

(2000) (The Supreme Court has “never accepted mere conjecture as adequate to carry a First Amendment burden.”).
In the case at hand, the Board has not demonstrated that any actual harm has occurred

The Board’s argument that no proof of actual harm is necessary, and that speculative harm is enough is unpersuasive. [R. 33 at 4.] Citing Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. F.C.C., 512 U.S. 622, 664 (1994), the Board argues that the state can act to regulate “anticipated harms.” [R. 33 at 4, Footnote 16.] A more complete reading of Turner Broadcasting reveals, however, that the Government must still do “more than simply ‘posit the existence of the disease sought to be cured.’ ” Turner Broad. Sys., 512 U.S. at 664 (1994) (quotation omitted). The Government “must demonstrate that the recited harms are real, not merely conjectural, and that the regulation will in fact alleviate these harms in a direct and material way.” Id.

Laws that are underinclusive cannot be narrowly tailored “[b]ecause a law cannot be regarded as protecting an interest of the highest order, and thus as justifying a restriction on truthful speech, when it leaves appreciable damage to that supposedly vital interest unprohibited.” Reed, 135 S.

Ct. 2232 (quoting Republican Party of Minn. v. White, 536 U.S. 765, 780 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted).

[T]here is no legitimate neutral justification for the fact that Kentucky prohibits Plaintiff Rosemond’s parenting advice while leaving vast amounts of materially identical speech—in the form of newspapers, books, television shows, and Internet discussion forums— totally unregulated. Kentucky’s newspapers and airwaves—not to mention the Internet—are filled with advice personalities answering questions on every facet of interpersonal relationships, most of which seemingly fall within the broad scope of Kentucky’s definition of the “practice of psychology.”

Comment: Likewise the internet is rift wtih perhaps hundreds of thousands of “legal advice columns and blogs providing law advice to the general public.  Why this blog and why now is the real question to ask?

it is difficult to understand how Dr. Phil, Dr. Oz, and countless other self-help gurus would not also be in the Government’s crosshairs. …

Comment: And likewise, dozens of blogs and youtube shows purport to provide advise on all types of legal based affairs from selling one’s home to making one’s own will or trust document and funding a trust, preparing and filing income tax forms and taking proper tax deductions, there are also dozens of nonlawyer probate blogs allowing posts, articles and commentary on legal issues from the general public.  There are websites for pro se litigants and Legal Zoom and other websites prepare and advise on legal forms–without ever talking to a licensed lawyer and the client pays the robo-online-not licensed-computer lawyer.

If the “protections afforded commercial speech are to retain their force,” Zauderer, 471 U.S., at 648–649, 105 S.Ct., at 2280–2281, we cannot allow rote invocation of the words “potentially misleading” to supplant the Board’s burden to “demonstrate that the harms it recites are real and that its restriction will in fact alleviate them to a material degree.” Edenfield, 507 U.S., at 771, 113 S.Ct., at 1800.

In the Denison case 13 PR 001, no harm to the public or any of her paying clients was ever alleged.  The harm to blogging clients was purely speculative.  The harm to other attorneys was completely vacuous, and the testimony of these attorneys accused of being clouted and taking advantage of the Sykes family was akin to sour grapes and the typical losing attorney trying to make his client feel better.  Judge Stuart changed her testimony on the stand and the transcript was changed–fraud on the court.  She proved the point of the entire proceeding, a concept which somehow escaped a conveniently  “ignorant” Tribunal.  

Rosemond is entitled to express his views and the fact that he is not a Kentucky-licensed psychologist does not change that fact. If the facts were different, had Rosemond represented himself to be a Kentucky-licensed psychologist or had he actually entered into a client-patient relationship in Kentucky, the outcome might be different. In the case at hand, he did not. All he did was write a column providing parenting advice to an audience of newspaper subscribers. To permit the state to halt this lawful expression would result in a harm far more concrete and
damaging to society than the speculative harm which the State purportedly seeks to avoid,

Kentucky’s Psychology Practice Act, Ky. Rev. Stat. §§ 319.005 et seq., and its Associated regulations were UNCONSTITUTIONALY APPLIED to Rosemond’s advice column and also as to Rosemond’s description of himself as a family psychologist;
(4) The Board is PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from enforcing these laws in an unconstitutional manner against Rosemond or others similarly situated.
And it goes without saying, that while Melissa Smart started her opening with the blog is “like yelling fire in a crowded theater”, it’s a ridiculous statement no one believes and it’s not even the law. In fact, it never even was the law, it was only “dicta” or an offhand statement the judge makes that is relevant to, but not part of the actual decision.
From dozens of articles on the internet regarding the quote:
From the Atlantic and the ACLU:
Ninety-three years ago, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote what is perhaps the most well-known — yet misquoted and misused — phrase in Supreme Court history: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”

But those who quote Holmes might want to actually read the case where the phrase originated before using it as their main defense. If they did, they’d realize it was never binding law, and the underlying case, U.S. v. Schenck, is not only one of the most odious free speech decisions in the Court’s history, but was overturned over 40 years ago.

First, it’s important to note U.S. v. Schenck had nothing to do with fires or theaters or false statements. Instead, the Court was deciding whether Charles Schenck, the Secretary of the Socialist Party of America, could be convicted under the Espionage Act for writing and distributing a pamphlet that expressed his opposition to the draft during World War I. As the ACLU’s Gabe Rottman explains, “It did not call for violence. It did not even call for civil disobedience.”

The crowded theater remark that everyone remembers was an analogy Holmes made before issuing the court’s holding. He was explaining that the First Amendment is not absolute. It is what lawyers call dictum, a justice’s ancillary opinion that doesn’t directly involve the facts of the case and has no binding authority. The actual ruling, that the pamphlet posed a “clear and present danger” to a nation at war, landed Schenk in prison and continued to haunt the court for years to come.

In 1969, the Supreme Court’s decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck and any authority the case still carried. There, the Court held that inflammatory speech–and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan–is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech “is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action”.

As Rottman wrote, for this reason, it’s “worse than useless in defining the boundaries of constitutional speech. When used metaphorically, it can be deployed against any unpopular speech.” Worse, its advocates are tacitly endorsing one of the broadest censorship decisions ever brought down by the Court. It is quite simply, as Ken White calls it, “the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech.”

I think the ACLU and the Atlantic just called what Melissa Smart said and the ARDC approved of for an opening argument, a really bad and inaccurate “lazy cheat.”

I am herewith instructing you to file a Motion to Dismiss all charges against me with the Illinois Supreme Court (since you created this mess and it’s your karma) and to immediately reinstate my license to practice law and publicly apologize to myself and all my clients and I want that put on YOUR blog–right where you defamed my blogs and my probate victims and their cases.

Very Truly Yours,


/joanne m denison/esignature/

Joanne M. Denison

cc: blog

Kids for Cash updates from Prison Legal News

First the article:

Remember it took 6 years and 2 dedicated reporters to bring 2 judges, one bankster who knew about the bribes and did nothing and did nothing, reported nothing (18 USC sec 4, misprison of felony, plus numerous banking reporting laws) to justice.

Now the aftermath:

on March 3, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of one of the former judges who challenged his conviction and federal prison sentence. The refusal leaves intact a Third Circuit Court of Appeals decision upholding the conviction and 28-year sentence imposed on former Luzerne County judge Mark A. Ciavarella, Jr., 63. See: United States v. Ciavarella, 716 F.3d 705 (3d Cir. 2013), cert. denied. Fellow former Luzerne County judge Michael T. Conahan is serving a 17½ year sentence after pleading guilty to racketeering conspiracy. [See: PLN, Nov. 2011, p.14].

And the Treasury Dept went after the bankster involved:

Additionally, in March 2015 the First National Community Bank in Dunmore, Pennsylvania, used by Conahan to channel the bribes into secret accounts, was fined $1.5 million in civil penalties for failing to file reports of suspicious activity, despite what regulators said were numerous “red flags” during the five-year bribery scheme, according to the U.S. Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FCEN). Conahan was a member of the bank’s board.

“The bank was harmed by this activity and strongly condemns the conduct of those individuals whose actions are described therein,” said Andrew Sandler, counsel to First National. The $1.5 million fine, Sandler said, “is preferable to enduring the many additional years of contested litigation that would result from challenging the allegations described in the order.”

A special master appointed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court after the so-called “Kids for Cash” scandal first broke in 2008 found that “a very substantial number” of the thousands of juveniles who passed through Ciavarella’s court did not knowingly or intelligently waive their right to counsel. The investigation found “that there was routine deprivation of children’s constitutional rights to appear before an impartial tribunal and to have an opportunity to be heard.” [See: PLN, June 2010, p.26; Nov. 2009, p.42; May 2009, p.20].

The class-action suit, consisting of nine consolidated cases, was filed against Robert J. Powell, who co-owned the two detention centers – PA Child Care and Western PA Child Care. Powell pleaded guilty and was sentenced in November 2011 to 18 months in federal prison for failing to report a felony and being an accessory to a crime for paying $770,000 in bribes to Ciavarella and Conahan. [See: PLN, May 2012, p.28]. Powell, 55, a former Luzerne County attorney, along with his former business partner, Gregory R. Zappala, owned the private juvenile detention facilities, one in Pittston, in northeastern Pennsylvania, and the other in Butler, in the western part of the state. Powell has since been disbarred.

Note that in Penn they disbarred the attorney involved who masterminded the juvenile detention facility.  In Illinois, we suspend for years the attorneys reporting the Seniors for Cash programs in Illinois courts.  We ignore the banksters reaping in the profits.

Former judge Ciavarella was convicted by a federal jury of racketeering conspiracy, four counts of honest services mail fraud, conspiracy to defraud the United States and four counts of subscribing to a materially false tax return. In addition to his 28-year prison sentence he received four years of supervised release and was ordered to pay restitution of $1,173,791.94, forfeit $997,600 and pay a $1,200 special assessment.

You would note that with the forfeit of nearly $1 million, that the feds would be interested in the Sykes case–$1 million missing, Alice Gore $1.5 million missing, Tyler–$8 million, Drabik $1 million, Stone – $600,000 (I have to mention this case because I was told specificially not to, which means the miscreants are getting investigated and shaking in their shoes, otherwise why would they care about a simple blog?)

Assuming the pending $4.75 million settlement with Powell is approved, the settlements in the class-action suit will total $25 million. Powell’s portion may be more, depending on the income he receives from other outstanding legal cases by December 2016. The class members include all juveniles who appeared before Ciavarella’s court between January 1, 2003 and May 28, 2008, who were adjudicated delinquent or placed in the for-profit detention facilities.

Here’s a fun exercise.  Let’s imagine the above article when “Seniors for Cash” stuff hits the fan.  What judges would YOU name, my probate victims? What banksters would you name who looked the other way?  How many authorities was this reported to and they did nothing?  Would the families of Wyman, Gore, Sykes, Tyler, Drabik, Richards, Baker get a $25 million class action settlement?

Breaking News–Blog under attack by Treasonist to US Constitution!

Once again, my blog is under attack from the Miscreants  and Treasonists of the US.
But I stand Firm. We have learned from 9.11. The woman clearly was trained by ISIS (and no, I know that ISIS isn’t real so don’t write me that one)
first the Anti-First Amendment, treasonous letter:
To: Viviana Banos <>, Atty Ken Ditkowsky <>, Atty Candice Schwager <>, “Mr. Lanre Amu — honest atty unfairly persecuted by ARDC” <>
Cc: Lucius Verenus Probate Sharks <>, Bev Cooper Probate Sharks <>
Subject: Re: Barbara Stone response from THE MOST DANGEROUS BLOGGER
Date: Oct 8, 2015 4:07 PM
With all due respect, what you are asking me to do is to supress my First Amendment rights as a lawyer (still admitted in Federal Court and appeals courts) and a reporter, and you are asking me to hide corruption and a string of felonies from the internet–which is the public’s right to know.  we do not remove posts.  Your communication has been reported to the authorities as a supression of my First Amendment rights and I consider what you have done to be an act of Treason against the citizens of the US.

Futhermore, you are asking me to compromise the integrity of my blog which I will never do.  You will have to fly to Chicago, shoot me in the head, hack my passwords and remove it yourself.

We operate in accordance with the First Amendment to the US Constitution.  Please read the Wiki SCOTUS cases on the First Amendment to the US constitutuion.  Start with New York Times v. Sullivan and take this up and through Citizens United. Go look at the Hillary movie before you first comment.  What I have said is true about Barbara and her mother and the public has a right to know.

Further, every post from Barbara was done with her permission.

It makes no difference what you or I do anyway because there are literally hundreds of “way back” or historical sites around the globe, crawling and publishing, crawling and publishing what is put there each and every day.

Why not go after them and “cleanse them first”.

What happened to Barbara and Helen Stone was a national tragedy.  Her mother is highly at risk in her current situation.  I have dozens of lawyers and court corruption victims ask about Barbara all the time and how she is doing and will the courts save her mother from certain death.  Why not focus on that instead.

I want to know why you have no sympathy, empathy or compassion for either Barbara (who is wholly innocent in my view) and her mother who is nothing more than a product of target-medicate-isolate and eliminate scheme flooding our probate courts.  Have you been tested for being a psychopath, narcissist or sociopath?  Because it doesn’t look good from what you have written me.

I want to know what no one has gone after the brother for $600,000 in forged checks on his mother’s account. I want to know why Helen Stone had a feeding tube implanted in her against her will and that she could eat just fine, but no one at the nursing home wants to take the time to feed her.  I want to know why Barbara has not seen her mother in over a year. All of that belongs on a blog. Answer that first and we will talk some more.

If you have a problem with what I have published, I invite you to comment thereupon.  If you don’t like what I have published, as the US Supreme Court has said over and over again, “avert thy eyes”.

But this is not North Korea, my blog is run out of England where they don’t care about US court orders, and if they did, I would move it to another jurisdiction in a second.

You sound like you need to move to North Korea along with anyone else that is pushing for this Treasonous act against a free, open and democratic society.

I am sure Kim Jong Un will welcome you with open arms.

Until that, I assume after reading this you will be withdrawing your demand to remove content from a blog in a free, open and democratic society.

There is a warning at the top of the blog that I AM THE MOST DANGEROUS BLOGGER.

Tell you what, I will stop publishing when YOU clean up the mess in probate, when YOU work for all my court corruption victims–Sykes, Wyman, Spera, Drabik, Harrison, etc. for FREE and get justice for them.

You think you can send out such a horrid demand letter and you don’t affect other people, well your words and phrases do.  What you are asking me to do is to turn my back on court corruption victims everywhere, to simply give up when I get a demand letter. This I will not do.

Do you know how much these people have suffered. Do you even care?  Do you know how much the evil in the world wants this all covered up so they can steal and kill freely?

Who writes letter like you do?  You should be ashamed of yourself, resign your job and come work with me on court corruption victims.

Resign while you still have time before the devil completely takes your soul and spirit from you.

Mestopheles is at your door.  Don’t invite him in.

JoAnne Denison,
Executive Director,
Justice 4 Every blog and 9 other blogs–most out of the country where you can’t do anything about it.
Probate Sharks–you are instructed to publish this attack on US democracy and freedom in defense of all the probate victims out there, including Mrs Gore who was isolated for 10 months from 20+ family and friends and then they saw her for less than an hour and found out she too, like Mrs. Stone, had a feeding tube at one end laced with drugs and a diaper at the other.  The true horror?  They had pulled her 29 gold teeth and never inventoried them.  At the time, Mrs. Gore wanted to eat, she loved to eat.  She love steak, lobster, shrimp and fine food.  But the court appointed cronies took this all away from her.  Is this what you want?  6 weeks after I published this on my blog (which the FBI reads, if you did not know), Judge Kowamoto “suddenly retired” and fled to Texas and she has not been heard of since.  Good riddance.  $1.5 million in coins disappeared in that case.