What interrogatories does it take to show that one has constitutional rights?

Dear Readers;

Please see below.  And Ken is absolutely right, the filing of a complaint against me is nothing more than garden variety censorship practiced by an out of control bureaucratic state  agency that has no interest in stopping me from relating tales, complaints and gripes of corruption in the probate court.

Some of the information I have presented to you is from reliable sources (at least as reliable as the Chicago Trib and Suntimes that “plants” ads for mega corps all the time about how their products are safe when they absolutely are not).  Most of it I have seen first hand in the courts, and I believe I have a constitutional right to divulge that information to others who are probate court victims in a court operating without jurisdiction.

I note that AS and CF  have never said how they can show Mary got a summons and complaint.  It’s not in the records of the court.  HW and PS both said she was not served or was not served properly.  In most cases, there is a copy of the summons and complaint in the file together with an affidavit of service.

Go look at the docket.  It’s the following web page

http://www.cookcountyclerkofcourt.org/?section=CASEINFOPage&CASEINFOPage=4210&PLtype=1&Ncase=2009P004585

Link to Mary’s Probate case docket sheet 09 P 4585

Then go and search on the webpage by using cntrl f for the key words “summons” and “process”–
What you SHOULD find is:

Summons issued, then summons returned n.s. or not served (remember that Mary lived at Carolyn’s in Naperville and Carolyn declared “Mary will never go home”.)  That means next you should find in the record “Order apopinting Special Process Server”, “Alias Summons Issued” (this is a duplicate summons after the sheriff does not or cannot serve), and then you should find “Affidavit of Special Process Server– Summons Served”.

But what we find instead is that the summons issued on 7-20-09, then it was returned not served on 8/13/09; then an alias (or duplicate summons) was issued on 8/31/09; on 8-26-09 and order issued appointing a special process server.

What is glaringly missing from the record is the key notation “summons served, affidavit of special process server filed.”

It is up to the Petitioner to keep the records of service and the affidavit of the process server.  In this case, I have been in court where HW said there was no such affidavit, Mary was bench served (allegedly), and PS also said in open court Mary was never properly served.  It’s all improper because the process server must be directed to serve the recipient at a particular location, then s/he must go there and serve.  This prevents wrong person from being served and it makes it easier for the court and attorneys to determine that from the records.

All of this is easily ascertainable from a skilled attorney simply reading a docket sheet.

If this blog is a lie, why isn’t the ARDC asking PS and HW for the properly executed Affidavit of Service even before they file a complaint against either myself or Ken?  And what about the declarations from the two sisters and Gloria?  That also proves improprieties and lack of jurisdiction.  Do they seriously challenge those declarations of elderly women and dear close friends of Mary who can rarely, if ever, see her now?

Mary is isolated. She has 2 beloved sisters and a daughter who cannot see her.  90% of the Sykes family and friends cannot see her now.

Read below for Ken’s interrogatories, bu I hope that I have now taught Ms. Leah Black and Mr. Jerome Larkin how to read a simple docket sheet and file appropriate discovery BEFORE they file a complaint against myself and Ken.

Seriously.

JoAnne

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE INTERROGATORIES
Now comes JoAnne Denison and moves for leave to serve Interrogatories and states as follows:
Prefatory Statement
The Instant proceeding as by the words and phrases of the Complaint (see Motion to Dismiss complaint)  in derogation of the mission of the ARDC.      The ARDC complaint stripped to its core averments and denuded of its conclusions is a garden variety attempt at censorship of content based material.
Discussion
The Interrogatories that are served herewith are served in good faith as an attempt to ferret out and require the ARDC to disclose if there are any facts to support their conclusions and/or that are any facts to support any allegation of wrongdoing on the part of Ms. Denison.      As an example it is clearly the right of a respondent who is accused of not telling to the truth to be informed either in the pleading or in discovery as to the following facts:
1.       What statement was untrue
2.       Who to, when and where the statement was made and
3.       The context in which the statement was made.
As the United States Supreme Court and the Illinois Supreme Court have been very clear in prohibiting content based censorship the respondent and the public have a right to be informed (and the ARDC has a duty) as to the rationalization for any deprivation of First Amendment or Article One Rights.
The underlying averment of this disciplinary proceeding is the certain people are ‘judicial officials’ (whatever that means) and that they were mis-informed.        The complaint avers that the attorney authored a blog that averred that the Jurisdictional criterion for vesting the Court with the authority to appoint guardians and to regulate the liberty and property interests of a senior citizen was ignored and jurisdiction never vested.      The Illinois Supreme Court provides absolute authority for the respondent attorney to address the issue as it stated:
“The court acquires jurisdiction over the allegedly disabled person by personal service upon him of a copy of the petition and summons not less than 14 days before the hearing. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 110½, par. 11a–10(e); see McCormick v. Blaine (1931), 345 Ill. 461, 178 N.E. 195.) It is also a jurisdictional requirement that the petitioner give notice of the time and place of the hearing by mail or in person to the nearest living relatives of the allegedly disabled person not less than 14 days before the hearing. Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 110½, par. 11a–10(f); see In re Guardianship of Sodini (1988), 172 Ill.App.3d 1055, 123 Ill.Dec. 67, 527 N.E.2d 530.”   In re Estate of Steinfeld, 158 Ill. 2d 1, 13, 630 N.E.2d 801, 807 (1994)
Indeed, it may be an embarrassment to certain un-named ‘judicial officials’  and certain Judges to have been caught depriving a ‘senior citizen’ (Mary Sykes) of her Liberty, Property, Civil and Human rights for more than 3 years while the same ‘judicial officials’ have without jurisdiction fended off with sans jurisdictional intimidations, but,  it is the duty of the ARDC to punish such Constitutional miscreant behavior rather than punish the messengers.    Indeed, it was no long ago that Illinois was embarrassed as 15 judges were found guilty of corruption and more were otherwise embarrassed.      If it is unethical and not protected conduct for an attorney to protest and/or demand an honest, complete, and comprehensive investigation of the Judicial System the he/she serves the ARDC ought to be ready, willing and able to up-front answer interrogatories concerning the facts of the Sykes case including but not limited to:
1.       The statutory compliance with 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3,8,10,11, 17 and 18
2.       Elder Abuse – such as the virtually total isolation of a senior citizen from her two elderly sisters, her younger daughter, her friends, her neighbors, church, garden club etc.
3.       Financial exploitation exhibited by alleged very questionable proceedings involving her younger daughter (see Gloria Sykes affidavits attached to the Motion to Dismiss
4.       Financial exploitation exhibited by the alleged non-inventory of Mary Sykes’ assets including Gold coins removed from a safety deposit box believed to be worth in excess of a million dollars (see Gloria Sykes affidavit).[1]
5.       Other and different events.
The letter addressed to Attorney Lea Black representing the Administrator is incorporated by reference and made part hereof as if set forth in detail.     It is respectfully submitted, that as this proceeding has ‘core’ Constitutional implications and involves possible censorship, and possible criminal conduct by persons believed to be the complaining persons herein in order to achieve a fair trial JoAnne Dension respectfully submitted that the Administrator be required to furnish her with the information requested the tendered Interrogatories
Wherefore, JoAnne Denison prays for the Panel to order the Administrator to answer fully and completely the Interrogatories tendered herein.
Respectfully Submitted,

[1] It is respectfully suggested that the ‘judicial officials’ whomever they might be have a fiduciary responsibility to not only the Justice System, but to Mary Sykes.    The non-inventory of assets is a breach of fiduciary relationship and therefore a ‘taxable event.’    A taxable event generates ‘ordinary income’ that is taxable under both the Federal and State of Illinois revenue collection schemes and therefore, must be disclosed on tax returns.    The evasion of United States Income taxes is usually a felony and the aiding and abetting of such action an ethical lapse.   As under oath the affidavit of Gloria Sykes (the younger daughter) has been filed the investigation of not only the averments that Ms. Sykes makes are required to be investigated, but the possible felony by ‘judicial officials’     It would be improper and discriminary for the messenger (JoAnne Denison) to be investigated and the alleged miscreants to be given a pass.    Such is a proper, pregnant, reasonable, and necessary inquiry.
Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

From Ken Ditkowsky–what interrogatories do you need to prove you have consitutional rights?

as Ken notes below, it is a SLAPP (Strategic Litigaiton to Avoid Public Participation–something prohibited under 750 ILCS 110 et seq.) and garden variety censorship by a government agency that has no interest in regulating such speech:
My question is, do we want the ARDC in the business of regulating, daily reading and censoring of attorney blogs, esp. those that point out corruption in the courts?
Do I need to put CENSORED across each of the posts I have made that somehow made CF, PS, AS, CT cry or wet their paents.  (And no I’m not using initials to hide their names, it makes it easier to type and this is my blog.  I like my long fingernails, but….)
So read on for more good questions from Ken.
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE INTERROGATORIES
Now comes JoAnne Denison and moves for leave to serve Interrogatories and states as follows:
Prefatory Statement
The Instant proceeding as by the words and phrases of the Complaint (see Motion to Dismiss complaint)  in derogation of the mission of the ARDC.      The ARDC complaint stripped to its core averments and denuded of its conclusions is a garden variety attempt at censorship of content based material.
Discussion
The Interrogatories that are served herewith are served in good faith as an attempt to ferret out and require the ARDC to disclose if there are any facts to support their conclusions and/or that are any facts to support any allegation of wrongdoing on the part of Ms. Denison.      As an example it is clearly the right of a respondent who is accused of not telling to the truth to be informed either in the pleading or in discovery as to the following facts:
1.       What statement was untrue
2.       Who to, when and where the statement was made and
3.       The context in which the statement was made.
As the United States Supreme Court and the Illinois Supreme Court have been very clear in prohibiting content based censorship the respondent and the public have a right to be informed (and the ARDC has a duty) as to the rationalization for any deprivation of First Amendment or Article One Rights.
The underlying averment of this disciplinary proceeding is the certain people are ‘judicial officials’ (whatever that means) and that they were mis-informed.        The complaint avers that the attorney authored a blog that averred that the Jurisdictional criterion for vesting the Court with the authority to appoint guardians and to regulate the liberty and property interests of a senior citizen was ignored and jurisdiction never vested.      The Illinois Supreme Court provides absolute authority for the respondent attorney to address the issue as it stated:
“The court acquires jurisdiction over the allegedly disabled person by personal service upon him of a copy of the petition and summons not less than 14 days before the hearing. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 110½, par. 11a–10(e); see McCormick v. Blaine (1931), 345 Ill. 461, 178 N.E. 195.) It is also a jurisdictional requirement that the petitioner give notice of the time and place of the hearing by mail or in person to the nearest living relatives of the allegedly disabled person not less than 14 days before the hearing. Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 110½, par. 11a–10(f); see In re Guardianship of Sodini (1988), 172 Ill.App.3d 1055, 123 Ill.Dec. 67, 527 N.E.2d 530.”   In re Estate of Steinfeld, 158 Ill. 2d 1, 13, 630 N.E.2d 801, 807 (1994)
Indeed, it may be an embarrassment to certain un-named ‘judicial officials’  and certain Judges to have been caught depriving a ‘senior citizen’ (Mary Sykes) of her Liberty, Property, Civil and Human rights for more than 3 years while the same ‘judicial officials’ have without jurisdiction fended off with sans jurisdictional intimidations, but,  it is the duty of the ARDC to punish such Constitutional miscreant behavior rather than punish the messengers.    Indeed, it was no long ago that Illinois was embarrassed as 15 judges were found guilty of corruption and more were otherwise embarrassed.      If it is unethical and not protected conduct for an attorney to protest and/or demand an honest, complete, and comprehensive investigation of the Judicial System the he/she serves the ARDC ought to be ready, willing and able to up-front answer interrogatories concerning the facts of the Sykes case including but not limited to:
1.       The statutory compliance with 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3,8,10,11, 17 and 18
2.       Elder Abuse – such as the virtually total isolation of a senior citizen from her two elderly sisters, her younger daughter, her friends, her neighbors, church, garden club etc.
3.       Financial exploitation exhibited by alleged very questionable proceedings involving her younger daughter (see Gloria Sykes affidavits attached to the Motion to Dismiss
4.       Financial exploitation exhibited by the alleged non-inventory of Mary Sykes’ assets including Gold coins removed from a safety deposit box believed to be worth in excess of a million dollars (see Gloria Sykes affidavit).[1]
5.       Other and different events.
The letter addressed to Attorney Lea Black representing the Administrator is incorporated by reference and made part hereof as if set forth in detail.     It is respectfully submitted, that as this proceeding has ‘core’ Constitutional implications and involves possible censorship, and possible criminal conduct by persons believed to be the complaining persons herein in order to achieve a fair trial JoAnne Dension respectfully submitted that the Administrator be required to furnish her with the information requested the tendered Interrogatories
Wherefore, JoAnne Denison prays for the Panel to order the Administrator to answer fully and completely the Interrogatories tendered herein.
Respectfully Submitted,


[1] It is respectfully suggested that the ‘judicial officials’ whomever they might be have a fiduciary responsibility to not only the Justice System, but to Mary Sykes.    The non-inventory of assets is a breach of fiduciary relationship and therefore a ‘taxable event.’    A taxable event generates ‘ordinary income’ that is taxable under both the Federal and State of Illinois revenue collection schemes and therefore, must be disclosed on tax returns.    The evasion of United States Income taxes is usually a felony and the aiding and abetting of such action an ethical lapse.   As under oath the affidavit of Gloria Sykes (the younger daughter) has been filed the investigation of not only the averments that Ms. Sykes makes are required to be investigated, but the possible felony by ‘judicial officials’     It would be improper and discriminatory for the messenger (JoAnne Denison) to be investigated and the alleged miscreants to be given a pass.    Such is a proper, pregnant, reasonable, and necessary inquiry.
Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

Greylord-the recurring theme on this blog–but not the ARDC, wonder why?

Dear Readers;

One of the great recurring themes why this CENSORED blog is that Atty Leah Black for the ARDC does not want anyone to know or mention Greylord.

Now, it is my humble opinion and I believe that of Atty Ditkowsky that Greylord needs to be remembered and mentioned from time to time to chill what can easily be an out of control circuit court system, so I keep on bringing it up.

To further this cause this here is a great link to information that explains how the ARDC was created in direct response to concerns over Greylord.  So now they are part of coverups?  It also mentions how the ARDC did very little between 1978 and 1985 to help with operation Greylord

Further details are provided on exactly who was indicted and what their sentences were.

LInk to Greylord/ARDC article.

Constitutional Law cases–How much protection does an Illinois citizen get?

Now for something completely different (for this blog), the Zauder case, Zauder v. the Ohio Disciplinary Council re atty advertising:

Zauder v. Ohio Disciplinary Council

No. 83-2166. | Argued Jan. 7, 1985. | Decided May 28, 1985.
In a disciplinary proceeding, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that violations of certain disciplinary rules of Ohio warranted public reprimand, 10 Ohio St.3d 44, 461 N.E.2d 883. On appeal, the Supreme Court, Justice White, held that: (1) discipline for advertising geared to persons with specific legal problem could not be justified; (2) substantial interest justifying ban on in-person solicitation could not justify discipline for content of newspaper advertisement; (3) attorney may not be disciplined for soliciting legal business through printed advertising containing truthful and nondeceptive information and advice regarding legal rights of potential clients; (4) illustration in the advertisement which was accurate representation of intrauterine device and had no feature likely to deceive, mislead or confuse reader, could not provide basis for discipline; but (5) application of requirement that an attorney advertising his availability on contingent-fee basis disclose that clients will have to pay costs even if their lawsuits are unsuccessful was proper where advertisement made no mention or distinction between “legal fees” and “costs.”

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

A ruling that any of various findings of violation of disciplinary regulations by attorney was sustained did not necessarily warrant affirmance of public reprimand, even though such discipline would be the least severe discipline that could be imposed under Ohio’s rules, in view of fact that the public reprimand incorporated opinion of Supreme Court of Ohio as well as report of Board of Bar Commissioners and thereby constituted public chastisement for each offense specified. Ohio Code of Prof.Resp., DR2-101(A, B), (B)(1-20), DR2-103(A), DR2-104(A).

What has come to be known as “commercial speech” is entitled to protection of the First Amendment, albeit to protection somewhat less extensive than that afforded “noncommercial speech.” U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1.

[please note,what I have is not “commercial speech”–what I write is not advertising but reporting corruption in the courts and the ARDC wants to regulate that.  “Fair reporting” is entitled to the highest protection under the First Amendment as “political speech” and “participating in the government process”.  So, let’s assume arguendo what I said is “commercial speech”, then what?  What protection is my blog afforded.  What has SCOTUS said?]

States and federal government are free to prevent dissemination of commercial speech that is false, deceptive or misleading, or that proposes illegal transaction, but commercial speech that is not false or deceptive and does not concern unlawful activities may be restricted only in service of substantial governmental interest, and only through means that directly advance that interest. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1.

New question from Atty Ditowsky–why IS young Atty Leah Black so jaundiced at such an early stage in her career?

In a ‘perfect world’ the complaint would never have been filed; however, in this world it is clear that the ARDC is not interested in anything other than protecting Farenga, Stern, Schmiedel et al.   What is absolutely amazing is the fact that a young attorney (LB) would be so jaundiced at this point in her career to go along with the facade.   Everyone knows that your first amendment rights are violated by the averments and the prosecution of the complaint.  Everyone is aware that your defense of Gloria Sykes’ right to be left alone.   (except Gloria)   Everyone is aware of fact that the jurisdictional criterion were not met; however, the ‘judicial officials’ have decreed that the Illinois Supreme Court and the Illinois Appellate Court are inferior to the whim and caprice of Farenga, Stern et al.
Apparently there is a great deal more money in the Sykes estate than we figured – as consequences are sure to follow – why would these judicial officials take the risk of what is sure to follow.    The fiscal cliff is going to bring pressure on Treasury to collect the taxes due for the breaches of fiduciary relationship.    We know about *****.   What do we not know about!
Ken Ditkowsky
Dear Ken;
I have recently received more and more calls that people are probate court and OPG victims and it seems to perpetrate the highest levels of city, state and federal government.  I’m almost afraid to report it to the ARDC because they don’t want to know and they go after me.  Someone has promised me court records and a story involving millions of dollars, living like a pauper, threats of murder–all connected with the probate court system.  I’m going to check it out and see if there’s some truth there.  If not, I’ll let you know the other way.

How to Censor an Honest Attorney. Step 1, a bogus, copyright infringing complaint

What I don’t get is the ARDC used enough of my stuff — 16 copyrighted paragraphs —  to give the reader the sense that they are covering up something at the highest levels that requires them to pick on myself and Atty Ken Ditkowsky.

The ARDC Complaint of Jan 1, 2013

Ken’s Response: Motion to Dismiss re First Amendment

I will also publish these in line, but words cannot describe a most basic and malicous attck on my (yours) First Amendment rights!

What’s worse, as noted above, the entire complaint appears to be part of a massive coverup at the highest levels of Illinois Government.

This is not commercial speech, this is not even legal speech–this is a newsworthy blog.  People email me, call and text me they love the blog and my comments!  They are thrilled that someone can go up against “the system” for them.

I’ve never been censored before.  I’m clearly not Daniel Ellsberg–America’s most dangerous man (for exposing the fact that “war” is nothing but a profit center and a scam) or Julian Assange for basically doing the same thing.

Nice to know someone’s paying attention.

But the real problem is–why are they going after the miscreants and all they do is shoot the messenger, that’s what I want to know.

JoAnne

WARNING NOTICE — THIS BLOG HAS BEEN CENSORED BY THE IARDC!

You are hereby warned by Atty Leah Black and Atty Jerome Larkin that ANY ATTEMPT TO READ, DISSEMINATE OR PASS ALONG THE CONTENT OF THIS BLOG TO FRIENDS, FAMILY AND ASSOCIATES will result in the immediate, severe and strenuous prosecution of Atty JoAnne M Denison and Atty Kenneth Ditkowsky (together with any other attorneys the lynching party can find) for (horror of horros) reporting corruption, bias, injustice, denial of human rights, civil rights by the august (honored) likes of GALs Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern and Justice Connors–who all wear little girl and boy pants and cry frequently over satire, humor and biting comments aimed at them.

Do NOT be distracted by the ARDC complaints against myself and Ken—be sure to report anything that makes you wet in your pants to Atty Leah Black and Atty Jerome Larkin at the ARDC.

Our pictures will soon be hung up at your local post office (not the younger, prettier more deceptive one on this blog) so you can see the real me.  I’m 55 and fluffy (but I blame that on my 4 kids).

Have a great time reading the complaint and I’ll put up a petition as to whether corruption in Chicago and Illinois MUST be censored and stamped out wherever it s found.

Remember–these are great Chicago traditions:  censor publication of corruption, vote early and often on election day; be sure to list dead relatives on your ballot so the ballot counters can add in their votes for “the machine” too.

JoAnne

Before you charge someone with copyright infringement, you must make registration

Dear Readers;

When for some reason people are ignoring your First Amendment rights, because that just seems too foreign, or too far from reality, get them with copyright infringement as per the long standing tradition of Disney, the MPAA, etc.

So guess what $35 and 2.5 months buys you?  Very economical.  A copyright case!

So today, in honor of Disney and the MPAA who have brought us new ideals in terms of perpetuating copyright laws well past 75 years plus the death of the author, and the MPAA who is famous for the movie “This Film is not yet rated” on Netflix, here we go again.

To: joanne@denisonlaw.com
Subject: Confirmation of Receipt
Date: Jan 26, 2013 12:24 AM
THIS IS AN AUTOMATED EMAIL – PLEASE DO NOT REPLY. Your application and payment for the work WWW.MARYGSYKES.COM BLOG Nov 2011 to 01-23-13 were received by the U.S. Copyright Office on 01/29/2013. PLEASE NOTE: Your submission is not complete until you upload or mail the material you are registering. To do so, logon to eCO (https://eco.copyright.gov/eService_enu/) and click on case number 1-882853811 in the Open Cases table. Follow the instructions to either upload a digital copy or mail a physical copy (with shipping slip attached) of the work being registered. Additional instructions and requirements for submitting the material being registered can be found at http://www.copyright.gov/eco/tips/. SHIPPING SLIPS: If you mail physical copies of the material being registered, the effective date of registration will be based on the date on which we receive the copies WITH CORRESPONDING SHIPPING SLIPS ATTACHED. A printable copy of the application will be available within 24 hours by clicking the My Applications link in the left top most navigation menu of the Home screen. You may check the status of this claim via eCO using this number 1-882853811. If you have questions or need assistance, Copyright Office contact information can be found at http://www.copyright.gov/help/index.html#general. United States Copyright Office The receipt for payment: THIS IS AN AUTOMATED EMAIL – PLEASE DO NOT REPLY. Your application and payment for the work WWW.MARYGSYKES.COM BLOG Nov 2011 to 01-23-13 were received by the U.S. Copyright Office on 01/29/2013. PLEASE NOTE: Your submission is not complete until you upload or mail the material you are registering. To do so, logon to eCO (https://eco.copyright.gov/eService_enu/) and click on case number 1-882853811 in the Open Cases table. Follow the instructions to either upload a digital copy or mail a physical copy (with shipping slip attached) of the work being registered. Additional instructions and requirements for submitting the material being registered can be found at http://www.copyright.gov/eco/tips/. SHIPPING SLIPS: If you mail physical copies of the material being registered, the effective date of registration will be based on the date on which we receive the copies WITH CORRESPONDING SHIPPING SLIPS ATTACHED. A printable copy of the application will be available within 24 hours by clicking the My Applications link in the left top most navigation menu of the Home screen. You may check the status of this claim via eCO using this number 1-882853811. If you have questions or need assistance, Copyright Office contact information can be found at http://www.copyright.gov/help/index.html#general. United States Copyright Officeand Your payment has been submitted to Pay.gov and the details are below. If you have any questions regarding this payment, please contact Copyright Fee Services at ctoinfo@loc.gov or 877-476-0778. Application Name: Copyright Fee Services Pay.gov Tracking ID: 259COPM7 Agency Tracking ID: 1-ELMM
To: joanne@denisonlaw.com
Subject: Acknowledgement of Uploaded Deposit
Date: Jan 26, 2013 12:29 AM
THIS IS AN AUTOMATED EMAIL. PLEASE DO NOT REPLY. Thank you for submitting your registration claim using the Electronic Copyright Office (ECO) System. The following files were successfully uploaded for service request 1-882853811 File Name :sykesblognov2011toJan232013disclcrnoticetorts.pdf File Size :1703 KB Date/Time :1/26/2013 1:28:29 AM [THREAD ID: 1-ELNTHK] United States Copyright Office
My theory is, if the ARDC think the First Amendment was a joke, the Copyright laws might speak to them differently. And for those of you not familiar with Nimmer on Copyrights, a 10 volume treatise on discount at Amazon.com for $1700 (yeah, like the ARDC is going to whip out that dough), US copyright law is strong, well enforced by our (noncorrupt) ND Ill. courts and in full swing on most days. Let’s see if the ARDC will respect my copyrights in my intellectual property. Joanne
The next step is Federal District Court and an assertion of copyright infringement entitling the copyright owner to statutory damages and attorneys fees.  Punitive damages are awardable for wilful (knowing) infringment, which I believe this is.
Because copyright laws are sooo very pro-plaintiff, pretty much no one messes with it.
Except for the very stupid and unknowing.
JoAnne
PS— I have made sure that the copyright registration upload file contains all 16 paragraphs of the ARDC complaint against me.  So this is how it goes, the ARDC complaint is groundless under my First Amenment rights and that fails, after which those who signed it, condoned it, initiated complaints based upon those quotes, are all liable for attorney’s fees which entitles the copyright holder to attorneys fees and statutory damages. There is contributory infringement and vicarious infringement, provided for by case law. If the infringer does not settle prior to entry of judgment, it is enforced by delivering it to the US marshall for criminal prosecution.  QED.  Very plaintiff and pro-copyright holder friendly courtesy of Disney and the MPAA.  If you have not seen the movie “This film is not yet rated” you should do so now.

Litigants need more information on court Reporters in Rockford

Dear Readers;

While atty KDD is working an a Motion to Dismiss for First Amendment rights and the ARDC is trying to shut me up and take down this blog for exposing Chicago and Cook County Courtroom corruption, another issue has popped up I want to make you all aware of.

As you know the Wyman case has been operating without jurisdiction for three (3) years in the Winnebago County Courts with the assistance of Judge Fabiano, Atty Sharon Rudy an Atty Kimberly Timmerwilke, one probate victim, John Howard Wyman THOUGHT that all the hearings are argument and lies and fabrications were being recorded.

Apparently not so, my little buttercup.  While the State of Illinois tax payers obviously spent tens of millions to update and make electronic those courtrooms with excellent miking, a wonderful sound system, turns out nothing, absolutely nothing is being recorded.  And there’s nothing on the internet to warn litigants or their attorneys that nothing, absolutely nothing is being recorded.

Now the ARDC an I have an issue.  They think that if I point out obvious corruption, that is unethical. So apparently I’m not supposed to tell you, that as a patent attorney and a skilled engineer, that spending tens of millions of dollars to mike a court without actually RECORDING anything looks like corruption and lip service to the public.

Doesn’t matter.  I’ve lived long enough in our state court system to know that YOU BRING YOUR OWN INDEPENDENT COURT REPORTER, pay them and review the transcript carefully and there will not be a problem.

If you ask me, I think it looks fishy at best an anyone with half a brain would know it’s just lip service to corruption.  There, I said it.  Anyone disagree besides the ARDC?

And I will exercise my First Amendment rights to say these things.  There isn’t a single case I could find in “all jurisdictions” on Fast Case that says an attorney cannot blog.  Not a single one.

In fact, I think my case is about as insane, ludicrous and crazy as “mirth and girth” and you all can Google that or look at my post on it.

Soon as I can, probably later today, I will publish the complaint, and file a copyright registration for my blog to protect me.

If the County Courts won’t do it, the N.D. Ill. court system isn’t wired in, isn’t corrupt and protects copyright violations and free speech.

joanne

How to easily copyright a blog on WordPress

One of the things I get to do now is copyright my blog.  I have noted there are infringers out there and the best way to take care of them is to sue them for copyright infringement.

But first you have to copyright your stuff with the US copyright office.  In this case, our firm has already gone thru the pain and agony of setting up an online account with the US Copyright Office so we can just upload the file and information and in 2 to 3 months, I should have a copyright for $50 and a file upload.

For those of you that are part of the fight against corruption in the Illinois court system and elsewhere, here is a complete copy of my blog which took minutes on WordPress. You just have to copy and paste each monthly archive into Word or Wordperfect, and Adobe pro will convert that to PDF and combine the files for you.

Link to complete blog Nov 2011 to Jan 23 2012

Tomorrow I will do the upload to the US copyright office and let you know how it all goes.

So use and search away, but only if you are doing it for good and not to go after honest attorneys that point out corruption in the courts

joanne

Jurisdiction was lacking according to the records….

Almost every day there are letters that cross my desk from people who are being victimized by the system that is in place supposedly to protect the elderly, the disabled, and those who cannot protect themselves.   Yes, some of the complainers are kooks, but so many of the harrowing stories that they tell check out to be truthful.
[Sometimes the kooky complainers are the ones who have a legit gripe, but have fought an unresponsive, massively bureaucratic system for sooooo long, they have become kooky in the process of screaming at the top of their lungs that justice was not served on many levels.  First they are abused in probate court, then they are repeatedly abused by nursing homes, GAL’s, judges, Plenary Guardians, and scores of “elder abuse” agencies that have website promising to protect and investigate but do neither and only rake in millions of dollars wasted on lip service and pushing papers. No wonder the kook comes out.  No wonder the kook reigns supreme.]
What we have in place to satisfy our parens patrie criterion is a two track system.  Most disabled and elderly benefit from the actions of law enforcement, the Courts, social workers etc.    These people are on track one.   The second track involves Sykes, Gore, Tyler, Wyman, et al.    On the 2nd track we find cases such as Jaycox, bush etc.   For the 2nd track individuals all bets and all civil rights are ignored.   In Sykes the Court has harassed Mary and Gloria even though their own records show that there was no jurisdiction.   Anyone who steps up to be counted is subject to harassment  threats and bullying.   This includes yours truly, JoAnne Denison etc.   According to the ARDC it is unethical to call to the Court and the public’s attention that for three plus years civil and human rights of senors and their families clearly have been violated–on the face of the pubic records themselves.
If you read the file in the Sykes case with an eye to the Illinois Statutory scheme (ignoring all the statements of the parties (self serving and factual)) and you will find that the jurisdictional protections were ignored and thus there is no jurisdiction obtained by the Court.   Then step back – look what was done to Mary and to Gloria Sykes and John Howard Wyman and W. Carol Wyman and ask yourself – IS THIS AMERICA?
If this is the America that you want – so be it; however, it is far cry from what we were promised and what we told our children.
Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

Can you Squish the First Amendment and make it Squeak?

Another one of my favorite cases is the dog fighting/squish video one, namely, US v. Stevens,  which is about:

The First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” “[A]s a general matter, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U. S. 564, 573 (2002)

The case was regarding the following statute:

The statute restricts “visual [and] auditory depiction[s],” suchas photographs, videos, or sound recordings, depending on whether they depict conduct in which a living animal is intentionally harmed. As such, §48 is “‘presumptively invalid,’ and the Government bears the burden to rebut that presumption.” United States v. Playboy Entertain-ment Group, Inc., 529 U. S. 803, 817 (2000) (quoting
R. A. V. v. St. Paul, 505 U. S. 377, 382 (1992); citation omitted).

Notice, that the US Supremes said that the government had the  burden of proof to show validity of a statute that restricted speech.

ment has “permitted restrictions upon the content ofspeech in a few limited areas,” and has never “include[d] a freedom to disregard these traditional limitations.” Id., at 382–383. These “historic and traditional categories longfamiliar to the bar,” Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of
N. Y. State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U. S. 105, 127 (1991) (KENNEDY, J., concurring in judgment)—including obscen-ity, Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, 483 (1957), defa-mation, Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U. S. 250, 254–255 (1952), fraud, Virginia Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citi-zens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U. S. 748, 771 (1976), incitement, Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U. S. 444, 447–449 (1969) (per curiam), and speech integral to criminal conduct, Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U. S. 490, 498 (1949)—are “well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which havenever been thought to raise any Constitutional problem.” Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568, 571–572 (1942).

The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs. Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it. The Constitution is not a document “prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 178 (1803).

in an 8 to 1 decision, the SCOTS found the “anti squish video” law unconstitutional for being overly broad and impinging upon first amendment rights.

 

Finally, a jurisdiction story that is going in the right direction…

Dear Readers,

While this is FED court in Skokie, Illinois, with a fairly crochety old judge, Judge Machnik, he is doing his job.  And to his credit, opposing counsel, while trying to get away with what he can, realizes that lack of jurisdiction is a very serious problem.

In the KQ case, Karen went through hard times, she was unable to pay her bills and then received some very bad advice from a short sale attorney who was advising people at seminars not to pay on their mortgages and just do short sales to get some debt relief.

Karen says he never told her the real story, that is short sales are very, very difficult to do.  They require a dedicated team of professionals, from two hard working, highly experienced Realtors, in this case Blair Lele, and many attorneys–most of which will get paid pennies on the dollar.  And then the short sale attorney never mentioned the hundreds of hours of work on the paper work, loading up documents to obscure websites, dealing with professionals that are under short deadlines but have 50 loans to process ahead of yours so you have to keep emailing and calling to keep it at the top of the pile.

The deal on a foreclosure is that your credit score will only drop 50 points for 2 years with a short sale vs. 200 to 250 points for a foreclosure for 5 years.  So people want to do them.  And everyone wins.  If a bank forecloses,, then the bank sends the property to a sheriff’s sale where they get pennies on the dollar.  Or, even worse, the bank “manages” the property themselves, puts it on the market themselves and it get destroyed by tenants or squatters and they get pennies on the dollar.  Banks do not make for good property managers.  They generally handle money and not property.

In this particular case, Karen has been working her butt off together with Realtor Lele to find a buyer and they actually found an amazing buyer who has stuck through the short sale process for many, many long months.  Then along comes the Home Owner’s Association, and apparently portions of that are pretty much evil and greedy while others understand the process and want to do the right thing.  The good part of the evil twin HOA is nice and cooperative and helps Karen and knows they will be paid in full in the end.  But some other darker portion of the HOA hires an uncaring lawyer, he files suit for the $12,000 in HOA fess, which I agree, they can do this, it does not make a whole lot of sense given the short sale, but they have the legal right to do this.

Fast forward 4 months.  Karen has been working with the good side of the HOA, has numerous emails back and forth assuring them the short sale is okay, they will get paid, etc. and they have her phone number, mailing address, and all her information.  Now she finds out that the HOA has sued her, they served her mother and not her, she asks for papers from the HOA and receives nothing, contacts me to investigate and we find out the following.

A judgement for $12,000 AND possession of the unit was entered in October and stayed until December, and then on top of that, she was not served, her mother was (and no, at age 50+ Karen does not live with her mother, she moved to California for work, immediately lost her job there, is struggling to get her business of interior design back on its footings), but Karen was never served.  To top it off, the evil part of the HOA files a false affidavit stating “after due inquiry” they could not find her, which is ludicrous because Karen has been emailing them back and forth, if you Google her you find her front page, etc.

In summary, jurisdiction is lacking for the assertion of personal jurisdicion for the money judgment (you MUST have personal jurisdiction to get a money judgment), and the false affidavit the HOA could not find Karen “after due inquiry” defeats their in rem or against the property judgment for possession.

The first time I went to court, opposing counsel and the court was soooo angry with me for bringing up jurisdiction, the judge struck my pleading and told me to come back in 10 days and he would hear it then. (This is a lawyer’s job, sometimes when you are the bearer of extremely bad news, the court will nit pick your pleading and strike it.  In this case we filed an appearance, but the clerk lost it between the Daley Center and Skokie–another plea for electronic filing, please).

So we redrafted the pleading, filed an appearance from by driving the 40 miles back and forth to Skokie because Dororthy Brown can’t get her IT act together, and went back to court on Friday at 10 am.

Much better reception.  As it slowly sunk in that there realio trulio was no jurisdiction, the matter was set for a briefing schedule (even though I did argue it the prior time in court), and as a Valentine’s day present, opposing counsel withdrew the eviction from the sheriff so the short sale can proceed.

Thank you, thank you.

So I want everyone to know, despite all the horror stories on this blog, yes, Virginia, some days the court AND opposing counsel does their job and we find the due process clause of the US constitution and the Illinois constitution finds some respect in court.

Whew.

Let’s all just hope and pray that short sale goes thru next week, as expected.

Another very broad decision on Free Speech–fake child porn

Now I know to many of you, child porn is thing that is distasteful to 99% of the population, I get that. But just how far does the First Amendment reach, and does it reach into the areas of child porn at all, even if the porn is fake, animated, uses adults and not children and no child is harmed.  Does it reach so far, that no one can make a movie or screen play about how a child was a victim of that because you could never get an actor for the younger child victims?  What if the child actor were shielded and the act was faked for acting?  All good questions.  Apparently the US Supremes did not think it necessary to prevent fake child porn, or stop the presentation of screen plays and plays that show real life stories but the child is not harmed and is protected during the production.

In any case, I do recall the issue of a website that said “bonsai kittens” make good pets and buy one here.  You can keep it in a jar on the shelf and only feed and water it and clean it up once a month and it will remain cute and fluffy with hardly any trouble at all.  Of course, the concept is abusive, but for anyone with half a brain, it’s a joke.  But will PETA and the Humane Society of the US protect fake animals.  Will they protect animated animals subject to abuse?  And what about all those horses in war movies where they say “no animals harmed or abused?”  Do we have to halt those pictures?  What would John Wayne say?

PETA and the Humane Society of the US responded to fake “bonsai kitties” and said they have enough to do protecting real kitties from abuse and it will not be their mission to protect fake kitties.

So here goes with the fake child porn decision:

 

Ashcroft v. US (and remember that Ashcroft once spent $10,000 of taxpayer money to cover the bare titty of Justice with fancy velvet drapes.  I didn’t get that one.  A $12 bra from Walmart wasn’t enough?  Please.

The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA) expands the federal prohibition on child pornography to include not only pornographic images made using actual children, 18 U. S. C. § 2256(8)(A), but also “any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture,” that “is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct,” § 2256(8)(B), and any sexually explicit image that is “advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression” it depicts “a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct,” § 2256(8)(D). Thus, § 2256(8)(B) bans a range of sexually explicit images, sometimes called “virtual child pornography,” that appear to depict minors but were produced by means other than using real children, such as through the use of youthful-looking adults or computer-imaging technology. Section 2256(8)(D) is aimed at preventing the production or distribution of pornographic material pandered as child pornography. Fearing that the CPPA threatened their activities, respondents, an adult-entertainment trade association and others, filed this suit alleging that the “appears to be” and “conveys the impression” provisions are overbroad and vague, chilling production of works protected by the First Amendment….

Pictures of what appear to be 17-year-olds engaging in sexually explicit activity do not in every case contravene community standards. The CPPA also prohibits speech having serious redeeming value, proscribing the visual depiction of an idea — that of teenagers engaging in sexual activity — that is a fact of modern society and has been a theme in art and literature for centuries. A number of acclaimed movies, filmed without any child actors, explore themes within the wide sweep of the statute’s prohibitions. If those movies contain a single graphic depiction of sexual activity within the statutory definition, their possessor would be subject to severe punishment without inquiry into the literary value of the work. This is inconsistent with an essential First Amendment rule: A work’s artistic merit does not depend on the presence of a single explicit scene.

the CPPA prohibits speech that records no crime and creates no victims by its production. Virtual child pornography is not “intrinsically related” to the sexual abuse of children. While the Government asserts that the images can lead to actual instances of child abuse, the causal link is contingent and indirect. The harm does not necessarily follow from the speech, but depends upon some unquantified potential for subsequent criminal acts. The Government’s argument that these indirect harms are sufficient because, as Ferber acknowledged, child pornography rarely can be valuable speech, see id., at 762, suffers from two flaws. First, Ferber‘s judgment about child pornography was based upon how it was made, not on what it communicated. The case reaffirmed that where the speech is neither obscene nor the product of sexual abuse, it does not fall outside the First Amendment’s protection. See id., at 764-765. Second, Ferber did not hold that child pornography is by definition without value. It recognized some works in this category might have significant value, see id., at 761, but relied on virtual images — the very images prohibited by the CPPA — as an alternative and permissible means of expression, id., at 763. Because Ferber relied on the distinction between actual and virtual child pornography as supporting its holding, it provides no support for a statute that eliminates the distinction and makes the alternative mode criminal as well. Pp. 249-251.

(3) The Court rejects other arguments offered by the Government to justify the CPPA’s prohibitions. The contention that the CPPA is necessary because pedophiles may use virtual child pornography to seduce children runs afoul of the principle that speech within the rights of adults to hear may not be silenced completely in an attempt to shield children from it. See, e. g., Sable Communications of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 492 U. S. 115, 130-131. That the evil in question depends upon the actor’s unlawful conduct, defined as criminal quite apart from any link to the speech in question, establishes that the speech ban is not narrowly drawn. The argument that virtual child pornography whets pedophiles’ appetites and encourages them to engage in illegal conduct is unavailing because the mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a sufficient reason for banning it, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U. S. 557, 566, absent some showing of a direct connection between the speech and imminent illegal conduct, see, e. g., Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U. S. 444, 447 (per curiam). The argument that eliminating the market for pornography produced using real children necessitates a prohibition on virtual images as well is somewhat implausible because

Page 237

few pornographers would risk prosecution for abusing real children if fictional, computerized images would suffice. Moreover, even if the market deterrence theory were persuasive, the argument cannot justify the CPPA because, here, there is no underlying crime at all. Finally, the First Amendment is turned upside down by the argument that, because it is difficult to distinguish between images made using real children and those produced by computer imaging, both kinds of images must be prohibited. The overbreadth doctrine prohibits the Government from banning unprotected speech if a substantial amount of protected speech is prohibited or chilled in the process. See Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U. S. 601, 612. The Government’s rejoinder that the CPPA should be read not as a prohibition on speech but as a measure shifting the burden to the accused to prove the speech is lawful raises serious constitutional difficulties. The Government misplaces its reliance on § 2252A(c), which creates an affirmative defense allowing a defendant to avoid conviction for nonpossession offenses by showing that the materials were produced using only adults and were not otherwise distributed in a manner conveying the impression that they depicted real children. Even if an affirmative defense can save a statute from First Amendment challenge, here the defense is insufficient because it does not apply to possession or to images created by computer imaging, even where the defendant could demonstrate no children were harmed in producing the images. Thus, the defense leaves unprotected a substantial amount of speech not tied to the Government’s interest in distinguishing images produced using real children from virtual ones. Pp. 251-256.

(b) Section 2256(8)(D) is also substantially overbroad. The Court disagrees with the Government’s view that the only difference between that provision and § 2256(8)(B)’s “appears to be” provision is that § 2256(8)(D) requires the jury to assess the material at issue in light of the manner in which it is promoted, but that the determination would still depend principally upon the prohibited work’s content. The “conveys the impression” provision requires little judgment about the image’s content; the work must be sexually explicit, but otherwise the content is irrelevant. Even if a film contains no sexually explicit scenes involving minors, it could be treated as child pornography if the title and trailers convey the impression that such scenes will be found in the movie. The determination turns on how the speech is presented, not on what is depicted. The Government’s other arguments in support of the CPPA do not bear on § 2256(8)(D)

only Renhquist and Scalia dissented from overturning this broad, unconstitutional statue.

I have to admit, I don’t like child porn, but the statute was overbroad.  Sometimes you have to tell the story of abuse victims to keep the concept of child porn being wrong alive.  And to protect fake children from fake child rape is too much even for me.  If that is your fantasy, have at it, but leave me out of it.  I will protect your right to view it in your own home on your own computer or with fake dolls.  I’m not getting into that.

So, from a distasteful case, we see the outer limits of our first amendment rights.

I don’t like fake kitties stuck in fake jars for their entire lives, and I don’t like fake child porn, but neither to me is criminal activity or even a civil activity to be quashed.  Nor do I think these activities are gateway drugs into something harsher.  They’re merely a weird strange enjoyment of  the minority of the population which harms no one.

95%+ of real rapes are never solved and the perps are never brought to justice.  The vast majority of crimes are never solved and no one is prosecuted–let alone convicted.  That’s the reality of the world.  If we can’t get the real world prosecuted, why are we even worried about a fake world?

I have to agree with this 7 to 2 decision.  And it wasn’t even the moderates that found the statute to be permissibly overbroad.  Some of the justices finding the statute to be overbroad were fairly conservative.  We really don’t need any think police.  Our thoughts are ours.  Our fake movies, books and thoughts should be ours too.

Again, this is a continuing series so the ARDC “gets it” and stops going after attorneys who publish the truth–that the courts are corrupt, that justice is not being done sometimes, and that it’s okay to make fun of the attorneys who operate without jurisdiction.

To go after an attorney that reports corruption and wrongdoing is pretty much judicial porn.  It’s shooting the messenger and it’s wrong, just plain wrong.

The right to Free Speech and the Right to Blog and Party Favors

Dear Readers;

Today Ken Ditkowsky called me and asked if I had heard anything from the ARDC and I told him I had not.  Now, I understand that the Hearing Panel rubber stamped Cynthia Farenga’s complaint against me calling for an investigation of the Sykes case which has been operating without jurisdiction for 3 years and still is operating without jurisdiction.  Ken thinks maybe the Ill. App.’s will trash it on other grounds, for example, say the order was not full and final, but I don’t think you need a full and final order to appeal jurisdiction and that’s really the point of jurisdiction–you can’t get haled into court unless and until there’s jurisdiction.  Gloria’s one week point is that she has filed papers in court without first filing a “special and limited appearance” objecting to jurisdiction, but she can file the appeal on behalf of the two sisters who were never served and she has their declarations and they are published on this blog.  so I don’t think that’s it either.  In any case, I think if the Appeal court is doing it’s job, Gloria, Ken and I will be vindicated and Mary will go home.  Finally.

But getting back to any First Amendment based ARDC trial against ME.  I’ve been thinking. first of all, GAL Adam Stern is going to be a wreck because I will get to blog, and I’m blogging about him, and I don’t think he can stand it.  Next is the fact that when Leah Black starts to go on and on about asking AS and CF if they’ve ever had a bad idea in their lives and how Mary has no money and no one’s seen it and how they’re sure the court has jurisdiction, let’s just stipulate to all that BS.  We all know that AS and CF have never had a bad idea in their entire lives, so what IS the point.  That becomes a he said-she said contest.

The true issue is to show LB, the Administrator and the Hearing Panel on how not only do attorneys have the ability to criticize courts that are corrupt and out of control, they have the DUTY to do so.  AS and CF should have told Judge Stuart long ago that Sodini notices were not served and the case should be nonsuited and refiled.  That’s sleezy.

Adam Stern should never have told Gloria she’ll never get guardianship and she’ll never see her mother again.  Again, total sleeze ball.  What a creep.  There, I’ve said it (again).

So what party favors does one bring to a creep show like that?

1) a painting of the advisory board and/or CF and AS wearing pasties and a g-string like King Harold Washington. (7th circuit case–‘mirth and girth” Google it)
2) a set of valors of medals from ebay, complete with certificates fresh from china to pass around the court room (SCOTUS case Alvarez, google it)
3) “secret” pentagon papers from wikileak that show every war is nothing but a profitability scam for mega war corps who bilk the US and other nations billions each year to bomb women and children and then heavily advertise it as being a glamorous crusade in the “best security interests”.  Yeah, sell me some swampland in Florida, will ya.

4) and of course, the old standard of burn your own flag kits.  a small flag and a pack of matches in baggies with instructions: 1) light match; 2) touch flame to flag.  Make a statement.

and of course, I fully well intend to blog throughout the proceeding esp. when AS is on the stand.

every party needs a few party favors!

Let me know if anyone else has any ideas.

Please Try to help Danielle in Ohio

Brief Synopsis:  Nancy Vallone has a midly autistic niece, Danielle, who was ripped out of her home 5 years ago in an abusive guardianship and placed in a state run tied in home because the proprietors get $273,000 per year for caring for her.

Since that time, Aunt Nancy knows that Danielle has been beaten, she has chipped, uncared for teeth from that, she is locked inside each day, every day, has limited visitors and complains she dislikes the staff and nursing home.  It is an abusive environment.

Danielle desperately wants to go home to her dear Aunt Nancy and have her teeth fixed, be provided with a stimulating, loving and caring environment where she is free to visit with friends and family and lead as normal a life as possible.

The situation is getting serious because Danielle has taken to cutting herself and acting out against her unfair captors.

Please read Aunt Nancy’s pleas below and provide whatever help you can:

Dear Mrs. Martin,
While we understand that you have someone talking to Danielle it is without a doubt not enough to address the deplorable circumstances and environment Danielle Rene Murphy, has endured the last 5 yrs. 
Her Health and Safety , The Constitution, Her Civil rights  US v. Olmstead, Rosie v Romney , Federal Medicaid Social Security Tite 19, 504/508 rehab, Due process are not to be debated and does not take into account the neglect and abuse. 
It appears All DODD and APSI philosophy, mission statement, rights are meaningless 

We respectfully request DoDD and APSI guardianship be terminated due to the multiple fraudulent actions under which it was obtained  through the use of false information, coercion, perjury , slander, defamation , NO DUE PROCESS, improper application and procedure by violating ARS 14.12301 , no hearing, Danielle  was not present, Danielle was denied an attorney,  
NO Jurisdiction, incorrect venue, discrimination and violation of of DOJ OCR ADA title II and III, IDEA and retaliation making their guardianship 
"null and void ab initio" without Jurisdiction .

Danielle is past the point of waiting. She absolutely hates every minute, has written about her disdain and is smart enough to know what has been done. She wants to be returned home . 
In the last month she is acting out the rage of a cornered animal  By cutting her wrist, stomach and throat and now attaching staff.   As quoted,  this is the failure of the system . 
A beautiful girls with autism has had to endure a horrible injustice and inhumane environment. 
Her life has been ruined by APSI for 5 yrs she can never get back .  

We are formally requesting Danielle be moved to a group home or home in Niles, Ohio since  Cuyahoga County was never established residency. 
Trumbull County does not use group homes. We have included links to various organizations in our local area who are able to provide necessary services for Danielle. Please take into consideration what is best for Danielle as well as the Disability Bill of Rights and do the right thing; return Danielle to her home, community and family.

We are not alone in this struggle we have the support of other families in the same situation with APSI and numerous other support organizations.
We will never give up .

Respectfully Submitted,
Nancy Vallone RN, MSN, BSN, CNS

More information on another case without Jurisdiction–Harry and Lydia Tyler

I met with MR and Sue Ellen D yesterday.  They are lovely women.  We are working on counter claims in federal court against James Drabik who sued them for defamation for also publishing the truth about the Probate case in the “holiday news letter”. Of course, this is while Lydia Tyler was under a guardianship and the Probate Judge told those family members in court to “keep the family informed.”

That defamation case was removed by agreement to Federal Court ND Ill. Mary R and Sue Ellen D or the “Pro Se Defendants” asked for and obtained a stay there. Then, they have just recently filed a Motion to Dismiss under 12(c) or for Judgement on the Pleadings.

All they did was tell the truth, namely, that James Drabik was appointed and nothing was inventoried in Cook County Probate.  This is DESPITE the fact that they have tracked $8 million from husband Harry’s estate (also not inventoried) to Lydia’s lacking-jurisdiction-Estate, where more money disappeared. (about $2 million there).

In Lydia’s estate, one sister “Dorothy” is conveniently left off the Notice by Petitioner of time, place and date.  Unfortunately for Atty Nancy Smith Leher, she was the Petitioner and swore that Certificate of Service and so is implicated directly.

Many lawyers and two major banks are involved in this probate case and the disappearance of $2 million in Lydia’s name between 2006 and 2010 when the estate was supposedly open and closed.

Good thing for us, the Federal court case was “stayed” pending the outcome of state court proceedings.  Those were never fully and finally determined–the probate judge just shut her books with no inventory or accounting.  BUT I think this means that all actions against the Drabik/Richards Nieces and Nephews were all tolled and we can file the full gamit of torts against them — 42 USC 1983, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, conversion, and perhaps wrongful death, if we can exhume the body, assuming there is one.

It turns out MR has an MS in nursing, and SE is a hospice chaplin.  But they were told by a probate judge neither was “fit” to serve as guardian.

Lydia was likely murdered.  MR and SE watched while Lydia was treated with “hospice” by Vesta Care–a wired in hospice provider.

Lydia at the time had no new illnesses.  No new diagnoses.  On Thursday she was playing bingo with friends and eating meals at the assisted living center with her friends.  On Friday, in hospice, they put a sign over her bed, “no fluids or food.”  Then they stuck morphine patch after morphine patch on her until she died of thirst and starvation in about a month or so.  MR and SE had to stand by and watch this–both having a nursing background, they had to watch their dear aunt Lydia be murdered.

They complained but others asserted that Lydia was in severe pain (she was not) and had to have constant morphine.

I don’t know what happened to Lydia’s body, but it should be exhumed with a full autopsy and JD should be sent to prison for his criminal behavior.

I was a bit shocked when they told me the story.  Via the Sykes case I have learned of and watched conversion, fraud on the court, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, wrongful eviction, false imprisonment–you know, the entire 10 page Table of Torts published here that the ARDC conveniently ignores.

I guess it was only a matter of time before I encountered the theft of millions, coupled with deliberate and intentional murder.  Well, it certainly looks like it, now doesn’t it?  No food or fluids, heavy doses of morphine and if the senior wakes up, she is shot up with more narcotics.

What I didn’t know was that you could hire this and have it blessed by the probate court.  With no investigation, with a GAL looking the other way, either blind as a bat or paid off.

Another Call for an Investigation and more case law from Atty Ditkowsky

STARE DECISIS
Stare Decisis et Non Quieta Movere Ballard County v. Kentucky County Debt Commission 290 KYL 770  162 S. W2d 771, 773 is a principle that is applicable to the Sykes and related cases had anyone had the audacity to read either the statute or the case law.    The Legislation is memorialized in the Probate Act.   The Illinois Probate Act is 755 ILCS 5/11a – ***.    The key statutory provision is section 10.    The interpretation of Section 10 is found in two cases, to wit:  In re:  Estate of Steinfeld 158 Ill 2d 1 (1994) and In the Matter of guardianship of Ralph Sodini  527 Ill App3d 1055.
The State of Illinois is nearly insolvent.     In the Sykes and similar cases valuable dollars have been wasted by persons employed by the State of Illinois by judicial authorities to ‘cover up’ the corruption of legally trained and employed people fighting the principle of Stare Decisis.     Indeed, an examination of the Sykes case as an example points out that:
1) Jurisdiction was not obtained so as to appoint a guardian.    Examination of the Petition (section 8) reveals that all the disclosures were not made – in particular, Carolyn T the person seeking to be appointed guardian never disclosed the fact that she was and did act as attorney in fact pursuant to a power of attorney.    An issue might exist as to whether or not the criterion prescribed the statute for service on Mary was accomplished, and an issue might be raised as to whether the Statute was complied with concerning the protections mandated for Mary; however, there is no doubt whatsoever that the 14 days prior notice of the hearing to determine Mary Sykes’ competency was ignored.    Thus, as a matter of law (and Stare Decisis) the past three years of activity in the Sykes case have been without jurisdiction.
2) Sums either equal to or greater than a million dollars have been secreted and not inventoried.
3) Judges who have been alerted to the lack of jurisdiction have done nothing but continue the facade.     One judge even when so far as to ‘sanction’ and fine yours truly when I indicated that I was going to investigate that issue, and ultimately determined the lack of jurisdiction.     The full force of the Circuit Court was applied to deny me my First Amendment Rights and it was obviated when the Appellate Court of Illinois determined that the Court neglected to obtain jurisdiction over me.     More State funds were wasted when the Illinois Attorney Registration and Discipline commission commenced proceedings against for further exercise of my First Amendment and Liberty interests.     More State funds will be expended in the State officials in their official and person capacity having to address my Civil Rights claims and the recently minted oxymoronic claims promulgated threatened against Attorney JoAnne Denision for advocating an honest, complete and comprehensive investigation of this entire sorry affair.
It is my understanding that many have attempted to access the Court File of Sykes case and large portions of the file are ‘missing!’     The ‘art’ of making adverse documents and records disappear is not a new one.    When I was a youngster I remember the annual conflagrations that occurred on the floor 3 and 1/2.    I remember some lawyers defending troublesome cases by ‘stealing the file!’    I also remember the 18 minutes of tape recordings uncovered during the investigation of some presidential conduct.    Nothing is new except that this perfidy involves you and I and our liberty and property rights are threatened along with the liberty, property, civil, and human rights of many who cannot protect themselves and our ‘society’ and our government has vowed to protect.
The time for law enforcement and the ‘good citizens’ is now!    I watched the victims of  Greylord 2    [The current cancer troubling the legal profession] struggle against the well ‘clouted’ miscreants who enjoy the fruits of the non-inventory and dissipation of senior citizen assets toss aside the Rights, Privileges and Immunities of their victims with the full consent and connivance of certain public officials (including judges) and respectfully submit that this fiasco has to cease and desist instanter.
I do not know if the recent attack on my e-mail account is related to any part of this transaction; but, I have trouble with coincident.    It is my paranoid belief that there are none.    Mr. Chambers traced some of the nefarious activity to domestic sources.      We have filed the appropriate claims.     I apologize for any inconvenience that anyone suffered.
As citizens we have to remember that democracy is not a spectator sport and we have to continue to demand that law enforcement prosecute an honest complete and comprehensive investigation as to who in 2013 senior citizens have been and are being deprived of the liberty, property, civil rights and human right be a small group of miscreants.    How in ‘heaven’s name’ in the United States of America could a travesty such as In re: Sykes continue for three years unabated?
Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com