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

Advertisements

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