Dear Readers;

While I am not all that interested in the Brodsky/Peterson case, apparently there is some bruhaha over the fact the judge didn’t like something that Atty Broadsky said to the press after the case was over and some of you have written me concerned if this is first amendment privilege.

OF COURSE IT IS.  The judge is dead wrong. (Somebody PLEASE send him a “Constitutional Law for Dummies” book–better yet, get a dozen copies for the ARDC attys too). Illinois has plenty of case law saying your attorney can say anything publicly which helps vigorously defend a client.  Many clients don’t want to or just don’t have the abilities to speak to press.  Of course, you can have your attorney do that and no problem.  It should be protected speech under “litigation privilege” (statements made in and out of court), “fair reporting” (try not to get too out of line so it is basically “fair”) and “opinion”.  You shouldn’t have to worry about being sued over something your attorney said on your behalf so your attorney can present the case properly.

I don’t really know what exactly ticked off that judge.  But the judge is clearly does not know Illinois law.  It is my understanding the case was over and Brodsky was talking about some trial strategy.  I think every lawyer talks openly about trial strategy after a case is over.

Peterson’s case is highly unlikely to be overturned–except on the heresay perhaps, but even that is unlikely.

Ken agrees as follows:

Subject: Re: First Amendment
Response to a blogging client:

I am aware Ms. Sykes that the ARDC apparently finds nothing wrong with the aforesaid acts as it investigates Ms. Denison and myself for complaining about the ‘above’ situation, writing to the Attorney General of the United States and other citizens about this situation.    The fact is however, that one wrong does not make another wrong right!     The fact is that Democracy is not a spectator sport and we have to stand up and be counted not only when the Civil rights of friends are being violated, but also when those we do not hold in

**** end of quote ****

Whatever Brodsky said, the judge was clearly out of line.  Talking about trial strategy after the fact is not privileged or anything else for that matter–but it is clearly protected by the First Amendment.

If we, the public, don’t stand up and say that we have First Amendment rights from time to time, the slippery slope, the wedge with the edge, the skater on ice mountain will find out were our precious rights will end up–being flushed down the toilet.

So write the Department of Justice today, write your Congress person, call for an investigation, tell the ARDC (I’ll put up a page, where to write and email), you want your attorneys to have clear and open First Amendment rights.

Otherwise the constitution can be made into toilet paper for all it’s worth.

And for those of you out there that think what you say to you lawyer will ALWAYS be protected under attorney client privilege, know this, many things are not protected and the privilege is to be construed narrowly and just make sure what you say and write is self serving.

If an attorney learns of the location and existence and type of a murder weapon, those things are not protected by attorney client privilege–only things you SAY are protected by the privilege.  Physical items are not privileged.

SOME clients out there need to learn to always write self serving, polite, civilized emails because they COULD be discovered and a judge or jury might not like it if Plaintiff were rude, obnoxious, uncivilized and crude.  That’s just the way judges and juries are–they get to determine facts and weigh truthfulness with pretty much impunity.  They can make or trash a case.  Remember the Blago team–swearing and acting crude and uncivilized on FBI tapes?  That’s a huge uphill battle for any lawyer, trying to repair that credibility.  Like it or not, there are staunch Christians, Jews and even Muslims out there that HATE that stuff.  And they will spread their distrust and unhappiness with you to other jury members.  Or the judge who is a staunch anything will easily infect a jury.

So WATCH what you say, make certain it is self serving, polite, free of swearing and scathing endless sentences.

If you need to make a point that some atty is a pompous ass, poke fun at them.  Invective, satire and polemic is a tried and true method to keep your reader on your side, make them laugh and get them to repeat what you have said.  A judge and jury that laughs is easier to keep on your side.  You make your point, you make someone laugh and you make someone remember.

This time from Brodsky, see the article

Public statements made by Brodsky need to go to the ARDC?

The reality is, once the ARDC gets in the business of regulating lawyer language, believe me, there will be no end.  And as we can see from my case, they would rather regulate the language of lawyers than go after miscreants that steal, don’t inventory, represent clients that don’t inventory, don’t bring remodeling, loss of $1 million in a safe depot box–to the court’s attention.  They don’t seem to care if the court is acting without jurisdiction and they only want to silence honest lawyers that report corruption.

Perhaps Brodsky will get a slice of what I’m going through only because the GAL’s and the courts and the ARDC isn’t doing their jobs.  Ken and I are calling for an honest, complete and thorough investigation of the probate cases:  Tyler, Gore, Sykes, Bedin, Wyman by the authorities.

Let’s face it, Brodsky is commenting on Peterson and fighting with a state’s atty–which I believe he has every right to without the ARDC stifffling his speach.  Under SCOTUS and other case law, a lawyer has the right to make whatever public statements he needs to to protect himself and his client from the news.

The judge calling for this disciplinary action should know that.  Jerman case:  Lawyers are presumed to know the law.

While perusing the US Dept of Justice website this evening (okay it’s 2 am and I’m sure the likes of JH, SO and JL are sleeping as well as the miscreants, I ran across this info:

Dear Readers;

And while all of you are sitting around trying to figure out how you can get your numerous complaints thru the ARDC regarding attys and judges acting badly in probate, the ARDC continues to litigate against myself and Ken.

One of my associates quipped the other day, the reason why they can’t investigate the bad GAL’s is because they have YOUR blog to read everyday.

Well, I have to admit, if I were a lazy, sleazy atty, I’d rather read a blog than investigate cases of corruption, go and pick at seriously greedy, evil and possibly dangerous attorneys who will stop at nothing to deprive grandma of her life, liberty, property, human and civil rights.

What do they say about kids that pick on and abuse animals?  That’s right, when they are done with Spot and Kitty, they then turn into dangerous violent criminals.

Okay, I get it.  A politically connected civil servant job is supposed to be soft a cushy forever job.  A safe retirement from life with health insurance bennies.  Got it.

There is absolutely no way the august likes of Jerome Larkin, Jessica Haspel and Sharon Oprysek are going to sit in a cold, drafty office and work 18 hour days to protect grandma and grandpa from probate abuses.  Not going to happen.  They want to be at the cocktail parties Connors, Stuart, CF, AS, MS throw.

In any case, please pass this on to any newly minted lawyers as something NEVER TO DO.  In a normal federal court, you can expect about $10,000 to $20,000 in sanctions for this discovery horse manue.  In the loosey goosey anything goes civil division of Cook County you will nonetheless get a scowl, a grumble, and if the judge has not had coffee yet, a scathing scolding.

Read this flotsam and jetsam.  Atty JH should be ashamed of herself for filing this and signing it.  Maybe this works in her prior job of state’s attorney and prosecuting poor people without attorneys and who do not know better, but it doesn’t fly in federal court, it won’t fly very far in Law Division and it only belong in Muni where the judge has repeatedly shown he is PO’d over having been assigned to $10,000 cases and he isn’t going to read or grant anything and he hopes the case just dies a slow pathetic death under his tutelage.

ARDC Answers (pathetic) to Atty Ken Ditkowsky’s Requests for Admission

So here are my comments, read on.  The deadline for correcting these glaring errors has passed.  Requests for Admission were served on Feb 1, 2013.  They are due in 28 days or by Mar 1, 2013.  The ARDC did NOT file a motion that they could not answer these, which is required pursuant to Rule 216.  They filed a motion to strike because they did not get a 28 day warning–despite the fact they have 30+ years of litigation experience.

Below are the requests for admit which the ARDC has answered even though everything at the last order was “entered and continued” and the ARDC had requested to “strike” Ken’s discovery.

Again, I have no idea why the ARDC filed a “Motion to Strike” when Ken’s discovery was ordinary and in the normal course of litigation business.  And no matter what you think your case is, discovery, or the process of asking written questions called Interrogatories and asking for documents and admissions of fact, are very, very important to the orderly administration of justice.

It seems the ARDC thinks they’re special.  It makes their case look exceedingly corrupt and suspicious.

I think the ARDC’s responses, motion to strike and their stance in this entire process is utterly intolerable.  Many people have written to me, called me and assured me that they are absolutely furious with the ARDC for “playing games” in their litigation against me.  None of the probate victims on my blog are at all happy with the fact that KDD and I are being made pariahs by the ARDC WHEN WE HAVE DONE NOTHING TO DESERVE ANY OF THIS.

One of the things about this blog and pointing out corruption is noting all the “out of line” issues with what the ARDC is doing.  Ken and I have been engaging in complex litigation for a combined experience of about 70+ years.  He has been in practice for 47 years, and I have been in practice for 27 years.  We know well what is customary and what is not and what is game playing, time wasting and fudging and what is not.

These RFA’s would make a federal court judge’s skin crawl and make him either deem the weasley responses admitted and/or award sanctions.

In essence, no judge–federal or circuit court–would think what the ARDC did was anything close to reasonable.

But we are not before a federal court judge or even a circuit court judge.  What we get is a “panel” or “trio” of judge wannabes, finding their way behind a judge’s desk and judge’s robes without the years of experience.   And, I would suggest, they all seem to be a bit afraid of the ARDC or powers that be.  Handing out rubber stamps (ARDC Motion Granted♥☺♥) is no way to run a tribunal.  In the real world, attorneys are rarely, and only under extreme circumstances, disqualified—EXCEPT it seems in probate and EXCEPT it seems before the ARDC tribunal.

Let’s see if the Trio Tribunal can muster up the courage, take out a loan and tell the ARDC to do their job–even in this litigation, which I believe is bogus because I actually read the Horace Hunter case from the Virginia Bar Association.

So let’s take an overall look at what the ARDC returned.
12  pages of answers–or excuses, I might say.  I am immediately suspicious. Twelve pages of pleading for 20 answers?  All the ARDC had to do was say “admitted” or “denied”, instead there are lines and lines of ridiculous boiler plate.  Young attorneys try to do this to impress more naive clients that will pay for it.  This is just bill churning, but in this case the bill payers are the tax payers of Illinois.

If the ARDC, really, really felt it important to say “overbroad, vague and cannot fairly be answered”, just do it up front and keep it as a continuing objection.  Saves paper, saves trees.  The recipient does not have to hunt for the little word “admitted.”

But the reality is, there was nothing wrong with the Requests for Admission (“RFA”)  KDD prepared.

You don’t need 12 sheets of paper to answer 20 Requests and put in a bunch of repetitive, mindless objections that really don’t apply.

Let’s look at RFA No. 1: (did all proper parties receive notice of the incompetency hearing in Sykes?)

Apparently Lakin was admitted in 78, Hapel in 03 and Opryszek in 92 meaning between the 3 of them have 21 to 24 years of college and 50+ years of experience and not a one of the three can answer a simple RFA, that is based upon the declarations you were send, WAS THERE JURISDICTION IN THE SYKES CASE!!!???

Ken, you know that a federal court judge would deem that admitted, then fry up the attorneys for lunch and burn them in the flame with a nice sanction to boot, besides deeming the RFA admitted.

Jerman:  Attorneys are presumed to know the law.

But that means they had nothing to lose.  They can write up a half page paragraph of lame, boilerplate excuses that the RFA should not be answered, but they refuse to answer a simple question–a question that any other litigant would have to answer or risk severe sanctions.

They know that RFA is true.  BUT THEY JUST CAN’T SPIT OUT AN HONEST ANSWER TO SAVE THEIR LIVES.

8 lines of excuses but they just can’t bring themselves to be honest and say “admitted.”

They pretend to say “I don’t know”, “I can’t figure it out” (honestly, years of college and experience you 3 can’t answer a simple RFA, that’s true and dedicated disingenuity).

Disgusting.

Next we get to RFA No. 2 (facts contained in the elderly sister’s declarations are true)

I have to give the ARDC credit.  I HAVE NEVER SEEN 15 LINES OF WEASLEY EXCUSES of why an RFA cannot be answered.

The RFA was simple, direct and to the point.

An “affidavit” requires an notary.  It is disingenuous to say “the administrator was not present when Gloria signed the affidavit.”  It is the notary’s job to determine who Gloria is and watch her sign.

I have never seen such a lame excuse as this one.

The Administrator should take all the affidavits as true, then apply the law to the facts and somehow, somewhere find a shred, a crumb, an iota of honesty and decency of character and spurt out the words “admitted.”

Again 30+ years of experience wasted on this crew.  30 years, yeah, one year of experience done repeatedly 30 times!

RFA No. 3 (facts contained in Scott Evans’ declaration are true)

See above it should be deemed admitted and the Administrator should be reprimanded for not being honest, forthright and ethical for being unable to state a simple “admitted.”

RFA No. 4 (facts contained in elderly sister no. 1’s declaration are true (YB))

There is absolutely no reason why any one of those 3 attorneys could not walk over to the courtroom of Judge Stuart or call their bff’s– the GALS Farenga and Stern and ask them to send them copies of the Certs. Of Service for Soldini notices to Gloria Sykes, Yolanda Bakken and Josephine Di Pietro.  These Certificates of Service are the crux of the entire case of the ARDC claiming Ken and I lied about the GAL’s and were mean to them, making them cry in their Pull Ups.  The ARDC should NOT have filed the case against me or Ken without it.

Go ahead and ask the probate victims out there what happens when they file a grievance with the ARDC–stacks of responses saying they can’t proceed further because the evidence submitted is insufficient to proceed further.  BUT when it’s a favored atty, they sure as heck can file a 10 page complaint, pretend they have evidence they don’t and stick it to an atty outside the bff clique.

If the ARDC attys can’t be bothered to investigate a few silly little pieces of paper before draft up 10 pages of junk in my complaint and probably another 10 more for KDD, they should not be in this buiness.

RFA No. 5 (facts contained in elderly sister’s declaration are true)

Se my objections to no. 4 above.

RFA No. 6 (the file in the Sykes probate case includes no evidence of service of the notice of hearing upon either elderly sister of Mary, ie, a Certificate of Service by the plenary guardian’s attorney)

Same objections as 4 above.

RFA No. 7.  (that the ARDC has no evidence in its possession that contradicts the affidavit of Gloria Sykes)

Should be deemed admitted.  The question is short, simple and quick to the point.  Either the ARDC has this evidence, or they do not.  They should identify it and turn it over or they should report themselves for failing to make proper investigation prior to filing complaints against honest, ethical attorneys who are disgusted with corruption and the type of vain gamesmanship shown in these answers.

Do they really think I won’t publish this flotsam and jetsam?  Do they really think that the average person will believe that their 15 lines of boiler plate before their “IDK” answers won’t be seen as just an extension of the corruption experienced by Sykes, Tyler, Gore, Bedin, Wyman, etc.?

I bet after each of the relatives of Mary Sykes reads this nonsense, they will be furious.  I bet Wyman will be furious.  I think Gore’s relatives are a bit more composed about all of this, but the Drabik ladies are smart and well educated.  I bet a survey of their thoughts comes up with only one word too–“corruption.”

RFA No. 8. (that even lawyers enjoy the privileges and immunities of the First Amendment)
I’ll give you that, it is a conclusion of law.  But only one sentence is necessary.  The Administrator at least could agree with it–except if the concept is anathema to the ARDC. And there is some argument that this IS law applied to the facts because the ARDC is taking the position that it MUST regulate lawyer speech, even if non-commercial, as this blog is, and they seem to be denying Ken and I our right to free, content based, non commercial, grievance against the government and political speech.  They should have answered the interrogatory.

RFA No. 9 (that all citizens, including lawyers have the tight to communicate instances of corruption to the public)

See above

RFA No. 10. (that the Illinois ARDC has no independent evidence in its possession that statements made by Atty Denison on this blog are not substantially true.  In answering this RFA, the ARDC can exclude the self serving statements of CF, AS, MS, PS, et al.

Good question.  The ARDC either has some evidence and it should identify it and hand it over, or they should just admit they don’t have it and this is a vain vendetta against lawyers who speak out publicly regarding corruption in the courts–something they have openly declared they do not want to hear–despite the fact THIS IS THEIR JOB.  GET ANOTHER JOB.  BUT DON’T SAY YOU’RE NOT INTERESTED in investigating and rooting out corruption.

RFA No. 11 (the  ARDC was not given jurisdiction by any state agency to censor the writings of lawyers)

The ARDC very well knows what it can or cannot do.  It can apply this statement as to its daily operations which makes this a fact based question.  This RFA should  have been answered.

RFA No. 12 (the ARDC must follow court rulings from the Ill. Supreme Court and the Ill. Appellate Court when engaging in determinations of disciplinary actions)

While I would normally have to say this question SHOULD be just a conclusion of law and it is always true, BUT it would appear that Justice Connors said she didn’t have to follow the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure in her courtroom and that begs the question that the ARDC should have to answer it also.  I would deem this one admitted.  The ARDC can blame in on the herpes legal infection they caught from Judge Connors.  It’s a virus that appears to have gone on for more than 6 months now.

RFA No. 13.

AN EXAMPLE OF A GOOD JOB on an RFA.

My question is, what took so long for them to admit they are well aware of this well established law.

RFA No. 14.

This is clearly an example of law applied to facts.  Either the Circuit Court has the documents or it does not.  The ARDC has to make due inquiry.  It has to ask its agents and those persons which it controls.  The ARDC controls both GAL’s Adam Stern AND Cynthia Farenga and it was Cynthia Farenga who filed the complaint and she should be charged with finding these documents on behalf of the ARDC or the ARDC should drop this nonsense on her and AS’s behalf.  (And yes, I am using initials again because I’m tired of typing out those names).  So you go and “make” something out of the use of initials on this blog as if that is some crime, but I’m telling you initials are fine when everyone knows the miscreants and they are long published on the “most wanted” list of NASGA and I’m not the first one to point all this out.  Being “most wanted” by NASGA is not a laudatory position.

RFA No. 15. (the ARDC has received numerous citizen complaints regarding CF and AS)

Okay, that was somewhat a fair answer.  The ARDC is not supposed to talk about “other lawyer complaints”; however, all the question said was “numerous”.  The ARDC could give numbers over the last year, the last two years.  Under 5 would not be numerous, but over that, I’d say this question should be answered in the affirmative. I believe it should have been answered.  If the ARDC can sling the mud, then when it hits the fan they ought to stand there and take it.

RFA No. 16 (the ARDC has taken no action on citizen complaints against CF)

That was a somewhat fair RFA answer. Either the ARDC has filed a complaint against CF and AS or is preparing to file or it is not.  Nothing about that is really privileged.

They could have simply said they were limiting the response to answers made public and then admitted the RFA answer.  The real problem is, they simply can’t spit out the word “admitted.”  You would think someone was pulling a tooth without anesthesia or chopping off a finger the way they spent 15 pages whining about the RFA’s when the response should have been a 2 pager.

RFA No. 17 (that the ARDC has received numerous complaints by AS and CF for lawyers that attempt to investigate the Sykes probate case or who have requested investigation of the Sykes case)

Ooooh.  Now we’re really getting someplace touchy.  If you didn’t like the question, rather than answer it, CHANGE THE QUESTION to one you like.  That is, “we’re only going after Respondent JMD–not CF, not AS which is what dozens of complaints by citizens have been sent to the ARDC.

Would the judge please direct that witness to answer the question posed and not turn it around and answer a question no one asked.

RFA No. 18. (that the ARDC brings complaints against attorneys who only request that law enforcement investigate the Sykes case)

8 lines before the Administrator could cough up the simple word “admits.”

Utterly amazing.  Glad I was sitting down.

RFA No. 19 (that in bringing the complaint against JMD, the ARDC has not investigated whether or not from time to time the Probate division was not in compliance with notice provisions to the alleged incompetent and the next of kin)

Here we go again, 7 lines of BS and no answer.  That’s an automatic “admitted”.

The reality is, based upon what I have heard about probate, it is not an uncommon occurrence for someone to complain about lack of a summons and complaint and/or lack of a Sodini notice.  Certainly the ARDC knows this.

RFA No. 20. (that lawyers, including JMD have a first amendment right to request an investigation of the Sykes case).

The most basic of rights, the most basic of questions.  Never answered.  Should be deemed admitted.

My speech is not commercial, it is content based, political, a grievance against government and should be afforded the highest protect against any intrusion by government.  The ARDC has NO RIGHT TO REGULATE MY CONTENT BASED SPEECH AND THEY SHOULD READILY ADMIT IT and stop playing these time wasting toddler games.

All attorneys are presumed to know the law (Jerman case).  They should know my speech is not commercial.  They should know they have no right to regulate it or control it.

The question is not “vague, ambiguous and overbroad.”  THEY ARE JUST TRYING TO AVOID ANSWERING IT BECAUSE THE ANSWER WOULD EMBARRASS THEM, or even worse, subject them to liability for violating my copyright rights and my free speech rights.

RFA No. 21 (that failure to provide 14 days notice of hearing to the alleged disabled and next of kin deprives the probate court of jurisdiction, and in particular that Farenga, Stern et al. have been deprived Mary Sykes of her liberty, property civil right and human rights and that Mary Sykes is entitled to the “parens patrie” (highest special protections) of the state)

SIMPLE QUESTION, SIMPLE ANSWER REQUIRED.  The ARDC refuses to answer and any judge with a back bone should declare this admitted and dismiss the complaint against me.

This is utterly ridiculous.  The question is simple and straightforward.  All the evidence, the postings, the explanations, the cases–all on the blog.   My blog is transparent.  The ARDC “blog” of posting my complaint is not.

It is filled with half truths and some outright lies propounded in an over attempt to shut me up and stop me from providing any relief to probate victim families who have suffered dearly in cases without jurisdiction, in cases where respondents are forced in to nursing homes against their will, where they are drugged against their will, where they are beaten and sexaully attacked, where the Judges refuse to be honest regarding jurisdiction, where seniors are isolated from beloved family members.

Each of Wyman, Bedin, Gore, Tyler, etc. are furious and rightfully so regarding probate. They have been abused in probate.  Then their loved ones are abused in nursing homes. Finally the ARDC abuses them by saying the attorneys attempting to protect them, who work tirelessly long hours–often 18 hrs per day, for running a blog speaking out against corruption–the only honest and ethical ones in the whole bunch–should be disciplined or even disbarred.

I count 3 levels of abuse.  John Wyman and his mother have experienced 4 (nursing home placement against her will, drugging against her will, probate abuse for lack of jurisdiction, then she must live in another state, fearful to return to Illinois) Then the ARDC attacks his attorney saying she “must be disciplined for lying about probate victims’ cases.  How much abuse can these families stand from our court system and nursing home system?  The ARDC is turning out to be about the 4th degree of abuse to the victims.

These are people that want to live in their own homes and see their beloved siblings and children. They don’t need tied in GAL’s, plenary guardian attorneys or anyone else interfering with their lives.  The abuse just has to end.  Dominic Spera’s mother desperately wants to go home and live with her son, can she do it?  She is now isolated from him and he can only see her one hour 4 days a week and there is no bus service to the nursing home.  Dominic is older and lame and has to walk the 2 miles.  Just as Sharon Rudy about their going home.  I bet the answer is nope.

Time to prepare a Motion for Summary Judgment based upon the fact that 90% of the above answers were not even close to honest, forthright and constituted a reasonable effort to comply with the rules.

The ARDC’s answers, for all of you newbie lawyers and laypersons out there are a complete tragedy and a continuance of the abuse probate victims have experienced in court, and now it continues in the ARDC with honest, ethical attorneys writing blogs about probate corruption and want to know why the system is soooo rigged?

Okay, Trio Tribunal, let’s see if you can take out a loan, buy a back bone and some ethics and tell the ARDC they just lost their case.

Or are you just gonna get out the (I LOVE ARDC rubber stamp and BFF’S FOREVER)

You go for that and see how much worse your Greylord II problem continues and the uproar gets louder.

And for all of my probate victims out there, part of this gamesmanship by the ARDC could end if you would just WRITE THE ARDC, CALL THEM, EMAIL THEM AND TELL THEM THAT YOU ARE DISGUSTED BY THIS BEHAVIOR AND IT MUST END.  CORRUPTION MUST END IN ILLINOIS COURTS AND THE VENDETTA AGAINST LAWYERS THAT SPEAK OUT AGAINST IT, REVEAL IT, TELL THE PUBLIC ABOUT IT.

The reality is, if the public makes a stink and demands that corruption end–even at the ARDC, IT WILL END.

I leave you with that.  The addresses for the ARDC are on this blog.  Their fax number is there too.  If we want corruption to end the public must demand that it end.

You go Ken, now we have the arsenal we require.

This case explains what I do on this blog, your posts on the blog IN CLEAR AND EASY TO UNDERSTAND LANGUAGE–THIS BLOG AND IT’S CONTENTS ARE PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE HIGHEST LEVELS ALLOWED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

This blog represents political speech and content based speech.  This blog does not advertise for business for you or me and my staff. I DO NOT do probate law, except in certain very limited cases (the client must have been rejected by other lawyers for the case being too difficult and/or no money, the client must have no money or limited fund to fight either isolation of a parent and/or lack of jurisdiction).

My main business is elsewhere and I love doing that.

I engage in this blog only to clean up the courts and ensure there is jurisdiction.

Atty Ken’s Motion to Amend my sec 383 SCOI Petition

Thank you Ken. I understand that you have filed a similar Motion to Amend with the ARDC regarding your case.

All you did was speak up for Mary.  You did not post emails on my blog to make money, engage in advertising or commercial speech.  You found an injustice where attys and judges were acting badly and you started to make a stink and fuss about it.  At first you called for an investigation, then you started screaming for an investigation.

Now the blog is screaming, yelling, shouting, kicking up an entire hopping mad toddler tantrum to ensure that justice is done in the following cases:  Tyler, Sykes, Bedin, Gore, Wyman, etc. by means of A COMPLETE, HONEST AND THOROUGH INVESTIGATION.

Is that guy a hero or what?  I don’t care if all he did was blog about a bunch of criminal court wins. By taking his case to the Virginia Supreme Court, this week he helped out myself and Ken with important findings of fact and conclusions of law.

See my response to the the ARDC based upon this case.

sykesblog-ardc-hunter-Mot2ReconMTD-03-01-13

Of course, I used my Motion to Dismiss as a soapbox for letting the ARDC know that many of this issues complained about on this blog by myself and others are in fact true and they need to be investigated.  Each of Bedin, Tyler, Gore, Sykes, Wyman and others needs and deserves a full and complete investigation.  All of the judges and GAL’s and plenary guardian attorneys land on  “free parking” in the ARDC Monoply board game, while Ken and I are screaming our heads off for an investigation, and all we get handed is the “go to jail” card!

I hope that the Horace Hunter case will result in the ARDC giving us the “get out of jail free” card, or I forget, do we have to roll 3 doubles in a row?  It’s been sooo long. (Actually, no one in my family will play Monopoly with me because I love making up rules, which the rules allow for, but I make them funny like build a lego person, or give up 3 green m&m’s before you can buy a house or hotel, or get any benefit).

take care my good readers, the Virginia Supremes are on our side and I think they wrote an opinion so plain even the lawyers at the Illinois ARDC can understand it.

JoAnne