I think many of you have already seen on this blog the fights I had with Adam Stern and his puppet masters to keep me from blogging with a laptop on the 18th floor. Many of you wrote and called me to cheer me on. And then the sword of Damocles fell and Presiding Judge Timothy Evans passed the “Denison Rule” that the hoi poli cannot use laptops, tablet or any electronic device to take notes in court because, get this, “gangs” might take pictures of witnesses.
Okay, even the public is not that stupid. The public wrote me right away and said they never saw a gang member in court because uh, the concept of a gang is founded on the notion that they engage in criminal acts and that’s how they make their money.
I have never seen a gang member on the 18th floor of the Daley center, nor in law division, nor in muni.
So, it’s the “Denison Rule”.
Next, I find out there is a “Ditkowsky Rule”. Apparently when the ARDC when after Ken for trying to investigate the lack of jurisdiction in the Sykes case (they charged him with writing a letter to Dr. Patel and telling Dr. Patel he wanted to get medical records so that he could investigate and then file an appearance–of course a certain miscreant–GAL Cynthia Farenga told Judge Connors that Ken said that he signed and filed the appearance–she actually answered the Judge’s question for him, when it fact he did not and the letter made it clear he did not. Further, the court lacked jurisdiction, the younger daughter GJS had a POA for health care for her mother and he was acting under that. Getting back to the topic, when KDD got charged, he filed a number of “dispostive” motions or motions that basically said the ARDC did not have a case. First he filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to State a Claim, then he filed a Motion for Summary Judgment against the ARDC and other dispostive motions. They must have hit a raw nerve (and I’m sure KDD stepped on their last raw nerve) because apparently in Sept of 2012 the ARDC passes a rule saying no dispositive motions until the evidentiary record is complete.
Now the problem with that rule is, when is an evidentiary record complete? This is a system and format not found or laid out in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor in the State Rules of Civil Procedure or anything I have every found. Okay, let’s Fastcase that one. Just did. “evidentiary record” and the word within 8 words “complete” and nothing.
What this really means is the ARDC has set up a standard that is not found in case law and therefore can never be attained.
Convenient for them. NOT convenient for attorneys speaking out and blogging about corruption.
It means we are screwed by this rule. I guess the ARDC won’t just come out with a rule that says if you are a respondent, you are screwed because we make up impossible rules and standards not found elsewhere.
In any case, I have been told I have no choice, I have to do all this, but it drives me nutz. I don’t get to stop yet. I get to give everyone that’s a miscreant a prick in the butt.
So I keep on going.
See the attached order
Now see my response.
You know, I read on a blog that someone thought “I was really angry” about the complaint by the ARDC and he said he thought that I had a right to be. I don’t think I am angry, just disappointed. Very disappointed.
Dear Chair Lee;
I just received your order from April 26, 2013 and I am most disappointed on a wide variety of levels. It is amazingly wrong on a myriad of levels.
First of all you say “pleading must be filed and served in accordance with ARDC rules” and I have busted my butt to make 4 copies of everything, have someone run them over to an office on ecologically improper landfill (which your building rests upon–it should be wetlands, but I digress) and you have received always an original and 3 copies.
What per se, do you believe was not filed with an original and 3 copies which was NOT a pleading? Let me know and I will file it by having someone walk it over there with an original and 3 copies and a copy each for MS and SO.
This has always been done.
Second, you say that “ex parte communications with the Chair are not permitted” but the reality is, I have never sent any ex parte communications to you–everything has been cc’d to MS and SO and even the blog where everyone can see it. I always do this on cases, and you’re the only “judge” that has complained about it.
The ARDC is NOT transparent. It does not post on a blog nor does it put pleadings on a blog or any other bulletin board type of system.
As a result, we waste half of our “status calls” over what was filed, can we look at it, can I see it on the internet, etc. It‘s completely inefficient and a waste of time and as outdated as the use of carrier pigeons and buggy whips. Why not just send me an order mandating smoke signals because perhaps one of you is an American Indian?
I am a patent attorney, my background is in engineering. Day in and day out I have clients that are trying desperately to advance the state of art in business systems and technology and I find the ARDC, you and SO and MS are simply acting to the contrary to the advancement of technology business and computer science. My daughter wants to be a chemical engineer, my son has fixed cell phones, built computers and has advanced the art since single digits of age,he is now a math and science student at SIU and yet you all want to trample on advancing science and technology in the US.
Do you even realize how frustrating that is for me as a patent attorney?
Do you know how many times I have to suffer and hear all sorts of people (wrongfully) say that the US is NOT a leader in science and technology and computers when in fact it completely is?
In the US we file and issue more patents each year than any other country on earth. Today I believe most of those are in the business/computer technology arts. I file mostly computer and science and business patents for my clients.
And yet I see the ARDC issue orders such as these? Denigrating math, science, computers, technology, the promotion of these with young children–those that lead our future?
I show your order to my son and daughter and they laugh at me. They think that lawyers are luddites.
Finally, I HAVE NOT ENGAGED IN ANY EXPARTE COMMUNICATIONS and I am highly offended at your insinuating the same.
You and SO and MS know where your “delete” keys are, you know where in your email software where “blocking” is, you even know how to write a nice email saying, thank you for your communication, please be sure to also place it in the mail and file it with the court.
And then finally, how is it that Leah Black gets away with a true exparte communication and there is no order after SHE did that? I told her from the get go Ken Ditkowsky was going to represent me. Then she calls me up on the phone and wants to talk with me. I am taken aback because I already told her that KDD was to represent me. She continues on with a threat she is going to (wrongfully) disqualify him, and that’s what happened!
You and I and SO and MS know the disqualification was bogus. I have practiced for 25+ years and have NEVER been able to do that to another attorney, but you guys just go and get what you want the way you want, no reading cases or anything.
My only questions are:
1) why is this happening?
2) why is no one questioning the lack of jurisdiction in Bedin, Wyman and Sykes. Wyman and Sykes are up on appeal. If the appellate court does its job, the cases will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, then what? Will the ARDC apologize to myself and Ken? What about Bedin? It is in the law division now because the court and the GAL’s attempted to proceed without jurisdiction to evict a woman mis-diagnosed from a hospital with cancer? What happens when the Bedin family wins that one?
3) you think you can hide. You think you can issue these orders. You think you can say “please no technology” we need to hide.
But I will put it all on the blog.
The public is not stupid.
I did NOT become a lawyer and study for years and work hours and hours without pay for my clients so that other lawyers can prosecute/persecute me and my clients can find no purchase in the courts.
If you don’t like my emails, then delete them and ask me to put them in a “report to the court”, but don’t go and issue these timewasting orders.
You lost the battle back in 2000 when the Federal Courts went to e-filing and e-service. Then the law division did the same.
Now Dorothy Brown issued an order all attys are to put their emails on pleadings to advance litigation.
You yourself (unless my cell phone connection was really, really, bad) asked SO several times during the last status call to respond to my emails.
I litigate all the time and we just exchange pleadings via email, and correspondence for routine matters is always done by email. All the attys cooperate.
There is NO RULE IN THE ARDC RULES THAT I CANNOT EMAIL ALL OF YOU. Again, I have busted my butt to get my original and 3 copies over to the filing desk when I have to file papers,
You want a rule, get a rule passed. We have the KDD rule (I note none of you admitted to that one) that there are no dispositive pleadings before the “evidentiary record” is complete–whatever that is. No acknowledgement of any of that.
Timothy Evans now has clamped down on first amendment rights because I faxed him over and over again I want to blog and take notes on my laptop in court. I supposed that’s the Denison Rule. He said to send my complaint to the “head of security“. I did and the “head of security” never responded and when I called him, he passed the buck back to Timothy Evans.
I guess you need another “Denison” rule. No emails to any attorney at the ARDC nor to the tribunal
What exactly WOULD be your justification for that one?
But then why this?
All of this makes no difference to me. You can disbar me, you can tell the world you think I’m a crappy attorney. The reality is, the ARDC has absolutely no good reputation in family law or with the probate division. All the blogs report you as a CYA and KMA organization. Your original mission was to root out and investigate Greylord type issues. Now you are afraid of the words Greylord and corruption. You are afraid to say we need to go after attorneys that terrorize probate victims.
What are you going to say to Dominic Spera? Turns out Sharon Rudy took $150,000 out of a joint account as GAL and rendered this guy homeless and penniless for a year. He was sleeping on the streets, in the parks, eating out of garbage cans. When I first went to court, the only atty that would represent him and “go up against the system” for no retainer, the clerk had tears in her eyes. I did too. The arrogant bailiff only said, well “he stunk”. I told him, smell or not, Sharon Rudy made him that way, and he has a constitutional right to be here and you do not.
Go ahead you all and look the other way at human misery. Pretend it does not exist. Pretend my blog does not exist and it is all lies.
If that’s how you can sleep at night, go for it. As for me, my clients cry and I cry. I have cried in court, have you?
cc: blog at http://www.marygsykes.com
and for filing in a “report to the court” when I get around to it.
JoAnne Denison Denison & Assocs, PC 1512 N. Freemont St, #202 Chicago, IL 60642-2694 Patents, Trademarks & Copyrights Email me at JoAnne@Denisonlaw.com Cell Phone 773-255-7608 Work Ph 312-553-1300 efax 312-376-8842 See our website at www.DenisonLaw.com