Answer to Complaint by ARDC–PLEASE HELP!

Dear Readers;

During the last status call on my ARDC case to keep this blog free and open, for YOU the readers of probate case travails and injustices, one of the most funny comments I heard was the Chair Sung Yul Lee say (after I told him I would submit my Answer for approval by Melissa Smart and Sharon Opryszek because it would move the case along because it seems they always get what they want), this is funny he said Attys Opryszek and Smart were ordered NOT TO HELP ME!  Okay, that is real funny. Why would he say that?  Attys get together all the time and hammer out pleadings so that they can appear before the judge and “stipulate” to orders, “stipulate” to dates, times, places, issues in dispute or not in dispute. Moves the case along.  Anything “agreed to” makes the judge real happy so he doesn’t have to listen to arguments and make a decision.  He gets the afternoons off.  Most love it and smile. Never heard that one before.  What IS he getting at?  He says on one hand he wants to “move the case along”, but then he “orders” SO and MS not to “help me” with my answer.  Is he kidding?

Doesn’t really matter.  The ARDC doesn’t “meet” in a courtroom or any place downtown.  They put everyone on speaker phone.  So with about 6 or 7 people on speaker phone there is a lot of “noise” and a lot of digital delay in getting all the voice data together so what do they do?  Blame me.  Oh, Atty Denison, the noise is because of you (no it’s not, I have a $300 smart phone I got off of ebay for $160 and it’s the latest and greatest and I STILL hear noise from you all) and then I can’t hear, but THEY WON’T GIVE ME TRANSCRIPTS.  Yep, asked for them several times.

Next, they blame me for “talking over” the chair when in reality (and I’ve explained this to him), this isn’t like a court room where we are at the speed of sound face to face (approx 770 mph), but there are delays in ditigizing voices that create time lags which are not apparent to everyone at the same time.

It’s in the transcript I gave them.

But they still blame me, the luddites they all are.  Or, is it saying they are luddites not right.  Maybe they KNOW what is going on and this is a form of intimidation.  Blame the respondent, always.  As if I get intimidated.  If you ask me, I make little or no money in the field of law, getting disbarred WOULD BE A BLESSING TO ME, but not to you my dear readers because you would have to slog on without me.  Oh, I can post, but I can’t practice law, whatever that is on a blog.

In any case, see below my answer to the complaint and PLEASE, you all get to help me out because I do this for you and I will incorporate or submit your comments to the ARDC to my blogging complaint.

It seems fair, doesn’t it?

And MS and SO, you should know you are under court order NOT to help me or to have communication with me to ensure the case is moved along.

Now you all are under a gag order.  I personally think the Chair’s order to tell you not to say anything to me about how to work on providing a complaint that is not objectionable is a violation of YOUR first amendment rights, but hey, that is what you all are asking for–THE COURT TO TELL YOU WHAT TO DO AND SAY IN COURT.  Pretty funny, I think.  Tell the plaintiff what to do and say, tell the defendant what to do and say and then make a decision off of that.

More of the same ole same ole if you ask me.

Courts are supposed to be free and open.  If the parties want to get together and settle any issues that are or might be contested, they are supposed to be free to do so to move a case along.

I’m just saying…… and I’m just asking the questions which is what I have done all along.


My question now is, why doesn’t the ARDC like all these questions.

See below and let me know your suggestions and comments to move this along.  SO and MS you are under a gag order so don’t submit any comments or suggestions.

In Re:


Reg. No. 6192441

Commission No. 2013 PR 0001

Atty Sharon Opryszek, Atty Melissa Smart and Atty Jerome Larkin
ARDC, One Prudential Plaza, 12th Floor, Chicago, Illinois via personal delivery and email

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 28, 2013, I will file the Administrator’s
MOTION TO CLARIFY, a copy of which is attached, by causing the original and three copies to
be delivered to the Clerk of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission in Chicago,

Respectfully Submitted

JoAnne Denison
JoAnne Denison
Denison & Assocs, PC
1512 N Fremont St, #202
Chicago, IL 60642
Ph 312 553 1300, Fax 312 553 1307

In Re:


Reg. No. 6192441

Commission No. 2013 PR 0001


Now comes JoAnne Denison, pro se until she can get an attorney interested in making it clear that all Illinois attorneys have first amendment free speech rights and is willing to donate time to enforce and protect these very valuable rights which were fought for over 200 years ago by our highly oppresses ancestors on this continent, and files her Answer to the ARDC Complaint against her which consists entirely of running a blog which reports corruption in the courts in order to promote justice, integrity, honesty and ethics therewithin, and particularly Probate court, which Atty Denison has learned via this blog, gets the most complaints regarding corruption, lack of procedure, violations of basic constitutional rights, human and civil rights – which also violate international treaties protecting the elderly and women– and which activities have resulted in theft, embezzlement, conversion, false imprisonment in nursing homes and locations not intended in advance directions, violations of 42 USC 1983, etc. and states as follows as her answer to the Complaint filed on January 8, 2013 by the Administrator Atty Jerome Larkin, which has been filed and prosecuted by one or more of the following attorneys of record: Atty Leah Black, Atty Jessica Haspel, Atty Sharon Opryszek and Atty Melissa Smart and states as follows:

Prefatory Statement
Respondent herein, as an attorney and citizen of the United States of America is entitled to all the protections of both the United States Constitution and the Illinois Constitution.    In particular the respondent reiterates and incorporates her Motion to Dismiss this complaint as violative of the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and in derogation of Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution–and her SLAPP motion and anything else the ARDC has thought fit to deny her summarily.      It is further submitted that as the allegations of this complaint are in direct violation of Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution and the protections of the First Amendment it is respectfully submitted that Illinois Attorney Registration and Discipline Commission is without jurisdiction to prosecute this matter.
Constitutional Law on Free Speech:
(david, this is for you–be sure to mention Alvarez, New York Times, and the other major Free Speech cases. Mention the standard the ARDC must meet is clear and convincing evidence, mention that requires the ARDC specify all statements which it objects to and all specific grounds for objecting to each statement, etc.)  We need to mention blogging is covered by the SLAPP statute which motion the ARDC dismissed without comment, or the requested findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Even though the panel has denied the respondent’s motion to dismiss and ignored the legislative mandate of 735 ILCS 110 et seq.,   the panel, the ARDC, the attorney involved in this matter are all required to give full faith and credit to the Constitution of the United States of America, Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution of 1970 and the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States and the Illinois Supreme Court.      It is an ethical duty for all attorneys involved to respect the mandates and protections of the United States Constitution.     Pursuant to the doctrine of stare decisis where the allegation made herein by the ARDC is inconsistent or in derogation of Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 110½, par. 11a–10(f); 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)  the portion of the averment in conflict is respectfully denied.

Answer (without waving any rights)
Allegation ¶ 1:
1. On July 20, 2009, Carolyn Toerpe (“Toerpe”) filed a petition in the Circuit Court
of Cook County to have her mother, Mary Sykes, adjudicated a disabled person due to concerns that Sykes suffered from dementia. Toerpe’s petition also sought Toerpe’s appointment as the guardian of Sykes’ estate and person. The Circuit Court Clerk docketed the matter as Estate of Mary Sykes, docket number 2009 P 4585.
Answer to Allegation ¶ 1.    DENIED.  The allegation in paragraph 1 is misleading.    The Illinois Supreme Court has mandated that:
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)

It therefore follows that as the record in the Sykes case  2009 P 4585 is unequivocal that the jurisdictional criterion were not followed that the statement made is misleading.   The Court acquired no jurisdiction.    Further answering on July 20, 2009 without compliance with 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3, or 755 ILCS 5/11a -8 Carolyn Toerpe did file a petition that caused the Circuit Clerk to docket a matter of In Re:  Estate of Mary Sykes.    As 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).    The portions of the averment that require jurisdiction to be acquired for the statement to be accurate are thus denie;, however,  those statements that do not require jurisdiction to be obtained to accurate are admitted.  In re Tiffany (cite) has declared that jurisdictional requirements must be strictly construed where personal liberties are at issue.

Allegation ¶  2:  On or about July 24, 2009, the court appointed Cynthia Farenga (“Farenga”) as Sykes’ guardian ad litem. On August 26, 2009, because Farenga was unable to attend court, the court appointed Adam Stern (“Stern”) special guardian ad litem, and both Farenga and Stern served as guardians ad litem for Sykes at all times alleged in this complaint.
Answer to Allegation ¶  2.    Admitted that Farenga (“CF”) and Stern (“AS”) were appointed and were duly operating as Guardians ad Litem (“GAL”) in July to August 2009.  Denied that on or after at least December 7, 2009 GAL’s AS and CF has jurisdiction to act in any competent or official capacity as GAL’s in this case.  Gloria Sykes and others, including the blog have strenuously asked the court and the ARDC and authorities to take notice that the court has no jurisdiction.  Mary Sykes (“Mary”) was never served with a Summons and Complaint.  Only an Affidavit of Non-Service appears in the record on appeal (“ROA”) (cite).   If the jurisdiction mandate of 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) is ignored the statements of paragraph 2 are accurate, but misleading. Further, the statement ignores the fact it is highly unusual for two GAL’s to be appointed in any probate case.  The matter is currently up on appeal at the First District Court of Appeals and it is a hotly contested issue.
Allegation ¶  3. On November 3, 2009, Sykes’ other daughter, Gloria Sykes (“Gloria”), filed a cross-petition in case number 2009 P 4585, nominating the Cook County Public Guardian to serve as Sykes’ guardian. Shortly thereafter, Gloria orally sought to be appointed the guardian of Sykes’ estate and person without amending her written cross-petition.

Answer to Allegation ¶  3.    Denied as being inaccurate.  The Record on Appeal has been furnished to the ARDC and there should be a copy of Gloria’s Petition for Guardianship.  As far as the undersigned is aware, Gloria was a long term care taker of her mother (10+) years, and did an excellent job.  While under Gloria’s care, Mary was completely treated like a queen.  She ate vegetarian gourmet food from the best restaurants, Gloria bought her designer clothes, she frequented the local beauty parlor and her hair and nails were lovely.  Gloria frequently gave parties and events and her mother was there.  Gloria took very nice vacations several times per year and always took her mother along.  As far as the undersigned is aware, Mary only spoke highly of Gloria and the pair were inseparable.  With regards to the Guardianship, Gloria acted as Mary’s highly attentive and excellent caretaker for years.  After Charles Sykes died in 2000, Mary was not lonely due to Gloria, but only happy.  Mary frequently chatted on the phone with friends and family as she pleased.  Gloria did at one time ask she be appointed Guardian of the Person with the Office of Public Guardian (“OPG”)  as the Guardian for the Estate.  (Cite to ROA) The OPG responded they did not do that for a myriad of reasons, and Gloria changed the nomination to her cousin and Mary’s niece, Ms. Kathleen Bakken (“Kathie”) for the Estate.  The proceedings were railroaded, went very fast, many things were said which did not appear on the record, and Gloria had a hard time hiring and retaining attys because (as is frequent in probate)–no atty wants to go up against the GAL’s or if they do they want a ton of money.  As a result, the fact that Gloria decided to go with her as Guardian of the Person and Kathie was to be Guardian of the Estate.  Petitions are amended all the time in Probate on the fly and with just scratching out names.  As long as waivers are obtained or Sodini notices are provided, there is no problem with this.  Also, Gloria should be introduced as “Ms. Gloria Sykes” and should be shown due respect.

Allegation No. 4
4. In or before November 2009, Respondent was contacted by Gloria regarding
matters related to Sykes’ estate.  In or about November 2009, Respondent filed an appearance on behalf of Gloria; however, on December 7, 2009, Respondent was disqualified from Representing Gloria due to the fact that Respondent had notarized the signatures of Mary and Gloria on a document that gave Gloria Mary’s entire interest in a lawsuit at a time when Mary may have been suffering from dementia.
Answer to Allegations of paragraph 4.    The allegations of paragraph 4 are misleading.    It is admitted that in a totally erroneous order respondent was disqualified.   The disqualification was based upon respondent having notarized a singular document.    It is denied that there was any proper finding in any Court pursuant to 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) that Mary Sykes was incompetent.     Attorneys notarize documents all the time.  The manual for notaries states that the only effect of notarizing a document is that the notary either did not know the signatory and checked photo ID carefully before allowing the signature to be place upon the document, OR the notary knew the person to be signing the document.  UNLESS the document states that the person signing the document was of “clear and sound mind” (ie., a clause generally used for wills and codicils), the notary does not certify sound mind, memory or competency, nor is a notary generally competent to testify to such matters unless a PsychD, or make such a judgement.  No such “competency” notary clause was provided.  Further, videos exist on Gloria’s facebook and on which were taken one month after Mary was allegedly declared incompetent and they are complete in and of themselves as to Mary’s alleged competency.  Those are the best evidence in support that Mary was competent and Gloria’s Power of Attorney (attached hereto as Exhibit A) should have been given force and effect.      The videos should be considered by this honorable tribunal and transcribed as the best evidence of Mary’s competency one month after she was declared “incompetent.”

Allegation ¶ 5. On December 10, 2009, the court adjudicated Sykes disabled based upon the report of Dr. Mark Amdur that Sykes was incompetent, and the court appointed Toerpe the plenary guardian of Sykes’ estate and person after a contested hearing on the care plans proposed by Toerpe and Gloria. On December 18, 2009, Gloria filed a motion to reconsider the December 10, 2009 order appointing Toerpe as Sykes’ plenary guardian, which was subsequently denied.
Answer to Allegations of paragraph 5.   This allegation is Denied as being inaccurate.   Paragraph 5 is misleading.    An order appears in the Sykes file that wrongfully appoints a plenary guardian without notice to Mary Sykes or her next of kin as required by the Illinois Probate Act; in addition, the record in case 09 P 4585 does not reveal that Mary Sykes was provided counsel or that there was any compliance with 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).  There are numerous handwritings and videos to the contrary that Mary in fact wanted and deserved an attorney to represent her.  These have been posted on the blog and are in the ARDC’s own records (except for the videos which the ARDC has not sent to the undersigned counsel, but they are on Facebook and on Vimeo and the undersigned submits that Atty Sharon Opryszek and Atty Melissa Smart know fully well what Google Search is.  It appears on all Windows, iPhones and Android phones and is readily available in the relevant marketplace and will lead them directly to the Vimeos, Youtube and Facebook videos. If any attorney doesn’t know about Google, Windows, iPhones, Androids aka “Droids”, it should ask any child under age 6 to 18!)

Allegations of ¶ 6:  Between December 2009 and November 2011, the court made various findings of law in relation to the Sykes case, some of which involved Gloria’s ownership in certain property. In or about November 2011, Respondent began writing and publishing two Internet web logs (“blogs”) devoted to discussing matters related to Mary Sykes’ probate matter. The two blogs were entitled, “marygsykes – An attorney blog concerning corruption and greed in the Probate Court of Cook County,” and “marygsykes,” respectively. Respondent posted her own writings as well as the writings of others on both blogs. Those writings included allegations that there was corruption in the probate court of Cook County, particularly in relation to Mary Sykes’ probate case, that Sykes was the victim of elder abuse, and that the GALs and the court had acted
inappropriately with respect to Sykes’ estate, that they had violated the law, and that they had physically or mentally harmed Sykes.
Answer to Allegations of Paragraph 6.    Denied that these are false or inaccurate statements or that Atty Denison was not engaging in “fair reporting”.  Paragraph 6 is misleading as in order for a Court to be a  Court it must obtain jurisdiction.     As the  common law record is devoid of any evidence of compliance with Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 110½, par. 11a–10 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) the statement is misleading.    It is admitted that for three years in derogation of the jurisdictional mandate a series of inappropriate orders were placed of record under color of law.   It is admitted that as a citizen of the United States of America the respondent in due exercise of her rights, privileges and immunities she was so endowed did author a ‘blog.’   (The characterizations of the pleading are inaccurate)    Respondent admits that she communicated (posted) her writing and the writings of others on her blog communicating the lack of a Summons and Petition upon Mary G. Sykes means the court lacks Jurisdiction and this is a human and civil right assured under the US and Illinois Constitutions.  The undersigned is not aware of any ARDC rule or any Constitutional mandate that she not teach basic Constitution Law on her blog to both her readers and the ARDC.  It is further  noted that on the records sent by the ARDC, that ARDC Atty. Leah Black was printing out the “MarySykes” blog and emails of others.  It is hoped that Atty Leah Black was learning some basic US and Illinois Constitutional law about blogs and the First Amendment.
Pursuant to the First Amendment to the American Constitution and Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution, private citizen respondent then and there reported:
(a)      The violation of 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) by the plenary guardian and the attornment thereto.
(b)        Actions by the ‘juridical officials’ including the two Guardian ad Litem acting without jurisdiction or in derogation of the established law of the State of Illinois.
(c)      The illegal isolation of Mary Sykes from siblings and her younger daughter–isolate which NEVER occurred when Gloria was a caretaker.
(d)       Collateral actions in violation of 735 ILCS 5/2 1401 initiated by ‘judicial officials’
(e)    Actions reported in the sworn affidavits attached to the Motion to Dismiss, which affidavits are incorporated by reference and made part hereof as if set forth in detail.      These ultra-vires actions so reported are corruption of the most serious nature and respondent admits that she as a citizen did report the same upon her blog.

Allegations of ¶ 6 Respondent’s blogs were open to the public and were not password-protected.
Respondent knew or should have known that the contents of her blogs were continuously available to anyone with access to the Internet. Respondent a purported disclaimer on her blogs, which included the following language:
Sorry, but portions of this blog have to be entertaining so we can
get the word out. There is most certainly a great deal of (stinging)
truth in it, esp. for the GAL’s (sic), the probate court and a society
that ignores (thereby condoning) the sleazy world of probate, and
in particular the 18th floor of the Daley Center in Chicago, but
everyone needs to understand, these are not pleadings, there is no
Motion, Response and Reply set by any court, together with
extended legal argument recorded by a court reporter and subject
to a Motion to Reconsider if errors or new evidence is found.
Answer to Allegation 6. Admitted.  Respondent admits that her communications, blog, and certain of her writings were pursuant to the protections of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution openly and notoriously disseminated as is her right.     The words and phrases that the Administrator improperly quotes without designation that the said words and phrase are in fact a quote are the work product of the respondent and are subject to US and international Copyright Laws under the Berne Convention of 1988.  Further, the ARDC has not issued any recommendations as to a better way to word a disclaimer to Respondent.  The ARDC has not alleged any particular wrong doing in citing the particular disclaimer chosen by Respondent. There is no law, that Respondent is aware of, or case law (other than Virginia Bar v. Horace Hunter (cite)) that recommends or mandates the wording and placement of disclaimers on blogs. Further, the Hunter blog was commercial in nature.  The ARDC has already admitted that Respondent’s blog is non commercial in nature because she uses a myriad of writings and comments, and rarely turns down submissions to the blog, as long as they appear to be truthful and heartfelt on their face.  This is the backbone of the US system of a free and open democracy.  Respondent is no longer counsel to Sykes or any family member.  Her blog is open, transparent and subject to comment, even if the comment is adverse.  Only the ARDC and CF and AS have publicly complained about Respondent’s blog, and even then if the ARDC, CF and AS say that complaints must be strictly scrutinized and proven to be true, each and every sentence, and people, including attys, must worry about every little word they say– certainly the ARDC, CF and AS are not obeying their own mandates.  It’s the height of hypocrisy.
Allegation ¶ 8.   In her blog posts, Respondent refers to Adam Stern as “AS,” Cynthia Farenga as “CF,” Carolyn Toerpe as “CT,” Toerpe’s attorney Peter Schmiedel as “PS,” and herself as “JD” or “JMD.” Respondent referred to Kenneth Ditkowsky, who also wrote articles relating to the Sykes case which Respondent posted on her blogs, either by his full name, or as “KD” or “KDD.”

Answer to Allegation 8.   Admitted.  Respondent readily admits that from time to time various people were referred to by initials.  Initials are commonly used in pleadings, by attorneys, and used when the reader is fairly clear of the person meant–OR the particular name of the person meant is not at all important, the person is a representative example of that function, i.e., GAL, probate attorney, blogging attorney, etc.  The use of initials, abbreviations and shortening the reading of the reader is used to keep the blog moving and the reader interested.  Plus, if anyone reads the blog lately or checks the “tags” the names are used over and over and over again.  It has been asserted by the blog readership over and over again, that the term “GAL” and “miscreant” (and we know that AS thinks the world revolves around him and the use of “miscreant” but it is not so, Grasshopper), the GAL’s are reported over and over as being the same–stirring up trouble to bill more hours, and trying to sell paid up homes to pay for probate atty fees and tied in nursing home fees.  Yawn.  Heard that over and over and over.

Allegation ¶  9. The blog posts referred to in paragraphs six, seven, and eight, above, include, but are not limited to the following posts:
Answer to Allegation 9 Notice:  Respondent has a copyright upon the words and phrases of her blog and any reproduction or use of the contents thereof without the express consent of Respondent is a possible violation of  Federal Law.     Respondent pursuant to said Federal Law has made a demand to the Administrator to cease and desist his violation of Federal Statutes, and like the apparent ultra vires act in bringing this complaint, the discriminatory and improper prosecution of respondent and the overt attempt to deny the respondent her First Amendment Rights the Administrator continues in ignoring both the State of Illinois and the Federal Laws.
Without waiving any rights and objecting to the discrimination and duress Respondent states in response to each sub-section as follows:
Allegation 9a:  a. An April 19,2012 blog entry entitled “Ken Ditkowsky’s answer to the complaint filed against him by the ARDC via Cynthia Farenga,” wherein Respondent suggests that the GALs and the Guardian ad Litem stole Mary Sykes’ money by stating:
Kend (sic) Ditkowsky and I have been caught up in all of this because we have been working tirelessly on this blog and to inform others of this situation–and those attorneys who will churn fees at hundreds of dollars per hour-want us silenced. They apparently have a lot of clout in Probate and even with the ARDC …    And I would like to note (lMD) that if you follow the money trail, it    leads directly to the Plenary Guardian, the GALS’s (sic) Adam Stern and Cynthia Farenga, and the Guardian’s attorney’s (sic) Itarvey Waller and Peter Schmeidel/Dorothy Soehlig!
a) Answer:  Denied the allegation is false.  The statement made was true in substance and fact. The conclusion and mis-interpretation of the words and phrases of paragraph 9 (a) are evident.    The undenied affidavits of Ms. Gloria Sykes and documents filed in case 09 P 4585  provide strong evidence that serious misconduct has occurred during the 3 year ultra vires denial of Mary Sykes’ liberty, property, civil and human rights.     The aforesaid action is per se corruption. Corruption has been defined as “a deviation from morals, laws or ethics.”  CF, AS and PS DO profit handsomely by having Mary declared incompetent no matter what, and via no matter what “doctors”, and they can sell her paid up house and get their fees from there.  Oops.  I said it again.  I find it all to be repulsive and disgusting.  So do my readers.
It is undeniable that Mary Sykes never was served properly.  (See, ROA where I dare anyone to find the requisite Summons, Petition and Notice of Hearing of Date, Time, Place of Hearing 14 days in advance and Certificate of Service of written notice to the next of kin–two elderly but loving and caring sisters Yolanda and Josephine) Gloria informed the ARDC of this fact, Atty Ditkowsky (“KDD”) and (“JMD”) informed the ARDC of this fact, but the “deviation from the law” was never placed squarely upon the miscreants where it belonged, but placed upon the messengers.  As a result, Gloria has lost her home and her personal wealth.  Mary has lost all of her personal liberties, human and civil rights and property rights.  Generally, in Probate, the “money trail” consists of the following: paid up home, full bank accounts and investments–all of which are used by the probate court to deem the ward “incompetent”, place her in a nursing home against her will, drain the estate of probate and GAL fees, lien the home and then sell it.  Every one profits.  It’s a nearly unstoppable machine.  The OPG helps with this plan.  Ever wonder why sooo many people in nursing homes don’t want to be there and want to get out?  It’s this machine.

Allegation 9b: An April 25, 2012 blog entry entitled “Ken Ditkowsky, esq. continues to find parallels to other cases … ,” stating:
As in the Sykes case, currently the GAL is adding other attorneys to
the case to outlawyer the daughter and churn the feeding freenzy (sic)all
with court connected lawyers.
Answer to Allegation 9b: Denied the statement was false–it was true in substance and fact.  It is evident from the record, I was wrongfully disqualified.  Then KDD was booted out when he tried to “investigate” and it turned out the Sykes Probate case has no jurisdiction–no summons, no affidavit of service.  Then, Fischel and Kahn show up over and over again with one, two or three lawyers–and Gloria is Pro Se because they wanted her that way. They worked for it.  Cynthia Farenga told both Gloria and myself in the hallway, she wanted me disqualified because I would “paper her to death.”  That is not a proper grounds for an atty disqualification motion.
The conclusion, interpretation  and mis-interpretation of the words and phrases of paragraph 9 (b) are evident.    The undenied affidavits of Ms. Gloria Sykes and documents filed in case 09 P 4585  provide strong evidence that serious misconduct has occurred during the 3 year ultra vires denial of Mary Sykes’ liberty, property, civil and human rights.     The aforesaid action is per se corruption–by it’s very definition–a deviation from morals, ethics or law.  Now, the publication of KDD’s September 2012 transcript containing myriads of lies from AS and PS coupled with the ROA speak for themselves.  Justice has not been done. BUT the matter is up on appeal.  It is hotly contested.  And it is submitted that the ARDC cannot say that Atty Denison is lying when in fact the case is not over and the Illinois Court of Appeals has the case right now.

Allegation 9C: c. An April 28, 2012 blog entry entitled “Fax to Lea Black at the III ARDC,” stating: Amazingly over six (6) months what was found is a clear pattern to exclude, snub, snob and ignore any pleading that Gloria filed, while on the otherhand (sic), anything offered either orally or by mere hint of suggestion by the tortfeasors (GAL’s (sic) Adam Stern-AS, Cynthia Farenga-CF, the plenary guardian’s attorney Peter Schmeidel and company – PS) was grated (sic) without findings, no hearing, no discussion, and often without any written Motion or Notice of Motion-a situation prohibited by Local Rule 2.1 which says all Motions must be in writing and the movant must provide proper notice to adverse parties. Isn’t this the classic case of corruption? ..The judge in the Probate Court declared in August of 2011 she did not have to follow court rules or Illinois Statutes pertaining to Civil Procedure in Court—she was exempt. Then she grants this privilege to the court officer miscreants-·and now it is clear for the world to see this is a continuing pattern, ala Dorothy Brown who has finally provided some meager form of computerization to the Circuit Courts.
Why aren’t the Circuit Courts of Cook County computerized when the federal courts have been computerized since 200? (sic) 1) a thousand incompetent and computer illiterate patronage workers would have to be fired in a single day (although Dorothy Brown COULD keep them on as historical imagers pushing papers thru scanners, that’s what 1 would do until they died or passed over to the eternal world of civil servant); and 2) politically connected judges and their puppet attorneys (the GAL’s) would be exposed for what they are: money grubbing, family strife churning leeches that create nothing but pain and misery in a family while swiping free parking money out of a well funded estate.
(c ) Denied–the allegation is false and the statement is true in substance and in fact that any of AS, CF or PS have followed basic laws and procedure (see, Table of Torts, attached hereto as Exhibit X).  AS and CF should have pointed out promptly to the court that Mary was not served with a Summons and Petition and Notice of date, time and place of hearing 14 days in advance, and there is no Affidavit of Service on file. In fact, it turns out the ROA reveals exactly the opposite–there IS in fact, an Affidavit of NON-service on file. (Cite).  Then PS serves Gloria with a pizza flyer, files a false affidavit of service (no where does it state this “special process server” was appointed by motion and order.  I guess that makes him “very special.”)  Gloria receives no Citation to Discover Assets properly served, no Motion to Recover Assets properly served, but the Probate Court in 09 P 4585 renders her homeless and penniless.  NOT with due process.  NOT with jurisdiction.  They just DO IT.   Justice Stuart in her deposition openly declares she does not have to follow 2-1401 requiring PS and company to file the proper petition in the proper court.  She says she can just have Judge Mulhern “transfer it back to her”, as if this was a right–a done deal.   As our ancestors suffered famously the brunt of the British taking land, property and money–all without due process of law in the 1700’s, the 18th floor of the Daley Center rides with the Red Coats again.

Pursuant to Himmel decision communications with ARDC (administrator) are required when an attorney observes violations of the law and in particular misconduct by Guardian ad Litem Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern and others.     The violation of 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) by the plenary guardian and the attornment thereto is the worst type of corruption by the legal profession.    The corruption in the Sykes case has resulted in Mary Sykes being allegedly deprived of her liberty, her property, her civil rights and her human rights.    This corruption (discriminatorily ignored by the Administrator) has result in the legislative scheme for the protection of senior citizens (and others) being thwarted.     The fact of respondent’s communication to the ARDC and nothing happening is an indictment of the Administrator and not the respondent.     At the very least an honest, complete and comprehensive investigation as to all the facts disclosed in the affidavits attached to the Motion to Dismiss and incorporated by reference and made part hereof as if set forth in detail should have been promulgated.    The prosecution herein of the messenger – who acts as a private citizen – is disingenuous, hypocritical, ultra vires and well beyond the jurisdiction of the ARDC.

Allegation 9(d):  d. A May 24, 2012 blog entry entitled “From Ken Ditkowksy – Reasons for a number of agencies to get involved and investigate,” accusing the GALs and the judges of engaging in a conspiracy in relation to Mary Sykes by stating:
Again, the entire case was railroaded, the file was peppered with packs
of lies, and these lies were rubber stamped by AS, CF and the Probate
Court in a “done deal.” Scary.
Allegation 9(d) Answer: Denied the allegation is true because the statement was false. The conclusion and mis-interpretation of the words and phrases of paragraph 9 (a) are evident.    The case was railroaded.  Atty Jay Dolgin asked for discovery, which is a routinely granted request and he was flat out denied it.  It was declared in open court Gloria “stole” $1.3 million from her mother in a settlement–when that was far from the truth.  Gloria lived in her house at 6016 Avondale (“6016″) right behind her mother’s home at 6014 Avondale, the 6016 house was bought for her and her money was used for the down payment, she paid her mortgage and made sure her mother’s mortgage was paid too.  Mary’s name was put on the home for testimentary purposes.  She never lived there. In or about 2005 her home suffered water damming and Lumberman’s “repaired” this damage but months later, a wide spread black mold infected Gloria’s home.   Mary had no furniture there.  Gloria’s name was the only one on the insurance policy and only she truly had the right to sue.  Gloria suffered breast cancer from the mold–not her mother.  The settlement was for $1.3 million, but 40% went to attys fees, another 20% or more went to litigation loans.  BUT Plenary Guardian Carolyn Toerpe (“CT”) did not tell the court all of this.  She never told the court Gloria was a long term excellent caregiver.  She did not put in her Petition that Gloria held the most recent and valid Power of Atty for HealthCare and that Gloria was named as preferred guardian.  Judge Connors routine ignored Gloria brining this up.  Gloria brought this up at least three times.  Plus, CT filed a Petition for Guardianship–together with her attys, knowing she was under a Protective Order from Mary for swiping $4,000 from one of her accounts–something prohibited under the Illinois Probate Act.  But CT became Plenary Guardian regardless of all these “hurdles”.  Mary was furious with the unannounced swiping of $4,000 and she herself went to file for the Protective Order against CT, but none of these little “technicalities” of the Illinois Probate Act concerned Judge Connors at any time.

The undenied affidavits of Ms. Gloria Sykes and documents filed in case 09 P 4585  provide strong evidence that serious misconduct has occurred during the 3 year ultra vires denial of Mary Sykes’ liberty, property, civil and human rights.   It should be noted that 15 Judges and scores of lawyers went to jail when the United States of America investigated the Circuit Court of Cook County circa 1985.    The First Amendment and Article one of the Illinois Constitution provide an absolute right on the part of any citizen to comment negatively on actions that have occurred.     The violation of 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) by the plenary guardian and the apparent attornment thereto by the Judges, Cynthia Faranga, Adam Stern,  and others is ‘fair game’ and a proper subject of discourse for lawyers, judges, and the general public.     More significantly and more egregiously the patent attempt by the Administrator to limit discourse on this subject is a clear ethical violation that must be itself investigated and prosecuted.     The First Amendment is one of the core principles of America and every public official swears to protect that right.    This instant complaint is a direct and unprovoked attack on the core principals of the United States of America and for a lawyer to not defend the constitution is the most serious of miscreant acts.

Allegation No. 9(e):
e. A June 1,2012 blog entry entitled “You’ll need some real maple syrup for this
transcript and all the waffles it provides,” stating:
Not to beat the making of waffles to death (pun intended), but from this transcript, I it is clear the judge is talking to the miscreant attys in the hallway, Scott and Gloria always see them coming from behind the judge’s private areas, and it is clear that the court is being spoonfed BS law by atty miscreants rather than having to actually read cases and make decisions based upon briefing schedules.
Answer to Allegation 9(e) Denied. The allegation is false.  The statement is true in substance and in fact.  This paragraph is taken out of context and reports extra-judicial communicates prohibited by not only the judicial canon of ethics, but a lawyers’ canon.      It is respectfully submitted that no matter how much ‘clout’ a judge or a lawyer might possess that individual is no more equal that any other citizen and the Administrator is not delegated by the Supreme Court the duty to protect the clout heavy individual.   One day while the undersigned was present in court, AS came from the judge’s door to the courtroom. This was at 2 pm when “special proceedings” like the Sykes case are preferred.    Normal cases go on at 10 am where there are tons of court watchers.  Sykes goes on at 2 pm–by itself and at the end of the call.  Sykes does not need “witnesses”.  The undersigned counsel was appalled–amazingly appalled.  She then asked Mr. Scott Evans (“Scott”) if this had happened before and he replied “all the time–the judge and AS are friends.”  She then asked Gloria about if this had happened before–and Gloria replied the same.  Disgusting.  Not even Scot nor Gloria knew this was strictly prohibited after Greylord and why it is prohibited.  It was blogged.  It was true.  I hope it has stopped.

Allegation No. 9f. A July 7, 2012 posting entitled “Fax to Mr. Kevin Connelly, Sheriffs dept regarding seizure of attorney laptops for whistle blowing,” stating: I am an attorney running a blog on 1 Referring to the transcript of the July 8, 2011 hearing in relation to Mary Sykes’ probate matter, case number 09P4585.  which appears to be a very corrupt case, with corruption reaching to the highest levels, including the ARDC … So just let me know if you are on the side of cleaning up the courts or if you are a SOP patronage worker that fears every day to be thrown under the bus for whistleblowing. You get a choice today. I think Judge Evans made his choice. Too bad it’s now permanently on the internet tagged under “corruption.”
(f) Admitted, but appalled.  Respondent admits that an illegal and unconstitutional action was taken to prevent her from taking notes in court as a blogger working on news stories for her readership.    Such reprehensible action was indeed reported to the Sheriff of Cook County.    It appears that the Sheriff takes an oath to defend the constitution.  It is believe that in retaliation to a protest that citizens and their attorneys have a First Amendment right to blog, keep the courts free, open and transparent, the Sherriff AND the Presiding Judge Timothy Evans have issued mandates regarding laptops, cell phones and tablet AND HAVE INCREDULOUSLY BANNED THEM.  Despite the fact that courts regularly make accommodations for the press, for people to report, for people to keep the court system of the US open, fair and impartial and transparent–this is the response to numerous faxes sent to Presiding Judge Evans who then directed Atty Denison to “head of security” Kevin Connelly who then ignored the faxes and never responded.  The public response, however; appears to be to ban all laptops, tablets and electronic record taking devices in an obvious suppression and oppression of the public’s First Amendment Rights to a free and open court system.

Allegations of ¶ 9(g):  A document accessible from a link on the blog entitled “Table of Torts” wherein Respondent accuses Toerpe, Schmiedel, Stern, Farenga, the probate court, and others of wrongful action, including:
CT, CF, AS, PS and HW stand to benefit handsomely by declaring Mary incompetent, evicting Gloria, selling her home – all against her wishes. The court does not stop this greed and evil. In scary shades of Greylord revisited, JD notices that CF and AS are walking the hallways in the judges’ private areas BEHIND the court room (12121111 status) … But unescorted trips to the judges’ private area is a sure fire indicator of corruption … Additional torts. It should be noted that because the Probate case involving Mary is without subject matter jurisdiction, the court and the GAL’s actions were ultra vires or without any authority.
Hence, Judge Stuart’s chaining of Gloria to tell all about her bank accounts was false imprisonment. Further, AS, CF, and CT sent numerous pleadings by USPS and via the internet, and those would constitute mail fraud, wire fraud (Comcast is a wired service) and cyber fraud. Thanks to KD pointing this out.
g) Admitted there is and has been a “table of torts” published on the blog.  All statements are true and accurate and verifiable right on the blog.  Respondent admits protesting actions on the part of Farenga, Schmiedel, Stern and others that are wrongful, discriminatory in violation of Federal Civil Rights.  During the August 16, 2013 Atty Denison noted AS entered the courtroom through the judge’s door and not the public door.  During the hearing it was reported to Atty Denison that AS and CF were frequently appearing from the judge’s door to Stuart’s courtroom and not entering via the public door. There are signs posted in courtrooms this is not permissible.  Both Scott Evans and Gloria Sykes reported frequent occurrences that AS and CF entered the courtroom through the judge’s door and not the public door.  The statement is true and accurate and comprises “fair reporting.”  AS and CF have never denied this happened in any comment or proposed posting to the blog.
With respect to the “Table of Torts”, this is a publication of the continuing wrongful conduct of attys and the court in the Sykes case.  Other than the ARDC no one has ever said that the table is wrong or inaccurate. No adverse comments have been published or requested to be published.  The ARDC stands alone in its assertion that this Table is not “fair reporting” on the Sykes situation.

Allegation 9(h): h. A July 31, 2012, blog entry entitled “For Cynthia Farenga – Motion to Dismiss/Non Suit For Lack of Sodini Jurisdiction” wherein, Respondent posts a purported motion to dismiss Sykes’ probate matter and falsely lists Farenga as the person who prepared the motion.

Answer to Allegation 9(h): Denied.  Just who told the ARDC that CF prepared this when it’s MY BLOG and MY PLEADING and why didn’t Atty Leah Black (“LB”)  read the entire post?  Right on the very day where the post came from it says right above it: CYNTHIA FARENGA SHOULD DO THE RIGHT THING AND FILE THIS!  Background: CF was complaining that “no one helps her” and she has “so much work to do.”  So I decided to lighten her conscious and her work load by doing the motion for her, so she could cut and paste and file it from the blog. I even offered to email her the word processing document in any format desired–.wpd, .doc, .rtf, .opd, etc.   If you think this is correct, please see Exhibit B, attached hereto where it makes it clear, that I was only “helping” CF out and doing her pleadings for her. Such a shame she did not file it and DO THE RIGHT THING as an officer of the court.  It’s a further shame she’s pretty much too late to do the right thing, we intend to file a Motion to Expedite this Appeal just as we did for John Wyman.

Accordingly it is DENIED that any conduct on the part of respondent was wrongful.     The statement is again inappropriate and taken out of context.

Allegation 9(i):  1. A July 28,2012 blog entry entitled “My fax to Diane Saltoun, Executive Director at the Illinois Atty General,” stating:
While the above case has a long, long history, much of which is documented on a blog to be found at the reality of the situation is that this probate proceeding boils down to garden variety theft, embezzlement, malpractice and malfeasance by attorneys and the court. .. Please look at the attached and all the information I will fax you shortly. This is a case that could be bigger than Greylord-what isbeing done to deprive grandma and grandpa of their civil rights and how the Probate court (routinely) operates.
Answer to Allegation 9(i): Respondent admits contacting law enforcement to report serious violations of the law and in particular conduct that ignored 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) directives, and further disclosed (and not denied).     It is indeed a serious matter for a senior citizen to be deprived of her liberty, property, civil and human rights.  While attorneys are NOT mandatory reporters of elder abuse and child abuse (due to the attorney client privilege and the need for litigants to speak freely with counsel and the need for everyone to be entitled to a defense), the reporting of elder abuse and child abuse is strenuously encouraged, whenever possible.  In these Probate cases, I always obtain the permission of the client to report to law enforcement on their behalf.  There is no statute preventing this and it is strictly encouraged.
Sometime during the summer of 2012, Atty JMD had a law clerk contact the “inspector general” and Atty Lisa Madigan’s offices for help on the Sykes case because it was clearly without jurisdiction and the court had not followed Illinois Probate Law from the get go.  A person in LM’s offices directed the clerk to fax not LM’s offices, but the inspector general concerning the goings on in 4585 and that’s how we started faxing Atty Diane Saltoun.  Since an “inspector general” is charged with ensuring there is no corruption in any of the agencies operated by the State of Illinois, it would appear she has jurisdiction to take on such matters.  And in fact, our offices called after that first fax and staff indicated “they were looking into the allegations.”  But after a few faxes and a few weeks, we received a letter from Atty DS’s offices saying they “don’t do that.”  We did not bother them again but merely requested they might want to follow the blog.  We are perfectly aware of the concept of “prosecutorial discretion” and we have no need to waste time or resources where a prosecutor is not interested.  It is indeed a very strange twist and turn to say “oh yes, please send us your information” and then a few weeks later, the IG says “we don’t do that.”  Hmmm….and I’m just saying.

Allegation J:   An August 21, 2012 blog entry entitled “Altered court orders, fabricating attorneys, the saga continues,” stating: Going back to last Thursday, r believe 3 orders were drafted up on those 3 issues 1) the Motion to Dismiss (and Gloria asked the judge to add in the grounds and she did-numerous Motion (sic) to Dismiss had been denied; 2) a motion to enter and continue Dr. Shaw’s testimony; and 3) I believe Amanda wanted the judge to issue another order firmly barring a1l of Gloria’s evidence and testimony.  Orders one and two are linked below: Nothing I like the time honored true fashion of if you don’t like what the order said when the parties agreed, just get the judge behind closed doors and get her to alter it. And do it messily and have two “entered”stamps on it. Even a grammar school child can forrge a parental note with more skill and care than the minimal amount which was taken in this matter to
cover up the tracks of their torts by these bumbling miscreants!
Answer to Allegation 9(j): Denied that any of the statements above were untrue or substantially false or did not consist of “fair reporting.”  During the “emergency motion” hearing on August 16, 2012, PS and AS did in fact make false statements to the court that the jurisdiction issue had been brought up numerous times by Gloria and the court denied it lacked jurisdiction “numerous times.”  PS even elaborated on this assertion by stating “he wrote an appellate brief” and “he remembers writing about jurisdiction.” (Cite to August 16, 2012 transcript).  All of it was pure and unadulterated fabrication.  The appellate case filed by Gloria was dismissed for section 341 non-compliance (cite to record and cite to an Exhibit).  The undersigned attorney went directly to the 12th floor and had a clerk print out all the imaged orders (Probate files have been imaged since March of 2011).  Gloria challenged the court to find the orders referring to or making a finding regarding the jurisdictional issue of lack of service upon Mary and the lack of Sodini notices. Neither AS nor PS could find any such “alleged orders” or show them to the court, so they blamed “pre March 2011 orders”.  Now we have the complete ROA and that is simply more fabrication.  No such orders exist or ever have existed.
Also in court that day, an Order was drafted up denying Gloria’s Emergency Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the grounds “the issue had been determined many times before.”  By the end of the hearing, Judge Stuart was visibly upset and kicked everyone out of the court room and told everyone “to come back Monday” to get the Order. By the following Monday, that phrase had been scratched out.  Gloria and I had seen the initial order and Gloria had not approved or signed off on any changes to the Order.  The Order was clearly double stamped and verbiage had been altered.  (Exh. X, hereto) As shown by the ROA, jurisdiction was NEVER considered “numerous times” and decided “numerous times” by the probate 4585 court, NOR was it ever considered on any appeal until the one filed by Gloria in September, 2012 which is pending now.

Respondent accordingly ADMITS reporting  serious violations of the law such as reports from court watchers and others.    The most serious violation of law is the particular conduct that ignored 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) directives, and further disclosed (and not denied).     It is indeed a serious matter for a senior citizen to be deprived of her liberty, property, civil and human rights.
Allegation ¶  10:   Respondent’s blog posts, as set forth in paragraph nine, above, that there was impropriety going on in relation to the Sykes case; that the GALs and the judges were corrupt; that the GALs and the court had engaged in financial exploitation or had financially profited in some way in relation to Sykes’ guardianship case; that the judge had inappropriately taken away Sykes’ rights; and that Stern, Farenga, and the judge had committed crimes, were false.

Answer to Allegation ¶ 10:  Denied that anywhere on the blog it was said that any of those statements had been proven true in any court of law.  It is obvious from the blog that these are reports, that the blog is reporting Probate news and events as told by the participants.   It is obvious on the blog that 4585 is an ongoing case, currently up on appeal.  The blog contains thoughts, opinions and conjecture–just as any other news source.  It engages in “fair reporting” and is entitled to that defense.  If anyone desires to write any opposing view, those views are welcome and published.  No one ever has written an opposing view that has even been submitted for posting. This is an ongoing case, the case is currently at the Illinois Court of Appeals on the issue of Jurisdiction, and it is clear none of the GAL’s have been indicted, prosecuted or even accused by law enforcement of any crime. Why the ARDC is resorting to twisting clear language on the blog is beyond anyone’s comprehension.  It is clear from the blog that the case is up on appeal (cite to webpage with transcripts, ROA, and my brief and Gloria’s brief).  It most certainly cannot be said that Fox News, CNN or Reddit are any better or worse than Atty Denison’s blog–and those news sources certainly can afford the most expensive law firms available.

Respondent further Admits that indeed there was gross impropriety occurring in the Probate Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County.     Ignoring 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) directives, is indeed corruption for the reasons stated supra.  The conclusions of the pleader do not require an answer.

Allegation ¶ 11:  Respondent either knew that her statements as described in paragraph nine, above, were false or she made the statements with reckless disregard as to their truth or falsity.
Answer to ¶ 11: DENIED.  The averments made against the Judge, Ms. Farenga, and Mr. Stern are accurate and true and/or consist of “fair reporting.”     The administrator has made no specific allegations that any statement of respondent is untrue.   The respondent however, submitted the affidavits of 3rd persons as a denial of the vague, discriminatory, ultra vires and wrongful averments made in this complaint.
Allegation ¶ 12(a)  By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct: a. making a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, adjudicatory officer or public legal officer, in violation of Rule 8.2 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;

Answer to Allegation para 12: DENIED.  The entire blog consists of “fair reporting” and First Amendment Rights for everyone involved in writing or commenting on the blog.  The events therein described are true and accurate to the best of the undersigned’s knowledge and belief.  After starting to run the blog “on corruption”, it was easy to determine that most complaints concerning Illinois courts occur either in Probate or in the Family Law division, with Probate being a clear winner. A disturbing pattern was quickly emerging from comments and emails regarding the blog. FED (evictions) court on the 14th floor has no such similar jurisdictional notice problems.  The judges there KNOW you have to have a summons and complaint, a properly drafted and served 5 day, 10 day or 30 day note.  They dismiss and non suit cases anytime it is alleged that either the defendant was not served, the defendant was not properly served with a 5 day note, etc.  Somehow, on the 18th floor, the judges are starting to learn.  I have personally observed BOTH judges and attys now talking about all of the following 1) serving all relatives with 14 day advance written notice of the time, date and place of hearing; 2) making the client or atty sign a certificate of service to that effect; 3) judges looking for and reviewing the Summons and Petition for Guardianship and seeing whether the Sheriff served it or there is a Motion for Special Process Server, Order appointing and Affidavit of Service.  This is HUGE progress to ensuring honesty and integrity on the 18th Floor!

Allegation para 12 b.   Respondent has engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;

Answer: DENIED.  The undersigned has done nothing but honestly blog and engage in “fair reporting”.  The blog invites comments, criticisms and corrections.  None have been submitted by any of PS, HW, AS or CF.  The ARDC has not promulgated rules with respect to disclaimers on blogs and there are no laws regarding this.  The ARDC has not shown Atty Denison’s disclaimer to be misleading, inaccurate or unreasonable.  Everyone is free to request publication and it will be published, as long as it is thoughtful, not overly insulting, and supported by some documentation or reasoning.  No one from the ARDC has ever sought publication there.  Atty Denison has tried to publish as much as she can regarding the ARDC’s position to engage in “fair reporting.”

Allegation ¶ 12(c). conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of Rule 8.4(d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;

Answer to allegation ¶ 12(c):  DENIED.   The purpose of Respondent’s blog is to bring to light corruption or aberrations from the law so that corrections may be made and the public can have faith in the Illinois court system.  Currently there are about a dozen or so probate blogs and they report nothing but ongoing serious troubles in the Illinois Probate system.  The reputation of Probate court in the relevant marketplace has been long established to be nothing less than a completely failing grade on honesty, ethics and compliance with the Illinois Probate Act.  This failing grade reputation in the relevant marketplace was firmly established long before the Respondent began her blog in November 2011 and she is most certainly NOT the cause of the public’s severe outrage and disrespect for the shennagins occurring in Probate.

Allegation Paragraph 12 D.
d) presenting, participating in presenting, or threatening to present criminal charges to obtain an advantage in a civil matter, in violation of Rule 8.4(g) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; and

Answer to Allegation Paragraph D. DENIED.  The undersigned makes it clear on her blog she is not a prosecutor and/or she only prosecutes patents, trademarks and copyrights–not criminal anything.  Prosecutors contacted have “prosecutorial discretion” and are under no obligation to listen to citizen complaints, atty complaints and take any action.  HOWEVER, if they are ethical, honest and hardworking and JUST DO THEIR JOBS, the issues in the Sykes and other case are not difficult to solve.  As of the writing of this Answer, the Respondent has been told by some of the victims, that the FBI is investigating and taking seriously many claims and they have been informed of the blog.  Atty Denison has never claimed to be the FBI or part of the FBI or any law enforcement agency.  She does not prosecute or threaten to prosecute any crime because SHE CAN’T DO THAT.  Further, it’s hard to believe that attorneys cannot report illegal activities to law enforcement.  The Rule has to be given a “reasonable interpretation” and the interpretation should be “wrongfully presenting, participating in…criminal charges to improperly obtain an advantage in a civil matter.”  There is nothing in this rule that says an attorney cannot write to law enforcement and ask them to investigate an ongoing court case.  If no wrongful activities are occurring, then there is nothing for any atty or litigant to be afraid of.  However, if a disturbing pattern of strange and highly unusual activities are occurring, an atty has a DUTY to REPORT, a duty to PROTECT her client and a DUTY to protect the public from corrupt courts.
The ARDC is twisting the wording of the rule into a dark aberration of what it was meant to be–wrongful and false reporting of a crime that never occurred, the filing of false police reports, and the like, and then asking a defendant to pay more during settlement so he or she won’t face any criminal charges.

Another concept in free speech law that the ARDC completely ignores is the “innocent construction” rule.  That is, if an innocent construction is found, it must be used because free speech should be given the widest possible berth to protect our Constitutional Rights.   While the ARDC avers that talk of “conversion, theft, embezzlement, false imprisonment, etc.” constitute talking about criminally prosecuting the miscreants, the ARDC misses the point.  Any “crime” is also a tort in and of itself.  When terms such as conversion, theft, embezzlement, false imprisonment are used on the blog, they are NOT used in the criminal prosecution sense because that is not what KDD or JMD does for a living, but they are used in the sense that these alleged “crimes” almost always translate into a civil tort for which there is a civil remedy–that is, monetary damages.
Further, the ARDC has not disclosed what, if any “advantage” is or might be obtained and what “civil proceeding” it is referring to in its alleged violation of the rule pertaining to criminal prosecutions and obtaining “an advantage” in a civil matter.  The rule seems to be linked to “I won’t prosecute you if you pay me X”–which is more than actual damages or tort damages.  The ARDC is respectfully asked to identify what “criminal proceedings” and what alleged “civil advantage”.  If it is money advantage, they should specify the money damage, but probate courts do not generally allow tort or money damages.  The ARDC needs to elaborate on its theory.  In any case, neither KDD nor JMD has asked any of the miscreants for any money or damages or tort damages or they would file a criminal complaint.  JMD has not filed any police reports in any of the cases, and the ARDC has not alleged the filing or intent to file of police reports.  The information is presented either for educational purposes or entertainment purposes, just as CSI and police shows–real or not, based upon reality or not, engage the reader to think about justice, human rights, due process, constitutional rights and engage in open and free discussions.

Allegation ¶ 12 e: conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute.

Answer to allegation ¶ 12(e) DENIED.  The undersigned has gone to great lengths to get involved in all the problems and issues brought to her attention by citizen complaints in probate and elsewhere.  She is not paid for 95% of her work on this and generally just takes donations.  She has no reason to “bring the legal profession” into disrepute.   The comments on the blog are professional and well thought out. They are based upon pleadings, declarations and the ROA which is published completely on the blog.  The blog is transparent and complete in and of itself.  Atty Denison does NOT appear on any probate blog as “most wanted” or as a miscreant; however, each of Judge Connors, Judge Stuart, GAL’s Adam Stern and Cynthia Farenga do and this is all public knowledge and is easily Googleable by the ARDC so it is not understood why the ARDC insists that Atty Denison “brings the legal profession” into disrepute when in fact, the probate blogs regularly report the foregoing miscreants as bringing the legal profession into disrepute and the ARDC conveniently ignores the reputations of these individuals in the relevant trade or business.  Most disturbingly, the ARDC uses them as their “star witnesses” to convict other honest, reputable attys who enjoy a favorable reputation in the marketplace of misdeeds and wrongdoing.  The ARDC has not identified any probate blog where Atty Denison has been accused of wrongdoing. Only AS and CF have accused Atty Denison of wrongdoing, and they themselves do not enjoy a favorable reputation in the relevant marketplace.  The probate blogs and many, many citizens have reported highly favorable of the blog and insist that it is doing good, they greatly enjoy reading it and it helps them in their travails and issues when they go to court.  The public has a right to know what will happen BEFORE they step into probate court.  The public has a right to know what is being said in the relevant marketplace by its more experienced (and sometimes greatly dissatisfied) customers.  In exchange for bringing corruption to light and cleaning up the courts, the attorneys and all persons involved should be protected by whistleblower laws and not prosecuted or persecuted for these activities.  In fact, the ARDC should immediately pass a whistleblower rule for attorneys that they and other Illinois agencies will not prosecute Illinois attorneys for reporting corruption in the courts.  It has come to my attention that Illinois attorneys need this perhaps even more so than any other  Illinois employees.  (See, Exhibit X, hereto, Illinois Whistle Blower Act (cite))

WHEREFORE: Respondent respectfully requests:

A.  The ARDC start completely reading the blog and not just portions of it and then twisting those statements into something actionable when in fact the blog is complete in and of itself and replete with documents, transcripts and pleadings posted to back up statements made.  The ARDC itself should engage in “fair reporting” or “fair pleading.”
B.  The ARDC immediately identify and propound upon Atty JMD each and every statement it will introduce at trial that they contend is either “false or made with reckless disregard for the truth” and allow Atty JMD to show on the blog how her statements and allegations are supported with transcripts, pleadings, declarations and other documents which show the blog consists entirely of “fair reporting”.
C.  The ARDC should DISMISS the instant proceeding against Atty JMD unless and until it actually finds an instance of lying or “unfair reporting” on this non commmercial blog and it must start providing Atty Denison and her blog with the full rights, protections and immunities that she, as an US citizen and practicing blogger enjoy under the First Amendment to the US Constitution AND the Illinois Constitution, Article X.
D.  The ARDC should recommit itself and its attorneys to protecting the US Constitution and First Amendment rights.  It clearly needs to retain its attorney staff on this issue.
E.  The ARDC should commend attorneys for whistleblowing activities, protect them and shield them from nefarious conduct from miscreants.    The ARDC should pass rules to implement these noble and cherished goals which have already been well established for the Illinois employer/employee relationship.

Respectfully Submitted,

Denison & Assocs., PC,
Attorneys for Appellant
Denison & Assocs., PC
Joanne M. Denison
Yusuf Naqvi
1512 N. Fremont St, #202
Chicago, IL 60642-2694
Phone: 312-553-1300
Fax: 312-553-1307

The undersigned attorney – Respondent, appearing in this case Pro Se for the purpose of handling matters until she can find new counsel of record, states that she served the following individuals by the methods shown below:
Attys Jerome Larkin, Sharon Opryszek and Melissa Smart
Attn: ARDC, One Prudential Plaza, 130 E. Randolph St, 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60601 via April____, 2013
via personal delivery
cc: readers of
I will send the required number of copies, original and three copies to the clerk of the ARDC.

JoAnne Marie Denison


3 thoughts on “Answer to Complaint by ARDC–PLEASE HELP!

  1. I would ask them what the atty have taught me “Would you elaborate” Could you please explain Would you be willing to be more specific

    if you are not a lawyer You can have a blog and Speak without sanctions

    You could probably make more $ doing research and writing for other attorneys and refer all of us and still do the work behind the scene and get paid



    • Maybe. Thanks for your positive thoughts. I think we always need to keep things positive, even though we have to do a lot of questioning sometimes regarding what is going on in the courts. For example, I simply cannot fanthom why your niece is in such an expensive institution the taxpayers are paying for when you want to take her home and be her guardian and you are well trained. What’s up with that?
      Again, this blog is about questioning things until we get back to a system in probate of honor, integrity, ethics and proper procedure

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s