Answers to ARDC Requests for Documents

See below;

And if anyone wants me to turn over anything to the ARDC, please post it under “comments” or send me a note with your stuff.

thanks

joanne
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION AND DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION

In Re:

JOANNE MARIE DENISON

Attorney-Respondent
Reg. No. 6192441

Commission No. 2013 PR 0001

NOTICE OF FILING
TO:
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 my Answers to the ARDC’s Notice to Produce, 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,
Illinois.

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
joanne@denisonlaw.com

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION AND DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION

In Re:
Commission No. 2013 PR 0001
JOANNE MARIE DENISON

Attorney-Respondent
Reg. No. 6192441

JMD’s Response to the Notice to Produce from the ARDC

This is in response to the ARDC’s Notice to Produce which was fiiled on Feb 11, 2013, and which is timely filed pursuant to a prior court order.

At the outset it should be noted that JMD had to take extra steps to answer the Notice to Produce from the ARDC because the ARDC did not provide the Notice to Produce (NTP) in electronic, word processing format. Hence the below was scanned and OCR’d and the original NTP send by the ARDC were of poor quality.  Accordingly the OCR’ing errors below should be ignored unless and until the ARDC can provide the e-files or better copies of their NTP.

RESPONSE

At the outset it should be noted that the Complaint filed on January 8, 2013 is regarding a blog.  As such, everything regarding the parties, the issues, the commentary–everything should be on the blog. The purpose of the blog is to promote justice and integrity of the courts and the ARDC by showing transparency and that attorneys are doing their jobs by investigating (pursuant to FRCP 11 and ILSCR 137) and reporting misconduct properly and promptly to the authorities (law enforcement pursuant to statutes relating to the encouraged reporting of elder abuse and financial exploitation and Himmel).  Accordingly, documents on the blog, available for download and known to the ARDC will not be further provided unless specifically requested by the ARDC to avoid duplication of effort.  All documents will be made available for inspection and copying at the address shown below, and may be put on disk or thumb drive, as requested by the ARDC.
CONTINUING OBJECTIONS
Continuing objections: All of the activities complained of by the ARDC consist of blogging about the Sykes case–a case which the Respondent was blocked from appearing on since December 2009.  The blog was begun in November of 2011–nearly two years later.  Atty Denison has not represented any member of the Sykes family, except Gloria Sykes, the younger daughter, and that representation ended on December 7, 2009 when she was disqualified.
Illinois has a number of provisions relating to the rights of attorneys to blog freely in their private life.
A) Non commercial speech The ARDC has admitted that the speech of atty Denison on her blog, http://www.MaryGSykes.com is non commercial in nature. That makes it private speech from a private citizen with the rights to voice her concerns and petition her government under the First Amendment provisions of the US constitution and the Illinois Constitution–rights which are to be broadly construed.

“Whether the inherent character of a statement places it beyond the protection of
the First Amendment is a question of law over which *** this Court exercises (s) de
novo review.” Peel v ARDC 496 US 191, 108 (1990). An Appellate Court must
independently examine the entire record in First Amendment cases to ensure that”
‘a forbidden intrusion on the field of free expression’ “has not occurred Bose Corp
v. Consumers Union of United States Inc., 466 US 485, 490 (1984) quoting New York
Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 US, 254, 284 -86 (1964) ). “H. F. Hunter vs. Virginia State
Bar ex ret 3rd District Committee 2013 WL 749494

“only upon a showing that the restriction directly and materially advances a
substantial state interest in a manner no more extensive than necessary to serve that
interest. See, e.g., Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Servo Comm’n oIN.Y.,
447 U.S. 557, 564, 566,100 S.Ct. 2343,2350,2351,65 L.Ed.2d 341. The State’s
burden is not slight: It must demonstrate that the harms it recites are real and that
its restrictions will in fact alleviate them to a material degree. See, e.g., Edenfield v.
Fane, 507 U.S. 761, 771, 113 S.Ct. 1792, 1800, 123 L.Ed.2d 543. ****” Ibanez v.
Florida Dep’t of Bus. & Profl Regulation, Bd. of Accountancy, 512 U.S. 136, 114 S. Ct.
2084,2085, 129 L. Ed. 2d 118 (1994)

B) The ARDC complaint is all about Gloria Sykes (“Gloria”) and her Mother Mary G. Sykes (“Mary”) and the blog tells their side of their story.

Paragraphs mentioning Toerpe or Gloria or “Sykes” : 1, 2, 3. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, I, j, 10, 11 (refers to above paragraphs), 12 (refers to above paragraphs

However, Atty JMD has not represented Gloira since Jan 2010, and has not represented the family at all.  Her blogging activities and her blog stand as a private citizen with respect to the blog.

Atty JMD has not been retained by any of Toerpe, Gloria or any of her family during the time she began and has run the blog.  Gloria has not paid JMD anything for running her blog.  The blog is a private effort by a US citizen to report upon corruption in the courts.

The ARDC has not been granted any authority to regulate the activities of private citizens.

The ARDC has taken the position with myself and KDD that we cannot provide free legal advice to Gloria Sykes and that’s just wrong.  There is no law, there is no ARDC rule.  Adam Stern has said, KDD and myself seem to write things to Gloria which makes her write pleadings, and that makes “more work” (KDD hearing transcript from September, 2012) , which takes away from his “work”.  (I really hate it when I keep opposing counsel from taking on more lucrative cases than probate for $250 per hour – tops.  AS sure has the right to make $500 per hour or more, and I’m sorry my blog and free legal advice and KDD keep him away from that).  Cynthia Farenga, GAL told JMD at the outset, JMD cannot represent Gloria because I would “paper her to death.”

It appears that both GAL’s on the case have admitted that they wanted no lawyers around Gloria to ensure her side of the story was never told to the court and CT and the GAL’s got what they wanted – without opposition or the “other side of the story.”

What was done in Sykes was highly unjust–railroading her mother into an unwanted guardianship when Gloria treated her like a queen.  The matter is hotly contested and up on appeal. CF, AS and PS continue to lie about the case, make claims that are purely fabricated, and that is all clearly shown by the ROA.  As told on the blog, there was no summons upon Mary, no notice of hearing 14 days in advance, CT’s Petition was defective, the elderly sisters were not served 14 days advance notice of the summons and complaint, Mary’s Petition for a Protective Order swiping $1400 out of her account was never heard, Gloria was never served with a Citation to Discover Assets, a Citation to Recover assets, there was no Motion for a Special Process Server, Appointment of a Special Process Server and worse of all THE ARDC HAS THE RECORD ON APPEAL, AND REFUSES TO ACKNOWLEDGE THESE IRREGULARITIES AND REFUSES TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE MATTER IS CURRENTLY UP ON APPEAL AND HOTLY CONTESTED.

What does the ARDC do?  They continue to listen to GALs Farenga and Stern–entities who have long ago appeared on NASGA’s most wanted list for having a negative reputation in the relevant marketplace.

At KDD’s trial–all of the ARDC’s key witnesses had a negative reputation in their relevant market place, but THE ARDC USED THEM.

I run a blog.  I report probate news–for free.  The Sykes case is news.  I engage in “fair reporting” and I allow comments.  No one comments anything adverse–except the ARDC.

C.  The ARDC has no right or jurisdiction to regulate the private citizen activities of lawyers

The ARDC, Respondent submits, does not have the right to regulate the private citizen activities of lawyers, and esp. with respect to running a blog that reports on corruption.

Quotes from the “Rules of the ARDC”:

Rule 1: The rules are regarding the “fitness of an attorney to practice [her] profession.

Rule 2: (a) Misconduct is.. behavior of an atty which violates the ICPR or which tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the courts of legal profession into disrepute.

Since the probate blogs on the internet are replete with anecdotes, instances, pleadings, transcripts, documents, etc. that have verified for years the 18th floor of the Daley canter has flouted basic rules of Ill. Civ. Procedure, millions of dollars of assets are documented as missing from numerous estates, atty JMD submits that her blog does NOTHING but help the courts become ethical, honest and transparent. She fights for the rights of litigants to blog and calendar with laptops, cell phones and tablets.  She has done nothing but bring the courts out of darkness and into the light.  She has recently actually HEARD probate judges ask to look at the summons and complaint, notice of hearing to the alleged ward and family members.  How wonderful is that?  It’s a start, that’s for sure.

BUT – Nothing in the above rules allow for the ARDC to regulate the private lives of attorneys who are operating within the boundaries of the law.  Atty Denison’s blogs are not illegal in any method, manner or form.  She has not represented Gloria Sykes and has no contract for legal services for many long months.  What the parties say in private is none of the ARDC’s business because they have not been granted the right to regulate emails of private citizens to communicate between themselves.

The ARDC has not been granted the right to regulate the private lives of lawyers.  The ARDC has no more right to regulate my blog than it does to regulate my Girl Scout Troop, my postings on Reddit, my postings on Ravelry.com or my postings on Favecrafts.com or any of my knitting and crocheting projects.  If I drop a stitch, the ARDC cannot disbar me or censor me!

D.  Illinois Anti Slapp Statute: see prior Motion filed by atty JMD, which was denied and will be soon up on appeal.

E.  Motion for Supervisory Order from SCOI.  Already filed and answered.  Currently up on appeal to US Supreme Court, Petition for Writ of Cert to be filed this week.

Requests and Answers:

1. Any and an items, including notes, memoranda, records, documents,
correspondence, e~mails, text messages, electronically stored infoDllation, and files, related to any of the matters in the Administrator’s complaint.

Response: The Administrator has not made a list “of matters” encompassed in the Complaint.  The Administrator has only in the complaint listed 16 paragraphs from JMD’s blog.  The Administrator has been provided with a copy of the blog through the copyright to early Feb 2013.  JMD has made no further downloads, but will supplement that soon as it is done for an updated copyright registration.  Copies of the blog can be made on a thumb drive.  Please provide a list of your “matters.”  Please provide how you want the documents electronically.  If you wish to have paper copies, please either make these yourself, or arrange for a 3rd party vendor to make them.  Our law offices do not keep paper around.

2. Any and alII items, including notes, memoranda, records, documents,
correspondence, e-lUails, text messages, electronically stored information, and files, related to any comacts or commu1.1.icat~o11s with any of the paltics in connection. with tJ,lC mat1:ers a.lleged in the Administrator’s complaint. 05/07/2013 15:20 3125401243 ARDC PAGE 10/12

Response: the only “parties” to the Complaint are JMD and “the Administrator”.  JMD has had little or no direct correspondence with “the Administrator.”  In fact, “the Administrator’s” email I don’t think works at all and I generally email.  Everything said has been put on the blog.  It is open, transparent, and downloadable.

3. Any and all awards~ commendations, of apprecialion, d.egrees and
citations r.elated to any charitable. or humanitarian activities or intentional pro bono services, if you intend to testify to or offer any such evidenc.e at any hearing in this matter.

Response: JMD will make awards available for inspection and copying.  Cost of Corruption comprises mostly pro bono services to probate victims.  JMD does not require payment of money to take on cases involving probate victims.  She helps and assists anyone, including the ARDC.  Probate is not her business, she only takes on desperate cases where a probate victim cannot find an attorney due to lack of funds or they won’t go up against the OPGs or GALs, which is very common.  Cost of Corruption is found on the blog, of course!

4. Any and alll notes, memoranda, recor.ds, documents, correspondence and files
related to your or any immediate family member’s medical, mental, psychiatric or psychological evallli1.tion, treatmen.t or .hospitalization, if you intend to testify to or offer any such evidence at any hf;:~aring in this matter.

Response:   The blog has not undergone psychiatric examination that I am aware of.  Perhaps doctors Amdur, Shaw and Rabin can testify at trial it is incompetent and get guardianship of my blog.

5. Any aJ.jd all notes, memoranda, rec.ords, documents, oorrespolldence and files
provided to any and all prospective witnesses, and any and all notes, memoranda; rec-ords, dOClllJlents, correspondence and files upon which any witl1ess who is expected to testify on your behalf at any hearing in this matter. relies upon or claims to rely upon for all or part of the basis of hi.s/her opinions relating to th.is matter;

Response: Since the ARDC has not listed its “matters” in issue, nor has it listed the statements it claims are “false or made with reckless disregard for the truth thereof”, it is not known at this time exactly what, if anything JMD will rely on at trial.  As soon as JMD receives a list of allegedly “false statements”, a list of “threats of criminal prosecution”, a list of the “advantages claimed” in a civil matter which the ARDC claims, she will supplement this response with exactly where on the blog the documents, pleadings, exhibits and memoranda the truth can be found.

6. Any and all notes, memoranda, records, documents, correspondence, transcripts
and cxhibjts you intend to offer into evidence, ma.y offer into evidence or may use at any hearing jn this matter.

Response: As soon as the ARDC identifies what exhibits it will use, JMD will show where the affidavits, declarations, pleadings, documents and the like exist on her blog to show all statements made were true or substantially true.  The parties need to exchange an exhibit list first. A list of exhibits in opposition and their placement on the blog will be provided.

7. A list of all names, addresses and specialty areas of any and all opinion witnesses,
and a copy of their respecti’ve curriculum vitae.

Response: No such list exists.  As soon as JMD makes a list, such a list will be provided.  Objection: the Document request appears to be more appropriately labeled “interrogatory”.

8. The Administrator further requests that you provide an affidavit of compliance: in
accordance with Supreme Court Rule 214, stating whether your p1’Oductioll is complete in response to the Administrato.r.’s Notice to Produce and, for each requested item that you have claimed is not in your possession, stating that you have disclosed all inf0rl11ation calculated to Jead to the whereabouts of the requ.ested item.

Response: A declaration is listed herebelow indicating that all documents, as kept in the ordinary course of business will be made available for inspection and copying either on disk or on thumbdrive or they can be used from the blog itself.  Please indicate a preference, if any.  If the ARDC desires paper copies, it should designate a private vendor such as Kinkos, Mite Fast, and the like commonly used in the profession, and documents will be shared with that provider for pick up by the ARDC.  Again, we do not keep paper copies of the blog.  Third party vendors can provide those to the ARDC and we will be glad to share them on Google Drive share since the ARDC said it “doesn’t do that”–despite millions of other users around the world “use that.”

9. If any document is withheld. i.n whole or in part due to a claim of privilege or
work product, we request that YOT..l provide our office with a privUege log identifying the basis for the ci.aim., th,e date of the docun:)ent, its :il.lJthor, its subject matter, custodian and all known recipients or persons iIi possession. of the document, in order to allow a tribunal to adjudicate the validity of the claim.

Response: There are literally thousands and thousands of emails from Atty Ken Ditkowsky, Ms. Gloria Sykes and her family and friends, other probate victims and blogs, etc.  I have asked if anyone will allow me to disclose anything other than what is on the blog and the answer was a resounding “no.”  If I was allowed to make anything public, it is already on the blog.  I publish just about everything. Many probate victims have already sworn me to secrecy of their identities AND their writings and phone calls.  Most do not trust the ARDC, nor the probate court. They believe they were abused in probate, then abused again by the ARDC not answering their complaints, then abused again by the JIB not answering their complaints, and they just can’t take another layer of abuse in all of this.  Many miss their family and friends dearly.  There is no answer.  For them, death is the only way out.

Respectfully Submitted,

__________________________________
JoAnne Marie Denison
Prepared by:
Denison & Assocs, PC
1512 N Fremont St, #202
Chicago, IL 60642
ph 312-553-1300
fax 312-533-1307
http://www.denisonlaw.com

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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