While KDD did a great job before of answering my complaint, the ARDC wants me myself and personally to answer the complaint, because I am not represented–yet!
So see below and email me for comments and suggestions. It is due today, end of day.
Also, if you’re an atty or con law expert, email me because I am looking for some good representation and expert witnesses at this time.
And, once again, ARDC Attys Sharon Opryszek and Melissa Smart are under a gag order from the Tribunal, and in particular Atty Sang Yul Lee “not to help me” with this Answer (which is fairly interesting and pretty darned funny–what a control freak) BUT YOU ALL CAN HELP ME.
So let me know what you think and if you have any suggestions.
Take care all, and know I am here for YOUR first amendment rights. I fight the good fight, the battle with the dragons that will slay our constitution and first amendment rights. The judges that issue “gag orders” like the British courts did against the colonists and kept the tribunals secret 225 years ago.
No more of that! I know my history.
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION AND DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION In Re:
JOANNE MARIE DENISON
Attorney-Respondent
Reg. No. 6192441 Commission No. 2013 PR 0001
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF JANUARY 8, 2013
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. 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.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.
The Complaint only concerns a blog–which is a private activity
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 (wrongfully) 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.
Answer (without waving any rights)
Allegation ¶ 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
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 denied, 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 construedwhere 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”) (see ROA on blog). 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. 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 Vimeo.com 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.
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 Good 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.
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 right under the US and Illinois Constitution. 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 Ms. 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.
2. 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.
(b) The illegal isolation of Mary Sykes from siblings and her younger daughter.
(c) Collateral actions in violation of 735 ILCS 5/2 1401 initiated by ‘judicial officials’
(d) 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 passwordprotected.
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 7. 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 hipocrasy.
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 statement was false. It 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.
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.
Response: (c ) Denied–the statement is true in substance and in fact that any of AS, CF or PS have followed basic laws and procedure. 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.
(d) Answer: Denied the statement was false. The conclusion and misinterpretation 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 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 this was brought up to Judge Connors.
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 numerous lawyers went to jail when the United States of America investigated the Circuit Court of Cook County. 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 as being 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.
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 http://www.marygsykes.com/ 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. 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 securiy” 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. 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.
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 http://www.marygsykes.com. the reality of the situation is that this probate proceeding boils down to garden variety theft, embezzlement, malpractice and mal feasance 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 encourage, 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 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.
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 ike the time honored true f~lshion 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 fc)rge 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 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.
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. 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.
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 morals. This failing grade reputation in the relevant marketplace was firmly established long before the Repondent began her blog in November 2011 and she is most certainly NOT the cause of the public’s severe outrage and disrespect for the goings on 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.
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% this and generally just takes donations. She has no reason to “bring the legal profession” into disrepute. The Probate blogs 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 ignornes the reputations of these individuals in the relevant trade or business. 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 travils and issues when they go to court.
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.
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 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 the rights of the public to free and democratic and open court rooms and talk to Presiding Judge Timothy Evans and convince him free and open blogging is a necessity in a society with freedom of speech and an open democracy.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
_______________________________
JoAnne M. Denison
Yusuf Naqvi,
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Prepared By:
JoAnne M. Denison, Atty. No. 14,867
Yusuf Naqvi
Denison & Associates, PC
1512 N Fremont St, #202
Chicago, IL 60642
phone: 312-553-1300
fax: 312-553-1307
http://www.denisonlaw.com
JoAnne@DenisonLaw.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
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 May 28, 2013
via personal delivery
I will send the required number of copies, original and three copies to the clerk of the ARDC.
__________________________________
JoAnne Marie Denison
NOTE: PLEASE SAVE TREES BY ACCEPTING EFILING. PIXELS NEVER DIE AND THEY DON’T CLEAN THE AIR.
MaryGSykes.com 