There is no evidence there is a summons, petition and notice of rights properly served upon her. Personnel at the Sheriff’s offices either won’t talk about service or confirm she was never served.  There is no proper affidavit of service that says I served a summons, petition and notice of  rights in large bold type upon Mary.

There is no evidence at all in the record, even assuming arguendo she was served, there is no further service to her of the time, date and place of hearing on December 7, 2012 and appointment of CT on December 10, 2012.  Sodini is jurisdictional and confirmed by In re Steinfeld and In re Tiffany.

There are numerous continuances of Carolyn’s petition, (9/21/09, 10/6/09, 10/23/09, 11/6/09, 11/10/09, 11/18/09) and sometimes Mary was present and sometimes she was not.  She was in Carolyn’s care and ordered by Connors to go home and CT never took her home–in clear defiance of prior court orders.  There is no evidence she was every served with these orders, shown them and there are no Certificates of Service they were mailed to her, or if in court, she was given a copy and signed off on the continuances.  There is no evidence Mary had a computer or could look up the dates on her own (she could not).  According to the Wyman decision, you will need to do an affidavit or declaration of all of this.

the ROA is done.  Mary came back to you alone and furious on or about Aug 31, 2013 when she was taken downstairs to the Sheriff’s office and returned saying she “wanted an atty” and “wanted to fight this” and didn’t want Carolyn as her guardian.

You had last POA.

Get a reply brief in and GET IT DONE.

YOU CAN DO THIS GLORIA AND STAY ON POINT.

joanne

PS and don’t forget in Ken’s hearing, AS said that by doing this and my blog creates “more work” for him that takes away from “his work”.  So for all of you out there, it is clear that AS and CF and the ARDC want to cut off your rights to free legal advice.  They don’t want Mary to know she has civil and human rights and she can “fight this.”  Gloria and her would have been aligned.  AS and CF say there was a conflict between Ken and Mary and myself and Mary when there was not.  She HAD the right to her own attorney, she HAD the right to dispute the guardianship.  What the tied in probate attorneys want is to get to your estate, deplete it and not bother with summons, notice, petition, an attorney for you or the attorney you want.

By telling you this, I shake up Probate and they “get honest”.

I don’t want to have to say this, I hate this.  I hate the fact I have a fight with the ARDC over all of this.  They are unfair, draining and debilitating.  But my choice has already been made.  I will blog for YOU the reader, for your grandma and grandpa and their human rights, civil rights and liberties.

I will post on the Citizen’s United case today for you.  Ken Ditkowsky was right.  Citizens United over rules tons of older cases and strongly says the government cannot control content oriented speech.  47 USC 230 says I have complete and clear immunity for my blog.  Chair Sang Yul Lee, yesterday during my “pre-hearing”, while he was busy saying I get discovery “only after” the hearing and “only if he thinks it helps”, told me that if I wanted to claim a “reporter shield law privilege” I’d better be sure it applies to me!

According to ARDC disciplinary rules now, you can’t get a list of the statements the ARDC claims are untrue, you can’t do any dispositive motions before your evidentiary hearing/trial.

The whole process has become a railroad.  This is what lawyers do to their own.

One lawyer was disciplined in his state for disclosing the fact that of 400+ lawyers disciplined in his state, only 4 came from large law firms.

I think as a patent attorney, for years going to Federal Court, I probably lived in a little bubble and maybe I liked it there.  But no more.  I see what is really going on, and I am not at all happy.

And the public distrusts us highly.  I wonder why.

But lawyers can do better, a whole lot better.  They can make their own disciplinary rules better and more helpful.  The ARDC can tell their counsel to cooperate with Respondents, help them, assist them.  The ARDC can recommit itself to the principles of upholding the US and Illinois State constitution.  In fact, the ARDC has programs for druggie and drunk lawyers and judges, why not mouthy ones that run blogs.

How is it that druggie, drunk lawyers get help and a pass, but us lawyers who run blogs trying help the system and make it better and fairer to the public are treat like pariahs?

Why can’t I say that Gloria (and others, they will testify) were snubbed, ignored and not given due respect in court?

I think there’s room for improvement.  I will publish the transcripts and you can all comment on them.  I think the ARDC and tribunal can do better on this case.

Citizen’s United demands it.