This will be submitted to the ARDC today:
My qualifications as an expert in Constitutional Law are as follows:
I am a graduate of the University of Chicago, and Loyola School of Law. I received my law degree on or about November 28, 1961 I am (or was ) listed in Who’s Who in America and Who’s Who in Law. I argued the case of Terrazas vs. Vance before the Supreme Court of Illinois, and was the lead attorney in Berger vs. Berg, a teacher case in which the 7th Circuit ruled that a teacher under the circumstances of Ms. Berger had a liberty interest in her position. Previously, any teacher without tenure was deemed not eligible to sue under 42 USCA 1983. If you look up my name of WestLaw there is a list of some of the appeals that I handled, including a number of Civil Rights actions.
I can offer you the following opinion: After reading the statute 755 ILCS 5/11a – 1 et seq. It is my opinion that the Illinois legislature adopted a comprehensive plan for the protection of senior citizens and disabled people. This plan has been ruled by the Illinois Supreme Court and the Appellate Court of Illinois to require strict compliance with 11a – 10 and have made the compliance jurisdictional. They did this so as to protect the due process rights of senior citizens such as Mary Sykes. The said statute is comprehensive in its attempt to protect senior citizens (and other disabled persons) from the Buck vs. Bell approach. The declaration of incompetency is not a ‘death sentence’ and does not give the guardians a ‘life and death’ decree to deprive a senior of her liberty and property.
11a – 3 provides a strict limitation on the authority of a Court that obtains jurisdiction pursuant to 11a – 10. It imposes the ancient ‘parens patrie’ credo of providing the help that an disabled person requires preserving the liberty and property rights. I assure due process section 11a – 7 sets venue where the Court can most comfortably oversee the disabled person and make certain that her rights are not infringed upon. to assure that the disabled person is protected, section 11a – 8 requires that particular disclosures are made. One of the disclosures is the identity of ‘close relatives’ such as siblings. (It should be noted that if you examine the petition filed in the Sykes case it is inadequate as it fails to disclose either sibling of Mary Sykes).
to protect against over zealous guardians the guardian must pursuant to 11a – 17 and 11a – 18 give the Court (and serve notice) of any changes in the life or life style of the disabled person.
Based upon the record in the Sykes case it is apparent that 1) venue is wrong, 2) the petition is faulty, 3) whatever was attempted as a hearing was faulty = a person must be declared incompetent by ‘clear and convincing evidence’ This means that someone must testify in every case who can testify as a medical certainty that x, y, and z facts exist or do not exist. As the person who is subject to the proceeding might be incompetent it is a matter of due process and jurisdiction that the close relatives receive 14 days prior notice and every consideration be afforded the alleged incompetent. This in Sykes 4) there was no jurisdiction and 5) the Court did not follow the statute.
Thus, in my opinion the proceedings were deficient, no jurisdiction was obtained and Farenga, Stern, et al knew or should have known that 1) there was no jurisdiction and that 2) that the denial of Mary of her civil, human, liberty and property rights was wrongful. Pursuant to Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution and the1st, 5th and 14th amendments tot he United STates Constitution Mary Sykes civil rights were violated. Pursuant to the 1st, 5th and 14th amendments you rights were violated by the IARDC prosecution of you and pursuant to section 230 the IARDC knew or should have known that in attempting to impede your blog they were violating you civil rights and statutory rights.
However, it goes much further. As an agency of the State (i.e. the Supreme Court of the United States) the IARDC knew or should know that it and its staff is required to follow the RULE OF LAW. In following the law the IARDC is aware that the information placed on your blog is content based speech and it has no delegation of authority to regulate it. In particular the Citizen’s United, Alvarez, Brown, New York Times and a host of other cases decided by the Supreme Court have determined that such is protected speech and it is unconstitutional for government to directly or indirectly interfere with the same. A disciplinary proceeding is such an interference and therefore ultra vires!
The really sad part of all of this is that the foregoing is basic. Pre-teen age children are required by law to be aware of these principles as a condition of being admitted to ‘high school’ It should be mandatory for lawyers to understand at least as much as the average 12 year old!