As law enforcement likes to conduct its investigations by the ‘clear light of hindsight’ it is nice to save letters that will be hard to explain by governmental agencies paid by the People of the State of Illinois to protect the public when all the facts are on the table. The attached letter is in response to my letter to the IARDC to do an HONEST complete and comprehensive investigation of the Sykes matter. As the IARDC has an obligation as part of its mandate to protect the public, any fair minded citizen would believe that it was disingenuous for the IARDC to refuse to conduct such an investigation in light of the fact that for over four years Mary Sykes has been held against her will and deprived of her liberty, property, civil rights and human rights pursuant to void court orders.
After all, if you are attempting to separate attorneys from their FIRST AMENDMENT rights it would follow that any legitimate and honest government agency would like to have all the facts in front it before it acted in such a manner. This is especially true in light of the New York Times cases, Alvarez, Brown, et al and the very questionable claim of the IARDC to jurisdiction over citizens who have not been allowed to participate in the Sykes, but, as citizens have exercised their First Amendment Rights. The New York times case does not mince words – it says that government does not have the ‘power’ (sic Jurisdiction) to regulate content based speech!
Thus, it is respectfully suggested that the attached letter indicates that Mr. Larkin, is not only ignoring the Rule of Law set forth by the Supreme Court of the United States, but assuming jurisdiction that he does not have in his prosecution of both Ms. Denison and myself. The attached letter makes it very clear that Larkin’s myoptic inquiry will not include an HONEST complete and comprehensive investigation of dozens of citizen complaints concerning Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga, Peter Schmiedel and his own staff. He is not going to investigation the fact that:
1) CT was named in a petition for a protective order by Mary Sykes and mysteriously this petition was never heard.
2) the Report of proceedings in the Sykes case reveals what should be highly unusual events, to wit:
a) no documentation of the jurisdictional requirements required to obtain jurisdiction over Mary Sykes by the Court.
b) no medical testimony as to Mary Sykes incompetency, and in particular the attempted suppression of videos taken at the time of the alleged incompetency that reveal competency. Removing of hearing aids from a elderly person desperately in need of them and interviewed said person who cannot hear the questions will produce some interesting results.
c) no attempt to comply with 11a – 3
d) the omission of Mary’s two siblings from the 11a – 8 petition
e) denial of Mary Sykes First, Fifth, and 14th amendment rights
f) admission of neglect by the plenary guardian
g) allegations by family members of theft by the plenary guardian of over a million dollars in assets – and the failure of the plenary guardian to inventory the same, or to deny the theft.
h) unusual expenditures by the plenary guardian who weeks before allegedly stole $4000.00 from Mary Sykes.
i) 2 guardian ad litem appointed in a small estate.
j) LACK OF JURISIDICTION attacks on my attempt to investigate the Sykes case, a prior judgment -(735 ILCS 5/2 1401 being ignored).
k) isolation (further abuse) of Mary Sykes from her family, her friends, her activities, her property and her civil and human rights.
It is respectfully averred that Mr. Larkin was interested in is censoring the calls by yours truly and Ms. Denison for an HONEST complete and comprehensive investigation. Even with the current revelations Mr. Larkin and the IARDC is not interested in conducting an HONEST complete and comprehensive investigation, but, as illustrated by the deposition taken of Ms. Denison , appears engaged in what I in exercising my FIRST Amendment Rights would call a ‘cover-up.’ NB. The foregoing is content related speech! At this point in time the IARDC is aware of SCOTUS rulings and 47 USCA 230. Such conduct is highly suspicious in the mind of yours truly and should be the subject of an Honest investigation by law enforcement and in particular the United States of America.
Please note that I copied the IARDC with this e-mail as Democracy is not a spectator sport and most importantly a government institution such as the IARDC has a fiduciary duty to the public. It is respectfully submitted that I do not wish to give Mr. Larkin or the IARDC any opportunity to in the future claim that he and the IARDC were not fully informed and requested to protect the public from ‘guardian’ aided and abetted “elder cleansing.” Mr. Larkin may consider this e-mail and the publication of the attachment to be unethical, but, as a citizen pursuant to the Bill of Rights and Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution I have the right to do so. Pursuant to the Himmel case promulgated by the IARDC as an attorney I have a duty to disclose wrongdoing to the IARDC. This duty includes the disclosure of wrongdoing by the staff of the IARDC. INTENTIONAL VIOLATION OF THE FIRST, FIFTH, AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION are events that Himmel requires reporting!