Hearing for KDD
Exceptions have been filed by the appellant.
Mr. D has 20 min to present, administrator 20 min to respond and then 10 min response.
KDD starts
I am here as an atty as a private citizen. I was never involved in Sykes as an atty in until I was brought in on the sanction motion. This was vacated and they ruled that I was a private citizen in that case. I am a private citizen and as such I am entitled to a full complement of rights under the first amendmentto the US constitution
My position is recognized by not only by most jurists, but also by the state of Illinois and ask that you please read 750 ILCS sec 110 (refers to the Illinois Citizens Participation act) wherein a statement has been made by the Illinois Legislature. It is stated therein that public policy of the State of Illinois is to foster free speech, arguments, debates, positions, opinions, etc. and that this is vital to the preservation of an open and free democracy.
Illinois has a guardianship law that deems to protect senior citizens from abuse, in particular the abuse of being railroaded, just as Mary Sykes was, and this statute exists so that judges and attorneys can try to avoid the improper imposition of guardianship. I have gone into those guardianship issues in great detail in my brief and else where.
Referring now to 720 ILCS 4. In particular it says that if I make an abuse claim I am given immunity from prosecution and even disciplinary action.
The position of the ARDC here in this case is in fact 100% out of phase. The commission never received the right to deal with my first amendment rights.
The supreme court has said nothing about allowing lawyer disciplinary boards being allowed to interfere with my constitutional rights, and there is stare decisis, and this commission is bound by those rules of law, just like everyone else is so bound.
The Gentile case was never cited by the Administrator because of the statement by Justice Renquist that disciplinary rules cannot publish actions protected by the first amendment.
I as a citizen am entitled to these first amendment rights.
I am a private citizen in relation to the Sykes case.
All I have done is I made a demand for an honest, complete and comprehensive investigation of elder cleansing. It is the first cousin to racial and ethnic cleansing–and I need not define those for anyone in this room. I have the right to make that demand to investigte, I have the right to email Mr. Holder, or any other official concerning the Sykes case. Nonetheless, I was in a hearing room where I as asked to repent for writing that letter–a letter merely requesting that a complete, honest and thorough investigation be made of the Sykes case.
It is firmly my constitutional right to write that letter.
The US Supreme Curt has reviewed a number of first amendment rights, the latest case is one of the most liberal cases: under Alverez, as a private citizen, I have the right to claim I earned the congressional medal of honor, when in fact I have not.
My first amendment rights extend to virtual child porn under X case.
In the Brown case, violent video games are allowed.
In Snyder, I can go to a funeral and I can say things that are absolutely appalling to the mourners present.
Citizens United clearly wraps this all up and says that first amendment and content based speech is totally protected and the government may not intrude upon my first amendment free speech rights.
The Supreme Court says that in order to take a case it must be investigated. Rule 127 says I cannot file a case recklessly. I must investigate. In April 2010, when Mary’s friends and family came in and they told me Mary had been unfairly railroaded into a guardianship she opposed, I knew I first had to follow this Rule 127 requirement. However, Rule 127 is not meant to be a catch 22. It cannot be argued that I must investigate but if I do, other attorneys may complain I am acting unethically. This is only an ethical obligation and not a trap for the unwary.
How can it ever be unethical to follow the rules of the court?
If you look at the Sykes case, these statements are backed up by affidavits and declarations, by Gloria Sykes, the sisters and the transcripts of the proceeding. You will notice that not a single person who had actual knowledge was called to testify. No person who had actual knowledge of the facts of the theft. No actual person was asked about the 6 trips to the emergency room.
If you want to look at the gold coins, Gloria Sykes was a signatory on the safe deposit box. She had an ownership interest in the box. Yolada Bakken had told me that the bag of coins was about (gestures) 10″ high and 6″ around and it that it had 6 inches of gold coins in it.
Carolyn Toerpe was never called, yet she has been accused of stealing from the estate.
What they did was they called GAL Stern who said he served a subpoena. In this case, because it was a safe deposit box, serving a subpoena means nothing because the bank cannot legally know the contents of a safe deposit box..
Gloria should have testified, Yolanda should have testified, and Kathie should have testified.
The appellate court in Soldini declared that the petitioner had to serve prior 14 days service upon the near relatives to attain jurisdiction. But in Sykes it should be noted court that two sisters were never disclosed, yet the ARDC did not call Gloria Sykes or Yolanda.
During my hearing there was never any search for the truth, any due process, and search for fairness or justice, was ever undertaken.
In the hearing board’s decision, they said the sisters had knowledge of the (12/07/13) hearing. But it has to be prior knowledge.
Section 5/11a is to protect the due process rights of Mary Sykes and people like her.
There is supposed to be a hearing. There was no hearing held. What there was was an agreement between the two GAL’s and Toerpe’s attorney to have Mary declared incompetent and then Toerpe appointed, which then became part of the findings.
Witnesses were not called. Testimony was not taken.
Referring to the transcript of Aug 2009, there was no ccp211, this judge had to find Mary Sykes incompetent by clear and convincing evidence, it must meet requirement of 5/11a which has specific requirement to have someone declared incompetent, but according to the evidence deposition of Judge C, she states for the record, if counsel is having trouble getting a CCP211 done, the “why don’t we just get another doctor that can do it.”
That is about as close to an announcement promoting doctor shopping as you can get.
If you look at the 14 days notice requirement, you will find something very similar.
Not only that, but Judge Connors, in her deposition was asked, What would happen if there was no jurisdiction? And she answered: If I found out about it, I would vacate and then I would get the same result.
As a citizen I have right to complain about that.
This is a state where 2 governors were recently .put in prison, 15 sitting judges in Greylord went to prison.
Everyone know in order to get someone before the court you have to serve them with a summons.
It says in the Illinois Probate Act what you have to do to serve a summons.
The sheriffs office denies they served a summons.
There is no evidence of any summons.
You will see they directed an employee to serve at a place in Chicago; however, mary was living in DuPage county so that was an impossible duty.
The summons must have been in large bold print with a statement of rights, that was never done.
Rule of law equally implies to you I, the probate court and Mary.
The Rules of law have been set forth by the US Supreme Court:
I can make statement untrue about my qualifications,
I can make and propagate virtual child porn, I can provide violent video games to people, I can harass mourners with terrible signs and speeches.
According to this commission I can not complaint about a little old lady being railroaded into a guardianship and deprive her of her human and civil rights.
Let me read the First Amendment to this panel…. Congress shall make no law prohibiting (First amendment read to Board)….and I have the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. That’s why I wrote Mr. Holder, the AG’s and whomever I could get to take action.
We need to get the Alice Gore investigated. Why were here gold teeth removed but not inventoried? (This was after she was isolated for 6 months! This is what M. Solo did to 99 year old Alice Gore.
I have a responsibility to speak out, and it’s the right thing to do. The people who want to take my license away for doing the right thing are wrong, clearly wrong.
We need to get a complete comprehensive and thorough investigation of these probate cases.
Initial argument ends, the ARDC attorney for the Administrator steps up:
Steven Splitt.
He cites all these cases are all good law with respect to citizens. However he explains that KDD’s rights are not the same as an ordinary citizen: rather KDD’s rights have been circumscribed. The US Sup Ct has never said that you can make false allegations regarding a judge.
Gentile arises out of a Nevada disciplinary action. The lawyer who represented a criminal defendant, had made a public statement during trial implying that the chief of police had stolen the cocaine. The NV bar said that the statement would have materially prejudiced a judicial proceeding.
However, the statute had a safe harbor provision and therefore the US Sup Ct said that the statute was not unconstitutional. What the us supreme court decided was the that the safe harbor was not too vague so as to harm Mr. Gentile’s first amendment rights and therefore the US Sup. Ct. Said the statute would stand and I was not unconstitutional.
Garrison made false statements in his case and the court said constitutional provisions did not protect this.
A lawyer cannot say something false about a court or judge, the lawyer cannot attack a judge.
Everyone understands there are instances when an atty disagrees with the decisions of a judge.
The first amendment protects the person from saying the judge was wrong, but to jump to the idea that the judge was corrupt is entirely different. If you have no way to jump to corruption based upon the evidence you have knowledge of, that is wrong.
He does not have a objectively fair and reasonable way to claim Stuart and Connors were corrupt. Both testified that they were not corrupt and did not take any assets from Mary Sykes.
He said that the GAL’s were splitting assets with the judges. (Really?)
Moreover, the Sykes appeal was dismissed because the brief format was in error (Now this is strange, because it’s not in the record), the litigant was given plenty of chances to correct the brief. (Really? Where is that in the record?)
No court has even ruled these judge were even wrong.
He was given a responsibility to follow through on the appeal, the appeal was dismissed, they could not file a brief that could follow the rules, and so it was all dismissed.
Lawyers have done this for a number of years, tried to allege corruption and protection under free speech. This has been going on for a half century in Illinois.
One lawyer immediately jumps to the judge is corrupt. He jumps to it. No evidence, no cause.
The first amendment does not protect the false statement when in fact it is false and reckless.
The hearing board concluded KDD’s statements were in fact false.
The testimony of administrator’s witnesses were credible. Judges Stuart and Connors denied receiving any compensation, and AS and CF denied responsibility for wrongdoing.
Justice Connors denied everything KDD said about her.
He didn’t come up with anything unreasonable or unjust in the Sykes case.
He never showed during his trial any objectively reasonable basis for his statements.
The finding were not erroneous or against the manifest weight of the evidence.
The sanction was appropriate.
He has not denied it.
A half century of law, and multiple instances of harming a judge’s integrity with baseless statements are grounds for discipline.
And in these case, they always end with a long suspension or disbarrment.
He then cites Kozel and other cases–cases where the attorneys called the judges names and insulted them–these are not apposite to KDD’s case.
The sanction recommendation comports with disbarrment.
One of the Board asks about the Duzen case and is there a burden type of shifting. Splitt responds that there is no burden shifting used in this case. It talked about burdens of proof, but not shifting. The administrator did not go to hearing and say you cannot go to hearing and try to prove all of your allegations made as true.
There was no reasonable basis to say these were true. He had no reasonable, factual basis.
He concludes.
KDD is back on for ten minutes.
In 1961 I was first sworn in I took an oath to defend the constitution. It is still my assertion that the Supreme Ct has not granted the ARDC rights to deal in this particular type of case, and determine whether or not (with respect to the first amendment) that attys are second class citizens. In the Gentile case, Justice Rhenquist made it clear that attorneys have first amendment rights. That’s a non issue.
As far as appeals are concerned, I have no standing. I have never filed an appearance in that case or an appeal. I stand as an ordinary citizen to the Sykes case.
The fact that a lay person can’t get an appellate brief formatted propertly doesn’t make all the wrongdoing at the trial court level right or make it go away..
You have deposition of Judge Connors. Read what is required to be done. Judge Connors made it clear she did not have to follow all those laws and rules.
The appellate courts says I am a private citizen with respect to the Sykes case. I am a citizen. There is nothing in there that makes an attorney second class citizen. There is nothing that says a citizen cannot complain about an elected official, and as the Gillespie case points out, public officials are subject to free reign as to discussion of (the quality or lack thereof with respect) their job performance in office and they cannot complain. The Gillespie case was right.
The Administrator cites the Sawyer case in his favor, but it is not.
The Sawyer case involved an attorney who was trying a case and when the case was over she gave a lecture about her experiences, and she was very critical of the judge and the law and the Hawaii bar got all hot and bothered about it.
The US Supreme Court said that she had a right to do this under the First Amendment
There has been no indication that a lawyer is a second class citizen whatsoever.
And a 4 year suspension for a 77 years old lawyer is preposterous.
And the suspension is being imposed only for doing what the Ill. Sup. court rules requires me to do.
Court one says I wrote a benign letter to Dr. Patel. They said that he was intimidated by my letter. They didn’t even ask him if he was intimidated. (It appeared during trial that he didn’t remember the letter or even reading it).
They have the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence.
How do you protect the public when the court is saying openly, “let’s find another doctor” when the first won’t cooperate, or Judge Connors says in her deposition with respect to jurisdiction it does not matter because if the case were dismiss for lack of jurisdiction we just would have held another hearing and come to the same result. That is about as clear a case as you can get of impropriety.
Since the judge is an elected official, I have the right to complaint that this is wrong.
No one can come to you (as a lawyer) and say to you you can’t talk (openly and honestly) to about this case.
If you are not involved in the case then you can say what you want until the cows come home.
You don’t even have to look at whether the words are true or false. (Or if the GAL’s might cry and wet their pants later over what you said).
The whole situation revolves around a complaint I made to the US AG and other people complaining about a little old laday being taken out of her home, brought into another facility and placed there in derogation of her liberty and property rights and placed in jeopardy.
If you look at the statue of what a guardianship is supposed to be it is only to be used to the extent necessary to protect the ward, orders and decisions should be made only to the extent that the ward herself cannot make a reasoned decision.
When this lady was taken from her home and place in Du Page (without her consent or approval), this was tantamount to giving her a death sentence. As a lawyer, you have a duty to speak out. As a judge you have a duty to speak out and say this is wrong. As a moral person you have a duty to speak out. I have to face myself in the mirror and if I see what is going on in this case and I see Mary Sykes removed from her home, and isolated and attys should speak out and judges should speak out. Do you know what that judge did to Mary Sykes, do you know what this judge did to Mrs. Gore and Mrs. Wyman?
There is nothing in our constitution that says lawyers cannot speak out, they must speak out.
What about the limits of our free speech. What about the cases cited by the Administrator in his argument?
Well, the cases he cited were clearly over ruled in recent U.S. Sup. Ct. decisions Alvarez, Ashcroft, by Citizens United, I believe have clearly overruled any unnecessary restrictions on content based speech.
Also those cases the Administrator can all be distinguished because in each of those cases, the attorney was a lawyer on the case.
Just because I am a lawyer and I comment on a case, does not make me a second class citizen.
Bussy v Ferguson is no longer the law, because just people rejected the idea of creating a 2nd class of citizenship for certain undesireable people.
Buck v. Bell likewise has rejected the notion that certain disabled people should be considered second class in society.
Going back to when I first investigated this case at the behest of Mary and friends and family, at that time I was looking to being an attorney . Under FRCP Rule 11 and Ill. Sup. Ct. Rule 127 I had a duty to investigate, I heard what Mary’s friends and family were saying about railroading Mary. So I sent out a letter to her doctor. The letter was very benign. Dr. Patel was never in any way intimidated.
From the court: Whatever the letter says it says, did you speak with Mary before that?
KDD replies that he was hired by Mary thru Gloria.
Ding the correct answer is: Mary asked Gloria to hire KDD and he responded. FURTHER, Gloria was the POA for Mary and she had the right to do so.
If I did not investigate then I would be sanctioned under Rules 127
No further questions or comments and the oral argument concludes
BUT AS THE BOARD WAS WALKING OUT THE ROOM, AND ASK KEN TURNED TO US, EVERYONE IN THE GALLEY STOOD UP AND GAVE KEN A STANDING OVATIONS.
Okay, it took me awhile, I would have dropped my laptop.
JoAnne
MaryGSykes.com 
