From KDD – additional case law and Nov. 8, 2013 at 11 am is an important day!

Dear Readers,

KDD has found some wonderful case law, courtesy of the ACLU.  And in the meantime, as some of you are aware Atty Lanre Amu, and African immigrant to this country, has been prosecuted by the ARDC for speaking out against the troubles and travails over at the Daley center!

Since many of your are probate victims, I am sure you will want to come out to his oral argument and cheer him on this Nov. 8, 2013 at 11 am.  I will be there.  Meet and greet and support him.  His brief will be published shortly (with my comments, of course), but take a look at the case law Ken has found–good going Ken!

from Joanne

What I would like to know is HOW IN THE HECK CAN A BLOG CAUSE AN “IMMEDIATE AND SEVERE THREAT TO THE JUDCIARY OR ANY JUDICIAL PROCEEDING”?

that would be the question to ask on cross of ANY sitting judge during a trial against an attorney for blogging about a troubled court system.  I mean, a sitting judge is not supposed to even read a blog about her or his case, they’re supposed to avoid news and blogs and commentary as much as they are able, and certainly not engage in discussing those cases.  As SCOTUS has directed when someone has read something he or she did not like, “avert thy eyes.”

These are all good questions and Mr. Amu, just let me know when we can meet tomorrow.

thanks

joanne

—–Original Message—–
From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Oct 31, 2013 1:27 PM
To: JoAnne M Denison , “loamu@aol.com”
Subject: Re: I love your brief to the Review Board

I lifted the following argument out of brief filed by the ACLU for another attorney
The issue in this case is whether an attorney may be disciplined for true statements critical of a court simply because the court dislikes the tone of the statements.* Robert Snyder was suspended from practice solely because the Court of Appeals found his letter to the District Court to be “disrespectful.” In re Snyder, 734 F.2d at 337, 343 (8th Cir. 1984). The Court of Appeals agreed with Snyder that there are major problems with the implementation of the Criminal Justice Act. 734 F.2d at 337-341. Nonetheless, the court suspended him because it did not like the tone and words he used in addressing the court.
*8 Speech by attorneys is an essential way of exposing problems in the system and pressuring for reform. By virtue of their knowledge and dealings with the judiciary, lawyers have a unique ability to help improve the administration of justice. At times, attorneys must vigorously advocate their clients’ positions and criticize the way in which the courts are treating their clients’ cases. See In re Sawyer, 360 U.S. 622, 631-32 (1959). At times, attorneys must speak out about injustices they perceive in the administration of the courts. Such speech serves an invaluable public purpose and is protected by the very core of the First Amendment. See New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964).
Robert Snyder’s letter to the secretary of the district court was exactly the type of speech which should be encouraged. He was writing to a branch of the United States *9 government for redress of his grievance: his failure to receive prompt payment for services provided to an indigent criminal defendant. Furthermore, his letter complained about the administration of an important government program and the failure of the government to provide adequate representation of indigents. Attorneys perform an essential public function when they complain in this manner. Snyder’s letter prompted the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to propose a reconsideration of the manner in which the CJA is implemented in North Dakota. In re Snyder, 734 F.2d at 337-341. Snyder thus was performing the highest mission of the bar in seeking to improve the system.
Speech about courts does not lose its protection just because it is harsh or even disrespectful. In re Sawyer, 360 U.S. 622, 631-32 (1959); *10 Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 372 (1947). Courts, like all parts of government, may be criticized, even in intemperate tones. Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, 436 U.S. 829, 839 (1978).
It is firmly established that speech about courts may be punished only if it poses a clear and present danger to the administration of justice. Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829, 845-46 (1978); Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S. 375, 388 (1962); Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 372 (1947); Pennekamp v. Florida, 328 U.S. 331, 348 (1946); Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 262 (1941). Speech never poses a clear and present danger just because it is critical of the courts. In order to discipline an attorney for his or her speech, there must be proof that the attorney’s statements actually interfered with a pending judicial proceeding. No such interference is even hinted at in this case.
In the Matter of: Attorney Robert J. SNYDER., 1985 WL 670169 (U.S.), 7-10
Ken Ditkowsky
On Thursday, October 31, 2013 1:18 PM, kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com> wrote:
These e-mails suggest that you have oral argument on early November 2013.
Let me respectfully suggest that you read the last paragraph of the Sawyer case 79 S. Ct 153 and you keep in mind he following quote:
The only substantial question raised pertains to the editorial. It called the judge’s refusal to hear both sides ‘high handed,’ a ‘travesty on justice,’ and the reason that public opinion was ‘outraged.’ It said that his ruling properly ‘brought down the wrath of public opinion upon his head’ since a service man ‘seems to be getting a raw deal.’ The fact that there was no appeal from his decision to a ‘judge who is familiar with proper procedure and able to interpret and weigh motions and arguments by opposing counsel and to make **1255 his decisions accordingly’ was a ‘tragedy.’ It deplored the fact that the judge was a ‘layman’ and not a ‘competent attorney.’ It concluded that the ‘first rule of justice’ was to give both *376 sides an opportunity to be heard and when that rule was ‘repudiated,’ there was ‘no way of knowing whether justice was done.’
6 This was strong language, intemperate language, and, we assume, an unfair criticism. But a judge may not hold in contempt one ‘who ventures to publish anything that tends to make him unpopular or to belittle him * * *.’ See Craig v. Hecht, 263 U.S. 255, 281, 44 S.Ct. 103, 108, 68 L.Ed. 293, Mr. Justice Holmes dissenting. The vehemence of the language used is not alone the measure of the power to punish for contempt. The fires which it kindles must constitute an imminent, not merely a likely, threat to the administration of justice. The danger must not be remote or even probable; it must immediately imperil.
Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 375-76, 67 S. Ct. 1249, 1254-55, 91 L. Ed. 1546 (1947)
Ken Ditkowsky
Advertisements

Need for a professional investigator…

Dear Readers;

As many of you know, I have a lot of probate victims where property, cash, coin and other items have simply fallen off inventories and have not been accounted for.

If any of you know of a professional investigator that can help or you are one and can do this on a pro bono or reduced cost basis, please contact me ASAP.

The Sykes coins are gone, but they are so unique, I am sure they have left a trail.

 

thanks for all your help.

 

joanne

To the IARDC today, I am NOT going to file a dispostive motion and here’s why

To Ken Ditkowsky who asks me to file a couple of dispositive motions:

Since the rules are that I cannot file a dispostive motion before the trial, I would prefer to file a series of notices with the IARDC that their jig is up. dismiss me because I’m going to the feds and I’m publishing ******s.  The ***** on record for Jerome Larkin being “taken care of” is despicable!  They do not publish salaries.

I disagree that this is a case for either a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim or a Summary Judgment Motion.  These people are ***** and they should dismiss of their own accord AND RECOMMEND IT TO THE TRIBUNAL.

They have not filed their ethical disclosures which are mandated by law, their ******** are a disgrace.  They admit they do not recognize the US constitution, the Illinois constitution, The Elder Abuse Act, 47 USC 230, they are ******l and they support attorneys and judges that are equally unjustly and without cause wreck the lives of Sykes, Taylor, Gore, Bedin, Wyman, Payton, etc.

They drain bank accounts and sell homes and order people to nursing homes against their will and often without jurisdiction.

They rendered Dom Spera homeless for 6 month when he had $***** in joint accounts with his mother and was beneficiary on the rest.

I don’t need a dispostive motion, like what we have demanded in Sykes, I WANT THE ARDC TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND DISMISS against you, me and Atty Lanre.  I read his Exceptions to the Review Board and I don’t know who reviews their writings who is in his or her right mind, but that decision rendered reeks of serious logical flaws and *****.

Since that panel cannot figure it out, I will write up another (sigh) detailed report to them. They think they’re right, they think they’re smart, but when you actually PAY ATTENTION to what they write and do not doze off over the long, boring pages, you realize IT MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER at its best and at it’s worst it appears to be a sheer, CYA operation and that’s JMHO.

joanne

PS–I’m putting this on the blog right now and without the gory details. Let SO and MS guess.  And btw after we had a huge argument over mailing and their BS over certificates of service, the ARDC included a self addressed stamped envelope for my reply  Too bad it was insufficent postage  60 cents does NOT cover an original and three copies, Ms. Smart.  Nice try, but that will not get you a gold star in life.  Every mailing to the ARDC costs me at least $3 to $5 and a a s ton of paper (to quote my daughter).  I note they are not paying for my 3 cases of copier paper every two months either–most of which is their filings and nonsense.

 

From Ken D.

JoAnne,

 
The reason for a dispositive motion is to give Mr. Larkin and the IARDC every opportunity to comply with the law and to inform the panel of the fact that 
 
1) they have no jurisdiction and as lawyers are charged with knowing that without jurisdiction there is no immunity.   The lawyers should know that the IARDC attorneys have misrepresented the Supreme Court cases of the last century and have ignored the most recent cases that set the RULE OF LAW.    A clear example is the Sawyer case which not only upheld Attorney Sawyer’s rights of Free Speech but pointed out that tradition did not trump the Constitution.
 
2) It is a violation of the public policy of the State of Illinois for any government agency (Judicial, Legislative, or Administrative) to interfere with the First Amendment Rights of citizens .   735 ILCS 110/5 restates the public policy of the State and County of DeWitt 298 Ill App3d 634 points out that actions in violation of the public policy will not be protected.
 
3) 42 USCA 1983 provides criminal and civil penalties against the individuals who use the ‘color ‘ of statute to deprive others of their First Amendment Rights.   In light of the foregoing lack of jurisdiction and the public policy of the State of Illinois Mr. Larkin, his panels, and his staff lack jurisdiction.
 
4) As to Attorney Emu – 42 USCA 1981 is applicable 
 
Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require not only an investigation but something resembling a ‘safe harbor’ warning to people like those at the IARDC.     It is true that all the Himmel notices that we have been sending and the blog postings are more than sufficient; however, it appears that some members of the panels are being snowed by the IARDC staff and they should have the opportunity to indicate if they are acting in concert with those who are using their position as employees of the State of Illinois (IARDC) to undermine the Constitutional Rights of American citizens.    
I’ve copied this e-mail to the IARDC.    If they wish to ignore it, that is their privilege.  I’ve also copied law enforcement as the assault on the First Amendment by government is a serious matter and pursuant to the First Amendment I am demanding that law enforcement take such action as might be required to act affirmatively in stopping the criminal activity of violation of citizen civil
rights.
Government pursuant to Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution is limited and in particular required to respect every citizen’s First Amendment Rights.    Judges are elected in Illinois, and no agency of government has the right to restrict political speech or content related speech.

From Activist Post–More brilliant work on the troubles afoot.

Another brave and brilliant reporter jumps into the waters again, asking more and more questions about what is actually going on here?  If you love asking the IARDC questions, you will love this article.

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/10/government-attorneys-implicated-in.html

This is an amazing article and I want to give a huge vote of thanks to the reporter that has spent many hours working on this.

 

From KDD – more witness tampering and obstruction of justice by the IARDC

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Oct 27, 2013 6:39 AM
To: Janet Phelan , “jdit@aol.com”  , Cook County [agency] , [agency] , Harry Heckert , “jdenison@surfree.com” , “matt_abbott@kirk.senate.gov” , “ces@cspin.com” , “lawrence@Lhyman.com” , Edward Carter
Subject: Re: Why don’t they prosecute attorneys denying human and civil rights to seniors?

Every judicial scandal has certain elements.   Certain lawyers appear to be ‘bag men’ and other influence brokers.    Greylord exposed the pattern in vivid detail.   Certain fixers always stand out.   There is a book that came out in the late 1990’s that I believe was called the “Jewish Mafia” that exposed the Arvey, Hodes, group.  This group subsequently moved to California and became associated with the movie industry.
Similar pattern is appearing in the ‘elder cleansing scandal except the problem seems to be franchised.   To date I have not found a Mr. Big or Mrs. Big.    What I’ve discovered is franchises that are doled out to individuals.    For instance, the F estate in Florida fits the pattern.   The attorney franchise in the Sykes case fits the pattern.  ([entity’s] attempt to grab Gloria Sykes’ insurance money is a clue).    The [entity] in Gore also fits the pattern, especially with Alice Gore being placed in an Esformes nursing home.   The mining of Gore’s teeth for the Au is an example of the greed!
I do not believe that [entity] is a big player in Illinois.   His name comes up frequently so his involvement is set in stone.   The [entities] who frequently are used to sign the certificates of incompetency are  rote players.    Similarly, the [agency] [entities] who act in concert with the miscreants do not appear to be major actors.
In my case the incidents with Dr. Patel and the testimony of Dr. Patel illustrate the ‘catch as catch can’ approach of the attorneys who aid and abet the miscreants.    As you are aware that prior to filing a lawsuit the Courts require that the attorney have sufficient information to certify that the complaint is not frivolous.   Thus, to find out the facts I wrote a FRCP 11 letter to Dr. Patel.
Seizing on the ‘any port in a storm’ approach [entity] and his co conspirators attempted to create a ‘catch 22’.     They and their aiders and abetters took the position that doing a FRCP investigation of any case in which the elder cleansers had targeted was unethical.    In a captive environment apparently such has some appeal.
The [agency][entity] apparently was directed to create the illusion that the FRCP 11 letter was intimidating as it asked the question of how the same patient could be to one doctor able to speak and understand everything and to [entity] she was a stone.     What the miscreants did not want to be revealed was the fact that dozens if not hundreds of victims were railroaded in guardianships in the same manner and there was a franchise set up to obtain medical opinions that suited the miscreants.   Gloria in her pro-se examination of a [entity] had him admit that he was giving his professional opinion without ever meeting Mary Sykes!
 Dr. Patel had no stake in the effort to shut me up and therefore he was disinterested.   Pressing on in their efforts to silence me, the [agency-entity] made secret contact with Patel and told him what she wanted him to say and even sent him documents.   (In discovery she did not disclose her prior contact or her communication with Patel; however, during her aborted attempt to create the facade that in an effort to obtain justice Dr. Patel was to testify by telephone, she inadvertently disclosed the contact).
Patel was brought into the hearing and he was never asked if he was intimidated.   Larry brought out the fact that Patel received the communication and did not respond to it, but merely placed it in the file.   The attempted subordination of perjury failed!    (I assume that when an Honest complete and comprehensive investigation is completed this fiasco will come back to haunt the young attorney how was assigned this task.)
Greylord was a great teacher.   It taught the miscreant leader to stay under cover.    The Rothner deposition in the Northshore case gives a clue to the MO.   The MO of Enron is refined and cleverly executed.    Little by little the government is unwinding the web but these are very clever and smart people.   Their fingers are in everything and their time table very well thought out.
In short the ‘elder cleansing’ portion of this scandal is just one of the cancers that has infected our society.    It is part of a much larger scandal but it is very real and very difficult for the families who fall victim to the avarice of the miscreants.    Your research into the [agency] reveals that the tentacles reach into that organization and instead of doing their job to protect the public, they waste public money in protecting the foot soldiers who do the dirty work for the ‘elder cleansers!’    [I’ll have Larry segregate the Patel testimony on Monday and send you both sessions – it is very revealing.]
Once again – thank you for taking the time to do an expose of ‘elder cleansing’ in Illinois and exposing the underbelly of the IARDC.    I’ve copied law enforcement as to this e-mail as what we have is a National Problem and it is the duty of every citizen to assist and co-operate with every HONEST complete and comprehensive investigation of ‘elder cleansing’ and to keep calling for HONEST complete and comprehensive investigations until our disabled and senior citizens can go into our courts and not fear to be victimized by the ‘judicial officials!’
Ken Ditkowsky

From KDD–He asks how much courage do you need to fight all of this trouble

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Oct 26, 2013 7:50 AM
To: “jdenison@surfree.com”
Subject: Blog

The First Amendment is a core value of American culture, and the Amendment is the first to be attacked by those who wish to take our freedom from us.   In the past half century there have been numerous attacks by our political leaders on the First Amendment.  Recently the left leaning political types attempted to use the IRS to silence the ‘tea party.’  The clout heavy criminals who promulgate the enterprise and cottage industry of ‘elder cleansing’ are using the lawyer disciplinary boards to silence lawyers who stand in their way of abusing and exploiting seniors.
Few individuals want to stand up to the entrenched political types.   Even fewer are willing to put their own reputations and well being on the line and be counted.   It is easy to stand on the sidelines and throw rocks and be part of the ‘mob’ but it not easy to stand up and go face to face with those in authority who are assaulting our core values.   The political types are much more attractive than you and I.  Hate, avarice, and a ‘fast buck’ are much easier to sell than hard work, diligence, and doing the right thing without even the remote possibility of reward.
With your blog you have done exactly that, and provided the families of the victims of elder cleansing with a forum for exercise of their First Amendment Rights.   Read [entity 1]  letter to [agency] by [entity]  that is attached to the letter that I wrote yesterday.   She is terrified that the Probate Sharks blog will stir an Honest investigation of her part in elder cleansing.   Similarly [numerous entities] and others have expended great energy in getting [entity] and the [agency] to attempt to silence attorneys who contribute to the NASGA including you and me.
When brute force fails to silence and destroy First Amendment Rights then one by one each opponent is approached by advocates of the assault on the First Amendment and we are confronted by people who suggest to us that our own best interests are served by just a concession.   Some of the people who appear as advocates are sincere and some are acting in concert with the miscreants.
Self interest is a powerful force, and it is a legitimate force.   Being foolish, being stubborn, or committing professional Suicide is not a respected method of solving a problem.   It is always better to in a proper situation to retreat and come back to fight another day than to get destroyed.
Last night I watched you address this scenario and was impressed by the solution that you reached.   The decision took great courage.   More importantly the decision set an example for your family and friends.   I say this not because I took the same tack, but because I know what it is to stand up for principle and have to take the consequences of the decision.
I applaud your decision to stand four square for your Rights as a Citizen of the United States of America and the rights that we all share that are America’s core values.
Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

From KDD–he asks, where do the complaints [to authorities] go besides the desk to circular file effluent.

To: NASGA <NASGA.org@gmail.com>, probate sharks <verenusl@gmail.com>, “jdenison@surfree.com” <jdenison@surfree.com>, Harry Heckert <vahrh1135@aol.com>, “janet_c_phelan@yahoo.com” <janet_c_phelan@yahoo.com>, j ditkowsky <jdit@aol.com>, “zamirkatan@aol.com” <zamirkatan@aol.com>, “60m@cbsnews.com” <60m@cbsnews.com>

Subject: Liability for violation of 42 USCA 1983, Tax Fraud, et al
Date: Oct 22, 2013 9:19 PM
Civil Rights and particular the First Amendment are core values of America.   People who attempt to deprive others of First Amendment Rights walk a very thin cord.   Public bodies (including the [authorities]) are not exempt of protected from the onus of violation of the First Amendment Rights of citizens.   Indeed, officials including attorneys must respect the core rights of citizens or suffer some very severe consequences.

Just like the policeman who beats a suspect, the bureaucrat who misuses his position to ‘cover up’ elder cleansing, racial cleansing, ethnic cleansing etc has to account both in the civil sector and the criminal sector.   There is absolutely no excuse for a lawyer to not know the Rule of Law as decreed by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Many citizens have inquired as to how come the [authorities] have not prosecuted the miscreant lawyers such as those who have surfaced in [certain probate] cases.   certainly there have been many complaints filed against them.   Everyone knows that Gloria Sykes, the Coopers, Schwartz etc have filed detailed complaints.   Pursuant to Himmel I have personally written the [authorities] as I believe that when Mary Sykes’ safety deposit box was ‘looted’ it was unconscionable that the two [entities] refused to report this situation to the Court.    The fact that the person who removed the gold coins did not deny (and has not denied) the theft was significant.   Only the [entities]  and [authorities] were active in denying a fact that everyone knew was a fact.

Thus, how come JoAnne Denison and yours truly are in the ‘dock’ for demanding an Honest complete and comprehensive investigation.   Yes, I came to the same conclusion as you.   It is my opinion that the attempt to ‘shut up’ both Ms. Dension and me is a violation of 42 USCA 1983, the public policy of the State of Illinois and is without jurisdiction and therefore a clearly ultra vires act.   Pursuant to Himmel this has been reported by me to the [authorities] which did nothing.   Saying they did nothing is not actually accurate.  [the authorities ]wrote me to report to me that [an entity] had been appointed Gloria Sykes’ guardian ad litem.   (This report became a typo 17 days later, but no investigation followed!)

In my opinion the conduct of the [authorities] is aiding and abetting the ‘elder cleansing’ of Mary Sykes.   It is also aiding the person who breached her fiduciary relationship to Mary Sykes avoid having to pay the United States of America and the State of Illinois the income taxes that are due.   As no one has been delegated the right to monitor, impede, censor, otherwise interfere with my, Ms Dension or other citizen’s First Amendment Rights, [the authorities] and every member of his staff involved has acted in an ultra vires manner acting under color of authority to deny and/or interfere with our civil rights.   As there has been and can be no delegation there can be no immunity!   Read the words of 42 USCA sec.  1983.

I am certain that the United States of America and the Illinois Department of Revenue are delighted by the ‘cover’ that [the authorities] have afforded the people who obtained benefits from the profits of their ‘elder cleansing’ and did not report and did not pay taxes on the benefits.   Tax evasion and aiding and abetting tax evasion historically has not been an accepted practice and I assume that with trillions of dollars in deficits the elder cleansing industry will ultimately have to pay its ‘fair share!’

It is my hope that I have answered the questions that have been presented.   I do not know if and when Law enforcement is going to address this ‘elder cleansing’ issue.    I do know that the law and basic civil rights are being violated and we need not only transparency but we need an HONEST complete and comprehensive investigation of not only the lawyers involved in elder cleansing but those who aid and abet them.   (I’ve again copied the ARDC, but having first hand experience I have little hope that they are interested in protecting the public.  The miscreants are safe to continue to prey on the old, infirm, and those citizens who are being targeted.   The removal of Mrs. Gore’s gold filings is a testament to perfidy that has been allowed to flourish. )
For the record, JoAnne Denison received word that the [authorities] desires to obtain a delay in her hearing before [the authorities].   It is my opinion that if the [authorities] operates under any guise of ‘good faith’ the charges brought against her should be dismissed and she provided suitable restitution for the ultra vires interference with her civil rights.
Ken Ditkowsky
http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

From Joanne;

It it utterly unconscionable that when Gloria has filed numerous notices to the court, demands upon the [authorities] that gold coins are missing, a safe deposit box was drilled, contents removed AND NO INVESTIGATION BY THEM, their behavior is scandalous.  [one entity] testified in a court of law on or about Sept. 12, 2013 that he served subpoenas on the bank and nothing came of it–this is despite the fact those subpoenas MUST be filed with the clerk and the Record on Appeal (“ROA”) shows no such subpoenas, no return of service and no affidavit of service in the ROA.  This is outrageous behavior for [an entity].  He should have served subpoenas on Pullman Bank for the signature sheets from April 2010, the video footage, names of the person in the vault area for what was said to them.  Instead nothing but a lie–and the [authorities], rather than investigate the lie which has been brought to their attention in the 43 points and 60+ points the [authorities] got wrong at KDD’s trial, they conspicuously ignore it themselves.

But this blog does not lie.  It tells the truth.  It knows there is funny business afoot and yet the [authorities] prosecutes the messengers in lieu of cleaning its own house.  Everyone has to put pressure on the Ill. Sup. Ct. to clean house at the [authorities].  Please write and call them and demand that the [authorities] comply with state law – 5 USC 420 and reveal all of their extracurricular dealings in finances and ethics.

Clerk’s Office – Springfield
Temporary Address
421 East Capitol Avenue,
Springfield, Illinois 62701
(217) 782-2035
TDD (217) 524-8132
Office Hours:  8:30 – 4:30


Clerk’s Office – Chicago

Michael A. Bilandic Building
160 North LaSalle Street
Chicago, IL 60601
(312) 793-1332
TDD (312) 793-6185
Office Hours:  8:30 – 4:30

Ask for the Chief Justice, Thomas L. Kilbride or any of the other justices and ask why there is no justice for Mary Sykes.  Where are her gold coins?  How many appeals have been filed before him and there was no justice for Mary Sykes.  Maybe she is just one little old lady of 93 who used to live in an inconspicuous 2 flat on the north side, but she was beloved by dozens of family members and friends, and I am one of them.

Here are the other justices:

http://www.state.il.us/court/SupremeCourt/meetsupremecourt.asp

Now, [an entity] has asked why aren’t the courts more open to the average man and woman, well besides the obvious cost of litigation and attorneys and rules books 4 inches thick that read like Japanese stereo instructions, why would anyone go to court when the story of Mary G. Sykes and the ARDC has been published on this blog?  What is the point?

Justice [redacted] needs to take these issues seriously and take control of his courts.  I know he is just one person, but he is the one person, unlike myself, Ken Ditkowsky, Janet Phelan, Gloria Sykes and many, many others who have posted here, that can make a gigantuan difference in these cases.