From Ken Ditkowsky – Judge blast prosecutor for talking to opposing party without benefit of counsel

Published today in the ISBA News letter:

first the link:

http://www.pantagraph.com/news/local/government-and-politics/judge-blasts-prosecutor-for-talking-to-defendants/article_e20edeba-5649-11e3-aafb-0019bb2963f4.html

 

next quotes from Ken

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Nov 26, 2013 10:22 AM
To: “lawrence@Lhyman.com” , Jo Anne Denison
Subject: Fw: ISBA E-Clips – November 26, 2013

 
there is an article concerning the prosecution talking to the defendants outside the presence of his /her attorney  
 
In the Sykes related cases we have this going on all the time.   First, we have the ex-parte conversations that Ms. Black had with Gloria and Second her communication with JoAnne when she knew that I was representing JoAnne.    We also have Mr. Brodny reporting that he had ex-parte conversations with Ms. Black.  
 
One of the last orders entered by the Review panel reports an ex-parte conversation between the panel and a staff attorney for the IARDC.    The reports that he had informed the panel ex-parte that he had no objection to a particular motion.  
 
I relate this because of the seriousness with which the court viewed the communication.     I do not know what the communication was – it may have been:  “good morning!”    As the IARDC staff and Mr. Larkin are the keeps of the legal conscience this appears to be another saga of the rules being bended for the rule keepers at the expenses of the rest of us.
Ken Ditkowsky

Awaiting the Decision of the IARDC on SCOI’s most recent attempt to control the situation

From Ken Ditkowsky:

The recent Supreme Court of Illinois case has placed the IARDC between a rock and a hard place.  The words:

before professional discipline may be imposed under Supreme Court Rule 770, the Administrator must demonstrate that the attorney violated the Rules of Professional Conduct. To the extent that any of our prior cases suggest that an attorney may be subjected to professional discipline for conduct that is not prohibited by the Rules of Professional Conduct or defined as misconduct therein, we hereby reject such a suggestion. As a matter of due process, an attorney who is charged with misconduct and faces potential discipline must be given adequate notice of the charges, including the rule or rules he is accused of violating. Personal misconduct that falls outside the scope of the Rules of Professional Conduct may be the basis for civil liability or other adverse consequences, but will not result in professional discipline.
In re Karavidas, 2013 IL 115767
 tell the IARDC in no uncertain terms that the First Amendment assaults on JoAnne and myself are totally improper.     Read in context of all that is going on it is also clear that if Larkin is going to survive he is going to have to do a bit of CYA.   Thus, as our goal is to get Mary Sykes free – and hopefully for the holidays he may need a bit of guidance.   
Miriam Solo is a prime target!    She, Adam Stern, and Cynthia Farenga are made to order!    Each has made enough statements to convict them of – you name it!    Schmiedel and his associates are guilty of perversion of the English language and single handed making the obvious phrases obscure.     What these people have done to Gloria is obscene and they should pay.  Therefore, the IARDC got my Himmel charges against them post haste.  
All I am asking and all that Larkin has to do is to call on the USA and/or the States attorney to do an HONEST complete and comprehensive investigation!    Pure and Simple!    If he does it loud and clear all the dirty deeds of his staff and miscreants comes to the surface and CYA sweeps into the hero’s box!
If you remember in the cop shows the cop turns to the bad guys and says:  “there is deal for the first one who talks!”   Well little friends – this time there is a deal for the first one who comes forth with the truth!!!      I do not expect the staff members to come forth – they are afraid of Larkin!   Larkin however is not one to go down with the ship!   Ergo!!
Of course if no one come forth – the excerta will pile up in bigger and bigger piles and it will bury the whole bunch.   Unfortunately, the miscreants will all get the deals and when the stench clears it will look like Larkin and his staff were the instigators of all the bad things in this world and sued their influence on Solo, Stern, Farenga, Schmiedel etc to ******.     But for **** our miscreants would have been as pure as the un -driven snow!   
Gloria’s petition and affidavit are an incentive to one or more of the staff of the IARDC to come forward and ring the bell!    Sorry – I had a uncontrollable impulse when she handed me a big rock in front of that large plate glass window!! 

Incidentially – have you ever seen what happens when you drive a golf ball through a window!   It neat!   First there is a small round hole and then *****!!!!
As Larkin is the smartest of the bunch – my money is on him to ride the ‘white’ steed!
Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

Yes, it has been 15 days and counting since the Karavidas decision.  It has been months since the Virginia State Bar decision where the Virginia bar told the VBS they should not regulate an attorney’s blog publishing the cases he won (In re Hunter) and it has been more than half a century since the case of In re Sawyer wherein the Hawaiian Bar association was firmly told by SCOTUS that a lawyer can criticicize a court, a decision and a law, rule or statute and that was HER constitutional  right.

So now we wait to see if another CYA will come along.

In response to complaints Ken has filed against JL and his staff of CYA minions, apparently the IARDC has appointed “special counsel” for those persons.  So if you have a complaint against the IARDC for NOT processing your valid complaint against an attorney, trashing it on ridiculous grounds (Wyman, Sykes, Gore), keep on filing them and send them to the Special Counsel, Mr. David Mann who may not have been told the entire story by JL:

His letter is as follows and please write him.

ATTORNEY REGISTRATION AND DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION
of the
David S. Mann
Special Counsel
November 19,2013
Mr. Kenneth Karl Ditkowsky
Ditkowsky & Contorer
5940 West Touhy Avenue
Suite 230
Niles, Illinois 60714-4604

SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS
131 S. Dearborn St., Ste. 3000
Chicago, IL 60603-5583
Telephone: (312) 715-5707
Re: Jerome E. Larkin
in relation to
Kenneth Karl Ditkowsky
No. 2013 IN 05181

Dear Mr. Ditkowsky:
The Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (“ARDC”) has received your
communication regarding Jerome E. Larkin.
I am one of the independent lawyers the ARDC Commissioners appointed to review complaints
and allegations against attorneys associated with the ARDC. Your communication was referred to me
because Mr. Larkin is the Administrator of the ARDC.
I will ask Mr. Larkin to submit a response to the matters you have raised. A copy of his response
may be sent to you for your comments. I will then determine whether further investigation is required.
If I need additional information from you, I will contact you and, of course, will advise you of
any decision in the matter. Please notify me of any changes in your address or telephone number.
Very truly yours,
David S. Mann
ARDC Special Counsel

New Case from SCOI – In re Karavidas explains the constraints of the IARDC

This week the Ill. Supreme Court clearly has told the IARDC it does not have unlimited jurisdiction over all complaints filed with it.  In the past, the IARDC has filed weak complaints, groundless complaints, conjecture and hearsay against many, many attorneys and ignored complaints from the likes of Sykes, Gore, Taylor, Bedin, etc–all cases lacking jurisdiction and/or funds from inventories and accountings.

What the IARDC was formed to do was ferret out the type of corruption found in Greylord, and that should be their continuing mission–stopping and educating attorneys they cannot engage in greed, favoritism, bribes, cronnyism, etc.

Somewhere, they went off track chasing the easy stuff–ambulance chasers (those contacting a client before the client contacts the attorney first), misleading ads that don’t say “advertising” on the envelope, etc.–violations which are laid out in the Code of Ethics for Attorneys.

Then they discipline Ken Ditkowsky for merely conducting a Rule 11 investigation into whether he will represent a potential client–Mary G Sykes, and for publishing his numerous faxes, emails and letters to the authorities asking for an investigation in that case–one clearly without jurisdiction.

They come after me for blogging–all the while admitting my blog consists of non commercial political speech–something clearly prohibited under the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution and Articles of the Illinois Constitution.  They say I can’t use SLAPP (an expedited hearing for instances in which political speech is involved but a plaintiff is trying to use the courts wrongfully to silence political speech by claiming defamation), and I now believe the reason they didn’t go there is because they don’t have to — the Karavidas decision makes this clear.

Perhaps the Ill. Supreme Court has made it clear.  For the IARDC to discipline THE CONDUCT MUST BE SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED BY THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT and the charges must be specific so as to avoid claims that due process was violated.

The ARDC has none of that against myself or Ken, but to date continues to prosecute and persecute us.  In addition, they have clearly copied hundreds of pages of my copyrighted blog–another shameful action by the IARDC.

Finally, the agency has no transparency or accountability like other state agencies.  They claim they are a private enterprise only subject to the Ill. Supreme Ct., but their lack of transparency and accountability like other state agencies wears thin on the public and their confidence when grievances against “favored” attorneys are ignored (lack of jurisdiction, assets falling off of inventories with impunity, and other actions), while the IARDC goes after private emails of Ken Ditkowsky and my blog.

My blog is not me and I am not my blog.  You, the readers ask me to publish about certain things you see in the courtroom and I do and comment on them.  I ask for backup with transcripts and pleadings before I publish.

Nonetheless, that is my constitutional right.  I have an opinion, you have an opinion and those opinions are put on this blog, in case someone wants to read them.  Similarly, I gather facts, case law, statutory law and publish that too.  The IARDC acts like it is shocked and claim “it must not be true” when miscreant judges and attys apparently are not following the law and they claim my facts and opinions are wrong, (and maybe they are sometimes), but I still have the right to gather them and publish them where I find them and where others find them.

These attorneys and judges are public figures and so I should be granted wide berth to write about them, let others write about them, criticize them, praise them, whatever, and the IARDC should not be regulating blogs.  As Ken says, THEY WERE NOT GRANTED THAT AUTHORITY.  They have no jurisdiction.

So along comes the Karavidas case and what does that case say?  The same thing, here is the case:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwUWdWOG02bWhGLUE/edit?usp=sharing

here are some quotes from Ken;

Key statements from Karvidas
In the context of a disciplinary proceeding where an attorney-client relationship is involved, we use the term “conversion” as a term of art and focus on the attorney’s conduct with respect to the property or funds of the client or third party, not on the circumstances that would be necessary to give rise to a claim in tort by the rightful owner. See In re Rosin, 156 Ill.2d 202, 206, 189 Ill.Dec. 400, 620 N.E.2d 368 (1993) (defining conversion in the context of a disciplinary proceeding as “any unauthorized act, which deprives a man of his property permanently or for an indefinite time,” where the property at issue was the client’s share of proceeds of a settlement (internal quotation marks omitted)). Thus, when an attorney is acting as an attorney, he may be found to have converted funds that are held in a trust account holding funds owed to numerous clients, even though his misconduct does not fit the common law definition of conversion.
In re Karavidas, 2013 IL 115767
In sum, we hold that professional discipline may be imposed only upon a showing by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent attorney has violated one or more of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Mere bad behavior that does not violate one of the Rules is insufficient.
In re Karavidas, 2013 IL 115767
We, therefore, agree with the Review Board that respondent’s conduct, because he was not acting as an attorney and he was not involved in the judicial process at the time of the breach, did not undermine the administration of justice. While an attorney’s breach of fiduciary duty owed to a nonclient could constitute an act that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, this did not occur in this case. Further, if an attorney is to be disciplined for such conduct, the Administrator must, as a matter of due process, plead and prove that the breach of fiduciary duty had a prejudicial effect on the administration of justice. To the extent that our earlier decisions state or imply otherwise, they are hereby overruled.
In re Karavidas, 2013 IL 115767
before professional discipline may be imposed under Supreme Court Rule 770, the Administrator must demonstrate that the attorney violated the Rules of Professional Conduct. To the extent that any of our prior cases suggest that an attorney may be subjected to professional discipline for conduct that is not prohibited by the Rules of Professional Conduct or defined as misconduct therein, we hereby reject such a suggestion. As a matter of due process, an attorney who is charged with misconduct and faces potential discipline must be given adequate notice of the charges, including the rule or rules he is accused of violating. Personal misconduct that falls outside the scope of the Rules of Professional Conduct may be the basis for civil liability or other adverse consequences, but will not result in professional discipline.
In re Karavidas, 2013 IL 115767
The effect of these statements is to focus Mr. Larkin and the IARDC upon the fact that each of the miscreants and each member of the staff of the IARDC – including Mr. Larkin has a duty to exercise professionalism and not go on fishing expeditions that are designed to discourage or assault the First Amendment or deny seniors of their liberty and property.    In particular – in writing her ‘smoking gun’ letter Ms. Farenga was fully aware that the IARDC had no authority to stop either JoAnne Denison or myself from exercising our First Amendment Rights.   Similarly staff attorney and attorney for Mr. Larkin was also aware when he brought the disciplinary proceeding that the IARDC had no authority (and no jurisdiction) to attempt to impede, discourage, or interfere with my communication with NASGA, Probate Sharks, Attorney General Holder etc.
At all times relevant Farenga was acting in her professional capacity of an attorney and guardian ad litem.   IT IS CERTAINLY UNETHICAL FOR AN ATTORNEY TO IN THE COURSE OF HIS/HER ENGAGEMENT TO VIOLATE 42 USCA 1983!     Why did Mr. Larkin not prosecute Ms. Farenga and/or Ms. Black?
Similar situations exist in relation to the actions of Mr. Larkin, the staff attorneys of the IARDC and Mr. Schmiedel, Mr. Stern and the other miscreants!    The isolation and continued elder abuse of Mary Sykes similarly is unprofessional, incurs as part of the Court proceedings and it also remains uninvestigated and unpunished.   Indeed, it is now Thanksgiving 2013 and Mary has been kept prisoner for four years!    Why has Mr. Larkin the IARDC not acted on Citizen complaints (and in particular the complaints filed by Gloria Sykes) as to this assault on the Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments by attorney miscreants acting in violation of 42 USCA 1983?   Why has staff attorney’s been given a pass as to unprofessional conduct that they have demonstrated.  (In particular the letter claiming that Stern was Gloria’s GAL which 17 days later became a typo!).
Anyhow – my Petition to dismiss is being filed as this e-mail is being sent.   I drafted a Petition for you the mirrors mine.   It should also be filed.   It is my hope that with no more scapegoats Mr. Larkin and the IARDC will request law enforcement including the States Attorney and the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois to do an HONEST complete and comprehensive investigation of this entire Elder Cleansing scandal.   (This is a National fiasco of epic proportions!    The Income taxes generated from these breaches of Fiduciary relationships is incredible.)  [Carolyn T at this point in relation to the gold coins removed from the safety deposit box and not inventoried owes Income taxes at 30%, a Fraud penalty of 50% and 25% per year in interest.   I am assuming that she did not disclose on her 2009 United States Income tax the unauthorized removal of Gloria Sykes and Mary Sykes’ gold coins from their safety deposit box. – as a side, I notice that once again Gloria’s attempts to obtain the signature cards and other information as to her safety deposit box have been thwarted!   I am hoping that Mr. HOlder will send the IRS to secure these records!    The breach of fiduciary relationship is a taxable event!]
Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

Answers to FOIA request for salaries and to Ethics Reporting

Today was a twofer.  I received back the following letter responses to my request for FOIA on salaries for all attys, managers and supervisors at the IARDC and was told it was not  a “public body” or “any legislative, executive, administrative, or advisory bodies of the State.”

So no FOIA for the IARDC.  They even cited a case;

See the letter below:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwS2FPLVZWbzlZQjQ/edit?usp=sharing

 

The next letter I wrote to Jesse White, Secretary of State asking that he instruct the IARDC to do their ethics reporting.

You can see the letter below:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwMDV4S21sYUNGZFE/edit?usp=sharing

He responded it was not his job to do this, that it is the responsibility of the branch, agency, authority or board of state government to determine who has to file first, so I guess it’s back to the IARDC counsel to make that determination first and enfoce the state law.  I will do another fax to the IARDC.

I also received a list of ARDC defense attorneys and I will email each of them and see if any of them has any interest in handling my case and on what terms and conditions.

So many interesting things to do this week, besides my regular research to root out troubles and issues with attys and judges.

 

 

FOIA Request to the IARDC – 5 days to answer

Please see below, under the Illinios FOIA, the respondent has 5 days to obtain and transmit the information.

Let’s see what happens.

JoAnne

A copy of the FOIA act is here:

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=85&ChapterID=2

A copy of the public policy of the act is below.  There is Illinois case law that says no person is to take any action in contravention to the public policies the Illinois state legislature has set forth or such actions are ineffective and may not be enforced.

    (5 ILCS 140/1) (from Ch. 116, par. 201)
    Sec. 1. Pursuant to the fundamental philosophy of the American constitutional form of government, it is declared to be the public policy of the State of Illinois that all persons are entitled to full and complete information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts and policies of those who represent them as public officials and public employees consistent with the terms of this Act. Such access is necessary to enable the people to fulfill their duties of discussing public issues fully and freely, making informed political judgments and monitoring government to ensure that it is being conducted in the public interest.
    The General Assembly hereby declares that it is the public policy of the State of Illinois that access by all persons to public records promotes the transparency and accountability of public bodies at all levels of government. It is a fundamental obligation of government to operate openly and provide public records as expediently and efficiently as possible in compliance with this Act.
     This Act is not intended to cause an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, nor to allow the requests of a commercial enterprise to unduly burden public resources, or to disrupt the duly-undertaken work of any public body independent of the fulfillment of any of the fore-mentioned rights of the people to access to information.
****
    Restraints on access to information, to the extent permitted by this Act, are limited exceptions to the principle that the people of this State have a right to full disclosure of information relating to the decisions, policies, procedures, rules, standards, and other aspects of government activity that affect the conduct of government and the lives of any or all of the people. The provisions of this Act shall be construed in accordance with this principle. This Act shall be construed to require disclosure of requested information as expediently and efficiently as possible and adherence to the deadlines established in this Act.
    The General Assembly recognizes that this Act imposes fiscal obligations on public bodies to provide adequate staff and equipment to comply with its requirements. The General Assembly declares that providing records in compliance with the requirements of this Act is a primary duty of public bodies to the people of this State, and this Act should be construed to this end, fiscal obligations notwithstanding.
    The General Assembly further recognizes that technology may advance at a rate that outpaces its ability to address those advances legislatively. To the extent that this Act may not expressly apply to those technological advances, this Act should nonetheless be interpreted to further the declared policy of this Act that public records shall be made available upon request except when denial of access furthers the public policy underlying a specific exemption.
    This Act shall be the exclusive State statute on freedom of information, except to the extent that other State statutes might create additional restrictions on disclosure of information or other laws in Illinois might create additional obligations for disclosure of information to the public.
(Source: P.A. 96-542, eff. 1-1-10.)

    (5 ILCS 140/1.1) (from Ch. 116, par. 201.1)
    Sec. 1.1. This Act may be cited as the Freedom of Information Act.
(Source: P.A. 86-1475.)
    (5 ILCS 140/1.2)
    Sec. 1.2. Presumption. All records in the custody or possession of a public body are presumed to be open to inspection or copying. Any public body that asserts that a record is exempt from disclosure has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that it is exempt.
(Source: P.A. 96-542, eff. 1-1-10.)
   (5 ILCS 140/2.10)
    Sec. 2.10. Payrolls. Certified payroll records submitted to a public body under Section 5(a)(2) of the Prevailing Wage Act are public records subject to inspection and copying in accordance with the provisions of this Act; except that contractors' employees' addresses, telephone numbers, and social security numbers must be redacted by the public body prior to disclosure.
(Source: P.A. 96-542, eff. 1-1-10.)
(NOTE: all other Illinois state employee payroll can be found at various places on the internet–Gov. Quinn has his publish and the Controller does too).
   (d) Each public body shall, promptly, either comply with or deny a request for public records within 5 business days after its receipt of the request, unless the time for response is properly extended under subsection (e) of this Section. Denial shall be in writing as provided in Section 9 of this Act. Failure to comply with a written request, extend the time for response, or deny a request within 5 business days after its receipt shall be considered a denial of the request. A public body that fails to respond to a request within the requisite periods in this Section but thereafter provides the requester with copies of the requested public records may not impose a fee for such copies. A public body that fails to respond to a request received may not treat the request as unduly burdensome under subsection (g).
    (e) The time for response under this Section may be extended by the public body for not more than 5 business days from the original due date for any of the following reasons:
        (i) the requested records are stored in whole or in

    
part at other locations than the office having charge of the requested records;
        (ii) the request requires the collection of a
    
substantial number of specified records;
        (iii) the request is couched in categorical terms and
    
requires an extensive search for the records responsive to it;
        (iv) the requested records have not been located in
    
the course of routine search and additional efforts are being made to locate them;
        (v) the requested records require examination and
    
evaluation by personnel having the necessary competence and discretion to determine if they are exempt from disclosure under Section 7 of this Act or should be revealed only with appropriate deletions;
        (vi) the request for records cannot be complied with
    
by the public body within the time limits prescribed by paragraph (c) of this Section without unduly burdening or interfering with the operations of the public body;
        (vii) there is a need for consultation, which shall
    
be conducted with all practicable speed, with another public body or among two or more components of a public body having a substantial interest in the determination or in the subject matter of the request.
    The person making a request and the public body may agree in writing to extend the time for compliance for a period to be determined by the parties. If the requester and the public body agree to extend the period for compliance, a failure by the public body to comply with any previous deadlines shall not be treated as a denial of the request for the records.
    (f) When additional time is required for any of the above reasons, the public body shall, within 5 business days after receipt of the request, notify the person making the request of the reasons for the extension and the date by which the response will be forthcoming. Failure to respond within the time permitted for extension shall be considered a denial of the request. A public body that fails to respond to a request within the time permitted for extension but thereafter provides the requester with copies of the requested public records may not impose a fee for those copies. A public body that requests an extension and subsequently fails to respond to the request may not treat the request as unduly burdensome under subsection (g).
    (g) Requests calling for all records falling within a category shall be complied with unless compliance with the request would be unduly burdensome for the complying public body and there is no way to narrow the request and the burden on the public body outweighs the public interest in the information. Before invoking this exemption, the public body shall extend to the person making the request an opportunity to confer with it in an attempt to reduce the request to manageable proportions. If any body responds to a categorical request by stating that compliance would unduly burden its operation and the conditions described above are met, it shall do so in writing, specifying the reasons why it would be unduly burdensome and the extent to which compliance will so burden the operations of the public body. Such a response shall be treated as a denial of the request for information.

FAX COVER SHEET
TO PC Denison & Assocs
COMPANY Denison & Assocs, PC
FAXNUMBER 13123768842
FROM Denison & Assocs, PC
DATE 2013-11-15 15:50:59 GMT
RE FOIA request for salary records
COVER MESSAGE
To the Keeper of Records/Human Resources/CFO;
Attn: MEDIA REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION
To whom it may concern;
In accordance with the Illinois FOIA statute 5 ILCS sec.
140/1 et.seq. we are respectfully requesting the following
information:
l)for all attorneys, supervisors, managers:
2) please provide name, job title and annual salary,
3) for the years 2000 to 2013 where the information is
from January 2013 to October 31, 2013.
This information will not be sold and is for non
commercial purposes for a non commercial b1og.
Your prompt assistance is greatly appreciated. You may
fax the information to 312 376 8842, email me at
“joanne@denison1aw.com”, or place the information in the
mail to “Denison & Assocs, PC; 1512 N Fremont st, #202,
Chicago, IL 60642.”
Joanne Denison

A fax to Jesse White for Transparency and Accountability in Illinois Government

Please write, fax or call Mr. Jesse White and ask him to ensure compliance in the IARDC.  What is going on there is my question.

FAX COVER SHEET
TO Jesse White
COMPANY Ill. Sec. of State
FAX NUMBERs –

312 759 3610 fax chicago

217 782 1407 fax springfield
FROM Denison & Assocs, PC
DATE 2013-11-15 05:10:09 GMT
RE IARDC and failure to file Ethics Reporting
COVER MESSAGE
Dear Mr. White;
It has come to my attention that the attorneys, managers
and supervisors of the Ill. Atty. Registration and
Disciplinary Commn. have somehow failed to file annual
ethics disclosures regarding their fianancia1 affairs, and
this has apparently created many problems in that agency.
I have not found their disclosures posted on any state
agency website, and we have called and they claim they are
exempt and do not file.
Therefore, I am requesting on an ASAP basis that you
immediat1y issue certified letters to each of the
attorneys, managers and supervisors that they file these
reports for each year they have worked at the IARDC or
take appropriate steps as the I11inos Legislature has
mandated.
A copy of the relevant articles of legislation is attached
hereto.
Your prompt assitance is greatly appreciated by both the
citizens of the State of Illinois and the attorneys
licensed in the State of Illinois and practicing here.
Very Truly Yours,
JoAnne M Dension
Patent atty
1512 N Fremont st, #202
Chicago, IL 60642
email meatjoanne@denison1aw.com
efax 312 376 8842
WN”N.efax.com
ARTICLE XIII
GENERAL PROVISIONS
SECTION 1. DISQUALIFICATION FOR PUBLIC OFFICE
***
SECTION 2. STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS
All candidates for or holders of state offices and all
members of a Commission or Board created by this Constitution
shall file a verified statement of their economic interests,
as provided by law. The General Assembly by law may impose a
similar requirement upon candidates for, or holders of,
otlices in units of local government and school districts.
Statements shall be filed annually with the Secretary of
State and shall be available for inspection by the public.
The General Assembly by law shall prescribe a reasonable time
for filing the statement. Failure to file a statement within
the time prescribed shall result in ineligibility for, or
forfeiture of, otlice. This Section shall not be construed as
limiting the authority of any branch of government to
establish and enforce ethical standards for that branch.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)
ARTICLE VI – Judiciary
SECTION 16. ADMINISTRATION
General administrative and supervisory authority over all
courts is vested in the Supreme Court and shall be exercised
by the Chief Justice in accordance with its rules. The
Supreme Court shall appoint an administrative director and
statT, who shall serve at its pleasure, to assist the Chief
Justice in his duties.
From 5 ILCS 420:
ARTICLE 4A. DISCLOSURE OF
ECONOMIC INTERESTS,
S 4A-101. Persons required to file. The following persons shall file verified written
statements of economic interests, as provided in this Article:
(a) Members of the General Assembly and candidates for nomination or election
to the General Assembly.
(b) Persons holding an eleded office in the Executive Branch of this State,
and candidates for nomination or election to these offices.
(c) Members of a Commission or Board created by the Illinois Constitution,
and candidates for nomination or election to such Commission or Board.
(d) Persons whose appointment to office is subject to confirmation by the Senate
and persons appointed by the Governor to any other position on a board or
commission described in subsection (a) of Section 15 of the Gubernatorial
Boards and Commissions Act.
(e) Holders of, and candidates for nomination or election to, the office of judge
or associate judge of the Circuit Court and the office of judge of the Appellate or
Supreme Court.
(f) Persons who are employed by any branch, agency, authority or board of
the government of this State, including but not limited to, the Illinois State Toll
Highway Authority, the Illinois Housing Development Authority, the Illinois Community
College Board, and institutions under the jurisdiction of the Board of
Trustees of the University of Illinois, Board of Trustees of Southern Illinois University,
Board of Trustees of Chicago State University, Board of Trustees of Eastern
Illinois University, Board of Trustees of Governor’ 5 State University, Board
of Trustees of Illinois State University, Board of Trustees of Northeastern Illinois
University, Board of Trustees of Northern Illinois University, Board of Trustees
of Western Illinois University, or Board of Trustees of the Illinois Mathematics
and Science Academy, and are compensated for services as employees and
not as independent contractors a nd who:
(1) are, or function as, the head of a department, commission, board,
division, bureau, authority or other administrative unit within the government
of this State, or who exercise similar authority within the government
of this State;
(2) havedirsct supervisory authority over; or direct responsibility for the
formulation,’ n8’gotiation, issuance or ‘execution”of contracts’ 9’ntered”rnto
by the Stllteinthe ahibuntof$5,OOOOt hiore;
(3) have’ ‘a’uthority for the Tss’uarice oi ‘piom’ulgaUO’n of rul’es a’n’d regu~
9
18ti.Qr”ls”wit,hill a~a~ ,under th~ a,u.thority of. th,13 $~b;!:;
(4) have authority.for the approval of professional..licensas.;
(5) have responsibility with respect to the financial inspection of regulated
nongovernmental entities;
(6) adjudicate, arbitrate,or decide any judicial or administrative proceeding,
or review the adjudication; arbitration or decision of any judicial
or administrative proceeding within the authantyof the State; or
(7) have supervisory tespbnsibilityfat 20 aihiore ehipIOye,,, of the
State.
(8) negotiate, assign, authorize, or grant naming rights or sponsorship
rights regarding any property or asset of the State, whether real, personal,
tangible, or intangible.
(g) Persons who are elected to office in a unit of local government, and candidates
for nomination or election to that office, including regional superintendents
of school districts,
(h) Persons appointed to the governing board of a unit of local government,
or of a special district, and persons appointed to a zoning board, or zoning board
of appeals, or to a regional, county, or municipal plan commission, or to a board
of review of any county, and persons appointed to the Board of the Metropolitan
Pier and Exposition Authority and any Trustee appointed under Section 22 of
the Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority Act, and persons appointed to a
board or commission of a unit of local government who have authority to authorize
the expenditure of public funds. This subsection does not apply to members
of boards or commissions who function in an advisory capacity.
(i) Persons who are employed by a unit of local government and are compensated
for services as employees and not as independent contractors and
who:
(1) are, or function as, the head of a department, division, bureau, authority
or other administrative unit within the unit of local government, or
who exercise similar authority within the unit of local government;
(2) have direct supervisory authority over, or direct responsibility for the
formulation, negotiation, issuance or execution of contracts entered into
by the unit of local government in the amount of $1,000 or greater;
(3)..have.authority to approve.li.censes.and permits by the unit of local
government; this item does not include employees who function in a ministerial
capacity;
(4) adjudicate, arbitrate, or decide any judicial or administrative proceeding,
or review the adjudication, arbitration or decision of any judicial
or administrative proceeding within the authority of the unit of local government;
(5) have authority to issue or promulgate rules and regulations within
areas under the authority of the unit of local government; or
10
(€i) hfjVB: ::;,l,Jperyisory responsibility for 20 or more employees of the unit
of Joco.lgoY<>rnment.
U) Persons on the Board of Trustees of the Illinois Mathematics and Science
Academy.
(k) Persons employed by a school district in positions that require that person
to hold an administrative or a chief school business official endorsement.
(I) Special government agents. A “special government agent” is a person who
is directed, retained, designated, appointed, or employed, with or without compensation,
by or on behalf of a statewide executive branch constitutional officer
to make an ex parte communication under Section 5-50 of the State Officials
and Employees Ethics Act or Section 5-165 of the Illinois Administrative Procedure
Act.
(m) Members of the board of commissioners of any fiood prevention
district.
(n) Members of the board of any retirement system or investment board established
under the Illinois Pension Code, if not required to file under any other
provision of this Section.
(0) Members of the board of any pension fund established under the Illinois
Pension Code, if not required to file under any other provision of this Section.
This Section shall not be construed to prevent any unit of local government from
enacting financial disclosure requirements that require more information than required
by the Act.
(Amended by Public Act 88-187, eff. Jan.1, 1994; Public Act 88-511, eff. Jan.1, 1994; Public Act
88-605, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Public Act 91-622, eff. Aug. 19, 1999; Public Act 93-617, eff. Dec. 9,
2003; Public Act 93-816, eff. July 27, 2004; Public Act 95-719, eff. May 21, 2008; Public Act 96-
6, eff. April 3, 2009; Public Act 96-543, eff. Aug. 17, 2009

Some political humor….

Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but then I repeat myself. -Mark Twain  
     
You can lead a man to Congress, but you can’t make him think.  -Milton Berle
 
The only difference between death and taxes is that death doesn’t get worse every time Congress meets. -Will Rogers  
          
I don’t mind what Congress does, as long as they don’t do it in the streets and frighten the horses. -Victor Hugo
 
I have wondered at times what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the US Congress. -Ronald Reagan
 
Congress is so strange. A man gets up to speak and says nothing. Nobody listens – and then everybody disagrees. -Boris Marshalov
 
In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress. -John Adams
 
They say that women talk too much. If you have worked in Congress, you know that the filibuster was invented by men. -Clare Boothe Luce
 
Ancient Rome declined because it had a Senate; now what’s going to happen to us with both a Senate and a House? -Will Rogers
 
Congress – an old folks home for cripples and the mentally impaired. – Mark Twain