As many of you are probate victims in and of yourselves, many of you have been victim to the falling off of millions of dollars of assets in your loved one’s estate, or perhaps some miscreant court looks the other way while tens of thousands of dollars are removed from your accountings every year to accounts that simply don’t exist and are no where to be found and the court looks the otherway.
You are well aware of that feeling of breach of fiduciary duty and conversion of your funds.
Recently we published the Karavidas decision where an Illinois attorney was not disciplined because his conversion of funds and breach of fiduciary duty was while he was only the executor to an estate and he was not the attorney for the estate. The ARDC Review Board excused him and SCOI said firmly not all bad acts done by an attorney are subject to discipline, and especially those done as personal matters by the attorney.
So, incredulously enough, (as if this weren’t complete proof of troubles at the IARDC), we get the amazing response where the Administrator and attys Opryszek and Smart argue that the conversion and breach of fiduciary duty by Karavidis is not subject to discipline, but BLOGGING IS SUBJECT TO DISCIPLINE. They continue to argue that this blog accuses or makes false statements regarding the judiciary (which it does not and my witnesses will all state firmly it is truthful), and I have threatened to present criminal charges even though 1) I am not a prosecutor and have not acted in that capacity on a blog, and prosecutors do NOT use blogs to present criminal indictments, the due process rules still apply of a warrant, arrest and formal charges; and 2) I am not Bill Windsor of Lawless America saying that I will assembly together a grand jury calling together a group of citizens to indict certain miscreants. I have never said that. Bill Windsor has a great idea and concept, but I think we all know that concept is having a most difficult time finding purchase in the nation’s court systems and is so far being ignored.
So what exactly did the ARDC say? Read it here:
I still have not figured out how blogging is worse than conversion and breach of fiduciary duty, but perhaps one of you might enlighten me.
Further, the Karavidas decision did say that the prohibited activity had to be specifically enumerated in the conduct alleged, and I don’t see that from their assertions of 8.2, 8.4(c), 8.4(d) and 8.4(g) which no where speak about blogging. The ARDC has not explained where it gets its prohibition on blogging, esp. when the blog is non commercial in nature.
PS–the envelope did come with a cute Christmas sticker on it and I wonder if SO or MS or JL will be sending me a Christmas card soon. Oh, of course it will say please delete your blog and lie for us and life would be sooooo much easier. But I’m not into that. I’m into protecting and advising YOU the public of what is going on day after day on the 18th floor and where ever corruption is reported or suspected to me. YOU have the right to know what to expect before you step into a courtroom. It may be be the unvarnished and inconvenient truth, but at least it will be the truth and not a pack of lies you might hear elsewhere from the tied in, tied up, well connected powers that be.