Dear Readers;

As you know, SR has filed a civil action against Humana in ND Illinois Federal Court and we are waiting to see what the judge will say about dismissing our complaint against this mega-insurance corp that has every lawyer in the world to make sure our complaint does not succeed and that we cannot proceed further to sue for damages when a 90 year old man was left without stroke rehab for 21 days while the claim was appealed and he suffered and is now in a nursing home.

In comes more reports of problems with Humana:

http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/local_news/investigations/i-team-experts-say-court-approved-sale-was-below-market-value

The consensus so far is to drop the Advantage programs–they are in fact no advantage at all and to go with simple Medicare, which appears to have fewer problems.

This is a good and interesting read.

JoAnne

Dear Readers;

After a grueling week of trial, it’s finally over and I am amazingly relieved.  It was hard work and as you know I could not find an attorney.  I advertised repeatedly on this blog, I emailed every “ARDC defense” attorney on their list, BUT I AM THE ONLY ATTORNEY WILLING TO DO THIS WORK, WELL, MYSELF AND KEN, AND KEN WAS DISQUALIFIED.

I will not be publishing about the details of the trial until a decision is made, we will be filing motions to strike exhibits (no foundation or authentication) and a Motion for a Directed Finding, because I don’t believe Mr. Larkin has proved I was lying or that there is no jurisdiction, Mary wasn’t served, the sisters were never served (Yolanda is furious), numerous procedures were never followed (and many ARDC witnesses even testified to them, what a CITATION TO DISCOVER ASSETS was, what  CITATION TO RECOVER ASSETS WAS, what a PETITION TO DRILL A SAFE DEPOSIT BOX was; what a section 2-1401 petition was.

AND A HUGE, HUGE, THANKS TO ALYECE FOR ALL HER DEDICATED WORK HELP AND SUPPORT.

Aleyce Russell is the secretary/treasurer of Justice 4 Every1, NFP and she was an angel to drive up from South Carolina and come here to assist me and support me at trial.

It was wonderful.

Mr. Larkin has rested, so now I get to put on my case and that will be Mar. 10th and 11th at 9:30 am each day.  Uuugh.  It’s hard enough to get to the backfilled area and now he’s shooting for 9:30 which means to drive there I have to be out the door at 8 am, battle the worst traffic of the day to get to the Pru Plaza by 9:30 am.

BUT I do this all for YOU, my most beloved probate victims.  I know and see how unfair and unjust it is in some cases and I am most committed to you.  I will do a trial for a week for you, and then I will do 2 more days of trial for you.  I don’t care.  I am here to tell the truth, be the truth and spread the truth because I want to be proud of our nation’s court system and lawyers admitted to the Illinois bar.

There is something truly amiss and seriously wrong right now in the Sykes case.  I have published the facts, the pleadings, the witness reports and their declarations (Gloria, Scott, Yolanda, Kathie, Tim, Judy Ditkowsky and others who have come to court, come to trial and blogged and taken notes to ensure fairness and justice via the media.

While the judges can’t read the news about the cases before them, the lawyers can. They can see their reflections in the mirror.

I don’t have any money, I don’t know if I can even keep my office, but I’m not going to stop and I’m not going to quit.  I have several new cases I have to catch up on from last week, so if anyone can make some donations, that is appreciated.  If you can’t then I send you peace and blessings and financial healing.

JoAnne

that’s what happened today.  I was warned it would happen if I went on trial and named names and to get my money out of the banks and now it has happened.

I was told to put my money away safely outside the banks.

what a world.

JoAnne

While we are actively taking notes and blogging during this trial, the Chair has asked me to post a statement that I will blog about witness testimony, but those posts will not appear until trial is over and we reach closing arguments.

I didn’t put it on a prior post (which I can’t find now) because the purpose of that post was only to make everyone aware that we would be taking notes (blogging) and those would eventually get posted.

The rule is, witnesses must be sequestered during a trial so they don’t talk among themselves and change their testimony.

The Chair wanted me to make it clear that was not going to happen.  There is the rule of “witness squestration” so witnesses don’t compare notes and change testimony.

He wanted to make that clear.

Fine by me.  Come on by and see what is going on.  It is very interesting.

joanne

See below.  While this document contains a number of cases, still it makes it clear that if I don’t write it, but I only publish it, I am not liable in any shape or form.

http://digital.law.washington.edu/dspace-law/bitstream/handle/1773.1/398/vol3_no4_art14.pdf?sequence=1

Some articles to consider:

Actually, I am heavily involved in the assisted suicide issue, which takes abuse to a whole new level.  My blogs/website include Choice is an Illusion, which is undergoing a face lift, and Montanans Against Assisted Suicide.

Here’s a short article regarding some of the problems:  http://www.choiceillusion.org/2014/01/washingtons-assisted-suicide-act.html   This is a court case that I’m involved in:  http://www.montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org/2013/12/judge-hears-assisted-suicide-arguments.html

and while I am not a proponent of suicide, I do believe that a senior can self administer any and all pain meds they need, and if they want to refuse artificial life sustaining machines, that is fine also.  That’s JMHO.

joanne

You know, I cannot, for the life of me, reconcile the fact that I must appear before the IARDC and explain this blog and how it helps the public and all of you.  KDD cites Buck vs. Bell (sterilize the stupid which was later utilized to support Hitler’s “work camps” Albreit mach Frei or Work will Set you Free) and Dred Scott (AA’s are property).  But there are more important decisions the IARDC can cite for me.

From the NY bar we can learn something:

(nycbar.org thank you– you have inspired me and I blame you for all of this)

Women as Lawyers

In Maryland, Margaret Brent, arrived in the new country in 1638, received a land grant in St, Mary’s City and subsequently handled legal matters for Governor Calvert. It wasn’t until 1869 that a women, Belle Mansfield, (pictured at left) from Iowa, became the first attorney licensed to practice law in the United States. In the same year, Myra Bradwell from Illinois was denied admission to the state bar on the basis of her sex. Also in 1869, Lemma Barkaloo became the first women law student in the nation, attending Washington University in St. Louis after being refused admission to the Law School at Columbia. The following year, Ada Kepley, became the first women to earn a formal law degree in the United States, graduating with an LL.B. from Union College of Law in Chicago, now known as Northwestern University. Katherine “Kate” Stoneman became the first woman admitted to practice law in New York. She did so against enormous odds; supporting herself as a teacher and working nights, weekends, and summers as a clerk to an Albany lawyer until she graduated in 1898. She was the first woman to pass the New York State Bar Exam, but her application to join the bar was rejected because of her gender. The reason given by the three Supreme Court justices who denied her admission were “No precedent,” “No English precedent,” and “No necessity.” She then launched a successful campaign to amend the Code of Civil Procedure to permit the admission of qualified applicants without regard to sex or race. These and many other pioneering women have built the foundation for equality in the legal profession. According to the 2005 ABA Commission on Women in the Profession, women represented almost 30% of practicing attorneys and over 47% of new students entering law school.

In the matter of the application of Mrs. Myra Bradwell for a license to practice law, 1869
55 Illinois Reports 536, 1869-1870

In 1869, Myra Bradwell (pictured at left) passed the Illinois Bar Exam with honors. She then applied to the Illinois Supreme court for admission to the bar. The court refused her application because she was a woman. The decision was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Bradwell v. Illinois despite Bradwells’s argument based on the Immunities and Privileges Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which says: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. The opinion of Justice Bradley in the case reflected the nineteenth century society belief about women not participating in the workforce, “Man is, or should be, woman’s protector and defender. The natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many of the occupations of civil life.” Eventually, Illinois changed the rules for admitting women to the bar. In 1890, Bradwell was admitted to the Illinois bar and in 1892, she received a license to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In Maryland, Margaret Brent, arrived in the new country in 1638, received a land grant in St, Mary’s City and subsequently handled legal matters for Governor Calvert. It wasn’t until 1869 that a women, Belle Mansfield, (pictured at left) from Iowa, became the first attorney licensed to practice law in the United States. In the same year, Myra Bradwell from Illinois was denied admission to the state bar on the basis of her sex. Also in 1869, Lemma Barkaloo became the first women law student in the nation, attending Washington University in St. Louis after being refused admission to the Law School at Columbia. The following year, Ada Kepley, became the first women to earn a formal law degree in the United States, graduating with an LL.B. from Union College of Law in Chicago, now known as Northwestern University. Katherine “Kate” Stoneman became the first woman admitted to practice law in New York. She did so against enormous odds; supporting herself as a teacher and working nights, weekends, and summers as a clerk to an Albany lawyer until she graduated in 1898. She was the first woman to pass the New York State Bar Exam, but her application to join the bar was rejected because of her gender. The reason given by the three Supreme Court justices who denied her admission were “No precedent,” “No English precedent,” and “No necessity.” She then launched a successful campaign to amend the Code of Civil Procedure to permit the admission of qualified applicants without regard to sex or race. These and many other pioneering women have built the foundation for equality in the legal profession. According to the 2005 ABA Commission on Women in the Profession, women represented almost 30% of practicing attorneys and over 47% of new students entering law school.

In the matter of the application of Mrs. Myra Bradwell for a license to practice law, 1869
55 Illinois Reports 536, 1869-1870

In 1869, Myra Bradwell (pictured at left) passed the Illinois Bar Exam with honors. She then applied to the Illinois Supreme court for admission to the bar. The court refused her application because she was a woman. The decision was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Bradwell v. Illinois despite Bradwells’s argument based on the Immunities and Privileges Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which says: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. The opinion of Justice Bradley in the case reflected the nineteenth century society belief about women not participating in the workforce, “Man is, or should be, woman’s protector and defender. The natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many of the occupations of civil life.” Eventually, Illinois changed the rules for admitting women to the bar. In 1890, Bradwell was admitted to the Illinois bar and in 1892, she received a license to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court.

If the Tribunal declares I am “unsuited to many occupations in civil life due to my gender” I guess I must be sorry for that and hold the Tribunal in high esteem.

Got that.

Will never happen.

JoAnne

We are pleased to announce that Mr. Amu has filed his brief with SCOI and is kind enough to share it with us:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwa2trWEJYbkU4ek0/edit?usp=sharing

I think he did an excellent job this time of pointing out how difficult it is to convict anyone of political speech.  In his brief he makes it clear that discussion and discourse is essential to a vital and free society.

Kudos to him and let’s hope the briefs are well taken by SCOI.

These two lawyers (Mr. Amu and Ditkowsky) did not steal anything, they betrayed no client confidences, they did absolutely nothing wrong.

Rather, the IARDC has now entered into a campaign to defame and libel these two very good and honorable men by taking the approach (which is not legally permissible via dozens of SCOTUS cases), that “judges are perfect, judges can do no wrong, judges never have bad ideas”.

We know that is not true from Greylord and reading the Greylord books, the feds knew that plenty of hanky panky was going on in the upper case divisions too where the money is quite serious–law division, probate and chancery, but they knew they could not simply make up cases, it would be near impossible for any atty to bust out that system and wear a wire.

But now the hanky panky and shennagins have become soooo serious, and the internet connects us all together in a way never before seen, such that hiding this hanky panky and covering it up, Mr. IARDC is near impossible.

I hear complaints each and every day about new cases, so does the staff at NASGA and believe me, we talk all the time, comparing stories and putting together the pieces.

Then we turn it over to the authorities.

And I don’t care about criminal this or that, I am not a criminal lawyer and have absolutely no interest in that.  I think civil lawsuits are just as effective, if not more effective.

I have now trashed my entire law practice to dedicate my life to putting together the pieces and stopping the nonsense in court.  Our nation’s court systems should not be a playground for the powers that be and money grabbing simply because the other side is infirm and cannot speak for themselves.

Next week the IARDC will be after me for lying on this blog. I have no less than 6 character witnesses and 6 expert witnesses that say this is not true and more blogs like mine are needed and not fewer.  So what does the IARDC do?  they strike my expert witnesses saying they are “not experts” when in fact, the 9th circuit has just said that bloggers get the same First Amendment protections as do professional journalists.

Am I not a woman, said Soujourner Truth.

JoAnne

Read what Atty Margaret Dore has to say about guardianships in Seattle:

http://nasga-stopguardianabuse.blogspot.com/2014/01/10-reasons-people-get-railroaded-into.html

It’s interesting that the title is about railroading seniors into guardianships, is it not?

Again, this blog speaks the truth and it’s not the only source out there that is giving you, the public the truth about probate courts, in Illinois and across the nation.

Thank you Ms. Margaret Dore for your honest thoughts and comments.

JoAnne

And in a great case found by Judy Ditkowsky (thanks so much), we now know that the 9th circuit says us bloggers get the same First Amendment Protections as conventional professional journalists.

Read on.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-blogger-ruling-20140117,0,7794290.story

Now, the question is, whether my Tribunal agrees, and if they think that a private citizen who happens to have a law license, will be protected by our beloved First Amendment when she faces disciplinary proceedings for blogging.

Oh my, there’s blogging going on in the courtroom, what will we do?

I would vote the Tribunal should just reread the First Amendment, but that’s IMHO.

JoAnne

See below, these reflect the statutory changes since 2011.

these are pretty good, but you might want to put in there you don’t ever want to be isolated from your children/grandchildren and name them all. It might help, I don’t know.

POA Health Care:

In Wordperfect

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwR3Y4WUxPRllQeTQ/edit?usp=sharing

In MS Word

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwZjQ3Qzl3SnFuUTg/edit?usp=sharing

POA Property

In Wordperfect

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwaW41eVJkYnFSUDA/edit?usp=sharing

In MS Word

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwNkktLUNRX1EwVDQ/edit?usp=sharing

Dear Readers;

One of the things I have not thought of is actually writing to the American Academy of Neurosurgeons to warn them of what is going on in probate.  However, I have to tell you that MN has been told by various doctors in Chicago, that even they have noticed that the more money and property has, the more likely Rabin-Amdur-Shaw or another “probate doc” will say an oldster is demented!  Imagine that.

Read on, from Alyece:

rom: Alyece Russell
Sent: Jan 16, 2014 7:10 AM
To: jdenison@surfree.com, “ElderAngels, Inc.” , Elaine Renoire ,
Subject: Fwd: An Appointment

I wanted to forward this letter……NO one was [sufficiently] professional to contact/email me to find out WHAT the issue was regarding my mother who is an elderly……..who doesn’t understand English.  The elderlyare a group of people that America society has  little regard for their rights especially and especially a non-speaking elderly who isn’t American.  A prisoner and an animal has more legal rights.

Minnesota wants CMS to investigate Humana’s Medicare Advantage plans

Posted: 16 Jan 2014 09:10 AM PST

Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson is asking the CMS to investigate Medicare Advantage plans offered by Humana and has presented regulators with more than 25 affidavits of complaints from beneficiaries.

The affidavits allege, for instance, that Humana denied reimbursement for services that it is required to cover for all Medicare beneficiaries—including diagnostic ultrasounds, mammograms and care in a skilled-nursing facility for a stroke patient.

The letter also said, among other complaints, that the Louisville, Ky.-based insurer created confusion by not adequately disclosing which providers were in-network and does not comply with required appeals processes.

The complaints come at a time when the popularity of Medicare Advantage plans has been escalating. And Minnesota has the highest percentage of Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in an MA plan, at 49%—compared with 28.8% of beneficiaries nationwide, the letter said. Humana has 17% of the Medicare Advantage market in Minnesota, according to Swanson’s office.

Swanson wrote that she was asking the CMS to pursue an investigation because states do not have the authority to enforce Medicare Advantage plan rules and make benefit determinations.

Full Article and Source:
Minnesota wants CMS to investigate Humana’s Medicare Advantage plans

Right now Sylvia Rudek is fighting her own battles with Mediacare Humana Advantage plan in ND Illinois federal court.  We have not heard back on Human’s/OLR’s motion to dismiss, but as usual, first they argue they are “federal officers” to get into federal court, then they have “federal immunity” so they don’t have to pay for the damage and trauma caused by delaying stroke rehab to her severely debilitated father by 21 days, causing permanent damage and trauma.  Humana says it’s not responsible.  They threw about 50+ cases at us and after reading them all, I determined all of those cases had to do with no appeal being filed.  Well, Sylvia Rudek, our brave champion of the elderly filed her appeal and won!

Let’s see what the federal district court judge says.

And not only did they take one bite at the apple on a Motion to Dismiss, they took two, arguing their second motion was somehow different from the first when it clearly was not.

I hope the court does the right thing.

JoAnne

Dear Readers;

I will be on COOPER’S CORNER tonight discussing all the problems in the probate courts and what will happen with the IARDC next week who says that I am lying about the Sykes case and there are no gold coins missing and the court has jurisdiction.

Subpoenas have been served and depositions have been taken.

The trial is at 10 am each day Jan 21 to 24, 2014 and the public, of course, is invited.  I will have a blogger there to blog and post each day.

Gloria Sykes and Kathie Bakken, Yolanda Bakken and Scott will be there. The IARDC struck my expert witnesses declaring that each of Bev Cooper, Ken Cooper, Sylvia Rudek, director of Nasga, etc. are not experts in probate blogging and cable shows, which is utterly ridiculous.  I will have them talk about their own cases and how my blog doesn’t lie and is like other blogs they have seen.

Come and watch the show, come and comment on the blogs–we still have the First Amendment even if SOME authorities don’t believe that is the case.

And remember, no matter what the IARDC does next week, I am totally here for all of YOU, my beloved PUBLIC and Court abuse victims.  I will NOT abandon you.  Atty Curt Sakarian told me to take down my blog and abandon all of YOU who don’t pay me and many don’t appreciate all I do, but I absolutely refuse to abandon a one of you.

JoAnne

“Fraud On The Court By An Officer Of The Court” And “Disqualification Of Judges, State and Federal”

1. Who is an “officer of the court”?

A judge is an officer of the court, as well as are all attorneys. A state judge is a state judicial officer, paid by the State to act impartially and lawfully. A federal judge is a federal judicial officer, paid by the federal government to act impartially and lawfully. State and federal attorneys fall into the same general category and must meet the same requirements. A judge is not the court. People v. Zajic, 88 Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 (1980).

2. What is “fraud on the court”?

Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in “fraud upon the court”. In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated “Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. … It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function — thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted.”
“Fraud upon the court” has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to “embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication.” Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated “a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final.”

3. What effect does an act of “fraud upon the court” have upon the court proceeding?

“Fraud upon the court” makes void the orders and judgments of that court.
It is also clear and well-settled Illinois law that any attempt to commit “fraud upon the court” vitiates the entire proceeding. The People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934) (“The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies to judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions.”); Allen F. Moore v. Stanley F. Sievers, 336 Ill. 316; 168 N.E. 259 (1929) (“The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters …”); In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 (1962) (“It is axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything.”); Dunham v. Dunham, 57 Ill.App. 475 (1894), affirmed 162 Ill. 589 (1896); Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 338 Ill.App. 79, 86 N.E.2d 875, 883-4 (1949); Thomas Stasel v. The American Home Security Corporation, 362 Ill. 350; 199 N.E. 798 (1935).
Under Illinois and Federal law, when any officer of the court has committed “fraud upon the court”, the orders and judgment of that court are void, of no legal force or effect.

4. What causes the “Disqualification of Judges?”

Federal law requires the automatic disqualification of a Federal judge under certain circumstances.
In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge’s impartiality. If a judge’s attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified.” [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).
Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) “is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.”) (“Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.”).
That Court also stated that Section 455(a) “requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Taylor v. O’Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that “It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice.”
The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice”, Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice.
“Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances.” Taylor v. O’Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).
Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that “We think that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is filed.” Balistrieri, at 1202.
Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to follow the law. Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given another example of his “appearance of partiality” which, possibly, further disqualifies the judge. Should another judge not accept the disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has evidenced an “appearance of partiality” and has possibly disqualified himself/herself. None of the orders issued by any judge who has been disqualified by law would appear to be valid. It would appear that they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect.
Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) (“The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.”).
Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the party has been denied of any of his / her property, then the judge may have been engaged in the Federal Crime of “interference with interstate commerce”. The judge has acted in the judge’s personal capacity and not in the judge’s judicial capacity. It has been said that this judge, acting in this manner, has no more lawful authority than someone’s next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge). However some judges may not follow the law.
If you were a non-represented litigant, and should the court not follow the law as to non-represented litigants, then the judge has expressed an “appearance of partiality” and, under the law, it would seem that he/she has disqualified him/herself.
However, since not all judges keep up to date in the law, and since not all judges follow the law, it is possible that a judge may not know the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and the other courts on this subject. Notice that it states “disqualification is required” and that a judge “must be disqualified” under certain circumstances.
The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution. If a judge acts after he has been automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting without jurisdiction, and that suggest that he is then engaging in criminal acts of treason, and may be engaged in extortion and the interference with interstate commerce.
Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts. Since both treason and the interference with interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such acts.

“A judge is an officer of the court, as well as are all attorneys. A state judge is a state judicial officer, paid by the State to act impartially and lawfully. A federal judge is a federal judicial officer, paid by the federal government to act impartially and lawfully.”

A judge in a statutory court, while called a judicial officer buy definition is not a true judicial officer. Unlike a common law court created by a section of the state constitution in which true judicial power resides by its own merit, a statutory court exists at the will of the state legislature and are administrative in nature carrying out the sovereign will of its creator upon those people who are not true citizens of the state but which may be citizens of the fed gov via the 14th.

While such judges exercise judicial style powers over fed subjects and the like, constitutionally they are mere admin officers.

Dear Readers;

As you have heard it on this blog, there have been at least a half dozen cases which ran without jurisdiction:  Sykes, Wyman (death was her way out), Gore (ditto), Bedin (wrongfully evicted from hospital), Tyler (death)–in fact, once a petition is filed, death is generally the only way out.  If you ask Sylvia Rudek, director of NASGA, only a handful of people have gotten out of a filed guardianship Petition.  Wyman had the only way–and that is to run.  Carol Wyman, beaten and near death, escaped a locked down Illinois nursing home, called a son and was driven thru the night to Colorado.

Her case is famous, but still ended in the tragedy she could not see her grandchildren or any longer live in Illinois without fear she would be arrested and returned to a locked down nursing facility.

So, here is one (brave) Santa Clara woman that escaped–but the Public Guardian billed (bilked?) her $20,000 after her case was dismissed, watch on:

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/video?id=9389661&syndicate=syndicate&section

I guess if you want to avoid guardianship, have a yearly statement of sanity and competency and an RV ready to escape “the authorities.”

Smart woman, brave woman, but see how she cries for all the other probate victims.

thanks

joanne

Dear Readers:

Noah’s mom is looking for money to her little boy Noah back.  She is a good mom and cares for him deeply.

Here is the website to provide case funding and learn more of his story.

http://www.gofundme.com/65y7os

thanks for your consideration

JoAnne

Dear Readers;

As many of you have read right here on this blog, I was recently in court when Judge Stuart informed me that there is no caselaw indicating that home placement with a kind, caring relative or friend is preferred over nursing home placement.  That was related to me in the case In re Janie Thomas, 10 P 7666.

While not to burst anyone’s bubble over how grand nursing home placement is, and you have seen wonderful stories right here on this blog and on John Wyman’s blog and on other blogs (www.stopguardianabuse.org) as to such grandeur and elegance – not, here is a wonderful, wonderful report that speaks volumes on the subject.

Click to access Dangerous%20Choices.pdf

provides a wonderful, detailed report on how it is such a very nice idea to make that choice.

Despite the fact you can’t have your own stuff, you stuff gets immediately lost, stolen, destroyed, you live in a one room cell, people like Katherine Spera were never taken out of doors for nearly 3 years, yeah, I get all that.

Sounds like Disney land to me.

But the important part of all of this is under the law, it is not really the choice of the courts or family to make the decision, but it is the decision of the ward or alleged ward herself.  That’s all that counts.  Most people don’t want nursing home placement, if it can all be avoided.  Bad food, bad accommodations and who knows who is living with your or who is on staff.

Joanne

Please pray for this man and his brother.

Greetings All,

Bipolar runs in our family. Our mother was bipolar. Our father retired Lieut. Col. Clarence B. Sanders Jr. lives in Texas. Our mother Elaine Sanders, was living in Mississippi. And Robert’s brother Garr Sanders, myself, has lived in Pennsylvania my entire adult life. My brother Robert Sanders lived alone in Columbia, Missouri; when Robert started experiencing signs of bipolar he sought help. Turns out the help Robert sought for his bipolar disorder illness somehow caught the eye of Connie Hendren, a public administrator in Columbia, Missouri, Boone County. Apparently, and correctly so; Connie Hendren saw Robert as an easy target with all his family out of state Connie Hendren determined it would be easy to deceive Robert’s family. This public administrator Connie Hendren had herself appointed as Robert’s Guardian without telling Robert’s family of the guardianship hearing.   Unknown to me Robert was already under guardianship when Robert started
frantically calling me several time a day every day for a week saying he is being told not to talk to his family and would I please visit him. After many calls from my brother over a weeks time I asked Robert who is telling not to speak with your family? Robert said Connie Hendren and Robert asked me to speak with her. Robert gave me Connie Hendren’s number. I called right away Connie Hendren spoke with me on the phone stating Robert is very sick. You just don’t know how sick he is. I told Connie Hendren, Robert said, he’s being told by you not to speak with his family. Connie Hendren replied, Robert is very sick he doesn’t know what he’s saying. I asked Connie Hendren who are you to my brother? Connie Hendren said, I am Robert’s caseworker. I thanked Connie Hendren for her time; ending the call.  I never heard from my brother again. Robert disappeared. For seven years no one in Roberts family knew where he was or how he was. Our mother Elaine
frequently called Connie Hendren inquiring about Robert’s health and well-being, but Connie Hendren would not speak nicely to our mother. Our mother Elaine, would then call me crying about the harsh treatment she received over the phone by Connie Hendren. Robert’s mother was told to stop bothering Connie Hendren about Robert. Our mother Elaine said, Connie Hendren keeps telling me because of the [HIPPA] law she does not have to reveal Roberts location or any information about his health. I called Connie Hendren and Ms. Hendrens’ responce to me was I am Robert’s guardian and there is nothing you can do about it. And with the [HIPPA] Law in place I can not tell you anything about Robert; she then hung up on me. Our mother Elaine would send gifts to Robert at his last known residence an apartment in Columbia Missouri. Connie Hendren would yell at Elaine stop sending gifts for Robert I will not give them to him stop bothering me. This was said by Connie Hendren to our mother Elaine as well as many other insensitive and mean remarks. The most hurtful thing Connie Hendren repeatedly said to our mother is Robert does not want to have anything to do with you, stop calling me. After many years of this unprofessional and cruel treatment to Elaine, our mother had a complete nervous breakdown. Our mother died in that Mississippi hospital and it was a wrongful death. My Mississippi attorney contacted Connie Hendren so Robert would receive his portion of the settlement. Connie Hendren was so happy to hear of the money she said I can visit Robert in the Hannibal nursing home called Levering. This is how we learned of Robert’s location and that he is living in a nursing home. After the lawsuit money was distributed Connie Hendren [tried] to talk me out of visiting Robert. Connie Hendren even made up stories that Robert has changed a lot and has become violent; throwing a nurse down stairs and hitting a orderly. Knowing my brother I had a hard time believing this, but it did scare me so I called the nursing home and asked if Robert is violent? The on duty nurse said NO Robert is well liked by everyone and Robert has no history of any violence. The day before I was to leave for Missouri when she then denied visitation to me. The governor at that time was Gov. Blunt. I contacted Gov. Blunt’s office and his staff said family should be allowed to visit and they would make some calls for me. By the end of that day with Gov. Blunt staffs help I was able to obtain an email with written permission to visit my brother Robert.  This first day I got into Missouri I went to see Robert. I was shocked to find my brother dressed like a hobo in ragged clothes and unshaven with long hair. Robert unshaven with long hair and in ragged clothes. My brother look like a hobo. During that first visit I asked Robert is there anything you would like? Can I get you anything? The first thing Robert
asked for was adult diapers, specifically Depends. Robert stated, “My medicine causes me to wet my bed. I am refused adult diapers then I am yelled at and punished for having a wet bed”. The next item Robert requested was a toothbrush, then some socks and underwear. Robert said for the past five years I have only had: one toothbrush, one pair of pants that were given to me with holes in them and one leg cut raggedly above the ankle the other pant leg left long, a few T-shirts and two pair of socks and underwear. Robert said, ” I had to beg and beg for shoe laces for my sneakers.  During that week of visiting Robert we used my cell phone to call our father and to call on her grandmother just to say hi hello. Roberts state of mind and proved greatly during that first week I spent with him. I was approached by the nursing home staff and told not to allow Robert to use my cell phone. I was told by nursing home staff if I continue she allow Robert to use my
cell phone I would not be allowed to visit Robert. I also was told by the nursing home staff and by the Guardian Connie Hendren to stop buying Robert clothes, shoes, cigarettes and non perishable foods. Robert had requested Winston cigarettes, and Honey Roasted Peanuts. I was told to ignore Roberts requests.  Just before the end of that first week while visiting with Robert Robert went into a sort of days state of mind with his mouth gaped open drooling then Robert began to uncontrollably shake. After a few moments of this Robert went stiff while still shaking uncontrollably. I called out to someone sitting on a bench to get help. About 5 min. past was no one returning. Finally, nursing home staff showed up in a group of about six or seven staff. They surrounded Robert and didn’t and did nothing to help. Robert continued to be stiff while shaking uncontrollably. A long time past with nothing being done so I asked for them to call the ambulance. I was
told by nursing home staff Robert would be all right there was no need to call an ambulance. Eight more minutes passed and Robert was still unconscious stiff and shaking. Four times I asked for the ambulance to be called and four times the nursing home staff refused acting as if this was no big deal. So I took my cell phone out and said if you’re not going to call then I will. It was at that point the entire nursing home staff present weight into a huddle. I overheard one of them say we better call.  After Robert returned from the hospital I was refused visitation with Robert. The nursing home staff and the Guardian told me I was no longer allowed to visit with my brother and if I come back onto nursing home property I will be arrested for trespassing. The nursing home already had an officer there who then walked me to my vehicle and before leaving the officer told me if I come back I will be arrested.  In 2008, I applied for guardianship of Robert
Allan Sanders my beloved brother. Our father retired Lieut. Col. Sanders drove from Texas to be at the guardianship hearing. Both our father and myself stated under oath that we never received notification of the original guardianship hearing. None of Roberts immediate family were contacted about a guardianship hearing. Not Robert’s mother, not Robert’s father, not Robert’s brother.  Both Robert’s father and Robert’s brother were denied guardianship in 2008. And I would like to mention that the attorney defended the guardian and not the best interest of Robert the Ward paying her. Also I would like to point out that the attorney at Connie Hendren’s side also represents herself as the attorney for the nursing home Robert has been forced to live in, in isolation from family and friends. After losing the guardianship hearing the nursing home and the Guardian allowed me Robert’s brother Garr to visit with Robert. It was told to me by the nursing home
administration that I was being given the privilege of visiting my brother only because I should know by now they and the guardian have all the control and power over Robert. I was also told in the same conversation with nursing home staff administration if I do not keep them happy they will revoke the privilege of visiting my brother Robert and I would never be allowed to see Robert again. I was told keeping them happy consisted of not allowing Robert to use the phone, not buying Robert clothes, or gifts of cigarettes or food or any other item. Also, Robert and I would have to stay near the front desk during our visits so that the nursing home staff can watch and listen to everything we say and do. It was not long after visiting with my brother that he began telling me his teeth hurt, he is in pain; and Robert said, he has not ever seen a dentist while living in the nursing home. Long story short, the guardian told an untruth saying Robert sees a local
dentist every year. Because I wrote to many people outside of the guardian and nursing home about Robert being in pain an appointment was made for Robert. However, the appointment for Robert was not a local or even a dentist office. Robert was taken to St. Louis office was put to sleep and given what I believe to be electroshock and mind control. When Robert returned to the nursing home and I visited him the very next day Robert told me he was hurt so bad he would never ask to see a dentist again. When I asked Robert what they did he replied they put me to sleep and hurt me so bad please don’t ask me go to the dentist again. I asked Robert to show me what they did to his teeth. Robert opened his mouth and I said nothing was done to your teeth. Shortly thereafter I spoke with the nursing home administrator about nothing being done for Robert’s teeth; not even a clean. I was told not to worry about it — it is all good. Under my breath I disagreed. I
asked this matter be looked into further and at that point I was told to gather my things say goodbye to my brother for I will never be allowed to see him again. I did as I was told knowing I would be arrested if I did not. While saying goodbye to Robert I let him know I will never give up trying to help him. Robert reassured me that no matter what happens he will never hurt or kill himself. I believe Robert made this statement because of the fear he has that the nursing home staff is capable of causing a residence death and making it look like suicide.  Five years have passed since that day and I still cannot find someone to help Robert get out of the situation Connie Hendren has put him in. Also I would like known that part of the stipulation Connie made in order for me to be able to visit with Robert is I was never to tell Robert about the money he has. Looking through Robert’s public records I found it documented that Robert has been homeless while
under Connie Hendren’s care. I recall Robert stating he was forced to live in a hotel room with four other men for a long period of time. From Robert’s statements and my observations as well as my experiences with Connie Hendren is obvious to me she’s keeping his money for herself. Robert was not even aware of a clothing allowance, a Christmas allowance, and Robert believed he had no money whatsoever at any point in his acquaintance under Connie Hendren’s thumb. I can tell you true Connie Hendren, herself said to me I am in charge of over 3 million (possibly 7 million I don’t remember the exact amount she stated) from her wards and she answers to no one and does what she likes with it and there’s nothing I can do about it; Connie Hendren then gave a cackling laugh and hung up the phone on me. Also I would like it known Robert’s eyeglasses were taken away from him when he first started living at the nursing home. In the short time I had contact with my brother I was able to see to it he got new eyeglasses. Within a month and a half of having his new eyeglasses Robert told me while he was at lunch leaving the eyeglasses behind in his room when he came back to his room they were mysteriously broken once again. Robert said, without his eyeglasses looking out the window he just sees shadows of people. This further isolates Robert. I have written many affidavits each of which has been sent to Terry Hassler of CCHR Citizens Commission on Human Rights. I would very much like it and I give full permission for you to have Terry Hassler or anyone at CCHR to send you copies of all of the affidavits concerning Robert Sanders.  Having tried to be as brief as I possibly can concerning the health and well-being of Robert Sanders and his story of being kidnapped and locked away in isolation I must say one thing that I know I have not mentioned in this letter or in my affidavits. Robert during the first week I visited him told me he has been raped by nursing home staff. Now I know because of the fear Robert has of retaliation he will never admit to abuse, and neglect, isolation, and rape. Even during that first week visiting Robert he was told to get rid of me or I would be hurt. Robert said to me I want you to go back to Pennsylvania and forget about me I am worried for your safety. I said to Robert they don’t know how tenacious I can be I won’t give up trying to help you. Robert said, please don’t feel you have to do this. I said to Robert, all I do is help other people and most of them don’t even appreciate it. I would rather help you Rob, someone I love and someone I know would not take advantage of me or try and hurt me in some way. 

It is my belief that Robert was nearly beaten to death by a staff member of Levering nursing home. I believe my brother Robert was beaten because I had gone to the local paper to ask that they do a human interest story on Robert and the woman at the paper told me she was resonantly told a resident of Levering nursing home has been nearly beaten to death by a staff member. The local paper woman even went so far as to tell me she has picture of the man, but I was not shown the pictures or told the names of the people involved at Levering. I went home and called our aunt Konnie Jo in Mississippi and asked her to call Levering because I am worried about Robert. Konnie Jo called me back and said that Levering told her Robert is in the hospital and they would not say why he had to go to the hospital. made some calls to find Robert, but he was not at the local hospital. I finally found out Robert was in a hospital in St. Luis, Missouri, but no one would tell me how Robert was or anything else other then he was there. After telling our aunt about Robert being in St. Luis hospital she said I should go back to the local paper and ask the woman to tell me who was nearly beaten to death it may be my brother. It was late in the day and the paper office was closed so I went back the very next day. The local paper woman told me she never said such a thing. I said I was hear yesterday and you did tell me that a man was beaten nearly to death at Levering by a staff member. The woman then made up some flimsy story that it was a fight between two people at a half way house, over a girl. I know she was not telling the truth. I feel someone had gotten to her and scared her to shut up. I too have been face to face threatened and hurt very badly by strangers to me in Hannibal over the fact that I have not given up trying to find help for Robert. Being threatened to leave town then being badly hurt has happened more then once to me in Hannibal by people I do not recognize. These attacks have affected my short term memory, and the stress of all this has had damaging affects on my health. However, I will continue to seek help on behalf of my brother Robert because I know he needs help, and because he asked me to help him.

Dear Readers;

Today, someone sent me the IARDC announcement of lawyers disciplined for the Sept. 2013 term.  Ken’s name was not on there, but his litigation is not over.  Somehow, Mr. Amu’s is, but apparently he has an interrim suspension.

Mr. Amu accused about 4 Cook County Circuit judges of being corrupt.  When you look into the matter you do see some quite fishy things–a large Summary Judgement motion filed and Mr. Amu given 7 days to respond with some snotty statements made.  Then when you look at public records you begin to question what the heck is going on that the IARDC and authorities don’t see.

In any case, if the article were accurate, it would at least say that Mr. Amu did not just “make false statements”, rather he accused 4 Circuit Court judges of being corrupt, making unfair and biased rulings and that HE was required to prove the statements were true in order to keep his law license and not the other way around, as set forth in the Rules for Professional Conduct/Discipline which makes it clear that it is the Petitioner’s obligation to prove a rule violation by clear and convincing evidence.

It is interesting that all that is skipped in the below snippet:

(from http://iln.isba.org/blog/2013/09/25/illinois-supreme-court-disbars-6-suspends-31-latest-disciplinary-filing, search “amu”)

The following orders were entered by the court prior to the September 2013 term but were not included in any previous release.

• Lanre O. Amu, Chicago

Mr. Amu, who was licensed in 1996, was suspended on an interim basis and until further order of the Court. He made false statements of material fact to tribunals and also made false statements concerning the qualifications or integrity of judges. The ARDC Hearing Board has recommended that he be suspended for three years and until further order of the Court.

from the editor:

so, for unbiased reporting, you heard it here and you can see the pleadings and transcripts yourself on Mr. Amu’s website.

So my questions are:  1) why isn’t it mentioned that 4 judges were accused of corruption by Mr. Amu; 2) what was the basis for him making these statements; and 3) why wasn’t the IARDC required to bring in witnesses and prove that the statements were false by clear and convincing evidence and 4) all the IARDC did say in its opinion was that judges are always right, judges are always perfect and anyone accusing them of being corrupt always is wrong.

Of course, and unfortunately, what Mr. Amu didn’t know is that he would have to bring in his clients, one by one and have THEM tell the Tribunal why THEY felt their cases were before a corrupt court.

Now why don’t they tell us these things in CLE?

You have to admit that it is most interesting that the announcement is that Mr. Amu made false and misleading statements; however, the announcement is quite the entire story either.

JoAnne

Dear Reader;

As you are aware, Atty Amu suspected, and then noted, that some Cook County judges were acting “corruptly”, that is, not in accordance with rules, laws, standards and norms in the courts.  After looking at public records of many of these judges, I have to agree, there is something rotten going on.  I have asked the question about all this but have not received a response yet.

For those of you not keeping up with SCOI (Ill. Sup. Ct. news), it turns out that the SCOI justices somehow amassed $3 million in campaign funds from those interested in making the “right” decision on Illinois pension cases.  While Citizen’s United language (SCOTUS case, 2008 decision, Google cases), makes it clear anyone can donate money to any entity or thing, it is your constitutional right, at some point this runs right smack dab against looking corrupt.  After all, our infamous former gov. Blago only wanted to sell an US senate seat for $1 million in campaign donations and went to club fed med for that one.

What if the SCOI justices and their wives were wire tapped?  What  if one said, “hey honey, I think we’re set for life now, just asked for and got $1 million to write a certain opinion in a certain way for a pension fund protection group”.  Is that the same or different than what Blago did?  Is it honest services under the Honest Services Act?  Is that what our SCOTUS justices envisioned was okay under Citizens United?  Does the wire tap and intruding into a politician’s privacy make it all different somehow?

Did you know that when a politician announces that he will no longer run for office, he can dump out accrued campaign funds into his personal bank account and it is taxes as ordinary income?  Most of the news articles skip that juicy detail.

And I’m only asking the question, I’m not giving you an answer or saying what is correct.

Read on for Ken’s recommendations to Mr. Amu to focus in his brief, which is due soon to SCOI–the Illinois judges with a public disclosure of $3 million in funding, for what?

JoAnne

From Ken Ditkowsky:

Since it’s inception, this blog has been about cleaning up the courts, ensuring justice, eliminating tie ins and tie ups, looking for constitutional violations (Sykes, Gore, Bedin, Wyman, Drabik), and thanks to Gloria’s great research, we can see how someone else does it–read on.

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Jan 3, 2014 9:54 PM
To: GLORIA Jean SYKES , Tim Lahrman NASGA , “k_bakken@att.net”
Cc: Eric Holder , Cook County States Attorney , “acluofillinois@aclu-il.org” , “ACLU@ACLU.ORG” , NASGA , probate sharks , JoAnne Denison , Cook Sheriff , “illinois.ardc@gmail.com” , “Mr. Lanre Amu — honest atty unfairly persecuted by ARDC” , SUNTIMES , Chicago Tribune , “michael@activistpost.com” , Harry Heckert , j ditkowsky
Subject: Re: the 1969 scandal of the courts

People v. Issacs

Once upon a time there was a Committee To Clean Up The Courts headed by a Sherman Skolnick, who in 1969 petitioned the Illinois Supreme Court for leave for amici curiae and “request that this Court investigate the decision in the above case“. 

(see, http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/manaster/motionJune11.html)

The Illinois Supreme Court denied leave but on it’s own, entered an order and appointed a commission to investigate the decision.

(see, http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/manaster/orderJune17.html)

So I‘m thinking who we can get, or do I, ask the Illinois Supreme Court for Leave to investigate the order appointing Carolyn Toerpe guardian, as well as all orders prior and subsequent? The argument was “Public interest requires such an investigation”.

        “A court has inherent power to investigate whether its judgments, orders, and decrees are tainted by fraud upon the court, and obtained by such fraud upon the court, and for that purpose may bring before it, by appropriate means, all those who may be affected by the outcome of the investigation.”  Universal Oil Prod.Co. vs. Root Refining Co., 328 U.S. 575, 580, 66 S.Ct.1176, 1179

Similar, there has been grave amounts of fraud on the Probate court (as well as the FED Court) and even more sad, on the Appellate Court. 

A Commission was appointed and in the end, the Judge took an early retirement and left the bench.

These are interesting reads and I think clever action that somehow we should also take, I‘m just not certain how.

 Gloria Sykes

See our certificate of good standing for Justice for Everyone, NFP.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwT2Nwd0ZNSW9KbFk/edit?usp=sharing

And our articles of incorporation.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwMERUNGl1ZTV1MW8/edit?usp=sharing

All of the “social justice” cases from Denison & Assocs, PC will be transferred to Justice 4 Every1, NFP.

We are still seeking donations to help out all our social justice cases and clients.  We will strive to help everyone without payment or payment up front for cases where there is severe social injustice in the courts and/or an indigent client is involved.

Thanks

JoAnne