Mrs. Bradwell. “no precedent, no English precedent and no necessity” “unsuited to many occupations in civil life” “timid and delicate” — what will happen on Tuesday

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

Advertisements

From Lanre Amu–his brief to the Sup. Ct. of Illinois

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

 

The truth about guardianships — from another Attorney, no less

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

9th circuit agrees: bloggers have same 1st Amendment Protections as Professional Journalists

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

New Illinois POA forms in wordperfect and word, ready to use

 

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

From Alyece Russell — write to the Am. Aca. of Neurosurgeons!

 

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.

 How can the laws be reformed if one first doesn’t listen to problems that can occur with the elderly.  One problem is that the medical field, unless it is a psychologist/
psychiatrist, doesn’t understand that the caretaker/family member can have a criminal personality.  The medical profession are putting the elderly in the hands of someone who can be dangerous.   This issue needs to be addressed.
How can we protect the elderly when you have organizations that aren’t professional to want to know the problem.
 
———- Forwarded message ———-From: Alyece Russell <llessura@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 1:54 PM
Subject: An Appointment
To: crydell@aan.com, blevi@aan.com, rlarson@aan.com, cphelps@aan.com

To the American Academy of Neurology:

I am sure that the neurologists and neuroscience professionals are dedicated to promoting the highest quality patient-centered neurologic care but it has come to my attention that the in the medical field the laws need to be reformed.  A serious situation has happened concerning my mother who is a foreign who CAN NOT speak English well and is 86 yrs. old and please do not think I am blaming the medical field but neurologists are one of the first in line in treating the elderly.
May I along with my mother’s friends come forward to represent what has happened to the executive and legal administration.  This is sad situation for my mother especially when she can’t speak her language to communicate to a doctor nor did the doctor have a translator present.  This is vital for one to be able to speak one’s feelings/thoughts completely  or emotional/psychological problems can worsen the situation.
Please do not think I am the type of person who believes in suing because I don’t.  I believe problems needs to be heard, addressed and seek a solution.  Laws in the medical profession need to be reexamined.
Time is not on my side my mother is 86 yrs. old and I hope you will allow me to meet with the executive or legal administration.  May my situation help others, I do not want anyone to go through this nightmare.
Thank you.
Ms. Russell

From Sylvia Rudek and NASGA–Advantage plan troubles continue…

National Association to Stop Guardian Abuse


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