From KDD–very important case–$2.5 million verdict for atty whistleblower!

CHICAGO (AP) – A Cook County jury awarded $2.5 million to a former Chicago State University lawyer who claimed he was fired for reporting improprieties to the Illinois attorney general.
The Chicago Sun-Times reports (http://bit.ly/NzkrSl ) 47-year-old James Crowley was awarded $2 million in damages and $480,000 in back pay. The jury also said CSU needed to reinstate Crowley to his position as senior legal counsel at the school.
Preston Pugh is an attorney for the school. He said they were considering an appeal and says Crowley wasn’t fired in retaliation. Instead, CSU says he was fired for misusing school money to pay for parking and directing scholarship money for friend, among other issues.
An Illinois Attorney General spokeswoman says the case may be the first whistleblower claim under Illinois’ decade-old ethics act.
___

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/27/jury-awards-25-million-in-chicago-state-lawsuit/#ixzz2uYr8IKdm

Donations Needed Today!

1) of course, funding.  you can donate at http://www.denisonlaw.com by credit card and mark your payment donation to Justice4 Every1, or you can paypal a donation to joanne@denisonlaw.com.

2) Therapists.  We always have a need for trained therapists to work with our clients who have been emotionally abused and damaged by courts lacking ethics, integrity and honesty.  If you are a licensed therapist, please contact me because we are in urgent need of free therapy for some of our members. Therapists should be experienced in PTLD or Post Traumatic Litigation Disorder.

3) Office Space.  While I have a very kind lawyer who has donated desk space to me for the current time, we are looking for reasonable or low cost office space near the courts.

4) Volunteer Lawyers and law clerks.  We are looking for a system of volunteer lawyers and law clerks that can work on and research and write briefs, memoranda and opinions on probate law and human and civil rights.

Your assistance is greatly appreciate.

JoAnne

Other whistleblowers have problems with the 9th circuit

In the below case, a police officer is put on administrative leave after witnessing another officer beat and choke a suspect.  The whistleblower sued in Federal Court to get his job back. The 9th circuit denied his Petition to appeal.  The city has not decided whether to reinstate him on his job.

Despite plenty of state and federal laws to protect whistleblowers, they are still often victimized by the system.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-us-supreme-court-will-not-review-decision-involving-former-burbank-police-detective-20140226,0,2928626.story#axzz2uSgfEitZ

Next mission — free Mary Sykes!

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Feb 26, 2014 6:45 PM
To: Tim NASGA , Kathie Bakken , John Howard Wyman , NASGA , probate sharks , scott evans , Jo Anne M Denison
Subject: Re: Next step – Save Mary Sykes!

In the 1940’s one of the radio shows commenced with the words: “the path of crime bears bitter fruit”
In reviewing this claim of JoAnne and discussing it with her it is abundantly clear that Mr. Larkin (and/or his surrogates) copied her blog with the only purpose of harassing her and attempting to intimidate her.  Certainly Larkin was and is aware that the Supreme Court of the United States made it abundantly clear that government cannot regulate content based speech.  To a limited extent it can regulate commercial speech, but, the call for an Honest Investigation of the elder cleaning cottage industry is protected by the core values of America and the First Amendment.   How therefore does Larkin and the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary commission download a single word from her blog (which is copy righted)?
Of course Larkin as an attorney who assumes the role of the moral compass of the legal profession is presumed to be familiar with the law and the limitations on government power that the Bill of Rights manifests.   He should be aware of the Citizens United case and the harsh words that define the broad scope of the First Amendment.   Why does he think that the Constitution does not apply to him?    Why does he think that copyrights protections do not apply to him and his minions?    People who act in derogation of the law cannot claim the ‘fair usage’ exception to the copyright laws!   Thus, Larkin is on the hook along with his cronies who slavishly *****.
As you are aware, Mary Sykes was removed from home and railroaded into a guardianship.   This guardianship was intended by the miscreants to be a kill of death.   Quickly they estranged her from her younger daughter and her siblings, removed her from her home and activities and enrolled her in an adult day care center.   This center was designed by **** to take active intelligent seniors who were living productive lives and convert them into zombies.  (Scott Evans employed his investigative skills honed by the United States of America and traced Mary down.   He reported this situation to the Court when Mr. Schmiedel bragged to the Court what wonderful progress Mary was making).
JoAnne and I have been calling for an HONEST complete, intelligent, and comprehensive investigation.   This call according to our miscreants (including certain governmental employees who are reported to be more than a little delinquent in filing ethics reports) is contrary to the ethics of the legal profession.   Ms. Farenga has copied hundreds of pages of JoAnne’s blog, the writings found in NASGA and Probate Sharks and forwarded the same to Larkin’s cronies.  (all of the whom receive substantial paychecks from the State of Illinois).   Farenga infringed repeatedly however, we recognize that the First Amendment protects the right to petition to the government (First Amendment).   This right exist even if you petition to the government to act in discriminatory and illegal form.  Farenga petitioned to the IARDC to deny JoAnne and me our First Amendment Rights!
We reason that Farenga copyright infringement is probably within the fair usage protection of the copyright law.   She therefore is not sued for her outrageous usurpation of the intellectual property rights that she obtained by her infringement.   An argument could be made that had the IARDC just adopted the intellectual property that Farenga mailed them in her successful efforts to violate our civil rights this suit would never have been filed; however, Larkin and the IARDC demonstrated once again their disrespect for American Core values by hiring an ‘expert’ to [provide software] do the actual infringing.   The IARDC under Larkin’s direction independently copied (infringed) the entire blog.    74 USCA 230 be damned!  Congress in enacting laws apparently has placed a clause in the law – this law applies to everyone except Jerome Larkin and those people protecting the cottage industry of elder cleansing.  [elderly cleansing has three elements 1) railroad a senior into a guardianship, 2) liberate the seniors life savings and other assets, and 3) effectuate an involuntary assisted suicide!
JoAnne and I have filed a civil rights suit against Larkin, Schmiedel, Farenga, and Stern.  You will find a copy on JoAnne’s blog or if you want a fax or an e-mail call Mr. larry Chambers at 847 600 3421 and he will furnish you with a copy.    This lawsuit is separate and sues only Larkin and his co-infringers.  Mr. Schmiedel and Mr. Stern according to our Rule 11 investigation appear to be innocent of this perfidy and thus as I have no interest in the blog or in the copyrights Mr. Schmiedel, Mr. Stern and I are not parties.   Ms. Farenga also is not a party as giving the ‘fair use’ exception an overbroad analysis we have applied it to her and she is also not a party.
What is so interesting is the fact that we begged Larkin and the guardian ad litems to join in us in our call for an INVESTIGATION.   You’d have thought that we were using ‘dirty’ words from the response.   Why do these people fear an Investigation!   Why is it so important to keep Mary Sykes hostage and isolated?    I am hoping that General Holder will do the appropriate investigation and we will get Mary freed while she still has time on Earth to enjoy her two elderly sisters and her younger daughter.
 
 
Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

From Joanne;

I am NOT in agreement at all that Ms. Farenga can copy hundreds of pages of my blog ostensibly in an effort to “report me” to the IARDC for an investigation, when she is involved in a case 1) without jurisdiction–no evidence of service of summons or complaint upon Mary; 2) an improperly issued TRO that has lasted for 150+ ten day periods; 3) comingling of an estate with a trust where the trust held Mary’s home but the estate paid the mortgage; 4) an (unfair and grossly overreaching) attack on a settlement (Lumberman’s) which clearly belonged to Gloria for her home to be rebuilt and now it lies in waste and she is homeless and penniless whereas before Dec 7, 2009 Gloria had in excess of $250k in assets at her disposale; 5) cuffing Gloria to find out where these assets were and freeze them; 6) conveniently PS asserts he is owed over $200k in legal fees; the isolation of Mary from over half her friends and family; 7) placing her in a nursing home without court order; 8) no bond on the TRO…..  you get the picture.

I have the right to say those things.  Fair use is only a handful of sentences within a paragraph and for research, educational  and non commercial purposes, not pages and pages of downloading and copying to “report someone” with reams of text that is clearly mundane and innocuous.  I would not recommend doing that to anyone, as an IP lawyer.  Only take what you need and leave the rest.  If you don’t, you clearly risk suit for infringement.

But the IARDC comes after myself and Ken for calling for an investigation. Writing the authorities (so you can see that SOME attorneys are honest and care about justice and ethics) and we show you how to do this.

The IARDC claims calling for an investigation of a highly troubled case is unethical and is “overly critical” of some golden boy and girl attorneys.

I still see attorneys going into Judge Stuart’s private areas–despite the Greylord orders prohibiting that.

We call for an investigation, we are investigate and they want this blog shut down.

The miscreants violate Greylord orders not to go talk to the judges privately and cut their deals, and the IARDC looks the other way.

And you wonder why many call this the “Crook County” court system.

Ken and I are here to clean it up.  To point out directly where compliance is sorely lacking.  We want YOU, the public to have confidence in the court system again.  We want the Greylord orders enforced.  We want the IARDC to go after the miscreants and not the messengers.  We have other attorneys now and a network helping us.

If you are an attorney, please write me and start your own blog about fighting for truth and justice in the courtrooms.

I will not stop unless and until I hear no more complaints about gross violations of ethics that the IARDC and the courts are ignoring.

JoAnne

Aside

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Feb 23, 2014 3:21 PM
To: “illinois.ardc@gmail.com”
Cc: Eric Holder , Jo Anne M Denison , Cook County States Attorney , NASGA , probate sharks
Subject: Complaint against attorney Jerome larkin

Even though I have been wrongfully disqualified by Ms. JoAnne Denison’s hearing panel, Ms. Denison has authorized to represent her interests in other litigation.     It has been reported to me that certain of Ms. Denison’s copyrights have been allegedly violated by persons who are servants of Mr. Larkin.    As the infringement of a copyright is a ‘taking’ this action constitutes a serious matter. 18 USCA 4.   
 
As the ‘moral’ determinant or determinator for attorneys Larkin should be as Caesar’s wife.   It does not appear that he has been filing Ethics statements as is required of all public employees and the complaint the he filed (see Rule 137) against Ms. Denison violates 47 USCA 230.    I desire that the independent lawyer investigating Mr. Larkin’s conduct be informed of this serious indiscretion and the fact that it appears to have continued for some time even after Larkin was informed of the same.   Of course Lawyers are charged with knowledge of the law; however, *******For your information:
 

Effective: October 21, 1998
47 U.S.C.A. § 230
§ 230. Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material
Currentness
(a) Findings
The Congress finds the following:
(1) The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens.
(2) These services offer users a great degree of control over the information that they receive, as well as the potential for even greater control in the future as technology develops.
(3) The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.
(4) The Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation.
(5) Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services.
(b) Policy
It is the policy of the United States–
(1) to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media;
(2) to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;
(3) to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services;
(4) to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children’s access to objectionable or inappropriate online material; and
(5) to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer.
(c) Protection for “good samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
(2) Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of–
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).1
(d) Obligations of interactive computer service
A provider of interactive computer service shall, at the time of entering an agreement with a customer for the provision of interactive computer service and in a manner deemed appropriate by the provider, notify such customer that parental control protections (such as computer hardware, software, or filtering services) are commercially available that may assist the customer in limiting access to material that is harmful to minors. Such notice shall identify, or provide the customer with access to information identifying, current providers of such protections.
(e) Effect on other laws
(1) No effect on criminal law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of Title 18, or any other Federal criminal statute.
(2) No effect on intellectual property law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.
(3) State law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.
(4) No effect on Communications Privacy law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the application of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 or any of the amendments made by such Act, or any similar State law.
(f) Definitions
As used in this section:
(1) Internet
The term “Internet” means the international computer network of both Federal and non-Federal interoperable packet switched data networks.
(2) Interactive computer service
The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.
(3) Information content provider
The term “information content provider” means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.
(4) Access software provider
The term “access software provider” means a provider of software (including client or server software), or enabling tools that do any one or more of the following:
(A) filter, screen, allow, or disallow content;
(B) pick, choose, analyze, or digest content; or
(C) transmit, receive, display, forward, cache, search, subset, organize, reorganize, or translate content.

CREDIT(S)
(June 19, 1934, c. 652, Title II, § 230, as added Feb. 8, 1996, Pub.L. 104-104, Title I, § 509, 110 Stat. 137; Oct. 21, 1998, Pub.L. 105-277, Div. C, Title XIV, § 1404(a), 112 Stat. 2681-739.)
47 U.S.C.A. § 230
 
Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

KDD/JMD v. JL – Responses to Motions to Dismiss

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Feb 22, 2014 5:47 AM
To: Jo Anne M Denison , Harry Heckert , Lawrence Hyman , Don Johnson
Cc: “ACLU@ACLU.ORG” , “ilsenate29@sbcglobal.net” , “IllinoisLawyerNow@isba.org” , “ilhouse51@sbcglobal.net” , “ilrep49@sbcglobal.net” , “ilsenate20@sbcglobal.net” , “illhouse@aol.com” , “isilverstein@senatedem.ilga.gov” , “ildbambic@govabuse.org” , “tips@elderabuseexposed.com” , Eric Holder , matt senator kirk
Subject: Fw: Response to Motion

 JoAnne
Enclosed please find our response to the Motion to Dismiss our civil rights lawsuit based upon Mr. Larkin, the Administrator of the IARDC, acting in concert with Guardian ad litems Stern, Farenga, and Attorney Peter Schmiedel to attempt to silence our call for an HONEST COMPLETE AND COMPREHENSIVE INVESTIGATION of Elder abuse, financial exploitation of the elderly, and the final step in elder cleansing – assisted involuntary suicide.
Mr. Larkin’s defense is to try to distort the facts and characterize the complaint as a lawsuit against the State of Illinois.   Except for being intellectually dishonest and part of the continuing pattern of misrepresentation and distortion that has been so obvious in the various ‘elder cleansing cases’ and in the ‘cover up’ of the corruption that the participants in the elder cleansing cottage industry indulge the Memorandum that we respond to is an interesting document.
If the miscreants are required to respond to the allegations of the complaint rather than some mythical document of their own making, Larkin has a number of problems that he cannot over-come, to wit:
1) We did not sue the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission.   They are not a party to the lawsuit.   Thus, any claim of Sovereign immunity has not basis – Larkin may be part of the political royalty, but in the eyes of the law he is entitled to no special status.
2) The Rule of Law is promulgated by the Supreme Court of the United States, not Larkin and the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission.
3) The Commission can only act within its delegated powers.   In Loving the Court just knocked the IRS in the head for exceeding its delegated powers!    Larkin and his lawyers are aware that he cannot employ powers that no body of government enjoys – i.e. the effort to limit, impede, or hinder the First Amendment Rights of citizens.   As a lawyer, Larkin should be aware that Circuit Court Judges (state judges) are elected.  Larkin should be aware that as elected officials government cannot protect Judges from critical comment or even abrasive and totally false verbal attacks outside of the actual Court proceedings.
4) the Commission is demonstrating a disrespect for the Court by citing cases that it knows are no longer the law, or as they did in Sawyer totally misrepresenting the ruling of the Court.
In reading the documents filed by Schmiedel and Larkin it is apparent that for undisclosed reasons they have a desperate stake in preserving the cottage industry of elder cleansing.  With the specter of Greylord being raised again it is very sad that history is repeating itself and the funds of the State of Illinois are not being spent to protect the public, but to protect those who are separating our most vulnerable citizens – the elderly and the disabled – from their liberty, their property, their civil rights and their human rights.
[the legal profession disgraced itself by its conduct in Operation Greylord and in these elderly cleansing cases it is allowing history to repeat itself.   For the record I am complying with 18 UsCA 4 in reporting the 18 USCA 371 actions by Larkin, Schmiedel, Stern and Farenga and forwarding copies of this Memorandum to law enforcement. ]
Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

From Joanne:

And in my usual fashion of ensuring openness and transparency to you, my reader, I will be publishing all the Pacer pleadings on this blog.  We have 18 so far and I hope to have them all up in a few minutes. The suit Ken and I filed is about our civil rights.  All I have done is run a blog.  It should be protected by the first amendment.  It is clearly political speech imploring the court system to do a better job because there are a ton of a ton of a ton of (valid) complaints out there.

Here is the current drive:

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwSlRTQjRvVFhZcVU&usp=sharing

And I will add to it often as possible.

Transparency and accountability.

I can hardly wait for discovery to open.  I have a ton of a ton of questions about the IARDC.  For example, how is it that JL is sued personally, but he has THREE attorneys working for a state agency defending him with public funds?  Those funds belong to the public and not JL’s private fiefdom.  Also, if you take a look at the 2012 Annual Report you will note that the IARDC apparently has some sort of slush fund of some $21 million in “investments”.  What exactly are they investing in, and why isn’t this disclosed to any attorney that they call in on a disciplinary matter?  Who decides what to invest in, how are they managed?  Are there kickbacks we’ll never know about because the IARDC refuses to comply with the 2009 Illinois Ethics Act?  I have a whole lot of questions.  I have seen and smelled the fish around this one for a long time.

 

JoAnne

Looking for today…….

1) Donations of office space.

2) M.D.’s who are willing to go against the powers that be in probate and tell the truth that certain wards have ample cognitive abilities and prepare reports.

3) CPA’s who can verify accounting statements are true and accurate when miscreants are willing to lie, cheat and steal over them.

Please email me if you know of any reputable, honest M.D.’s or CPA’s willing to help and provide court testimony.

We need to band together to reintroduce honest, ethics and morality into the Probate Courts.