Is my case too big for the Tribunal to gloss over and simply dismiss out of hand?

Is my case too big for the Tribunal to gloss over?

Ken has brought up some really great points in a recent email.

Kathie testified she and her mother were told by Adam Stern that they could not visit because they “took the wrong side”.  The Chair was non plussed over this.  He had a clear agenda of “sour grapes” and stuck to it.  The powers that be should be proud of this Chair.

But the problem is, we have the Betts case which says an attorney has to have a proper CCP211 (CT and the trouble feasors did not), and the attorney has to notify the next of kin, as proscribed by the Illinois Probate act.  Again, CT and the trouble feasors did not.  Ken investigates in accordance with Betts but because he interloped and was told to “back off”, he was disciplined

Ken was “sanctioned” by Judge Connors and the trouble feasors–even though he never appeared in the probate court. The Court of Appeals vacated that sanction for lack of jurisdiction.

Ken sent hundreds of communications to anyone that would listen that the Sykes case was filled with an apparent lack of Illinois legal procdure–no notification to Next of Kin, no proper doctor’s report (you’re supposed to bring an original, and CT didn’t have it, so they appointed her without it and made her bring it December 10, 2009 so she could get appointed), a TRO that did not follow the proper procedure and it lasted for over 150 ten day periods, cash of some $50k missing from a mattress, a safe deposit box drilled out in April of 2009 and the court is never told.

We can’t say the “C” word, so no problem, I can always list at least some string of departures from normal legal procedure in the Sykes case.  It is text book.

But what will they do with all of this?  Kathie and Yolanda’s testimony was wonderful.  Too bad Gloria wasn’t there because she had a lot to testify about too–all the lack of procedure, the threats, the court being completely disrespectful to her (and I saw much of that), the Red Snuggy video that was never seen.

I assume Ken is letting all his clients know what happened to him and that he cannot appear in court for them or give them legal advice.

But he can continue to be an advocate for all the probate and court victims that need his help.  Michael Gearhart is looking for volunteers for legislation he is trying to pass to help parents that have little or no visitation but were never declared “unfit” by any court.  How does that happen?

So, the other day a reporter asked me what I thought about Ken’s suspension and has it chilled my speech.  I think the ARDC did that a long time ago, and the Tribunal has put the last nail in the coffin.

For all the other attorneys out there: 1) you can’t say the word “corruption”, “tortfeasor”, “railroading (a case”), “follow the money trail”–even if you’re just talking about attorneys getting paid, well paid huge sums out of an estate; 2) you can’t use those as tags because when you google a troublefeasor, then their name shows up in a Google list and then you have to actually click on a link and read it to find out anything.  Now you can Google Ken’s and my name and get the same, but you better not do that with any trouble feasor or judge’s name.

So, for now, no “corruption” until the ARDC says otherwise.  I’m going to use sports terms.  Foul play, foul players.  Okay, I used to play baseball as a kid, so I got that.  You can’t say tort feasor, so we can change that to “trouble feasor” or maybe “problem feasor”.  You can’t say railroading a case, so we can say “cases seriously lack judicial procedure”.  Ken used to always say “frugal with the truth” and that would do well with the lack of procedure and justice in Sykes, so “frugal with judicial procedure” or “seriously and patently lacking judicial procedure” works too.

What I still can’t believe is that Dr. Sanders said to me on the stand, “why can’t you simply report it to the authorities and be done with it.”  Of course my answer was, it’s a pattern, it’s reported over and over and over again, and nothing is done and the public must be warned.

Now, indeed it was very funny coming from him.  As the eldest member of that panel, clearly over 60 and likely approaching 70, I seriously don’t think he knows how much at risk he is of becoming an elder cleansing victim.

Okay, maybe if you don’t know you’re likely to become a probate victim, you deny it to yourself, that will become your karma?  No, that’s not it because you can’t blame evil on anyone other than the individuals commiting it themselves.  They make the choice to do it and only they can be blamed.  The others the good ones, the “white doves” we have to protect.

As for me, today I am still looking for office space and donations of office space for my new charity/NFP Justice4Every1 so the loss of my law license won’t bug me, I can still do the same thing that NASGA does and the other probate blogs and give refuge to the probate victims, putting together packages for them of the law and helping them write up packages to law enforcement, watching the probate courts and reporting on it here and copying files and looking for volunteer civil rights attorneys to take on these cases.  I will be perfectly prepared and armed to do justice if and when the decision is handed down.

The purpose of this blog is NOT to harm or offend anyone, other than by publishing the TRUTH.  And it’s not just the TRUTH, but it’s the TRUTH in order to improve what is going on in court.  The blog is a mirror unto justice.  If you do it in secret in the court and you are afraid that someone will learn of what you are doing, THEN YOU ARE DOING THE WRONG THING.  

I honestly don’t care about someone else’s karma or punishment or discipline. I know that is for one’s own soul to figure out.  When it was said “vengeance is mine, saith the Lord (Lady)”–that is a true statement. Don’t judge and just butt out and know that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Whom you have harmed, apologize.  What you have done wrong, make amends.  BUT NEVER APOLOGIZE FOR SPEAKING YOUR TRUTH.  Like Sarah Barrielles, you need to speak your truth, and then let it go.  It is up to the recipient to take it well or take it poorly, your job is only to speak the truth.

I have not accused any particular person in any courtroom of being the “c” word, or taking bribes or taking cash from anyplace.  I personally believe that’s not how it is done.  Is there cronyism, favoritism, whatever?  Maybe I don’t know.  WHAT I DO KNOW, is that Sykes and other cases I am working on NEED AN INVESTIGATION.  We need to push the authorities for that.  It took decades to get Dect. Burge arrested and removed from his office.  Truly, I don’t care about the arrest part, that is only for those that seek vengeance, which is NOT my job.  Getting a person to reform OR to convince them to get a different job if they can’t keep their hands out of the cookie jar IS my job.  If the authorities won’t act, then the public should be warned with the truth.  This is so we can all spot patterns, put together evidence, documents, preserve what needs to be preserved and be prepared for when we enter that courtroom.  It is patently unfair and unreasonable to silence the only people that know what the law is, can read the cases and statutes and understand them and say what was done properly and what was not.  These are not false statement or statements made with disregard for the truth.  They are the truth.  Also, if a courtroom is suffering and has no good reputation, there is no way an attorney can bring that courtroom into disrepute.  I am a trademark lawyer so I know from my background if you’re going to say that a product has been disparaged, you better be able to prove it.  If you say your product is well known by the public, then conduct a survey and show the court that.  If you claim your reputation is good to excellent and can be disparaged, then proved it, or just shut up.

I really didn’t see anything from Kathie or Yolanda’s testimony that the reputation of the Sykes court was anything close to stellar.  BUT my blog gave a platform for their experiences and comments–which I believed was fair–based upon my knowledge of what a court or judge can and should do.  I’m not sure at this point anyone can bring 09 P 4585 into ill repute.  It’s just a troubled case.  And I won’t say hopelessly.  At ANY POINT, the attorneys can just step in and do their jobs.  Give Gloria her home and money back and get that house repaired so Gloria and Mary can live there without interference.  And ALL the attorneys can waive fees.  What happened was utterly ridiculous.  That’s just my opinion.  You create bad karma, you fix bad Karma.  We are human beings, we screw up.  But the nice thing is, you CAN fix it at anytime before it’s over, and not leave it as a mess for someone else to fix.

Peter Schmeidel wants Gloria’s $272k and someone should speak up and tell him to drop it.  The other attorneys should drop it too and let Mary go.  Again, that’s my opinion.

Serious lacks of judicial procedure can and must be remedied.  We need more probate blogs and court watchers and volunteer attorneys and not less of them.

I made my choice a long time ago, so did Mr. Amu and Ken Ditkowsky.  It’s not a hard choice.  I want to go home with my tail feathers on and intact.  I am certainly not perfect.  I don’t do things right all the time and I have learned a ton of a ton of a ton of law running this blog.  I now know my Constitutional Law (which I thought I would NEVER use as a patent attorney) cold.  All the cases, all the IARDC cases.  And you know that’s funny too.  The ARDC hands me a packet of cases, and not a one in there was US Supreme Court law in their favor on this issue of blogging.  On the otherhand, there was little reason for me to copy and provide them with cases, because ours (mine) are all US Supreme Court and everyone should know those.

Another day, another blog for justice, honor and integrity in the courtroom.  I’m a bit sad for Ken, but let’s face it, we knew this day was coming.  We knew that the victims are slowly slogging through all of this on their own, with no funding, no lawyers, and sadly, that means, no justice.

I hope you like reading this blog.  It seems that my readership grows each and every day.  I get views from all over the world and probably about 120 countries by now.  The fleecing of elders in and out of the court room seems to be a worldwide problem.  They’re not dead yet, but the pockets are being picked and the bodies are shipped to warehouse.  It’s so bad, I’m sure you have read the posts where seniors have committed suicide rather than being put in “the program.”

Ginny’s father said he Nazi captors were kinder to him than his probate court and his GAL.  Ken just got an email the other day of the same ilk.  A Jewish woman whose mother lived through the worst of the war, and when she entered into the Illinois probate system, and the GAL’s and probate attorneys started their little “tricky business”, her conclusion was that her Nazi imprisoners where she was treated her better than her GAL and court appointed attorney.

There is something seriously broken with a system when our 90 year old elders are saying things like that.

Until then, if you’re over 60, hide the bank accounts, the fine jewelry, china and crystal and dump the classic cars.  Look like your poor and hide everything.  They sell safes you can bury in the backyard, Gibralter is a safe country and will not cooperate with the US authorities to turn over bank accounts.  (Thanks to research by Scott Evans).  Buy an RV and check the probate docket when you or your greedy relatives live once per month looking for your name (hey, that would be a good business).  The few people who didn’t have their lives totally lost, did this and escaped and just sent back documents they were competent.  Of course, the cases were dismissed and the troublefeasors still got judgements for $20k or more, but at least the seniors kept their life, liberty and property.

It’s the only way I know to avoid “the tricky business system”.  And if you’re in it right now and want to get out (I know more than a few of you), my thoughts and prayers are with you and we’re working on it.

And please, someone get a copy of this to Dr. Sanders.  I don’t think he realizes what he has gotten himself in to or what danger he is truly in.


2 thoughts on “Is my case too big for the Tribunal to gloss over and simply dismiss out of hand?

  1. Just a little clarification… It was CT who told me that I was not allowed to see my Aunt as that was my punishment for not siding with her during the guardianship proceeding. I explained that I had ONLY tried to do what her mother had asked me to do It had no bearing. I had reported this to AS a long time ago,

    Still am not allowed to see my Aunt, Haven’t seen her since 09/21/09 – yes, that’s more than FOUR YEARS.

    Plenary guardian also doesn’t let me speak to her on the phone, My poor loving Aunt is being led to believe that we have all deserted her.

    • thanks so much for the clarification. that’s what the comments are for. I really hate the fact that SO won’t tell people to submit all corrections via email or in the comments section.
      some people just don’t know blogging etiquette. but you do. thanks.

      now we just have to figure out where extortion and isolation of a senior intersect in the Probate Act, then we’ll have this all figured out.

      thanks again.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s