From Rosanna Miller–please read her story

And on this eve of yet doing battle to get the stories of all my probate victims told to the IARDC tribunal when no words can describe the utter horrors and victimization that have occured, Ms. Miller directs us to her website where her story, her pleading and her cries for justice can be found

http://eldermurderabuseandexploitation.blogspot.com/2014/02/1-elder-murder-abuse-and-exploitation.html

She also coins the new term “elder trafficing” and I wonder if that is more apt to what is going on.  Ken Ditkowsky likes the term elder cleansing.  And for certain, disableds and the elderly are cleansed of their wealth, their human and civil rights and their dignity and their advance directives, but it all starts with the idea and concept that elders can and may be targeted. Those you know and love. Those that are your aunts, uncles, grandparents, — you name it, it happens.

I wonder if the ARDC lives in fear of all the stories I can tell and will tell.  The ones not on this blog The ones of the victims that will not allow me to talk, to comment. They are ashamed, embarrased but they are not yet dead.  But their files live on.

It used to be a regular occurrence, the fires at the OPG or Office of Public Guardian.  (SO doesn’t like me saying this, so I will direct you to one article http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-10-17/news/0410170038_1_public-guardian-feels-cook-county-administration-building so you can read about it yourself.  3 people died because doors used to be “no entry” in loop buildings, but now that is changed) But then a few people they forgot to warn on Friday afternoon died in those fires, so they don’t set them anymore to destroy records–as alleged by probate victims and some attorneys who will remain nameless.  Besides, Dorothy Brown, after much cajoling is sewing up that avenue.  The pleadings, records and files are on the internet and with your help, those days will in fact be over.  I would like to bring in Pacer to Cook County Court system, and to the IARDC, but it has not happened yet.

We need transparency, we need accountability in so, so many departments of Cook County government it is indeed agonizing to many families and friends of wards.

So please show up on Monday and Tuesday at 9:30 am.  We can and will fight this together.  My blog does not lie.  It ticks off the powers that be, but they created the situation and dwell within it. They need to move on to a new forum. Not the court system.

JoAnne

From Ken Ditkowsky — His thoughts on the Opening Argument of the IARDC

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Mar 8, 2014 6:20 AM
To: Eric Holder , matt senator kirk , Cook County States Attorney , “sheriff@dupagesheriff.org” , “sheriff@dupagesheriff.org” , Tim NASGA , NASGA , probate sharks , Janet Phelan , Chicago Tribune , Jo Anne M Denison , Necla Lane , SUNTIMES , Kathie Bakken , GLORIA SYKES , Tim NASGA , “tips@elderabuseexposed.com” , “tips@cbschicago.com” , Harry Heckert , j ditkowsky
Subject: Fw: opening argument of the IARDC

 JoAnne
I have not read the transcripts as yet, but if your analysis is accurate pursuant to 18 USCA 4 and Himmel these admissions must be reported to the law enforcement people.
Mr. Larkin is fully aware that a blog that reports corruption in the legal community is not the same as yelling fire in a crowded theatre.   Not even close!    Mr. Larkin is fully aware that jurisdiction can be attacked at any time and at any place.      He is also aware that no less an authority other than the Supreme Court of Illinois has pointed out that the failure to comply with 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10 is to deny the proceeding jurisdiction.      Proceedings that do not start with jurisdiction are void!     The family and friends of Mary Sykes have certainly not stopped complaining about this fact!
Larkin is a public official and has a special duty toward the public.    The opening statement is an admission that he and his crew are taking public funds and either not doing their jobs or using public facilities to foster, aid and abet criminal activities aimed at elder cleaning, i.e. elder abuse/financial exploitation of the elderly and involuntary assisted suicide. [He is taking state funds and diverting them for personal purposes which is a violation of the Hobbs Act and it is that Act that was used for prosecution of miscreants in Greylord]
 
People have been reporting that the words and phrases that you reiterate as being the basis of the prosecution of you by Mr. Larkin and the IARDC was surreal and sounded like a cover-up, so I am not surprised by your e-mail.   What I am indeed surprised is the fact that the panel did not throw out the charges right after opening statement.     Certainly the lawyers on the panel are presumed to understand the Rule of Law and the core values of the United States of America.    (sorry – tongue in cheek – comment.   I’ve gone through the same process and am now before the Supreme Court of Illinois being denied First Amendment Rights uniformly – however, I am still surprised that the corruption goes so deep).
Larkin and SO have provided a rare opportunity for the public to observe in the opening statement the core values of corruption and how their tax dollars are spent so that elder abuse, financial exploitation of the elderly and involuntary assisted suicide (elder cleansing) is fostered so political favorites receive their ‘welfare!’
Of course = I urge all who read your blog, read these e-mails to not believe a word that is said in the blog, these e-mails or in the reports of your fellows!   Do an Honest, intelligent complete and comprehensive investigation on your own!     Everyone gets old!   Everyone get vulnerable!    You too may have PS, AS, CF, MS et al in your future!!!!    THEN IT WILL BE TOO LATE!
Indeed, your family may write your Senator and receive a copy of his speech on how he is protecting social security as you are being elder cleansed!
Ken Ditkowsky
—– Forwarded Message —–
From: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
To: Jo Anne M Denison <JoAnne@justice4every1.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 8, 2014 5:50 AM
Subject: Re: opening argument of the IARDC

 

 Let us discuss her arguments:
1) yelling fire in a crowded theatre is an admission that the statements are in fact First Amendment Statements.     Thus, there is a requirement to show clear and present danger.    To show clear and present danger there has to be:
1) danger – what is the danger?    Where are the large members of the public to be harmed?    In fact the only harm that can come are to criminals who are preying on the elderly.
2) 755 ILCS 5/11a – 1 et seq.  if there is jurisdiction requires constant supervision and section 17 and 18 so provide.    Of course a lack of jurisdiction can be brought up at any time.    Exploitation of the elderly is a criminal event and therefore 18 USCA 4 requires that it be reported to law enforcement authorities.   The Himmel case requires that it be reported to the IARDC.    The IARDC is supposed to be prosecuting the miscreant attorneys – not the whistle blowers.   320 ILCS 20/4
3)   47 USCA 230 obviates that argument.     If there is damage to the Sykes case some expert witness is required to so testify.    If damage to the Sykes case means that the interests of the elder cleaners is interfered with that is acceptable damage and is proof of the violation of public civil rights and criminal conduct on the part of the Administrator.  18 USCA 371.
4)   There is no such law, and the words and phrases of the First Amendment, Article 1, and 735 ILCS 110/5  all are contrary.     You can cite Gillespe, Sawyer, et al.
As this was promised as what was to be proved and not proved you are entitled to a directed finding.     The IARDC saying it, does not make it true.
Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

My opening argument — The US Consitution Reigns Supreme!

Dear Readers;

After MS’s opening argument that my blog is like yelling fire in a crowded movie theatre (and I would direct her to the Nelson case  where Harold Washington was painted in ladies’ underwear and a garter–see what Justice Possner says about that!),

you can read my opening argument.

But I am dedicated to YOU, the reader and to all the court room victims out there who see this nonsense day in and day out and are appalled by the lack of a court, a judge, a lawyer to follow simple procedures in state court.  You just don’t find all this nonsense in federal court. Federal court has its own problems, but not this.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwWG5CMkNCT0RoeGM/edit?usp=sharing

 

joanne

Yeah! We have transcripts from my IARDC hearing.

The court reporter did a wonderful job, although I do miss condensed mini’s, she sent them electronically.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwQ0k2dkhOcUZ5SUE/edit?usp=sharing

Is the wonderful and amazing opening argument of Ms. Melissa Smart

In her opening she argues:

 

1) my blog is the same as yelling “fire” in a movie theatre
2) my blog is dangerous to the mary g sykes case (which of course cannot be relitigated)
3) my blog has seriously damaged the mary g sykes case
4) I am not allowed to criticize a court, a judge or a decision. (but that’s only because she has not read In Re Sawyer, or she read it sideways, not sure)  read In re Sawyer at http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/360/622/case.html

The utter mendacity!

joanne

From Ken Ditkowsky — let’s get more media to listen more!

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Mar 7, 2014 10:05 AM
To: ginny johnson
Subject: Re: Personal to you Ken shhh

Since I first became involved in this case I have been attempting to take a ‘baby Step’    Just have someone do an HONEST  intelligent complete and comprehensive investigation.    I’ve talked to the press, and anyone who would listen and so far I have come up with a big zero.
Unfortunately, this what you have to expect.    The vested interests in the cottage industry are clever, they have had a long to prepare, and most importantly they have garnered the support of the political royalty.      Greylord went on for a long time before the Fed finally appeared on the scene and cracked the whip.    One of the investigators told me that every judge he investigated was “dirty.”   Naively I challenged his statement, and he pointed out to me that in Cook County you could not be a judge unless the political people had someone on you to hold over your head.   I went to school with several of the Judges and they were good friends.    (several still are)    Even today I cannot believe that x, y, and z would do anything wrong.   I know x, y, and z like I know my wife and my children.     Yet, a public official and a bank lawyer that I studied with in school each had a problem – one went to jail, and the other went into the Witness protection program.
Some of the people involved in Greylord I broken bread with and our families have socialized.     Even when they admitted wrongdoing I had trouble believing it.
Corruption is a cancer that pollutes our society.    No matter where you turn it is upon you.     When the corrupters are strangers it is much easier to be outraged.     In the elder cleansing scandal so far all are strangers and my outrage has not boundary lines.
 Now the solution.   The only solution is hard work and plenty of it.   Unity is nice but not necessary.    We are not National Socialists or Communists and therefore we do not have march in lock step.     Diane Nash in discussing the Civil Rights movement and how it obtained success summed it with a phrase – you have to be willing to die for the cause.    Indeed, no one has ever gotten out of this life alive and it is ironic that the most vulnerable of the combatants  are those fighting to preserve the cottage industry of elder cleansing.     Take any of the miscreants – what have they been teaching their children by example?    There lesson is “what is mine is mine and what yours is mine”     Thus,all we have to do is keep at what we have been doing – writing, speaking, and calling for an HONEST intelligent complete and comprehensive investigation.     As law enforcement observes the miscreants it will do its job.   Like in Greylord the Courts will do their job, and ultimately this current group of criminals will receive their just reward.
I am not fond of organized religion of any stripe or color, but, I do believe that there is a Divine power who guides the path of civilization.    This Divine power has a sense of humor and is a bit of bully.    In the end the bad guys fail and the good guys win.    We do not always know that to be the case, but, ******.
Our country has a cash crisis.    Our State has a cash crisis.     Our municipal government has a cash crisis.    The miscreants who prey on the elderly do not have a cash crisis.    For instance,  the plenary guardian in the Sykes case drilled a safety deposit box and removed over a million dollars in gold coins and never inventoried coin one.    She also removed other valuables that were also not inventoried.    I’ll bet you a dollar to your penny that on her 2009 and other tax returns not one dime was reported as income.     It is naive to think that she did not share her spoils with the two guardian ad litem and/or the judge who presides over this fiasco.    I’ll bet that they forgot to report the benefit on their 1040s.      The United States of America and the State of Illinois should share in the booty!     Reminding the Internal Revenue Service of this uncollected tax on the spoils of Elder cleansing is a laudable task.     If the IRS does its job they take the profit out of elder cleansing and go a long way to solving the cash crisis that our government finds itself in.
In each of the elder cleansing cases the motive is profit!     If you earn x dollars selling widgets you have to pay your income taxes on the profit.   Why should Carolyn Toerpe be exempt.    The misbegotten funds are earnings whether or not they are paid as campaign contributions, employment for a relative, a zoning change, or a wink at professional responsibility.    THIS IS BARTER INCOME!!!
In Short – there is no short cut.    bad behavior is human!    Elder abuse, Financial exploitation of the elder, and involuntary assisted suicide (elder cleansing elements) are deplorable perfidious and hateful.    As good people we have the obligation to root the miscrants out and turn them over to law enforcement.  (18 USCA 4).      Those amongst us with talent at some point in time will bring their talent to bear and a hue and cry will envelop the bad guys.    Have faith and patience.
Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

PS–from JoanneJust to add to Ken’s comments about the Divine Ones.  I do believe there are no coincidences, everyone who is a light entity and a good person comes with guardian angels, a chart and a plan. If your life is hard, guess what?  You signed up for it.  The reason?  To learn more.  Earth is the Harvard of the universe.  If you are here you have accomplished a whole lot before you came here.  This will not last and it will be over soon.  Wealth, real and personal property will soon be gone.   Do the best you can with what you have.  The Divine Ones are NOT in any shape or form bullies.  They are in fact all peace and love, but they recognize a human’s spiritual need to grow, develop and learn–even against all odds.  We do this to ourselves to learn as much as we can while we are here.  Note you learn the most when times are the hardest.  Joanne

From Ken Ditkowsky

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Mar 5, 2014 10:06 PM
To: Eric Holder , matt senator kirk , Cook County States Attorney , “statesenatorlightford@comcast.net” , NASGA , probate sharks , “acluofillinois@aclu-il.org” , “ACLU@ACLU.ORG” , “IllinoisLawyerNow@isba.org” , “ilsenate29@sbcglobal.net” , “ilhouse51@sbcglobal.net” , “ilrep49@sbcglobal.net” , “ilsenate20@sbcglobal.net” , “illhouse@aol.com” , “isilverstein@senatedem.ilga.gov” , “ildbambic@govabuse.org” , j ditkowsky , Harry Heckert , Jo Anne M Denison , Chicago FBI , “chicagotonight@wttw.com” , Chicago Tribune , SUNTIMES
Cc: GLORIA SYKES
Subject: The moral compass of the legal profession

The State of Illinois spends a great deal of money each year under the guise of policing the legal profession.    The newspapers publish that the IARDC recommends that x lawyer who had sex will a client be punished, or y lawyer who stole y dollars out of a client’s account be punished etc.    This work is laudable; however, the IARDC and its administrator Jerome Larkin appear to be engaged in the cover=up of ‘elder cleansing.’     Many complaints have been written to the IARDC complaining that targeted seniors are being railroaded into guardianships, stripped of their assets and liberty and finally subjected to involuntary assisted suicide (elder cleansing).    Two prime examples are Alice Gore and Mary Sykes  (Mary Sykes is still alive but her family have been separated from her and believe that she is in the process of being assisted in an involuntary suicide and want to stop it now.)
Certain miscreants have been very active in preventing the family and friends of Mary Sykes from interfering and have even enlisted Mr. Larkin of the IARDC to help.   Two loud mouth attorneys ( myself and JoAnne Denison) are being subjected to disciplinary action by the IARDC for attempting to investigate and/or calling upon law enforcement to investigate.
As bit of history:   The operation took place in the 1980s. Ninety-two people were indicted, including 17 judges, 48 lawyers, ten deputy sheriffs, eight policemen, eight court officials, and a member of the Illinois Legislature.   Many more Judges found it expedient to retire.      The IARDC did absolutely nothing positive.    In the elder cleansing they are more active – they are out in full force protecting the miscreants.
In the Gore case a 1.5 million dollar estate was dissipated.    In Sykes at least a million dollars in collectible coins has disappeared and not a dime accounted for!    In Tyler the toll is about 7 or 8 million dollars.
It appears that the IARDC considers discussion of Judicial corruption to be ethically challenged –  the question is why?       A quick review of the information on the web suggests that 1) Mr. Larkin and at least the lawyers who should be investigating the role of lawyers involved in the scandal involving elder cleansing do not and have not filed the Ethic statements that are required of persons who obtain their remuneration from the State;  2) the IARDC has a history of ignoring Constitutional protections and a history of retaliation against any lawyer who does not believe that the word of the Administrator of the ARDC is handed down by God.    In other words a lawyer who does not attorn to the whim and caprice of the dictates of the administrator is going to have license problems.    (see the case of Peel vs ARDC decided by the Supreme Court of the United States – and material concerning the blue ribbon commission that investigated Greylord) and 3) a search of the real estate records indicates some very interesting and un-explained transactions promulgated by the miscreants, Mr. Larkin et al.
Why should the IARDC object to a lawyer calling for an HONEST complete and comprehensive investigation of the Mary Sykes case 09 P 4585?
Why have literally hundreds of citizen complaint filed with the IARDC complaining concerning ‘elder cleansing’ being ignored?
Even though Administrator Jerome Larkin has filed complaints with his commission against me (and Attorney Denison) for reaching out to law enforcement to do an HONEST complete, intelligent and comprehensive investigation and declared that such a request was unethical, I am once again calling out for such an investigation.    I also once again invite Mr. Larkin to join in my call!     Again I also challenge him with the words: If you have nothing to hide – why are you against law enforcement doing an Honest complete and comprehensive investigation?
Let us go one step further.    If Larkin indeed has nothing to hide, let him explain why if he is in search of the truth he does not call Gloria Sykes as a witness in the ultra vires disciplinary proceeding against JoAnne Denison.    I understand the next date is March 10.    I am sure that Ms. Denison would yield the time to allow Mr. Larkin to call Ms. Sykes as a witness and to ask her the following questions:
1)Were you served with a prior 14 day notice of any proceeding in which your mother’s competency was to be adjudicated?
2) Did you have any  prior knowledge that there was to be any adjudication?
3) Was your mother incompetent?
4) What do you base your statement upon?  (Gloria and all who knew Mary would testify as to all the activities (including Banking and filing a Petition for a Protective order that Mary accomplished).
5) What property did your mother possess?
6) What was not inventoried?  (about a million dollars in gold coins)
******
As I said – I challenge Larkin to call Gloria Sykes to the stand as a witness.    His refusal or failure in my mind and in the mind of all the friends, family, neighbors, and people who have come into contact with elder cleansing is an admission that Larkin is part and parcel of the elder cleansing cottage industry and with knowledge has participated in the denial of Mary Sykes her liberty, property, civil and human rights!
 
Let me make this very clear – no matter what Larkin’s panels or commissions rule, the Law of the STate of Illinois places the burden of proof on the IARDC.   Without the testimony of Mary Sykes, Gloria Sykes, Yolanda Bakken any claim that anything on Ms. Denison’s blog is untrue is a sham!
The family, the friends, and the neighbors of Mary Sykes know the truth and have complained to Law enforcement and the IARDC that Larkin has demonstrated disrespect for his office, disrespect for the Constitution of the United STates of America and the State of Illinois, and ****.    This serious charge pursuant to 18 USCA 4 has been communicated to Law Enforcement.   This e-mail is being communicated to law enforcement so that when they do their honest intelligent complete and comprehensive investigation of the elder cleansing cases they will have the admission of Larkin as to his perfidy.
Of course – Larkin could join in the call for the investigation!  He also could make arrangements for Ms Sykes to testify!!!
 
 
Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

Court Watchers Wanted for Gloria Today at 11:30 am Judge Murray, 14th Floor

From Gloria

 
On Wednesday, March 5, 2014, at 11:30 a.m., Judge L. Murray (courtroom 1404) scheduled a continuation of U.S. Bank’s Motion to Discharge the subpoena I served upon them for “all” documents and digital recordings related to or under the names of Mary G. Sykes/Gloria Jean Sykes, or Gloria Jean Sykes of safe deposit box(s) and in  particular the one my mother and I opened on or about May 27, 2009.  
 
U.S. Bank is to bring a notarized letter signed by an Executive with U.S. Bank with said authority to sign, stating that they have in deed provided all of the documents on file accordingly.
 
I am to provide evidence that there should be more including digital recordings from the security cameras.
 
I cannot afford a court reporter.
 
FYI at the previous proceeding, neither of Toerpe’s attorneys or Toerpe herself were present, which is very interesting.  Judge Murray still has under advisement — after at least 20 hours of testimony, whether Toerpe is in contempt of a contempt order.
 
Again, court watchers are needed in order for a record to be kept as to what was said and what happened.  Without court reporters there will be no record other than what the court remembers, and I recall, which of court will differ from what U.S. Bank argues.
 
I thank all those who truly gives a hoot about my Mother.  FYI  Judge Murray allows taking notes on the computer or IPad.
 
 
Gloria Jean Sykes

The ARDC and the case law it does NOT have on its side

Joanne M Denison's avatarMaryGSykes.com

From recent cases from Ken Ditkowsky:

Garrison v. State of LA

Where criticism of public officials is concerned, we see no merit in the argument that criminal libel statutes serve interests distinct from those secured by civil libel laws, and therefore should not be subject to the same limitations.3 At common law, truth was no defense to criminal *68 libel. Although the victim of a true but defamatory publication might not have been unjustly damaged in reputation by the libel, the speaker was still
punishable since the remedy was designed to avert the possibility that the utterance would provoke an enraged victim to a breach of peace. That argument is well stated in Edward Livingston’s explanation of the defamation provisions of his proposed penal code for Louisiana:

‘In most cases, the connexion between cause and effect exists between the subject of this chapter and that of a subsequent one—Of Duels…

View original post 856 more words

The ARDC and the case law it does NOT have on its side

From recent cases from Ken Ditkowsky:

Garrison v. State of LA

Where criticism of public officials is concerned, we see no merit in the argument that criminal libel statutes serve interests distinct from those secured by civil libel laws, and therefore should not be subject to the same limitations.3 At common law, truth was no defense to criminal *68 libel. Although the victim of a true but defamatory publication might not have been unjustly damaged in reputation by the libel, the speaker was still
punishable since the remedy was designed to avert the possibility that the utterance would provoke an enraged victim to a breach of peace. That argument is well stated in Edward Livingston’s explanation of the defamation provisions of his proposed penal code for Louisiana:

‘In most cases, the connexion between cause and effect exists between the subject of this chapter and that of a subsequent one—Of Duels. Defamation, either real or supposed, is the cause of most of those combats which no laws have yet been able to suppress. If lawgivers had originally condescended to pay some attention to the passions and feelings of those for whom they were to legislate, these appeals to arms would never have usurped a power superior to the laws; but by affording no satisfaction for the wounded feelings of honour, they drove individuals to avenge all wrongs of that description, denied a place in the code of criminal law. Insults formed a title in that of honour, which claimed exclusive jurisdiction of this offence.’ Livingston. A **213 System of Penal Law for the State of Louisiana
Moreover, even where the utterance is false, the great principles of the Constitution which secure freedom of expression in this area preclude attaching adverse consequences to any except the knowing or reckless falsehood. Debate on public issues will not be uninhibited if the speaker must run the risk that it will be proved in court that he spoke out of hatred; even if he did speak out of hatred, utterances honestly believed contribute to the free interchange of ideas and the ascertainment of truth. Under a rule like the Louisiana rule, permitting a finding of malice based on an intent merely to inflict harm, rather than an intent to inflict harm through falsehood, ‘it becomes a hazardous matter to speak out against a popular politician, with the result that the dishonest and incompetent will be shielded.’ Noel, Defamation *74 of Public Officers and Candidates, 49 Col.L.Rev. 875, 893 (1949). Moreover, ‘(i)n the case of charges against a popular political figure * * * it may be almost impossible to show freedom from ill-will or selfish political motives.’ Id., at 893, n. 90. Similar considerations supported our holdings that federal officers enjoy an absolute privilege for defamatory publication within the scope of official duty, regardless of the existence of malice in the sense of ill-will. Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564, 79 S.Ct. 1335, 3 L.Ed.2d 1434; Howard v. Lyons, 360 U.S. 593, 79 S.Ct. 1331, 3 L.Ed.2d 1454; cf. Gregoire v. Biddle, 177 F.2d 579 (C.A.2d Cir. 1949). What we said of Alabama’s civil libel law in New York Times, 376 U.S., at 282—283, 84 S.Ct., at 727, applies equally to the Louisiana criminal libel rule: ‘It would give public servants an unjustified preference over the public they serve, if critics of official conduct did not have a fair equivalent of the immunity granted to the officials themselves.’
Truth may not be the subject of either civil or criminal sanctions where discussion of public affairs is concerned. And since ‘* * * erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate, and * *
it must be protected if the freedoms of expression are to have the ‘breathing space’ that they ‘need * * * to survive’ * * *,’ 376 U.S., at 271—272, 84 S.Ct. at 721, only those false statements made with the high degree of awareness of their probable falsity demanded by New York Times may be the subject of either civil or criminal sanctions. For speech concerning public affairs is *75 more than self-expression; it is the essence of self-government. The First and Fourteenth Amendments embody our ‘profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.’ New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S., at 270, 84 S.Ct., at 721.
[10] [11] The use of calculated falsehood, however, would put a different cast on the constitutional question. Although honest utterance, even if inaccurate, may further the fruitful exercise of the right of free speech, it does not follow that the lie, knowingly and deliberately published about a public official, should enjoy a like immunity.
Hence the knowingly false statement and the false statement made with reckless disregard of the truth, do not enjoy constitutional protection.

And ‘actual malice’ is defined in the decisions below to mean ‘hatred, ill will or enmity or a wanton desire to injure * * *.’ 244 La., at 851, 154 So.2d at 423.
The statute is also unconstitutional as interpreted to cover false statements against public officials.

Justice Goldberg point out that “ the Constitution accords citizens and press an unconditional freedom to criticize official conduct.’ “   Garrison v. State of La., 379 U.S. 64, 88, 85 S. Ct. 209, 223, 13 L. Ed. 2d 125 (1964)

Judges are elected officials;
“Manifestly a candidate must surrender to public scrutiny and discussion so much of his private character as affects his fitness for office, and the liberal rule requires no more. But, in measuring the extent of a candidate’s profert of character, it should always be remembered that the people have good authority for believing that grapes do not grow on thorns, nor figs on thistles.’ 78 Kan. 711, 739, 98 P. 281, 291, 20 L.R.A.,N.S., 361 (1908).”Garrison v. State of La., 379 U.S. 64, 77, 85 S. Ct. 209, 217, 13 L. Ed. 2d 125 (1964)

From Ginny Johnson-sharing her (horrendous) story

And while the Illinois ARDC continues to say “we must not relitigate” and that’s why they cannot investigate, Rome is burning.

From Ginny Johnson, she wishes to share her story of how she was a kind, loving, long term caretaker of her father in NC, and one day the two arrived home to find that Ginny was locked out of her home and her father (God rest his soul) was locked out of his own home and told he must now live at the VA where he was not more than a few days shuttled off to a nursing home connected to NC probate attorney investments.

Ginny was subsequently terrorized by the court, (anti) social service agencies, and brushed off by the authorities.  Her father died in agony and shame over the probate proceeding and was forced into living in a nursing home.  Ginny was locked out of her own home without due process, notice or a hearing.  Everyone is entitled to due process, even if his or her parent is in a guardianship proceeding.  The procedure is known as eviction, and most relatives have at least 30 days to look for a new place, dispute the proceeding or claim equity in the dwelling if they paid the mortgage or utilities.

Ginny was summarily booted out, locked out and could not find a good attorney because she did not have the money.

 

see her story below and provide her with prayers for comfort and healing.  She is still reeling from this harrowing experience and looking for sympathetic attorneys in NC near Raleigh/Durham.

Please help her if you can.

http://www.examiner.com/article/aging-family-services-threatens-daughter-for-exposing-elder-abuse-of-war-hero

CLICK HERE to see Litigation against IARDC

For Ditkowsky and Denison vs. Jerome Larkin, et al. and our civil rights complaint:

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

 

For Copyright infringement suit (Denison v. IARDC) click here:

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwd0JhYUZCZ0dlQTg&usp=sharing

 

This blog promises transparency and accountability, unlike the IARDC!

From Ken Ditkowsky –No More Code of Silence from Attorneys–no more dirty secrets!

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Mar 1, 2014 5:31 AM
To: Ginny Johnson Justice4 Everyone Blog Fan , Tim NASGA , NASGA , probate sharks , Jo Anne M Denison
Subject: Fw: FYI under DOJ

 
 The legislature is doing its job.  Legislation is being passed, and becomes law.   There is dies!   The NASGA, Probate Sharks, JoAnne Denison et al blogs are busting open with horrible stories of guardianship abuse and the unholy alliance with judicial officials and the nursing home operators [and even hospitals and police!].   However, the miscreants operate open and notoriously daily railroading seniors into guardianship, liberating their savings, and finally reaching the final solution of involuntary assisted suicide. (elder cleansing)  
 
Here in Illinois the clout of the miscreants is so great that Mr. Jerome Larkin, Administrator of the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission has ruled that 1) that he, and not the Supreme Court of the United States will determine the scope of the First Amendment, 2) that it is unethical for a lawyer to complain concerning judges who aid and abet elder cleansing, and 3) that he has immunity that protects him from any critical comment or law enforcement action to enforce the existing laws.  
 
So far he is correct!  Worse yet, lawyers who protest are routinely subject to disciplinary proceedings.  Both JoAnne and I have been so subjected.   The assault on the First Amendment is done as openly as a Taliban raid.   An attorney for the IARDC holding a letter that I wrote to the Attorney General of the United States and on cross examination asked me if I was repentant for writing the letter!   The panel of lawyers hand picked by Mr. Larkin did not miss a beat.   Only the gallery of private citizens were upset!  [During my trial, during opening argument all MS did over and over again was screech like a parrot to the tribunal “I cannot say just anything I want to on a blog”–wrong again Ms. Smart.  The First Amendment protects that and many, many victims are deeply offended by such a comment, and you need to respect their rights and my rights to protect them from troubles in the court and the terror they experienced. Since the IARDC does not like the word “corruption”, fine by me.  Let’s be more accurate then, the “troubles in the courtroom terrorize and haunt probate victims.”
I am NOT sorry for what I have to report on this blog.  There is no sorry, no tears in baseball (to quote Tom Hanks in A League of Our Own).  I gather together facts, information and opinions, even my own, and I publish them.  Rather than say “I am sorry about what I publish”, I have to say I am proud to be in the US with a strong democracy, free and open speech and a right to criticize my government, including the court system.]
 
That said – everyone should communicate their grievances to the proper authorities ‘early and often’ even if the high probability is that the complaints will fall on deaf ears.   This elder cleansing is a ‘dirty little secret’ that has been ‘covered up’ and ignored.    The analogy is found in the 1930’s when a silly looking loud mouth seized Germany and started a campaign of involuntary assisted suicide on undesirables such as persons who possessed Jewish blood.   
 
Most of us have asked ourselves – if I was an adult in 1930 Germany would I have accepted my fate and just gone with the flow?    Well in 2014 everyone gets an opportunity to get an answer to that question.  A while back I wrote to Senator Durbin about this problem.   His response to send me a copy of a speech that he gave on social security.   Maybe that should have satisfied me, but, my former client Mary Sykes was seized literally off the street, stripped of her liberty, her property, her civil rights and her liberty rights.   I could not sit quietly by, so I started a private inquiry required by FRCP 11.   That inquiry drew out two of my favorite miscreants.   They threatened me and attempted to intimidate me!   You know the rest.  
 
For the record – yesterday afternoon we struck another blow for American core values.   JoAnne filed a copyright suit against Mr. Larkin, and a company that he employed – with State of Illinois funds – to private her blog.   The blog’s contents is copyrighted and while it is open to read and use in the fight against elder cleansing it cannot be used for the purpose of aiding and abetting elder cleansing without Ms. Denison’s permission.   Mr. Larkin as a lawyer and the miscreants as lawyers ought to be aware of the law even if they contend that it does not apply to them.
 
Ginny – on Tuesday, if you get a chance point out that we (all in NASGA, Probate Sharks, et al) have requested our ‘royal’ political class including Mr. Larkin to join with us in an HONEST, intelligent complete and comprehensive investigation of the elder cleansing cases starting with the post board case of Mary Sykes.   They have not joined, they just increased the intimidation.
Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

From KKD–filing of a new lawsuit against the IARDC

Dear Readers;

Well, the time has finally come to file a copyright lawsuit against the miscreants.  You will note that the civil rights complaint was only filed against certain miscreants–not all of them.  This is carving out what is most likely to succeed against your opponent in litigation.  Contrary to popular belief, you don’t sue everyone and you decide whether you are going after a company or agency or just the employees for their wrongful acts.  Likewise, the copyright suit was only filed against certain miscreants, but that does not mean that certain others are off the hook.  If you copied large portions of my blog containing my creative works, those of KKD and Gloria and others, don’t think you are off the hook for copyright infringement, you are not.  It is very easy to add defendants once the lawsuit is filed.  For example, I note that portions that were copied contained Lisa Belanger’s poem regarding her father, and also certain other’s works, including cover art work by John Howard Wyman which has been copyrighted.

While we haven’t added these plaintiffs yet, I simply cannot imagine the IARDC’s excuse for investigating me (but never asking Gloria, Kathie, Scott and Yolanda about the truth of what I am publishing first), and then engaging in blatant and notorious copyright infringement against innocent members of the public–Gloria, Lisa, Janet and others.

Nimmer on Copyrights (sorry, I can share that text, get it at your local law library) makes it clear in his section on “evidence as fair use” that there is no “evidence” exception to fair use.  Fair use is for your own personal research, education, some religious exceptions (you can sing a hymn in church as part of a religious service but not pass out copyrighted lyrics)–and even then, fair use is only a few sentences, maybe a paragraph or two which you immediately comment upon.  Take what you need to make your point, but never take more than you need, that is infringement.  Also, if you are in litigation, yes, you will have to buy or license the following from the party producing it:  copyright photographs, including the model’s rights therein, any copying from books, appraisal report are often copyrighted and you have to buy them separately, if you want data from a copyrighted program such as Peachtree, QuickBooks and the like be prepared to show you already own a license or you will just be using it in a “viewer program”.  Many larger companies have their data in proprietary data bases and software, meaning you will NEVER get the data because you will NEVER be able to use it.  That party will contact the vendor and tell him not to grant a license and the vendor is likely to cut off the party from getting raw data on that basis.  I have done it in litigation.  It works.  A proprietary financial/sales system can stop a 3rd party from getting raw data. It won’t stop them from asking your client to run a few reports, but it will stop that nonsense.

I get the question all the time, what if I am writing a book that is a parody of another book or it contains quotes from a copyrighted book? Simple, go to the publisher and ask for their licensing department.  Pay the small fee ($50 to $100) for the quote and do it the right way.

Read Ken’s comments below.

It is entirely fair and fitting that the wholesale copying of creative works–many of which are not even mine, must be redressed (reported) to a federal court judge.

All proceeds from this lawsuit will go Justice4Every1.com for probate victims.

I am also looking for a tax lawyer that is experienced in NFP’s.

thanks.  We will fight this and win.  We will clean up the benches in our courtrooms.  The days of the “Code of Silence” the IARDC wants is over.  Ken and I and others known and unknown are making sure of that.

Join us on Mar 10 and 11th as I intent to organize a protest outside the offices of the IARDC.

The weather will be better.  We can take pictures and hopefully the news will show up.

I think we should do it during the lunch hour, maybe more people will see what they do is wrong, namely:

1) no reporting on ethics by the IARDC attorneys and managers EVER.  Directly contrary to the 2009 Illinois Ethics Act-my question is why?  We call, they say they are a “private business” when in fact they are an administrative agency of the SCOI!

2) no publishing salaries of the IARDC attorneys and staff.  Why?  They do not answer my Freedom of Information Requests for salary information.  Why?  99% of Illinois agency salaries are reported–even the tens of thousands of teachers in Illinois do them.  Why does not the IARDC do them?

3) Other state agencies publish “accountability and transparency” statements.  The IARDC does not.  It has secrets.  Lots of them.  About $21 million according to the 2012 Annual Report.  Look at it, you can easily google it and I have published it here.  Apparently taking some $300 plus per licensed lawyer since 1978 has resulted in a “slush fund” for the managers. Why do they have that?  Should they not be required to do Ethics Reporting before they hale in any atty for disciplinary proceedings?  Should they not be required to publish a list of all the companies they invest in so the atty can see if in fact a company listed (a bank or insurance company) had been sued by the atty in question?  I for one would like to know.

There are public records indicating judges in my case, Ken’s case and Mr. Amu’s case have interesting and highly unusual financial activities.  I would like to know why.

Connors said “no discovery” to Gloria’s attorney, Jay Dolgin when he asked.  Why is that? The IARDC follows the same pattern. Gloria had the right to ask about Carolyn’s finances, her husband’s finances, Kristen’s finances. She was shut up and shut up right away.

The IARDC says when I bring these things up, I “must not relitigate”.  But this blog IS the other side of the story.  It consists of attorney questions and opinions and those of Gloria, Bev and Ken Cooper, Sylvia Rudek, and other managers of Probate Sharks, NASGA and other respected probate blogs.

Why does the IARDC say that probate blogs are ipso facto (automatically and per se) not experts?  What is up with that?  They have not come up with a larger expert than NASGA that gets 140,000 views per year, or Probate Sharks that gets 70,000.

They have not answered the complaints of Sykes, Bedin, Gore, Wyman and others seriously damaged by lack of jurisdiction, millions of dollars missing from accountings (Sykes and Gore and Tyler),  attorneys such as Miriam Solotovich continues to go into the private judge’s areas with Judge Stuart (Feb 20, 2014 at about 10:50 am– a day that will live in infamy) and no lawyer says anything, no one protests.  During my trial, the excuse was “oh, they have arbitrations back there”–but arbitrations require 2 attys not one, or two parties and an attorney not one.  Their excuses are lame and idiotic.  Plus, how about this, to avoid the appearance of an impropriety, don’t hold arbitrations there.  Do it in the dozen+ jury rooms and conference rooms that are always unused.

I am not litigious, I do NOT want to sue people for copyright infringement, esp. when it is pretty much a lay down type of suit and there is personal liability for every infringer and there is not corporate limitation on liability.  There is also no insurance policy that covers it because it is an intentional wrongdoing.  You know when you slap someone else’s creative writings onto a copier you are infringing. You know when you print out creative writings from the internet that you are infringing–esp. when you send it on or show it to others.  You also know that when you use a program like Nextpoint, even a kid knows that uTorrent, Gnutella and LimeWire are completely illegal and will get you into a ton of trouble with DMCA notices filling your parent’s mail box threatening them with huge fines and penalties for copyright infringement (most kids know enough to proxy via a foreign country, and if you don’t know how to do it, ask a kid, but my advice is buy your stuff off of ebay used and don’t infringe, how about that).

Nextpoint is nothing but evil, IMHO, they run a “barely legal” business and there is no legit excuse for their software or business.  They are clearly living on the edge waiting for the first fallout of how they or their employees knew of infringement and did not shut it down immediately.  That poor sales rep from Nextpoint being misled by the IARDC.  Nextpoint will learn next time to get an IP expert and not be led into perdition by two faced infringers.

Kids, again, don’t do this at home.  Eventually, by infringing you will tick off some person or company that sues first and asks questions later.  The ND Ill federal court system is not kind or accommodating to infringers. They consider it theft just as much as you pick a pocket, forge a check or drive off with someone else’s car.

JoAnne

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Feb 28, 2014 9:36 PM
To: Tim NASGA , NASGA , probate sharks , Eric Holder , matt senator kirk , Jo Anne M Denison , Chicago Tribune , SUNTIMES , “foxnews_7D7B711AF105DCA690AB56169C0FF242@newsletters.foxnews.com” , j ditkowsky , Harry Heckert , Lawrence Hyman , Necla Lane , Ginny Johnson Justice4 Everyone Blog Fan
Subject: Re: Activity in Case 1:14-cv-01470 Denison et al v. Larkin et al complaint

 
 As Mr. Larkin continues to ignore the law, he was sued for violation of the copyright law.  I think you will find this lawsuit interesting.   Few public officials have had the temerity to protect the promulgators of elder cleansing so openly.   Few public officials have assaulted the First Amendment so vigorously in direct defiance of the Rule of Law as set forth by the Supreme Court of the United States.
 
In the case of Ms. Denison’s Blog the obscenity of Mr. Larkin’s action is illustrated by the outrageous disregard of copyright protections.   The immunities provided to citizens be damned in Mr. Larkin’s view.   He makes it very clear the First Amendment, Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution, 735 ILCS 110/5, 320 ILCS 20/4, 18 UsCA 4 et al mean nothing to him!   Lawyers who respect the law in Larkin’s view are unethical; however, those who prey on the elderly are to be protected, ergo Mary Sykes has for almost five years been held hostage until the involuntary assisted suicide can be accomplished and Alice Gore lies in cold grave without teeth because the avarice of a GAL who needed the gold filling from Alice’s mouth. 
 
The record will show that Larkin and the ARDC were totally uninterested in the villains who hold Mary in captivity and who when death took Alice Gore closed the books on her; however, Denison is being prosecuted for he crime of publishing a poem written by the daughter of one of the victims of elder cleansing as a tribute to her father.   
 
Get a copy of Ms. Denison’s complaint that we filed today.   It is case number 14 CV 1470.  the poem is an exhibit.    
 
After you read the complaint – join with us in calling for an HONEST intelligent complete and comprehensive investigation of the entire Elder Cleansing industry.   Getting old should not be a crime in 21st Century America. 
Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/