New report says numerous federal appeallate judges broke Ethics Laws

And while we can’t even get the ARDC to file their ethics reports, even after numerous requests from this blog, (I think even Atty Rhodes went so far as to say that using ARDC email to ask the ARDC to comply with Ethics Law and report on their salaries was abuse of their emails, but I’m not sure that’s what she meant), the federal appellate judges are in some pretty hot water for failing to disclose ownership of stock and other business interests before ruling on cases where they held such an interest.

Even the ownership of one share of stock in a company that is involved in a federal court lawsuit is automatic grounds for a federal judge or appellate judge to recuse himself.

The report, which was in reality, just a sampling of judges and cases, called into question the decision of judges in 26 cases!

The ARDC won’t even report, let alone create a data base, but I think both are necessary.

Again, our preliminary research from some probate victims have alleged that Mr. Larkin ran the Larkin Center for children in Elgin for a number of years.  I can find news articles that this home by 2012  or so had revenues of $9 million.  It experienced financial problems in 2013 and closed in October of that year.

Children’s homes are run in a similar style as are nursing homes, with the state taking away parental rights.  For the elderly, many are forced into nursing homes when the state strips them of their rights via a guardianship process.  The child or elder is housed in a facility which takes in money from the state (often at thousands of dollars per month, when the actual cost to house with minimal food budget, ie, bologna sandwiches, starchy and poor quality foods is $1,000 or less per month per ward, making the termination of legal rights a lucrative business, as it is with the seniors).  Nancy Vallone reports that with Danielle Murphy, her niece, that while she was a highly skilled, degreed and licensed nurse (RN, MN), she could not take guardianship of Danielle because a local home had terminated Danielle’s rights at a young age, claiming she had bad or troublesome parents, then she was awarded to this “home” for children, who then proceeded to bill the state up to a whopping $350k per year for  housing “a troubled child” with a “troubled family”, when in fact Danielle was, according to her aunt, sweet and trusting and the parents were good parents and not derilict of any duties to Danielle.  The family claims Danielle was a “kids for cash” scheme.  The case may have ended in utter tragedy.  When someone recently checked on Danielle a few months back, they found the “group home” suddenly closed and no one knows where Danielle is currently. The authorities have been contacted and are involved.  Please pray for her family. They have gone thru the worst.

In the elder guardianization scheme, almost none of the seniors, competent or not, are ever able to terminate and successfully fight the guardianship process.  For them, death is the only way out.

New York Federal District Judge rules US corps have to turn over documents stored on foreign computers!

It seems if you can access it from the US, and you are a US company, then you have to turn over documents requested.

I wonder if Google or Microsoft shipped incriminating documents to a foreign country, they would have to ship them back for discovery?

Who would pay for that?

In any case, you have to turn over any documents and things which refer or relate to issues in any pending cause of action or documents which may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  This is a fairly broad standard and it would seem the New York judge is right about the reach of US discovery.

How it works–a good article that Ken found

And I am still hearing reports that this is going on in Illinois, and in Chicago.  Nurses complain to me patients are shuttled back and forth from nursing home to hospital and they are malnourished and dehydrated and no one does anything and the nurses don’t dare complain.

It is interesting because the attorney for Esformes wrote me some time ago protesting that Ken said that the Esformes were under investigation.  According to this wire service article he has some serious issues.  Scroll to the bottom of the article and you will see even more new wire service articles on Esformes.

From Cynthia Farenga–smoking gun II letter–wrong on soooo many levels

I don’t believe that I received this from the ARDC during my discovery, but it is a very important letter-  it rises to the level of Smoking Gun II.  I believe the ARDC should have produced it to me in my discovery because it mentions Ken’s behavior and emails which were frequently featured on this blog.)

During Ken’s trial I could not for the life of me figure out why the ARDC was going on and on with Ken’s letters to the authorities prompt Gloria into action (little do these people know Gloria, she is an investigative reporter and once she sees an injustice, whether it is the horrific crimes of John Wayne Gayce and the subsequent cover up by the CPS or it is freeing her mother from “guardianship purgatory”, that is where a senior is railroaded into a guardianship and the only way out 99% of the time is death, she is like a pit bull and never, ever gives up.  But, she writes her own legal papers or she works with Tim and other lawyers to do so.  Like a good reporter, she does not reveal her sources.

So what does Cynthia Farenga, a favored attorney, make up to the IARDC?  The following letter:

In this letter she assumes “[i]t is clear form a multiplicity of pleadings that he is defacto represeting Gloria Sykes, a party at the trial level, despite the fact that he was denied leave to represent her in the Probat Court because, because (sic) he previously represented her mother Mary Sykes for a period of ten years.  Gloria and her mother Mary currently have adverse finanacial interests to one another, which is why he was denied leave to represent Gloria in Mary’s guardianship case.”  This statement is clearly wrong on sooooo many levels.

First, one does not “imagine” a “defacto” representation.  Ken has the right to talk to anyone he wishes.  Second, no one, after investigating over a dozen people, the court records and numerous trancripts, has ever proved Mary was served 14 days in advance of her hearing, nor were the two elderly sisters served, leaving the 09 P 4585 case without jurisidiction.  Next, CF imagines there is a conflict between Gloria and Mary and their interests are adverse financial ones.  Let’s take a look at what actually happened.  Jay Dolgin said that he wanted out because they were railroading Mary (he asked for discovery and was denied flat out), and he stated, mark my words, CT will put Mary in a nursing home and they will sell her home and take her accounts and property and it will all go to nursing home fees and attorneys fees and she will be left with nothing, and Gloria will be homeless and penniless and he wanted nothing part of that.

What has happened?  Mary’s house was sold.  CT sports an obvious upgrade in hair and spa and expensive jewelry–seen clearly across the courtroom.  Daughter has college and a lavish wedding paid for.  AS has a $60k tax lien.  AS and CF now have expensive homes with jumbo mortgages.  What has happened to Gloria?  Homeless and penniless with a sheriff’s order to sell her home.  Mary’s finances?  Some $50k + in attorneys fees taken from the trust, and PS is claiming $200k from what is left over from Gloria.

Were Mary and Gloria’s interests truly adverse? Heck no. Both were fighting the probate court for their own homes and money!  Jay Dolgin was spot on.  $1 million in valuable gold and silver coins missing.  Cash in mattress missing.  Looks like the vast bulk of the estate will go to probate attorney fees.  The miscreants blame Ken and I while they grab all the cash. Smoking Gun II letter.  It’s a smoke screen.

Here we have CF declaring (apparently Gloria) having “serious emotional problems, which he appears to be taking advantage of…. he plays into her delusions and fantasies about events occuring in the case and its ultimate outcome in order to generate fees, as his multiple pleadings either lack foundation in law or misstate or misapply the law and facts.”

What pleadings?  Ken was haled into a court without filing an appearance and the court clearly lacked jurisdiction over him.  Gloria does her own pleadings with lawyers other than Ken and my self and CF is delusional that in Dec. 2010 that Ken and I were billing and collecting from Gloria. The handwriting was already on the wall, and she was already homeless and penniless.  So what fees?

To accuse Gloria, an award winning journalist of having “serious emotional problems” and to have “delusions and fantasies” is to impugn her professional status and career, amounting to defamation, false light and libel.  Is CF punished by the ARDC for that?  No, because this is probate and it’s an “anything goes” scenario, CF is lauded for her ability to make stuff up about a family member to defame them, marginalize them in probate–all to her advantage.  Then Gloria’s assets can be grabbed, she can be rendered homeless and penniless–all without interference from the authorities.  Happens all the time in the miserable world of probate on the 18th floor and around the country.

The IARDC should have provided this important letter to me in my discovery. They did not.

The letter goes on to say (page 4 of 8), para 3, “[Brodsky]believes Ditkowsky is exploiting Gloria for finaancial gan and that Gloria is demonstrably emotionally/psychologically troubled.”  More false light, defamation and libel.  In probate, if you want to get rid of pesky family members, all you have to do is say they are emotionally/psychologially troubled.  Gloria may be emotional, but she knows what justice is and what justice is not.  She knows that neither she nor her aunts were served with 14 day advance notice of the time, date and place of hearing–meaning serious trouble for the GAL’s.  Do the GAL’s move to dismiss the case and make up the serious trouble they have caused Gloria?  Heck no, they then attack Gloria and say is she mentally disturbed–defaming and libeling an award winning, skilled investigative reporter.  It is a tried and true method in probate to get rid of pesky family members that demand justice in a world lacking justice.

Gloria did nothing wrong. She did not cause this trouble.  She was named by her mother in her advance directives.  She cared for her mother and was her constant companion.  The guardianship was to sell the home, collect bank accounts, sell valuable homes in a hot neighborhood, Norwood Park, and generate massive fees–to the probate attorneys involved. What has happened?  Exactly that.  It is said about $60k from the sale of Mary’s home went to the attorneys.  PS is claiming $200k from Gloria’s Lumberman’s money.  Enough said.  The IARDC prosecutes Ken and I believing PS, AS and CF.  Jay Dolgin, I and Ken know better. The assets of Mary and Gloria will be collected and go to massive attys fees from the miscreants.

It is now over for that scheme in the probate court.  Ken and I are convicting of lying about the scheme to drain Mary and Gloria.


In the end who had the true financial conflict with Mary (the Miscreants and Mary).  Who had the true financial conflict with Gloria?  (the Miscreants).

Mary wanted to live together with Gloria until she passed away.  The agreement with Gloria in the POA was she would care for Mary and keep her at home, as Mary desired.


Read the Illinois POA Act, it says these agreements are inviolate and cannot be disturbed unless there is “serious and substantial harm” to the Principal’s estate.  Okay, I will admit, draining an elder’s estate is “serious and substantial harm”, but in the end, who did this in fact?  The miscreants!

Who among us wants to go to all the trouble of making advance directives (POA for health care) and then having the state trash it on the 18th floor.  If I say I want my Son 3 to be my guardian and to live with him until I die in my own house and he manages my funds, whatever they are, WHAT RIGHT DOES THE STATE HAVE TO STEP IN AND DISTURB THAT ARRANGEMENT?

No one denies that Mary was well cared for, lived in her own home, did fun and interesting things with Gloria and wanted to NEVER GO TO A NURSING HOME, she wanted to stay in her home and have Gloria with her–BFF’s they were.

The letter goes on “She (Gloria) later sought to nominate her self orally without amending her written cross petition.”  The Record on Appeal speaks for itself.  In the event a guardian was to be appointed, Gloria filed a cross petition with the OPG and when the OPG appeared and declined to be involved, she then filed a second petition with Kathie Bakken nominated as Guardian of the Estate and Gloria would be Guardian of the Person, as per Mary’s advance directives.

The letter from CF is a pack of lies.  The miscreants DO NOT keep elders at home with the people they love. They sell homes, deplete estates, defame other attorneys and family members, they trash advance directives and scoop up the money and leave a wake of grief and tears.

Just ask Gloria, Kathie and Yolanda.  And when they came to testify at my trial, what did the IARDC do?  They got rid of Gloria by telling her “bring 12,000 emails” when the miscreants produced not barely a one.  More emails than the miscreants were already published on my blog.  Kathie and Yolanda were told their assertions to their basic constitutional rights–due process and the right to advance notice, a hearing and clear findings of fact and law–as proscribed by the Illinois Probate Act was not theirs, the Tribunal strenuously worked to deny these rights to them, telling Kathie constitutional rights were “sour grapes” over and over, as if she, a highly skilled and intelligent woman with her own business would start to believe that tripe.  The arrogance of the chair was astounding and amazing.  At the end, Kathie could not believe it.  I could not believe it.  The arrogance clearly denigrated into outright rudeness and condescension.

This behavior continued up to the Tribunal trying to explain to Kathie on the stand that the word corruption has a different meaning for attorneys and for the public.  He asserted “corruption” when used in a general sense means that someone may have violate a law or code of ethic or morals, but when attorney uses it, it means passing cash over the bench.  (Huge eye roll).  Kathie, to her credit, quickly countered, “but Ms. Denison is writing a blog, so wouldn’t she use the general definition and not the one only for attorneys.”

Yep, that was the highlight.  It was a genuine woman at the well argument.

Read CF’s letter and see if you believe her–or if you believe what happened in the end and what happens every day in probate to some cases where greed and money looks too tempting and some huge cash grab takes place, all the while trampling on family members with miscreant groundless, gratuitous and unwarranted defamation of family members



PS — Cynthia Farenga goes on to make the assertion in her letter that KKD makes “serious threats” of “some really good quotes” in a pleading he is to file  That’s a total LOL ROF 4PIA!  I really don’t think legal quotes amount to “fighting words” for your average person.  Maybe for those in Mensa with too many PhD’s, but the average guy on the street will just turn back to the game on the telly and his beer than worry about a “good legal quote from some really good case law.”  That’s admirable imagination at work, though I have to tell you.  Now I have to tell you, in all due defense, she does name drop “Lady Gaga” but I understand that by Jan 2011, most teens considered Gaga old news.  Old lady news, that is.

PPS–CF continues to assert only “one legal fee” will be charged between her and AS, but wait, she took fees from the Trust (sale of Mary’s home) without a fee petition and without court approval.  You go girl with that one.

And from another corner of the Universe –Hawaii

From Kathie Bakken, and you won’t believe what the President of Hawaii University is telling his college students.

I wonder what the law school is teaching anyone.

The quotes are utterly amazing.  Almost as good as those out of the ARDC!

It’s almost impossible to believe that anyone educated with a college agree would not agree with basic human rights.  Let’s give those college kids a thousand gold stars today for sticking up for basic human rights and the US Constitution on Constitution Day





NEW decision from ND Illinois court–Civil Rights Claim Dismissed

Dear Readers;

Please see below.  We recently received an answer to our Motion to Dismiss our Civil Rights complaint where Ken and I complained about the behavior of Peter Schmeidel, Adam Stern (for interfering with my blogging), Cynthia Farenga for assisting, and Jerome Larkin for assisting and for PS and AS calling up and threatening Ken that if he did not drop his investigation of the Mary Sykes case, he would be sanctioned by the probate court!  As incredulous as this seems, I have heard numerous other reports of threats in the probate courts by the “in group” from those that don’t normally practice there but have a client with a juicy estate.  This is abominable behavior.

The decision is interesting, but odd.  We stated a claim for direct violation of our First Amendment rights, but the court says we did not state a claim for Retaliation under the First Amendment, even though we did not plead that.  We pled a direct violation

First the court uses the Rooker Feldman decision to keep us out of federal court.  On p. 4 it says that our civil rights claim is grounded in decisions emanating from state court proceedings, which is fairly ludicrous, because blogging has nothing to do with, nor can it be remedied in either the probate court or in a federal court proceeding.  Threats to keep attorneys out of probate have nothing to do with a probate court proceeding, that is just a civil rights violation.

Next, the court entirely ignores the fact that my blog is entirely non commercial speech consisting of political speech–the type of speech that should be awarded the highest protection by any court.  It is much similar to the Hillary movie discussed in the Citizens United case.  What does this court say?

“There is no generalized First Amendment right to speak whenever
one desires.” Armstrong v. Fishel, No. 14 C 1015, 2014 WL 1282551, at *2 (C.D. Ill. Mar. 31,2014).

This is indeed the oddest quote. No where in the 9 page opinion does the court even begin to differentiate the correct standard regarding political speech (the government has no right to control political speech) and commercial speech (strict scrutiny, least restrictions to accomplish a valid purpose which is capable of being remedied by controlling the speech) and private speech among individuals (defamation or lying about another person’s character or reputation, esp. where they may be injured in their business or profession.)  The type of speech is not discussed at all.  And further, the Armstrong case is the wrong standard for political speech.

Next, on page 7, the court discusses immunity for the GAL’s in probate.  The only problem with the court’s assertion of immunity for CF and AS is that threatening other attorneys, interferring with my blogging are not part of any probate proceeding.  Neither CF or AS has been appointed either my or Ken’s GAL and we are not part of the proceeding.

The court notes that JL has official immunity and cannot be sued for damages.  I disagree because it is not part of JL’s duties to allow attorneys to threaten other attorneys falsely.  JL is supposed to protect honest and ethical attorneys.

With respect to PS, the court correctly cites the Heilman case, but does not recognize the conspiracy between the defendants, and also it was properly pled.

They further state that a GAL is not a state actor under 42 USC 1983.

The court also cites the 7th circuit Palmissano case with this quote:

The Court notes that to the extent the plaintiffs complain that their First Amendment
rights were violated because they have been discouraged or prevented from speaking out regarding corruption in the courts, false or reckless accusations of dishonesty within the judicial system do not fall within the scope of protected speech”. Matter of Palmisano, 70 F.3d 483, 487-88 (7th Cir. 1995). (see page 8, fn 1)

however, if you read the Palmisano case, he made repeated unfounded statements on just about every judge he had:

If Palmisano had furnished some factual basis for his assertions, then we would need to determine whether either the Constitution or principles of sound judicial administration permit a sanction–for an attorney is not absolutely liable for every statement that turns out to be incorrect. It would unduly quell investigation and exposure of corruption to disbar an attorney who publicized suspicious conduct, just because the suspicions were dispelled.

Also, in Palmisano he accused the judges of all being corrupt and taking bribes.  In the Sykes, Gore, Wyman, etc. cases, those are all different cases.  Sykes has no jurisdiction and $1 million missing.  Gore has 29 gold teeth missing and $1.5 million missing.  Drabik has $9 missing from Harry and Lydia’s estate, etc.  They are all different.  In each case, there are family fact witnesses with evidence of the missing amounts and most importantly this blog is protected by 47 USC sec. 230.  I

In addition, Palmisano was not running a blog that published also the proof, that is, the transcripts, pleadings and declarations and affidavits of those fact witnesses who state a completely different story of the Sykes case–a deeper darker one–one which the ARDC routinely ignores complaints thereupon.

A Notice of Appeal and Docketing statement has already been filed.  It is hoped the 7th circuit recognizes a direct First Amendment violation, can identify the correct standard for political speech (Citizen’s United) and can reverse and remand this case for justice on a clear civil rights violation.  None of CF or AS are mine or Ken’s GAL’s  The GAL case cited has nothing to do with our case.

Here is the link to the decision:







From Attorney Tom Weiss, as published in Disabled World

Dear Tom;

Thank you so much for published in your article your experiences in the probate area of the Daley Center.

I agree with you, most nurses and aides are professional, kind and caring and therefore attracted to taking care of our most vulnerable but precious population–the disableds and elders.

On a darker side, there will always be a strong minority that are attracted to nursing homes for everything they can 5 finger–clothes, shoes, jewelry, etc.–even and sometimes especially the drugs.  Nursing homes are chock full of psychotropic drugs that mostly tranquilize, make one happy when you’re not really happy and you forget your problems and sleep instead of being a productive, useful citizen.  They mask pain, real and emotional.   Like Nurse Jackie, many will work in a hospital or nursing home setting.

From personal experience and from the experiences of others, I know of the thefts, the drugs, the people working at these places.  I already have one ward where we have reported to the court the ward was found several times lying in her own urine in the morning for hours because the nurses won’t take her to the bathroom in the night, and then she was found alone, on the toilet, not knowing how to get up and finish by herself.

The response of the Sister and POA for this frail vulnerable woman–find a new and better nursing home (in this case the Sister cannot be cared for at home because she has maniac attacks, is violent and will keep her caretakers up all night at times).

The response of the court?  An incredulous order not to move, and another order to freeze ALL her assets, without notice or hearing!  The Illinois Probate Act says that a POA has to do something serious or something involving substantial harm to terminate the POA’s (this time a sister), ability to move a person or pay their bills.

Those are advance directives.  Who among us wants the state to step in and willy nilly terminate our advance directives?

The OPG, of course, was involved.  The GAL was involved AND the attorney for the brother.

No one is concerned about her abuse, which was reported to the state, which of course has done nothing. Meanwhile the POA has found a new nursing home, but this poor woman can’t be moved–by court order, and no nursing home can now be paid–per court order.

So Tom, thank you for speaking out and quoting Ken.  I don’t know if it will cost you your license for telling the truth, but if you are going down this activist path and fighting the system, Ken and I thank you and applaud you.

And if they come after you and you want to keep your law license, Like Mr. Sina Weibo in China, (oops, almost typed Chicago–must be Freudian), just apologize and blame myself and Ken.  We see this all the time mucking around probate.  BUT unless you adhere to the autocracy and code of silence in Chicago–be forewarned.  The ARDC is policing blogging by attorneys.  Unless and until Ken and I are exonerated, they are on the side of Dissent Crushers and Powers that Be–no better than those found in N. Korea or China, because first, they always go after the lawyers who are reporting on the dirty truths no one wants to hear.  After they have crushed that, they will move on to the general populace, First Amendment or not–until the public screams and demands enforcement of their Bill of Rights those rights will be in serious danger from the Dissent Crushers and Powers that Be.


PS–this is a true story.  I would normally publish names and dates but the ARDC has chilled my speech.  If you want names and dates, write me privately with a list of your activist accomplishments.