Teaching the ARDC about constitutional rights!

Dear Readers;

One of the things that happens only in ARDC litigation is that if you’re an attorney defending your constitutional rights, and you assert those rights, first thing they do is Strike your pleading.  I think I have a stack of their “Motions to Strike”.  Now this is funny, they moved to strike the depositions of the key crucial fact witnesses: Gloria Sykes, Scott Evans, Yolanda and Kathie Bakken, but then they use them at trial!

I have never seen a proceeding with so many Motions to Strike. Most of the time, opposing counsel files a Response and a decision is made on the merits.  Motions to Strike are supposed to only be used in rare occassions.


Here is the ARDC Motion to Strike:


Here is my response:


Make sure you read my declaration at the end of my response.  It’s an eye opener.  As you will recall Judge Stuart said “she did not know” that Gloria was chained.  I distinctly recalled she testified that her deputies told her only a few days ago.  Alyece agrees with that.  Then the transcripts comes out and suddenly Judge Stuarts words change to “she does not know” what the deputies do when they take someone someplace (it’s not someplace, it’s the judge’s own anteroom), and what they do with them.

I think it would be easier to swallow a watermelon whole than believe that story, esp. with Peter Schmeidel and Adam Stern gloating about it in later hearings–to Judge Stuart, and then before Judge Hollis in bankruptcy court!

So be sure to read my entire response.  It’s an eye opener, again.


3 thoughts on “Teaching the ARDC about constitutional rights!

  1. This reply is from Kathie Bakken, niece to Mary G Sykes, who loves her Aunt and was very close to her, prior to the State stepping in and managing (abjectly) the life of Mary G Sykes:

    “Wow! No one could ever accuse you of pulling your punches!”

    • Thanks for your very kind words. I speak my truth. We all need to do that. We are supposed to live in a country where democracy and free speech reigns. Unfortunately, Chicago has a long and deeply entrenched history of corruption. It appears that the ARDC, in prosecuting me and this blog, is part of it. I run a blog. I report what the public and other send to me–facts, information, pleadings, I allow for comments from every side and do not turn down a comment unless it is spam and unrelated. The ARDC wants to crush my speech. I am a dissenter of government, an activist, a rebel. The US Supreme Court with many, many, recent decisions is in complete derogation to what the ARDC proposes–tyranny and a dictatorship over my and yours political speech.
      I will not stand for that, will you? Do I have to mince words? Do I have to have chilled speech and respect for the “powers that be” when there are many, many skeletons hidden in their closet? I think not. I will continue to speak out. I will NOT abandon court room victims. I think that attorneys can do that in a respectful, thoughtful manner and not run afoul of the ARDC.
      Jerome Larkin in years past ran a Children’s home, I believe he has an automatic conflict of interest. I am told by many he did not run it well. The Elgin Children’s home, upon information and belief, had children there placed by the court, there was probably some inducement to do so (cash for kids) and there was probably a severe differential between what was charged (thousands per month) and the services rendered, (cheap food, bologna sandwiches and hot dogs, etc.), making profitability an assured goal. (While the insurance industry implores the submission of fraudulent claims to them and the authorities, they are in fact the worst offenders and experts have said that hospital and nursing home and professional health service providers have a 70% fraud rate in health care–go figure)
      I have absolutely no idea how Jerome Larkin, with his past history of running an institution, is put in charge of prosecuting myself and Ken Ditkowsky for pointing out the absurd profits made, the fact that seniors are often railroaded into guardianships, and there is scant oversight. It’s an obvious and overt conflict of interest. Go look at HIS property records. Disgusting.
      My trial proved that. Ms. Farenga cried on the stand, guardianships protect the elderly, she cares about her wards, she is there for them, when in reality after a few questions I shot that down. Two expensive GAL’s and all they could say is each visited with the ward (Mary G Sykes) for a few minutes over 5 years since the proceedings began. Shameful. They have no idea who Mary Sykes is, they disregarded her POA and advance directives, they railroaded her, — and you know the rest.
      I am here to speak for the elderly. I may not be perfect, I may not know all the solutions, but I have every right to cry foul when the foul balls are plentiful and they result in utter devastation and horror to the family, which you BRAVELY testified to on the stand in my trial.
      You go girl.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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