http://americanactionnews.com/articles/50-va-workers-claim-retaliation-for-whistleblowing
an amazing story of a woman with a heart helping out a sexual abuse victim, and SHE is penalized.
Apparently those in charge have gone to the Jerome Larkin school of staff management. If someone’s doing good, stop it and punish them. If someone is following the law, stop them and punish them severely. And if they let others know, make the penalty outrageous as a warning to other do gooders.
JoAnne
And no less this was in the Chicago Sun Times.
I had always wondered all those years of parking tickets, fines, garbage tickets, etc. if any were legal because no prosecutor or atty for the City was present.
When there is no prosecutor for the city, the proceedings easily devolve into kangaroos courts were anything goes and there is no uniformity of decisions.
I am sure many of you have seen that.
I wonder also how many complaints were filed with the ARDC over this that were trashed. Time for a FOIA?
Joanne
Yes, Mr. Larkin, the US Supreme Court is still recognizing people’s rights under the US Constitution as the law of the land, even if you are not.
I feel sorry for Alice Gore, Carol Wyman, Rose Drabik, Lydia Tyler, Mrs. DB, Ms. LV, Mr. Spera, Mrs. L, Mrs. MP and other Illinoisans who have suffered under your watch and command in the Probate Courts and complaints were filed and routinely dismissed. GAL’s and probate attys were protected at the expense of these elderly women.
I advise clients who have suffered injustices to write to the ARDC too with their complaints, but don’t expect much, write to the FBI and be specific.
It’s a very sad statement to make. Let me know when your polices have changed.
And no, your agency does not need more money to simply glance at a complaint, discern the word “probate” and toss the letter in your circular file or get our your rubber stamp of “breach excused”.
And I am not impressed either with your connection to social media articles and the law where the ARDC has taken the position that it must crush and obliviate any honest, ethical attorney dissent and then prosecute honest attorneys with kangaroo proceedings with no due process, quashed defenses and one sided hand picked tribunals acting in historical star chamber procedure.
From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Jun 28, 2014 2:25 PM
To: JoAnne Denison , “illinois.ardc@gmail.com” , Eric Holder , “civilrights.cv@ic.fbi.gov” , “ADA.ComplaintAdmin@usdoj.gov” , “IllinoisLawyerNow@isba.org” , Chicago FBI , NASGA , probate sharks , j ditkowsky , Cook County States Attorney , Chicago Tribune , “truthbetoldradio@gmail.com” , Eric Blair , “tinker.belle2000@yahoo.com” , GLORIA SYKES , scott evans , Kathie Bakken , Ginny Johnson Justice4 Everyone Blog Fan , jim , SUNTIMES , matt senator kirk , “fox2newsdesk@foxtv.com” , “foxnews_7D7B711AF105DCA690AB56169C0FF242@newsletters.foxnews.com”
Subject: Fw: post for the day
From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Jun 28, 2014 3:59 PM
To: GLORIA Jean SYKES , JoAnne Denison , “illinois.ardc@gmail.com” , Eric Holder , “civilrights.cv@ic.fbi.gov” , “ADA.ComplaintAdmin@usdoj.gov” , “IllinoisLawyerNow@isba.org” , Chicago FBI , NASGA , LUCIUS VERENUS , Judy Ditkowsky , states attorney , Chicago Tribune , “truthbetoldradio@gmail.com” , Eric Blair , “tinker.belle2000@yahoo.com” , scott evans , “k_bakken@att.net” , Ginny Johnson Justice4 Everyone Blog Fan , jim , steve huntly sun times , matt senator kirk , “fox2newsdesk@foxtv.com” , “foxnews_7D7B711AF105DCA690AB56169C0FF242@newsletters.foxnews.com”
Subject:
http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/
And I will note for the record that Larkin has NEVER publicly responded to this blog, has never apologized to A SINGLE VICTIM, and he persecutes me and you both. He could easily withdraw his case against us. Kowamoto and Stuart are gone. Game over. How does he explain that one? coincidence? I think not. Not even a 5 year old would believe that one.
and we must never forget Alice Gore, Rose Drabik, Lydia Tyler, LB, Carol Wyman–all passed over, and were either murdered or there was attempted murder and all under Illinois “guardianships“. Alice Gore’s 29 gold teeth were pulled in an Illinois nursing home when she was age 99. Gloria, a younger daughter was handcuffed and threatened with the euthanization of her pets on the 18th floor if she did not detail her accounts for probate attorneys fees, the GAL’s said the money was to “care for Mary”, but it is not. 90%+ of that estate will go for attorneys fees, some $350k. JT was falsely accused of stealing by a GAL so she would fork over $20k to the estate which went for attorneys fees to avoid disparagement of her good name. Bob Schwartz had $200k in imaginary promissory notes that estate is trying to collect–which will all go, (you guessed it) for attorneys fees. In the estate of Spera, the GAL grabbed all the joint accounts, locked DS out of all of them–$150k and he was rendered homeless for 6 month. Mother and son want to go home and live together. That is Illinois law. But the GAL and probate atty forbid it. LV has no jurisdiction and her $350k estate went hugely to probate and atty fees. She was rendered incompetent when she told probate goons to get off her porch, she wanted nothing to do with the OPG or a guardianship because they were all thieves, and she was immediately deemed delusional and schizophrenic. Papers were served Friday and she was guardianized next Monday, put in a locked down facility, she escaped, couch surfed for 18 months, but that did not stop the probate goons from billing her estate $20k. She called and begged the OPG for money and food and no one would respond or they told her to go live in the designated nursing home where they put her. Mrs. L is still in dire straits, out of her home, massive atty fee billings ($200k in 20 months). Mrs. P has suffered the same fate. Now I have anew case and a new high level of billings, (low level of ethics), Mr. F with an amazing $2.2 million in probate crony fees in 2 years.
All Illinois probate system. Most from the 18th floor of the Daley center.
These people have NOT seen justice. No one, not Jenner and Block, not Winston and Strawn, Jones Day, no major with money and power, no major attorneys with money and power have come to my blog (despite 55k views) and said “how can I help?”
I am one woman. I cannot clean up this mess alone. Ken is the only one helping me but he is suspended for 4 years. It will take a team of attorneys working 18 hrs per day to clean up this mess of injustice propagated on the elderly and disabled. Who does these things?
Where are the big “pro bono” law firms with money and power to help me out?
Are they afraid of Jerome Larkin and the ARDC too? I am not. What will be, will be and I will always stand to the challenge, no matter what.
PLEASE, if you are an attorney or a law student that can help out or if you know of a law firm with the resources, please beg and plead with them to help me out on these cases.
the justice system of Illinois depends on it.
joanne
At one time, back in 1972, Daniel Ellsburg was deemed by the FBI the country’s “most dangerous man”.
His crime (and he had his kids help him with this), he leaked to national media Pentagon Papers that indicated that 1) the war in Vietnam was a sham; 2) the Pentagon and executive branch was publishing outright lies about the war in order to promote it and lengthen it; and 3) this was done for the benefit of US mega corp war profiteers.
The district court dismissed the suit and the US government’s request for an injunction against publishing the Pentagon Papers, The Court of Appeals reverse and an injunction issued. The US Supreme Court, in a 9 to 0 decision firmly told the US court system that the First Amendment is alive and kicking, and the lower courts should be ashamed for what they had done to Mr. Ellsburg.
They ended their 4 page main decision congratulating the brave news women and men that published the Pentagon Papers across the nation, even fearing a 10 year federal prison sentence hanging like the sword of Damocles over them. The Justices commended those news women and men for what they had done–exactly what the founders of our country had envisioned when the First Amendment was enacted.
Mr. Ellsburg is now 83 and is trying to help Mr. Snowden, for about the same stupid issue–publishing old government documents that are nothing but the unvarnished truth that only hides the lies from US mega corp war profiteers and those in conspiracy with them for war fraud on the nation.
In a very short, four page, 9 to 0 opinion the Black/Douglas team reaffirmed the strength of the First Amendment.
First Amendment
Congress shall make no law abriding freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
Next the court starts out with the fact Justice Douglas started the opinion with the statement “the injunction should have been summarily lifted without oral argument when the case was first present and every moment this injunction is effect amounts to a flagrant, indefensible and continuing violation of the First Amendment.”
The New York Times, Washington Post, etc., Should be commended for serving the original and true purpose of the First Amendment.
You might say, well this is a court, so certainly a court can get more discretion in First Amendment matters. Not so, saith Justice Douglas:
“The government does not even rely on an Act of Congress. Instead, it makes the bold and dangerous farreaching contention that the courts should take it upon themselves to make a law abridging freedom of the press [and speech] in the name of equity or presidential powers or national security.”
A sincere thanks today for all the brave, honest justices on the Supreme Court in 1971 who reaffirmed freedom of the press and freedom of speech. They make this blog possible, and my defense of all of you court victims out there–NOT the IARDC who has repeated over and over this blog is like yelling fire in a crowded theater and so it must be crushed as dangerous dissent and inconvenient political speech.
The ARDC has become like the fearful executive and judicial branches in 1971 that feared the public’s knowledge of the truth about the Vietnam war and mega corp war profiteers might expose the rampant corruption in the executive branch, which it did. For those of you too young or too old (haha) to remember, the US started drafting soldiers in 1965, a major escalation ensued, and by 1968 US involvement in war in Vietnam was at its height. The publication of the Pentagon Papers and more information after that started to take serious wind out of the sails of the war, and by August 1973, a full scale withdrawal was underway. But the bombing, the deaths, the crimes against humanity left their toll on the average citizen in that country.
JoAnne
In the June 2014 ISBA journal, there is an entire article on social media, and this article seems to center on the issue of Facebook containing derogatory and defamatory posts–which 90% of the time seems to revolve around employee/employer disputes. Interesting. Illinois is an at will state so I don’t think what you say on Facebook is going to help the average employee that posts something adverse or embarrassing about his or her employer and gets terminated for it. BUT one narrow caveat is employees who are non exempt (lower level staff), discussing work place conditions, they may be covered under NLRB that allows employees to organize and present grievances to employers. Again, it’s a narrow, unreliable exception, so I would not rely on it, except if you have already been fired for trying to make things better at work by acknowledging problems, that might make for a good wrongful discharge suit. Be sure you were an excellent employee prior to the firing tho, because wrongful discharge suits are not guaranteed, either. Better yet, keep workplace discussions at work and in appropriate formats and try not to be very negative about your employer, its products or services.
Interestingly enough, the article does not mention copyright issues, or that employees can be fired at will anyway.
My copyright Response to Jerome Larkin’s motion to dismiss my Copyright Infringement suit against him may be found here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwOGplTVo4bVcwc2s/edit?usp=sharing for defendant Nextpoint
and here for the ARDC
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwN2d6ZGpXT0FhZlk/edit?usp=sharing
The article itself cautions to 1) send targeted discovery requests requesting information about a specific topic; 2) asking for everything in Facebook is not likely to be well received; 3) the attorney should make sure the posts turned over are relevant.
While the article recommends programs like Snagit and Camtasia, the reality is, you capture a lot and the other side finds out, you WILL be facing a counter claim for copyright infringement and removal to Federal District court. If Snagit and Camtasia are informed of your super infringing activities and take no action to stop it, they may be contributory infringers as aiders and abetters or vicarious infringers. Most blogs are not sold or offered for sale, so technically they are unpublished under the US Copyright Act http://www.copyright.gov/title17/ and Fair Use is NOT a favored defense. Any honest, competent, copyright attorney will tell you it simply cannot ever be relied upon. It is best to take the least amount of text or data, generally no more than 3 or 4 short lines. The upshot is write your own copy. (see, page 278) and make sure that what you take is clearly pertinent, relevant and most of all, MUST be downloaded and preserved.
If you can’t answer that question with a firm “yes”, then forget it. If you’re mad about a Facebook post, most generally disappear in a few days.
The article also fails to mention if it’s not your stuff, don’t worry. Under 47 USC 230, if someone else wrote it and you posted it, you should be protected. If they ask for you to remove it under that statue, do so, following the statue closely.
Another issue not tackled by the article is that is you do engage in Fair Use because you want to use quotes or a short example for your blog article, most authors want acknowledgment. Many will want a plug to their book or artistic work. Many will also ask you post a copyright notice “(c) Name of Author, all rights reserved, year of publn. or creation for unpublished works.” and then the notation “used with permission of the author”. The ARDC hasn’t figured out how to do that. They should respect other’s copyright right, despite the fact as a government agency, they have none themselves. You should always ASK to repost or republish from the author. Many authors on the internet allow for cross posting. Be sure to follow the free to repost instructions because it could invalidate the permission and subject you to copyright infringement liability.
Once, an attorney for Mr. Eformes wrote me demanding that I take down Ken’s assertions that his client had been indicted. So, of course I complied. I deleted what Ken wrote and inserted instead about a half dozen articles from wire services regarding his client’s indictments and litigation over nursing home fraud. So there is a caveat that if you are trying to cleanse the internet of all your client’s misdeeds, this might in fact backfire.
Several citizens have pointed out to me the Social Media article and that Jerome Larkin’s name appeared on the page, and yet he wants to delete his adverse information from the internet and crush attorney dissent and extreme dissatisfaction over the fact that the law is X and courts are doing Y. They found his name on that page ironic and asked me to mention it on the blog.
So I was pleased to comply.
Joanne
Dear Readers;
In the wake of highly suspicious deaths which family members swear are murder by aiding and abetting GAL’s, Guardians and others known and approved of by the courts, the ARDC is raising its prices starting next year, courtesy of the Ill. Supreme Court. Yikes! more money to white wash, cover up and be embarrassed holding when the feds step in and do their job.
This week recently, I heard another take of a bankrupt guardianship, so what did the GAL do? He created a false accusation against the Guardian (who, by the way had top secret clearance in the US government), and said she stole money from the estate, forcing her to write a check back into the estate so HE could get paid from a bankrupt estate.
This woman would never even think of stealing, but the false accusation and smear to her name forced her to comply.
It will be reported to the ARDC and I’ll let you know what they do.
Below is from Ken but please voice your opposition to the ARDC raising fees and ask that they be disbanded until the Ill. Sup. Ct. can find a way to set up an independent, competent, honest and ethical agency that WILL conduct thorough, competent and HONEST investigations of these cases.
Our elderly and disableds deserve much better than what is going on now.
take care
joanne
from Jerome Larkin
“The timing and amount of the ARDC’s fee increase request takes into account the economic challenges facing many lawyers,” said ARDC Administrator Jerome Larkin. “Our fee has not been raised in eight years – twice its projected lifespan. The ARDC has acted prudently to extend the life of that fee in response to the Court’s directive for fiscal restraint during the economic downturn.
“The amount of the increase for the ARDC is an historic low on a percentage basis. The additional funds will allow the ARDC to continue its educational, remedial, and disciplinary work.”
The increased revenue will be used to undertake new and expanded responsibilities in education of the profession, particularly in support of the updated Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct that went into effect in 2010; to fund the regulatory and disciplinary authority of out of state attorneys who practice in Illinois under Rule 707; and to upgrade technology in following the Supreme Court’s lead in e-business initiatives.”
You will note that nothing is carefully said about the ineffective, ignored and tossed aside “investigations” on these cases. Nothing is said about sudden resignations of certain Judges.
It is time for honest, integrity and to face what is going on and make the information public.
I will be publishing quotes from one of my favorite cases–U.S. v. Washington Post, a great 1971 case where the US government went after Daniel Elssburg for publishing the Pentagon Papers — documents that were in fact years old–but they revealed “top secret” information the US govt did not want published–that is, that the US military and executive branch constantly lied to the US public about the conditions in Vietnam and false need for a war there, all to the benefit of certain war profiteers.
The same thing BTW, is now going on in Syria, with US war profiteers selling weapons to foreign nations, creating false wars, etc., all to benefit war profiteers–huge US corporations that make expensive weapons.
Now, from Ken Ditkowsky
First of all, Ken has been selected by the Supreme Court Press in Boston Massachuttes for “Writ of the Month”.
You can see their blog (with some very interesting cases) here on
http://www.supremecourtpress.com/featured_petitions.html
one case I enjoyed reading was where a person was engaging in passive resistance during arrest and the officer repeatedly punched him and kicked him until he died while the officer shouted at him “spit it out” (refering to a bag of drugs.
I think it’s a clear first amendment violation and the officer needs anger management,because he was clearly out of control with rage but please don’t keep your thoughts and feelings to yourself, post them here. The 5th circuit said because the suspect was resisting arrest, the death was excusable. Well, maybe in the THEIR minds, but I think that officer’s got a whole lot of bad karma to make up. The law of the universe and Mother Nature, well, we know that she’s a b*****.
And now for Mr. Amu’s wonderful interview with Bev Cooper on Cooper’s corner, see below.
This video will air in 250,000+ households on the north shore. You go Bev!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTPSZNh4wj4&feature=youtu.be
born out of pain.
I think we can all relate to the BLAH, BLAH, BLAH and nothing gets done.
go give it a like for him.
joanne
Dear Readers;
When I was in law school, they really cautioned us about how a lawyer treats witnesses. I was told we were not to lie to them, try to change their testimony, intimidate or coerce them, if it was for a civil, and esp. for a criminal trial and mostly a defendant could not talk to or go near a victim–and that included the attorney.
Now we have the antics of Sharon Opryszek, brushed off by the ARDC and Atty Tom Zimmerman, special counsel.
It makes for some very interesting contrast.
Here are some comments from Ken below:
JoAnne
On Jun 25, 2014 6:48 AM, "kenneth ditkowsky" <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com> wrote: Ken Ditkowskywww.ditkowskylawoffice.com The responses to the coverup of the witness tampering at the IARDC hearing has revoked some interesting responses. The forwarded response is indicative of how the public reacts when confronted with pure and simple corruption and intellectual dishonesty. The self examination of the IARDC is guaranteed to 'white wash' their conduct as they never reach the question that is presented. When an expected witness who is expected to give testimony that is adverse to the Administrative agency is threatened or there is an attempt to intimidate that is called 'witness tampering.' The threshold is not very high, and therefore, an ethical attorney is advised to stay away from communications that might even give a hint of intimidation. Not only has Ms. Opryszek attempted ex-party communications with witness Gloria Sykes (so did Leah Black), but Ms. Opryszek's statements were so threatening that in my opinion State of Illinois criminal charges could have been brought. This is especially true as Opryszek was frugal with the truth! The building as an example had no policy to deny Ms. Sykes or anyone else having a 'treatment' animal the companionship of the animal. Of course Zimmerman found that lying to a witness, attempting to intimidate a witness is in the highest standards of the legal profession when engaged in by the moral guardians of he profession. The fact that Ms. Opryszek appears to have a history of such conduct going back to her former employment apparently also is not note worthy when government operates under the theory of "DO NOT CONFUSE ME WITH THE FACTS - I'VE MADE UP MY MIND!" Witness tampering is another serious felony that appears to be common-place in Mr. Jerome Larkin's Attorney Registration and Distortion commission. The fact that undisclosed public funds are being spent by this Administrative agency has other serious consequences that should be the subject of an honest complete and comprehensive investigation. With the Nadir of the legal profession sending the standards of conduct for the 2nd oldest profession it is no wonder that the public has so low an opinion of lawyers. With Larkin teaching ethics as part of Continuing legal education the comedy continues. Mr. Holder - this stuff is actually happening! The Saga of the Justice System in Illinois is a National Joke! The WAR ON THE ELDERLY AND THE DISABLED is being prosecuted more diligently that any of the recent wars America has been engaged in around the world. We do not need terrorists to destroy America - we have JEROME LARKIN and his ilk who are boring from within at the backbone of our democracy! The situation is f--king intolerable! Kenneth Karl Ditkowsky
From: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com
Sent: Jun 21, 2014 10:48 PM
To: JoAnne Denison <JoAnne@DenisonLaw.com,
nasga.us@gmail.com
Cc: probate sharks <verenusl@gmail.com,
Eric Holder <askdoj@usdoj.gov
Subject: IS IT NOT TIME FOR SOME HONESTY AT THE IARDC.
Ken Ditkowskywww.ditkowskylawoffice.com
It appears that JoAnne received another ‘cover up’ letter from another of Jerome Larkin’s flunkies.
JoAnne complained that her witnesses were being intimidated and that the IARDC attorney had a history of intimidation of witnesses. The special attorney wrote another benign letter avoiding the allegations and of course exculpating the obvious [and overt] misconduct.
The witness who was being intimidated was Gloria Sykes. In my case, Ms. Sykes’ intimidation was on the record and of course Mr. Larkin did nothing about it. Complaints against Mr. Larkin Iare papered over as are complaints against each of the architects of the war on the elderly and the disabled.
I’ve called for an investigation by law enforcement pursuant to 18 USCA 4. I’ve more than suggested that the communications mailed by the IARDC are violation of 18 USCA 1341 and constitute concerted action as described in 18 USCA 371. The violations are open and notorious and constitute conduct that is detrimental to not only the reputation of the 2nd oldest profession – if any reputation exists – but is an open and notorious violation of law.
The actions that Larkin protects are::
1) railroading of an individual into a guardianship (felony – kidnaping and violation of 42 USCA 1983.
2) deprivation of a citizen of his/her liberty and property. (Felony – constitutional violation, theft, et. al).
3) after the victim is sucked dry – acceleration of the death of the victim. Felony homicide.
Mr. Larkin, Judge Evans, ***** are all aware of this criminal activity going on on the 18th floor of the Daley Center, and it appears that all that Mr. Larkin has done is to attempt to silence any public mention of this gulag. In the process he has himself participated in 42 USCA 1983 violations, acted in direct derogation of the SCOTUS decisions, etc.
A strong rumor appears to be making the rounds that Judge Evans will have some surprises for the miscreants As I am on vacation, I have no way to confirm or deny the rumors; however, Larkin has confirmed his misconduct by being so violent against any mention (much less the promulgation of) an HONEST complete and comprehensive investigation by law enforcement of his protected attorneys who are actively engaged in the war upon the elderly and the disabled.
If you have any doubts as Mr. Larkin’s integrity – take a look at his ethics statement and see what he discloses as his assets and liabilities! (What you cannot find are his public ethics disclosures! Are you surprised – the law is to restrict you – not the privileged class!)
In all seriousness, it is time for Mr. Larkin and his ilk to be called before the Bar of Justice and taught that the Law protects us citizens from those who war on the elderly and the disabled!.
Ken Ditkowsky
5940 W Touhy Ave, #230, Niles, IL 60714
http://events.jmls.edu/registration/node/549
Thanks to Gloria Sykes for sending this. Please keep her and her mother in your thoughts and prayers.
21st Belle R. & Joseph H. Braun Memorial Symposium
Dates: Thursday, July 10, 2014- Friday, July 11, 2014
Registration Fee:
2 Day Registration: $200
1 Day Registration: $150
Government or NGO:
2 Day Registration: $100
1 Day Registration: $75
The John Marshall Law School and Roosevelt University Students, Faculty, and Staff:
2 Day Registration: $75
1 Day Registration: $50
CLE CREDIT: Approx. 13.25 Hours. CLE credit is being extended to Illinois attorneys only. Attorneys from other states should sign in, pick up the CLE forms and apply to their jurisdictions on their own. The extension of CLE credit is subject to each other state’s approval.
Dear Readers;
Recently Mr. Zimmerman sent me a letter he will NOT be pursuing further an investigation into 1) why SO lied to a witness before her testimony in the Hogan Case (the witness is still furious and publishing that the ARDC is corrupt across the internet); and 2) why SO acted strenuously to deny Gloria Sykes the right to bring her therapy animal with her to the ARDC for her deposition and the antics associated with that violation of federal law.
So Mr. Zimmerman has a soft spot for SO. I highly suspect he also has a soft spot for Mr. Jerome Larkin who’s Administration is fostering all these shenanigans and non adherence to laws against obstruction of justice and witness tampering and violations of the ADA.
So, I wrote him the following response letter.
JUSTICE4 EVERY1, NFP, A SOCIAL JUSTICE CIVIL LEGAL PROVIDER
5940 W Touhy Ave, #230 PHONE 312-553-1300
CHICAGO, IL 60642 FAX 312-553-1307
JoAnne M. Denisonm http://www.Justice4Ever1.com
JoAnne Cell Phone 773-255-7608 Efax 312-376-8842
JoAnne@Justice4Every1.com Admitted IL, NC (Inactive) & US Patent Bar (inactive)
June 21, 2014
Mr. Tom Zimmerman
Special counsel to SCOI
via email at tom@attorneyzim.com
Dear Mr. Zimmerman
This is in response to your letter dated June 3, 2013 in which you determined that the ARDC, and in particular, Ms. Opryszek, etc. had done no wrong when she clearly interfered or attempted to interfere in the testimony of two ARDC witnesses, Ms. Justine McGinty and Ms. Gloria Sykes. However, you should be made aware, that the ARDC has a strong history of, dispensing with perfectly valid client complaints in favor of certain preferred attorneys.
Under the tutelage of Mr. Larkin the following events have happened. In the case of Alice Gore, a disabled person, Judge Kowamoto and attorneys Miriam Solotevitch and David Martin were attorneys of record. Ms. Gore was at first isolated for months from about 20 caring family members, and then her 29 gold teeth were
pulled. How did that happen?
The Sykes case 09 P 4585 has been running for 5 years now without jurisdiction. Judges Connors and then Judge Stuart were on that case, as well as Harvey Waller, Peter Schmeidel, Dorothy Soehlig, all know this, there have been huge discussions over it between counsel and on my blog at http://www.marygsykes.com, yet the case continues with Mary living in a place she never intended with a person who was not named in her advance directives to be her Guardian. Further, while the attorneys involved, Farenga, Stern, Waller, Schmeidel, Soehlig, etc. keep on telling the court they must sell homes (Gloria’s and Mary’s) to care for Mary, this is not at all the case. Mary’s home was sold for $238k (after an appraisal of $700k), and Gloria’s bank
account of approx. $210k was seized by the probate court, but all or nearly all will be paid to these attorneys. The person who is her Guardian is a known abuser and is under an unresolved Petition for Order of Protection–in direct derogation of Illinois laws. How does this happen under Jerome Larkin?
In the cases of Alice Gore, Lydia Tyler and Rose Drabik, millions have fallen off the inventories and accountings, and then the ladies were heavily drugged, (morphine, halodol, seroquel, fentanyl patches, etc.) some had fake aspiration orders, others just said “no food or water” and these ladies died within 2 to 3 days.
In the case of Carol Wyman, now deceased, her husband simply did not want her around any more, so he cut a deal with atty SRR to get her out of the house and SRR could lien the house. Carol Wyman was placed in a locked down nursing home where she could not leave–but she was not declared incompetent at first. There
was actually no case filed against her at all, but the police told her she could not go, they told her son, John Wyman she could not go. Then a case was filed against her, without jurisdiction and proper service of summons and complaint and notice to relatives. She was then subject to severe and brutal beatings, she was
knowingly isolated from the family members that cared about her. When she finally escaped, her sons drove her all night to Colorado where the bruising was documented. One week later the doctors found out she was actually down 2 pints of blood and near death and would not have survived unless she had escaped.
This woman then went on to paint 300 highly critically acclaimed paintings as an amazing and talented artist. Go ahead and google “Winifred Carol Wyman, artist”. She recently passed. Under the attorneys involved, S**** and Kim **** she would have died in days in one of the most horrible nursing homes in Rockford, IL.
This was reported to Jerome Larkin and he did nothing.
Now I find out that a new client, Ms. X’s mother was killed in a similar fashion. The money was gone. The atty H***** and the caretaker one day told Mrs. X that her mother was no longer to be fed or receive liquids (there was not a POA in place). They said Mrs. X could feed her and give her fluids, but no one else was to do this. Mrs. Y died within days. Mrs. X had no idea what to do or where to turn.
Is there a directive in Probate Court now, or are there panels that allow attorneys to determine who will live and who will die?
Recently, an attorney who has been outspoken about corruption and has had his license suspended, Mr. Lanre Amu, asked at the ARDC ethics seminar what an attorney is to do when he spots corruption. They said they did not know but would get back to him. That never happened. This ethics seminar was run with Jerome Larkin as Administrator. You see, there is no answer to what attorneys must do when they spot corruption when JL is in charge. He likes it that way.
Our Daley center courts are in a crisis. The lack of following the laws as the Illinois State Legislature in that building is in shambles.
But what is happening in Probate Court is not just corruption. The failure to follow laws as written has spread and now has blossomed into MURDER. Gore, Drabik, Tyler, Mrs. Y–all murder. Carol Wyman–attempted murder and sexual abuse.
Both Kowamoto and Stuart have “quickly retired” after my blog published the details about Mrs. Gore’s 29 gold teeth being removed and the no food or water order. Then Stuart “suddenly retired” after I submitted documented evidence from my trial that Stuart changed her testimony on the stand and the transcripts were altered.
This is with Jerome Larkin in charge.
There is only one little problem with the way Mr. Larkin is running things and that is 1) the First Amendment; 2) 18 USC § 4 for misprison of felony; 3) the Elder Abuse reporting act which provides immunity for those who report crimes against the elderly; 4) 47 USC § 230 which provides immunity for bloggers.
How long must we wait for justice, honor and integrity to return to court? The public is furious about all these cases, and many victims have suffered cruelly and have been terrorized by a Probate system that ignores all of this. But under an open and honest democracy, US citizens deserve much better government service,
especially when it means that basic laws are devolving into greed and anarchy.
I implore you to CONDUCT AND HONEST, OPEN AND THOROUGH investigation of the ARDC, instead of brushing off what the attorneys and Mr. Larkin do there. FYI the victim of Ms. SO is furious to this date about what happened with her and the lies of Ms. SO. She is very public about it and publishes on numerous blogs about her harrowing ordeal with the ARDC and lack of honesty and ethics under Jerome Larkin. This
does not endear the public to attorneys and the ARDC.
I trust you will look into the problems with Mr. Larkin and his staff and start cleaning house in that government agency.
I would also like to know for the record, why you are not taking the proper steps to ensure that the ARDC 1) does not comply with the Illinois Ethics Act of 2009 and require all staff, management and attorneys to file their Ethics Reports annually; and 2) does not require disclosure of salaries like 99% of the other Illinois agencies.
Both of these actions are crucial to keeping the ARDC itself open, honest, transparent and ethical.
Very Truly Yours,
JoAnne M. Denison
JUSTICE4 EVERY1, NFP
From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Jun 19, 2014 9:14 PM
To: Jo Anne Denison , probate sharks , Eric Holder , “civilrights.cv@ic.fbi.gov” , Chicago FBI , j ditkowsky
Cc: Harry Heckert , Bill , “tips@cbschicago.com” , “illinois.ardc@gmail.com”
Subject: Re: Estate of Alice R. Gore
I do not believe that Miriam Solo finished the guardianship of Alice Gore. I met an attorney who informed me that after Alice died the guardianship estate was in such terrible shape that a Bank was hired to clean up the mess. The attorney informed me that he represented the Bank and got enough together to close it. He had some choice words describing Miriam Solo. He indicated that the Bank was so upset with obvious criminality that they found that they wrote the IARDC concerning Solo’s conduct. Of course this came to nothing! Solo continued to get referrals (some from the same judge) etc – she is one of the favored attorneys. It has been suggested that her relationship to Morris Esformes is worth its weight in gold!
As to recovering anything, I believe a telephone call to the Bank (US Bank) will garner the information you require. As they we called in to undo the mess created by the prior guardian (and her attorney’s) incompetence they have no incentive to be untruthful at this point in time. Their attorney was indeed candid with me.
As you can see from the ‘cover up’ that has reached far and wide I would expect that alot of effort would be wasted with few results – UNLESS – the Attorney General of the United States would be interested in assisting the effort. A Qui Tam case might be a possibility but they are highly technical and Mr. Larkin would be expected to attempt to stop such an action using his ‘clout!’ This might be a case of picking your spots.
Diane X as an example is a true fighter with the scars to show it. She has a history of fighting corruption and has given most of her life in trying to protect all of us from the ravages of constitutional assaults. The rest of us (me included) are amateurs! You have to spit in the face of a BULL CONNOR while he is raging and armed with a gun. Saying to Judge Connors “Judge you are wrong” is not the same thing.
This is the reason that we all should concentrate in assisting law enforcement in any way possible to achieve an HONEST COMPLETE INTELLIGENT AND COMPREHENSIVE INVESTIGATION of the elder cleansing scenario. People like Jerome Larkin who use their positions to attempt to prevent lawyers from living up to their oaths and obligations of citizenship must be returned to private life post haste – and if they violated the law by acting in concert with the miscreants given a gift of an orange jumpsuit.
Ken Ditkowsky
From Joanne Denison:
And I have to add, and it cannot be ignored, that under the nadir of leadership of Jerome Larkin, the following events have occurred, been reported to the ARDC and authorities and have been ignored–so far.
Lydia Tyler and Rose Drabik were allegedly murdered while in guardianships. The money ran out in their estates, a lot fell off the accountings and then they expired when others were told they should recieve no further “food or water” and they were either shot up with psychotropic drugs and/or patch after patch was used on them. Next is Carol Wyman who was placed in the worst nursing home in Illinois, was brutally beaten numerous times, sexually abused nearly every day, kept a diary, and escaped to Colorado where she was found down two pints of blood and near death. The GAL and probate attorney involved were reported to the ARDC and under Jerome Larkin’s leadership, the attys did nothing. In the Sykes and Wyman cases there was no jurisdiction, no service of summons and complaint, no notice to next of kin. Reported to the ARDC. They did nothing. They issue letter after letter of “we investigated (lip service) and nothing was wrong.”
Now we have just found another murder, Mrs. DB who was told “no food or water” and was given morphine when she wanted to eat or drink and she also passed over quickly. The probate atty knew (PH) and supported this, apparently. The Guardian supported this and told the caregiver–all of whom never questioned anything. After all, like the goosesteppers, they just were following orders.
Jerome Larkin is now determining who will live and who will die.via his unimpeded unofficial death panels. Attorneys Opryszek, Smart, Apostol, Black-Guiterrez, Muchman, etc. are apparently on the committees of which elders and disables will live or die. They prosecute attorneys that speak out strenuously to protect seniors and disableds from the who will live and who will die committees, and those who protest court injustices publicly– (myself, Mr. Ditkowsky and Mr. Amu, an African Immigrant of a skin color not to the likings of Mr. Larkin and his staff), to silence them, to bully them, to violate their human and civil rights–and they believe they are omniscient and are the true sovereigns of a house of cards with complete immunity.
The crisis has become so desperate that Mr. Amu and his church have taken to protesting the Daley Center’s inability to formulate a plan of implementing justice for all.
There is no doubt that Mary G Sykes would be dead by now, but for the protest of this blog, the actions of myself and Ken, and the outcries of those friends and family of Mary Sykes that genuinely care for her life, civil and human rights and well being–namely, the very brave Gloria Sykes (younger and beloved daughter) who will never stop and never shut up, and Kathy Bakken (beloved niece) who will not be silenced in all of this.
Let’s see if the authorities act on all of these murders. After all, I am told there are pictures of seniors near death and starvation and all sticks and bones, there are bodies to be exhumed and anyalyzed for starvation and dehydration. All has been reported to the authorities, and all has happened under the watchful eyes of Jerome Larkin and his litigation staff.
I want truth and justice to be done. Don’t you?
JoAnne Denison
From: kenneth ditkowsky Sent: Jun 20, 2014 6:31 AM To: DX , JoAnne Denison Subject: Fw: http://projects.huffingtonpost.com/hospice-inc [note the article huffington posts on hospice fraud is great] The revelation that your mother was starved to death represents a very serious criminal act that was attorned to by the Courts. If in fact that statement is a true fact, a homicide has occurred and it is a scenario that has to be addressed now as part of the Petition for your appointment as the executor. No longer is this a matter in which 'dollars' are involved - we are talking about basic human dignity and integrity. Taking the liberty and property of a citizen is a horrible; however, the unilateral decision to take a life is beyond horrible. Look at this problem in a universal sense we have all the elements of a National Socialist state: 1) involuntary removal of a citizen from society creating a second class citizenship;
2) denial of liberty (constitutional rights);
3) denial of the right of property - removal of an individual from his/her assets
4) loss of privacy and even intimacy - removal of Alice Gore's teeth
5) ultimate solution - killing off the victim. The inhumanity of the guardian deciding it was time for your mother to die is beyond contemptible. The horror of our courts allowing this **** That said - I attorn to your wishes.
Ken Ditkowskywww.ditkowskylawoffice.com This was in response to an email from a person that suffered the unthinkable in probate, and who is not able to discuss it without abject pain.
Please pray for her.
I wanted to let everyone know that Mr. Amu has prayed (he is very religious) and has let Spirit guide him. Which of course means he will be out at the Daley Center every day he can (and the ARDC, I hope) protesting the goings on in the Cook County Court System and in Illinois and the nation everywhere the law is X but what the courts are doing is Y.
photo (c) Joanne Denison, copyright 2014, all rights reserved
He is happy and proud as a clam alerting dozens and dozens of attorneys to the plight of himself, myself and Ken–attorneys that speak out and want TRUTH, HONESTY, JUSTICE and INTEGRITY in our court system are being made martyrs and posterchildren by the ARDC. People who go to court, read my blog, contact me about what the law X is and how they got Y are in direct support of this and the blog.
I am told he is meeting plenty of people that can help and he is giving them his card. He has met Andy Shaw from the Better Govt. Assn, and some attorneys from larger firms that will look into pro bono assistance for honest attorneys speaking out against the powers that be and who are being prosecuted and persecuted for it. We need that level of help and protection. He has met state and federal representatives coming and going from the Daley center and informed them of the situation with the ARDC looking the other way while shenanigans flourish from scallywag attys.
He needs a poster, and is working on it. I suggested “Suspended Attorney working for TRUTH, HONEST, JUSTICE and INTEGRITY needs YOUR outcries and WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION”
I am sure he will come up with something appropriate.
Favorite quotes from his SCOI brief:
Nothing like quoting a politician trying to get into office is always an amazing and wonderful activist for change, but when the butt is planted firmly in the chair of his office:
“hindsight now appears to be mere double speak geared toward winning the peoples’ votes to get on the Illinois Supreme Court:”I represent working families as their lawyer…People want Courts that don’t favor the rich and the politically connected. They want Judges who have commonsense and a commitment to fairness . . . “-Thomas L. Kilbride.
With all due respect, an authentic man should be a man of his Words. The
ruling in my case is not consistent with Justice Kilbride’s words” [When Justice Kilbride is campaigning for office of Justice at the Ill. Sup. Ct.]
Attorneys who are in the courtrooms everyday are in the best position to know what is going on in those courtrooms. In over 15 years of practice in our courtrooms, I have never seen an Illinois Supreme Court Justice or the ARDC inside the trial courtrooms I practice in-they are not in the courtroom trenches to know first hand what is going on there. Attorneys who have first hand experience of the courtrooms occurrences are thus best positioned to police judicial corruption therein because: they are trained in legalese, they can decode legalese unlike the uninitiated public not trained in the nuances of the law, they are in the courtrooms virtually on a daily basis, and they can see what an individual with a single case in court cannot easily see or know. The system of regulation of lawyers should be reformed to remove lawyer regulation away from the ambit of the judiciary – i.e., the Illinois Supreme Court Justices via ARDC. There should be complete independence in the two professions vis-a-vis the operation of Our Court system. If attorneys cannot effectuate reform by speaking out without risking their law licenses and
livelihood, then there is no incentive to expose judicial corruption and improve the system of Administration of Justice in Illinois Courts. Without lawyers’ input, the Judges are thus left to police their own corruption-but experience has shown that the judges are unable to police their own corruption-they simply cover it up; the lawyers in the best position to see corruption and expose it cannot due to the risk of suspension or disbarment; the Feds who have the responsibility and authority to prosecute judicial corruption are neither in the courtrooms at all times nor involved in the nuances of any
case to know what is happening; the media will not expose judicial corruption…
fortunately for Mr. Amu, many cases (except ARDC trial court cases, which they LOVE to cite –and a lawyer is not supposed to cite those, but the ARDC does) the SCOTUS cases agree with whistleblowing lawyers. SCOTUS protects lawyers if and when a case gets to them. SCOI is not. They choose, supervise and now control the ARDC–a group that was nowhere when Alice Gore’s 29 gold teeth were pulled, Lydia Tyler–Alice Gore–Rose Drabik were drugged and not given food or water for days until they passed over to a place where they would not be an inconvenient burden to those who has exhausted their loot. Carol Wyman’s husband was done with her and struck a deal with a probate atty to put her in a locked down nursing home and sell the home for her fee. Where was Justice Kilbride and his beloved words and Jerome Larken then, protecting these ladies? Oh, that’s right. They were old and frail and helpless and unlikely to take to the streets, write about a gazillion blog posts, letters and faxes so they did not matter. They were a burden and on their way out. Lie an old dog, cat or rabbit that cannot walk and hunt, they get taken to the vet and put out of their misery.
In fact, many states have Whistleblower laws just for attys, but I hear they are mostly ignored. sigh.
“so no one is policing judicial corruption. Judicial Corruption is not effectively addressed in the appellate review process. Experience has shown that it is simply excused and covered up. Judicial corruption in Illinois is effectively a closed System. Judicial Corruption Is the 500 Pound Gorilla in the Room Which Everyone Ignores. Who Will Bell the Cat?”
I will get more quotes later and publish the entire brief. I suggested he also upload Ken’s brief to SCOTUS because he did such a good, well researched job he is a great candidate for argument before the US Supreme Court on the rights of lawyers and I want to be right there.
JoAnne
From Rosann Miller, the below brief says it all about why free speech has to remain free and easy and breezy, even if it’s not 100 percent true.
While my ARDC Tribunal strained to change the mind of Kathy Bakken that the Mary Sykes case was just sour grapes, the fact that an ARDC tribunal can find “misconduct” after reading a blog, is well, pretty much a ridiculous proposition.
The people I write about, the judges, lawyers, GAL’s and OPG’s running around the 18th floor put themselves into the limelight by just being there and acting as they do. No one can help it if their conduct repeatedly and openly follows the rule of Y when the law is X.
read on below and I can email anyone who want the brief the URL
INTRODUCTION AND
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
“I am not a crook.”
“Read my lips: no new taxes!”
“I did not have sexual relations with that
woman.”
“Mission accomplished.”
“If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it.”
While George Washington may have been
incapable of telling a lie,2 his successors have not had
the same integrity. The campaign promise (and its
subsequent violation), as well as disparaging
statements about one’s opponent (whether true,
mostly true, mostly not true, or entirely fantastic),
are cornerstones of American democracy. Indeed,
mocking and satire are as old as America, and if this
Court doesn’t believe amici, it can ask Thomas
Jefferson, “the son of a half-breed squaw, sired by a
Virginia mulatto father.” 3 Or perhaps it should
2 Apocryphal.
3 Monticello.org, Son of a Halfbreed Indian Squaw
(Quotation), http://www.monticello.org/site/son-half-breedindian-
squaw-quotation (last visited Feb. 28, 2014).
3
ponder, as Grover Cleveland was forced to, “Ma, ma,
where’s my pa?”4
In modern times, “truthiness”—a “truth” asserted
“from the gut” or because it “feels right,” without
regard to evidence or logic5—is also a key part of
political discourse. It is difficult to imagine life
without it, and our political discourse is weakened by
Orwellian laws that try to prohibit it.
After all, where would we be without the
knowledge that Democrats are pinko-communist
flag-burners who want to tax churches and use the
money to fund abortions so they can use the fetal
stem cells to create pot-smoking lesbian ATF agents
who will steal all the guns and invite the UN to take
over America? Voters have to decide whether we’d be
better off electing Republicans, those hateful,
assault-weapon-wielding maniacs who believe that
George Washington and Jesus Christ incorporated
the nation after a Gettysburg reenactment and that
the only thing wrong with the death penalty is that it
isn’t administered quickly enough to secularhumanist
professors of Chicano studies.
4 Answer: “Gone to the White House, ha ha ha!”
Elisabeth Donnelly, Ye Olde Sex Scandals: Grover Cleveland’s
Love Child, The Awl, http://www.theawl.com/2010/02/ye-oldesex-
scandals-grover-clevelands-love-child.
5 Wikipedia.com, Truthiness,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness (last visited Feb. 28,
2014) (describing the term’s coinage by Stephen Colbert during
the pilot of his show in October 2005). See also Dictionary.com,
Truthiness, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/truthiness
(last visited Feb. 28, 2014).
4
Everybody knows that the economy is better off
under [Republican/Democratic] 6 presidents—who
control it directly with big levers in the Oval Office—
and that:
President Obama is a Muslim.
President Obama is a Communist.
President Obama was born in Kenya.
Nearly half of Americans pay no taxes.7
One percent of Americans control 99 percent of
the world’s wealth.
Obamacare will create death panels.
Republicans oppose immigration reform
because they’re racists.
The Supreme Court is a purely political body
that is evangelically [liberal/conservative].8
All of the above statements could be considered
“truthy,” yet all contribute to our political discourse.
Laws like Ohio’s here, which criminalize “false”
speech, do not replace truthiness, satire, and snark
with high-minded ideas and “just the facts.” Instead,
they chill speech such that spin becomes silence.
More importantly, Ohio’s ban of lies and damn lies9
is inconsistent with the First Amendment.
6 Circle as appropriate.
7 47 percent to be exact, though it may be higher by now.
8 Again, pick your truth.
9 Amici are unsure how much torture statistics can
withstand before they too run afoul of the law.
5
This Court has repeatedly held that political
speech, including and especially speech about
politicians, merits the highest level of protection. See,
e.g., Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191, 196 (1992)
(“the First Amendment has its fullest and most
urgent application to speech uttered during a
campaign for political office.”). Indeed, quite recently
this Court held that the First Amendment protects
outright lies with as much force as the truth. United
States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 2537 (2012).
It is thus axiomatic—not merely truthy—that
speech may only be restricted or regulated where
doing so is necessary to further a compelling state
interest. But the government has no compelling
interest in eliminating truthiness from
electioneering and, even if such an interest existed,
such laws are unnecessary because any injury that
candidates suffer from false statements is best
redressed by pundits and satirists—and if necessary,
civil defamation suits. Nor is the government wellsuited
for evaluating when a statement crosses the
line into falsehood.10
Ohio’s law blatantly violates the First
Amendment and directly conflicts with Alvarez. This
Court should terminate it with extreme prejudice.
10 Two Pinocchios out of five is OK, but three is illegal?
6
ARGUMENT
I. TRUTHINESS, INSINUATIONS, AND
ALLEGATIONS ARE A VITAL PART OF
POLITICAL SPEECH
In the hotly contested election of 1828,
supporters of John Quincy Adams called Andrew
Jackson a “slave-trading, gambling, brawling
murderer.” Mac McClelland, Ten Most Awesome
Presidential Mudslinging Moves Ever, Mother Jones,
(October 31, 2008).11 Jackson’s supporters responded
by accusing Adams of having premarital sex with his
wife and playing the role of a pimp in securing a
prostitute for Czar Alexander I. Id.
During Thomas Jefferson’s presidency, James T.
Callender, a pamphleteer and “scandalmonger,”
alleged that Jefferson had fathered numerous
children with his slave Sally Hemings.12 Callender’s
allegations would feature prominently in the election
of 1804, but it wasn’t until nearly two centuries later
that the allegations were substantially confirmed.13
More recently, we’ve had discussions of draftdodging,
Swift Boats, and lying about birthplaces14—
11 Available at
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2008/10/ten-most-awesomepresidential-
mudslinging-moves-ever.
12 Monticello.org, James Callender,
http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/jamescallender.
13 Monticello.org, Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings:
A Brief Account, http://www.monticello.org/site/plantation-andslavery/
thomas-jefferson-and-sally-hemings-brief-account.
14 While President Obama isn’t from Kenya, he is a
Keynesian—so you can see where the confusion arises.
7
not to mention the assorted infidelities that are a
political staple. Any one of these allegations, if made
during an Ohio election, could be enough to allow a
complaint to be filed with the Ohio Election
Commission (OEC) and thus turn commonplace
political jibber-jabber into a protracted legal dispute.
When political barbs become legal disputes, the
public is denied an important part of political speech,
namely, responses to those allegations. “If there be
time to expose through discussion the falsehood and
fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of
education, the remedy to be applied is more speech,
not enforced silence.” Whitney v. California, 274 U.S.
357, 377 (1927). Inflammatory, insulting, and
satirical speech is more likely to produce a response,
thus making the back-and-forth of politics a selfcorrecting
marketplace of ideas—except, of course,
when candidates can tattle to the government, which
then takes away their toys speech.
This case began when Rep. Steven Driehaus
responded to an advocacy group’s political attack15 by
filing a complaint with the OEC. Cert. Pet. at 2.
Resources that could have been spent responding to
the petitioner’s truthiness were thus redirected to a
bizarre legal fight. And this caused a ripple effect:
The Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and
Taxes felt sufficiently chilled by Driehaus’s actions to
refrain from engaging in the campaign at all. Id. at
15 Driehaus voted for Obamacare, which the Susan B.
Anthony List said was the equivalent of voting for taxpayerfunded
abortion. Amici are unsure how true the allegation is
given that the healthcare law seems to change daily, but it
certainly isn’t as truthy as calling a mandate a tax.
8
4. Ohio’s law thus ultimately weakened the vibrancy
of the state’s political discourse.
Supporters of Ohio’s law believe that it will
somehow stop the lies, insults, and truthiness,
raising the level of discourse to that of an Oxford
Union debate.16 Not only does this Pollyannaish hope
stand in the face of all political history, it disregards
the fact that, in politics, truths are felt as much as
they are known. When a red-meat Republican hears
“Obama is a socialist,” or a bleeding-heart Democrat
hears, “Romney wants to throw old women out in the
street,” he is feeling a truth more than thinking one.
No government agency can change this fact, and any
attempt to do so will stifle important political speech.
II. THIS COURT HAS ALREADY HELD THAT
TRUTHINESS, INSINUATIONS, AND
ALLEGATIONS ARE PROTECTED BY THE
FIRST AMENDMENT
1. Many campaign statements cannot easily be
categorized as simply “true” or “false.” According to
Politifact.com, President Obama’s claim that “if you
like your health-care plan you can keep it” was true
five years before it was named the “Lie of the Year.”17
16 Amici’s counsel has been to an Oxford Union debate;
the level of discourse is not always that high.
17 Compare Politifact.com, Obama’s Plan Expands
Existing System, Oct. 9, 2008, http://www.politifact.com/truth-ometer/
statements/2008/oct/09/barack-obama/obamas-planexpands-
existing-system, with Politifact.com, Lie of the Year: ‘If
you like your health care plan, you can keep it,’ Dec. 12, 2013,
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/dec/12/lieyear-
if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it.
9
More importantly, even if such a categorization could
be made, false (and truthy) speech is protected by the
First Amendment, especially if it’s political.
In United States v. Alvarez, this Court held that
there is no “general exception to the First
Amendment for false statements.” 132 S. Ct. at 2544.
In that case, the speech was entirely false, and there
was no reasonable way to interpret it as truthful. Yet
if Alvarez confirmed that the First Amendment
protects even blatant lies made in the process of
campaigning for office, surely it protects spin,
parody, and truthiness.
In declaring unconstitutional an equivalent ban
on false campaign speech, the Washington Supreme
Court held that the government’s claimed interest in
prohibiting false statements of fact was invalid, in
part because it “presupposes the State possesses an
independent right to determine truth and falsity in
political debate, a proposition fundamentally at odds
with the principles embodied in the First
Amendment. Moreover, it naively assumes that the
government is capable of correctly and consistently
negotiating the thin line between fact and opinion in
political speech.” Rickert v. Pub. Disclosure Comm’n,
168 P.3d 826, 849-850 (Wa. 2007).
This Court has held that as “neither factual error
nor defamatory content suffices to remove the
constitutional shield from criticism of official
conduct, the combination of the two elements is no
less inadequate. This is the lesson to be drawn from
the great controversy over the Sedition Act of 1798.”
N.Y. Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 273 (1964). By
the same logic, false and defamatory statements
about politicians’ backgrounds—including their
10
voting records—are also constitutionally protected.
Statements that are merely false, and not inherently
defamatory, must therefore also be protected.
Ohio’s law explicitly prohibits not merely
defamatory falsehoods, but all of them—including
the sort of self-promoting lies that this Court held to
be constitutionally protected in Alvarez. And not only
does it make no distinction between defamatory and
non-defamatory statements, but the petitioners’
allegation could not have been inherently defamatory
given that more than 78 percent of Americans favor
legal abortion in at least some cases.18
2. This case began with a claim—“Steve
Driehaus voted to fund abortions”—that certainly
could have caused consternation if uttered at a bar or
dinner party. Surreally, it ended up before the U.S.
Supreme Court. Even worse, there is no question
whether Driehaus voted for the bill at issue; the only
dispute is whether that bill actually provides federal
funding for abortions—which is a question of legal,
economic, and even theological interpretation.
Statements of this kind—call them truthiness,
spin, smear, or anything else—are as politically
important as their factually pure counterparts.
Democracy is based on the principle that the people
elect representatives who reflect their beliefs and
values, and whom they trust. Beliefs drive
democracy—not some truth as adjudged by Platonic
guardians—and there is no law that could make it
18 Gallup.com, Abortion,
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx (last visited Feb.
28, 2014) (latest poll, from May 2013: 26 percent favoring legal
abortion always, 52 percent sometimes, 20 percent never).
11
otherwise. Those voters who believed that the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act provides
federal funding for abortion-on-demand (as many do)
were told by the Susan B. Anthony List that one
candidate had voted in favor of that law. The voters’
beliefs were more important and relevant than the
technical truths about the underlying legislation.
The Ohio law extends far beyond disputes over
interpretation or implication. Its broad language also
criminalizes rhetorical hyperbole and political satire.
If, instead of a billboard reading “Driehaus voted for
federally funded abortion,” the petitioners had
erected a billboard that said “Driehaus is a baby
killer” the law would apply with equal effect. All the
statute requires is: (1) that the statement be false;
(2) that the speaker knew the statement was false, or
spoke with reckless disregard for the truth; and (3)
that the statement was made with the intent of
impacting the outcome of the election. Ohio Rev.
Code § 3517.21(B) It is thus apparently illegal in
Ohio for an outraged member of the public to call a
politician a Nazi or a Communist—or a Communist
Nazi, for that matter. That is no exaggeration: the
law criminalizes a misstatement made in “campaign
materials,” which includes “public speeches.” Id.
And it is irrelevant that the law is limited to
cases where the statements were made “knowingly”
or with reckless disregard for the truth. It would not
be a total defense to any charge under the law to
simply state, “I honestly thought this was true.”
Instead, some fact-finder (whether the OEC, a judge,
or a jury) will have to determine (1) whether the
statement was false, and (2) whether the defendant
knew it was false, or spoke recklessly.
12
The law also stifles, chills, and criminalizes
political satire. For example, it is a crime in Ohio for
a late-night talk-show host to say: “Candidate Smith
is a drug-addled maniac who escaped from a mental
institution.” Even satirists and speakers that are
clearly attempting primarily to entertain their
audiences are subject to prosecution if they intend or
expect their statements to impact how the audience
perceives a candidate. A publication like The
Onion—which regularly puts words in political
figures’ mouths, or makes up outlandish stories
about them—could be violating Ohio law by making
people think at the same time it makes them laugh.
3. This law is a paradigmatic example of a
content-specific speech restriction that the First
Amendment protects against. Why should a false or
exaggerated statement about a politician attract
government sanction, when that same statement
made about another public figure would not?
In Alvarez this Court expressed its concern that
upholding the Stolen Valor Act “would endorse
government authority to compile a list of subjects
about which false statements are punishable.” 132 S.
Ct. at 2547. Yet that is precisely what Ohio’s
legislature has done. While one subsection serves as
a catch-all prohibition on all “false” statements made
about a candidate, Ohio Rev. Code § 3517.21(B)(10),
the majority of the section is devoted to a specific list
of subjects about which false statements are
punishable, including: a candidate’s education (2),
work history (3), criminal record (4-5), mental health
(6), military service (7), and voting record (9).
But wait, there’s more! Refraining from stating
(arguable) falsehoods is not enough to stay clear of
13
violating the law. For example, the regulation of
statements concerning a politician’s criminal record
requires speakers to actively take steps to avoid even
the possibility of misinterpretation. If an Ohio
political candidate has been indicted a dozen times
on corruption and racketeering charges, you cannot
lawfully say “Candidate Smith has been repeatedly
indicted for corruption” without also saying how
those indictments were resolved. Ohio Rev. Code §
3517.21(B)(5). Even if this Court were to reverse
itself and hold that false statements are outside the
scope of First Amendment protection, there is no
question that truthful statements about candidates’
criminal records are “at the core of our electoral
process and of the First Amendment freedoms.”
Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 32 (1968).
There is no reason why speech about these topics
should be subject to regulation by the state, or why
they should only be regulated for the benefit of
politicians as opposed to other public figures—like
actors, religious leaders, and famous athletes—who
are often lied about. See, e.g., Hustler Magazine v.
Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988) (the First Amendment
protects magazine accusing religious leader of a
sexual relationship with his mother); Beckham v.
Bauer Publ’g Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32269 (C.D.
Cal. Mar. 17, 2011) (a newspaper asserting that
famous soccer player had cheated on his wife with a
prostitute was protected by both the First
Amendment and anti-SLAPP statutes); N.Y. Times v.
Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) (protecting false
statements about police officers’ conduct). Nor are
Ohio politicians so particularly thin-skinned that
they require protection that politicians in other
states do not. See, e.g., Judge Dismisses Libel Suit
14
Against Tenn. Senator, Associated Press, Apr. 26,
2013 (unreported case regarding allegations that a
politician’s opponent had been arrested on drug
charges).19 “Politics are politics, and it’s a big boys’
and big girls’ game. That’s just the way it is.” Id.
(judge’s comments in dismissing the suit).
Those cases where the courts have allowed libel
suits based on spurious statements about celebrities
further demonstrate that the appropriate remedy
when it comes to lies about public figures is, if
anything, a civil suit. See, e.g., Burnett v. Nat’l
Enquirer, 144 Cal. App. 3d 991 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983)
(publisher can be held civilly liable for defamatory
and false speech); Eastwood v. Nat’l Enquirer, 123
F.3d 1249 (9th Cir. 1997) (fabrication of public
figure’s interview answers civilly actionable).
This Court has also limited the remedies states
can provide to subjects of false speech. It would be
incoherent if states were allowed to apply criminal
sanctions—as Ohio attempts to do here—for conduct
to which this Court has held the Constitution only
permits the attachment of compensatory liability.
See Gertz v. Robert Welch, 418 U.S. 323 (1974) (even
when the subject of false statement is not a public
official, liability for anything beyond actual damages
can only be established by proof of actual malice).
While the mere fact that the courts have not
recognized an exception to the First Amendment in
the past does not mean that such an exception does
not exist, this Court requires that those advocating
19 Available at
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/judge-dismisses-libelcase-
against-tenn-senator.
15
for such an exception show “persuasive evidence that
a novel restriction on content is part of a long (if
heretofore unrecognized) tradition of
proscription.” Brown v. Entm’t Merch. Ass’n, 131 S.
Ct. 2729, 2734 (2011). In Alvarez, this Court held
that the government had not proven a longstanding
tradition of restricting false statements made by or
about a political candidate. 132 S. Ct. at 2548. If the
historical record provides evidence for any
longstanding tradition in this regard, it is the
venerable practice of politicians’ lying about
themselves and each other with complete impunity.
III. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN POLITICAL
HONESTY IS BEST SERVED BY PUNDITS
AND SATIRISTS
This country has a long and estimable history of
pundits and satirists, including amici, exposing the
exaggerations and prevarications of political rhetoric.
Even in the absence of the First Amendment, no
government agency could do a better job policing
political honesty than the myriad personalities and
entities who expose charlatans, mock liars, lambaste
arrogance, and unmask truthiness for a living.
Just two terms ago, this Court agreed wholeheartedly
with that sentiment:
The remedy for speech that is false is speech
that is true. This is the ordinary course in a
free society. The response to the unreasoned is
the rational; to the uninformed, the
enlightened; to the straight-out lie, the simple
truth. See Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357,
377 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring) (“If there
be time to expose through discussion the
16
falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the
processes of education, the remedy to be
applied is more speech, not enforced silence”).
The theory of our Constitution is “that the
best test of truth is the power of the thought
to get itself accepted in the competition of the
market,” Abrams v. United States, 250 U. S.
616, 630 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting). The
First Amendment itself ensures the right to
respond to speech we do not like, and for good
reason. Freedom of speech and thought flows
not from the beneficence of the state but from
the inalienable rights of the person. And
suppression of speech by the government can
make exposure of falsity more difficult, not less
so. Society has the right and civic duty to
engage in open, dynamic, rational discourse.
These ends are not well served when the
government seeks to orchestrate public
discussion through content-based mandates.
Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. at 2550 (emphases added).
As Chief Judge Kozinski argued when Alvarez
was before the Ninth Circuit, a prohibition on lying
devalues the truth: “How can you develop a
reputation as a straight shooter if lying is not an
option? Even if untruthful speech were not valuable
for its own sake, its protection is clearly required to
give breathing room to truthful self-expression,
which is unequivocally protected by the First
Amendment.” United States v. Alvarez, 638 F.3d 666,
675 (9th Cir. 2011).
No one should be concerned that false political
statements won’t be subjected to careful
examination. As this Court said in Brown v. Harlage,
17
“a candidate’s factual blunder is unlikely to escape
the notice of, and correction by, the erring
candidate’s political opponent. The preferred First
Amendment remedy of ‘more speech, not enforced
silence,’ thus has special force.” 456 U.S. 45, 61
(1982). Recent technological advancements mean
that statements by or about candidates will not just
attract the attention of his or her opponents—
instantly—but that of investigative journalists and
professional fact checkers.
Politicians who are caught lying about
themselves or others regularly attract more attention
from the press than the subject of the original lie.
The typical outcome is that the lie or cover up
becomes more important than the original accusation
or offense. And that dynamic predates smartphones
and their latest “apps.” The impeachment of
President Clinton was not based on any sexual
activities he might have engaged in with Monica
Lewinsky, but over the attempt to cover it up.
Similarly, President Nixon’s resignation was
prompted by his obfuscations rather than his
orchestration of a third-rate burglary. And if this
Court isn’t yet convinced of this point, amici have
but two words more on the subject: Anthony Weiner.
If Ohio’s concern is that there are abundant lies
being told in campaigns that escape media notice—
and cannot be proven in a civil defamation suit—
wouldn’t that same lack of evidence hamstring
prosecution under Ohio Rev. Code § 3517.21? Anyone
who could fabricate enough evidence to mislead all of
the fact-checkers and investigators who scrutinize
his fables could surely evade a charge under this law.
18
Adding further penalties will not dissuade
successful and talented liars. The only way that such
a law could offer the public greater protection from
untruthful speech—accepting for the sake of
argument that such protection is lawful, desirable,
and necessary—would be if it adopted lower
standards of proof than those required by civil
defamation suits or newspaper editors.
There is no lie that can be told about a politician
that will not be more damaging to the liar once the
truth is revealed. A crushing send-up on The Daily
Show or The Colbert Report will do more to clean up
political rhetoric than the Ohio Election Commission
ever could.
CONCLUSION
Criminalizing political speech is no laughing
matter, so this Court should reverse the court below.
Respectfully submitted,
ILYA SHAPIRO
Counsel of Record
Cato Institute
1000 Mass. Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 2000
(202) 842-0200
ishapiro@cato.org
February 28, 2014
Here is a video from Rosann Miller you might want to view. I think much will ring true with many of you
—–Original Message—–
From: RosANNa Miller <prov2828@hotmail.com>
Sent: Jun 17, 2014 7:30 AM
To: Kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>, Joanne Dennison <joanne@justice4every1.com>, Janet Phelan <writejanet@live.com>
Subject: Ostrowski must hearI think you need to contact this guy… I think he is or was a lawyer. He is running for office. You need to ban together. Gosh he speaks your language….. If we had people serving with this attitude we wouldn’t have these problems. We need to get him elected.Lawyer Andy Ostrowski pleading to restore justice in the court system
Dear Readers;
One of the main missions of this blog is to make the courts a better place for the attorneys and public. We want free and open courts, we want to access court documents efficiently and for a reasonable cost.
Unfortunately, right now the cost is 25 to 50 cents per page or more, and you have to go to the court, click on a fairly complicated outdated system to pull up the very nice WYSIWYG system (for many people the system is fairly confounding, even the clerks who use it all the time don’t know how many zeros to put in before the court number and if you have to use P or CH or L in the middle, etc)
Pacer was implemented in 2000 in the federal courts and it is a very simple but efficient system. Attorneys and others who sign up and pay 8 cents per page can get all sorts of online information in seconds.
I have no idea why in 2000 when the federal courts went Pacer, the Cook County Courts did not, but I think that was a very bad decision by the powers that be–mostly politicians and staff no longer in that decision making role at the court system.
So see below and PLMK if you have any questions you would like this blog to ask, or if you have submitted a FOIA or know more than this blog.
Information is power and efficiency in life.
JoAnne
Dear Help desk;
Question 1: Efiling and Paper copies
One of the things I have noted about efiling is that the paper copies never seem to get in the paper file. One of the clerks on the 18th floor told me there is a drop box for efiled pleadings or we are supposed to mail them in so copies get in the file.
Most of the time this is not an issue because pleadings are written for a particular court date, and I bring an extra copy for the judge and for the file.
I assume this is only a temporary problem because eventually, all will be like Pacer in federal court which was started in 2000 where the judges work off the computer or they have staff print out paper copies if they need them. The judges also frequently email parties, many of them.
Question 2: Cost for Paper copies
When the system is complete and pleadings are online and public, can the charge for copies be dropped to 8 cents each like Pacer in federal court. If not, how will the Clerk justify charging 25 cents per page or more, which is what they do now. How does the court justify charging so much more than Pacer even now?
Question 3: Orders of Protection and efiling:
Recently, I was directed by one of the clerks to Room 802 to DV counter to get forms for an Order of Protection (OOP). The clerk there handed me forms, but did not have all of them. I looked online and found some at http://www.illinoislegalaid.com which is a tremendous resource for the public and attorneys alike but only was able to find a Regular Petition for Order of Protection. The Summons was automatically prepared for me online and that was fine. The judge did not like the regular Petition for Order of Protection, she wanted an Emergency one which I could not find online, so she put the case over 1.5 weeks (good thing the Respondent behaved himself during that time period), and we held a hearing on the Petition.
At the end of it, one of the Probate Clerks said I had to use the court’s 6 part colored forms, so I took those back to the office to type them up on a Selectric II, an item which most law offices have not seen for about 10 to 15 years, but I have an 85 year old CPA in my office.
Question: Why is it that Petitions for Orders of Protection are not given the highest priority for efiling and instructions on the clerk’s website. I mean, most of the stuff us attorneys file is not an Emergency, is just arguing over something happening long in the past for which money damages will suffice. But Orders of Protection should be given top priority because they immediately protect women, children, the elderly and disableds from serious harm or injury.
I would think they can be done online soon after a violent event or threat takes place in the attorney’s office, typed in Adobe Pro, uploaded and served on all parties by email and their counsel, so a hearing can be held the next morning on an emergency basis.
If the court or Clerk really clings to 6 colors of paper (now that everything’s electronic, I don’t see how that helps), most attorneys DO have those six colors of paper: white, yellow, pink, light blue, light green and gold any way in their offices, or the court can simply hand out packets of blank colored papers for printing, which is certainly much, much cheaper than printed 6 part forms.
Also, this was a proceeding for Probate court and the Judge and the probate clerk said “things are different” in Probate than on Harrison street DV court. Why is that? Would it not be simpler if the system were uniform?
Even if the system were not uniform, each of the Judges in probate and else where have their own webpages. Children build and update their webpages all the time now, and many grammar schools require this as projects for kids. But the Judges don’t seem to put any unique information, forms they like to use, or anything particular to their courtroom on their webpages, which I think is a shame. This would help the attorneys and public greatly to know what to expect when they get to court, what forms and how to fill them out the way the judge likes them. This could save many, many trips to court. I see no reason if a judge likes a particular form, they do not put it on their website or a link to the form they like.
Question 5: Why can’t you file for an OOP online, and why if you do this, does the e-clerk system send you a notice saying “form title does not match item submitted” and it should attach the proper forms to that return email and direct the attorney on how to file on paper.
Question 6: In probate from March 2011 and later, all documents have been scanned in and I can’t thank you all enough for that and tell you what a godsend that is to all the attorneys and public out there. Best thing since sliced bread. However, I was trying to file a Notice of Appeal to appeal all the accountings and inventories, but the old microfiched orders are not part of the online system, right, but they are in fact digitized, so one would think that this can be done easily with the appropriate data dumps and linkages. Will those old orders in “microfiche” be put online with the rest of the case files soon, or are you just waiting for anything prior to 2011 to become obsolete?
I am now on my 4th trip to court over this OOP, and I have to be in Rockford on Monday, but I hope to get it done Tuesday.
This last OOP was to protect an elderly 72 year old stroke victim in a wheel chair. I would think he would get top priority and not a 4 day to enter an order run around over paperwork not found and submittable online.
thank you for listening to me.
I do want to make the courts better for attorneys and the public, I really do.
Sincerely,
JoAnne Denison
and her blog http://www.marygsykes.com, an attorney blog.
PS– a response by email is preferred.
PPS–Kathie is a skilled computer programer and systems person. Kathie, would it be such a big deal to link old microfiche data which is dititized to the new computerized court records? I would not think so, but they have not done it yet.
JoAnne Denison, Executive Director Justice 4 Every1, NFP
Dear Readers;
As all of you know, this blog has been critical of the powers that be when our laptops and notepads are taken away by the deputies–sometimes even when the Judge says it is okay to use a laptop to take notes.
Well, in response to the many of you who have let it be known that we believe under the First Amendment to the US constitution and in order to preserve our democratic society and free and open and honest courts, we have the right to note take–especially when transcripts are so darned expensive (and don’t get me wrong, I love the ladies and gentlemen who work long hard hours listening and straining to make transcripts possible), but nonetheless, they are out of reach for many litigants.
So maybe we bring a friend to note take. Maybe be do it ourselves on other cases.
I always learn a lot by sitting in court listening to attorneys argue and the judge talk. Those judges sure know an awful lot and maybe I want to take accurate and highly detailed notes so I can put what happens on this blog.
On numerous occasions, I have had my laptop taken away. To her credit Judge Jane Louis Stuart finally told the deputies my detailed note taking on my laptop was okay in her courtroom, which I am very grateful for.
Recently in the news, Prof. Samuel V. Johnson was told “no note taking.”
This General Order remedies that.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwdG43bEFfR2MzY00/edit?usp=sharing
So a huge thanks to Tim Evans today for getting that Order done and clarifying for the public and deputies that he wants to make the courtrooms open and honest.
“I firmly believe that the integrity of our courts depends on increasing, not limiting, public access in the courtroom, whether that access is allowing the media to film proceedings or allowing people to simply write down what they see and hear,” said Chief Judge Evans. “Every time integrity is embraced, justice is enhanced.” — Tim Evans.
Now let’s add taking notes on a keyboard on a laptop or a tablet. Certainly that can be allowed for, esp. when typing is something everyone knows, it is much faster and more efficient and we certainly want to capture all those precious gems of legal knowledge and theory granted to us in an open court system by the judges and attorneys present.
A HUGE THANK YOU AND A HUNDRED GOLD STARS TODAY FOR PRESIDING JUDGE TIMOTHY EVANS.
It has been some time now, and the IARDC blog still lists Seth Gillman as a good attorney without discipline, while the US Dept. of Justice says otherwise and has sued him for $90 million dollars for health care fraud wherein certain managers and executives at his company allegedly routinely and falsely upgraded patients from general in patient services in nursing homes to “hospice” level or from about $160 per day to $670 per day in order to reap huge false profits on fictitious services.
You can see the complaint and indictment here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwSjZ6NjBoUUxIM3M/edit?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwTDdhRzg1dkZHM00/edit?usp=sharing
The saddest point of all of this is while families are struggling to pay huge chunks of cash under Obama care for basic health insurance, miscreants like these take years to bring to justice. (Many families must now pay $900 to $1200 per month or more for health insurance, after taxes).
All the while, $90 million went into some false scheme funded by the taxpayers. Where were the complaints? In one news story when a woman at Passages why Seth Gillman was taking an $800k bonus for 2 years — from a nonprofit no less — her complaints fell on deaf ears.
The public needs and deserves more accountability. We need to make sure that our tax dollars are working hard and are not just being stolen. I applaud the FBI for taking Seth Gillman to task over Passages.
When the company went down, employees were not told, and they worried about caring for patients who really were in need of services.
It’s a sad situation, but the ARDC’s duty is to warn the public. So why doesn’t it publish links to DOJ indictments and complaints on Illinois attorneys.
Better yet, why does it appear, after 5 months of silence, the ARDC looks complicit in the “code of silence” involving any sort of fraud, criminal activity, lack of investigations, etc. in the health care arena, from probate, to attorneys involved in nursing homes, to their relatives churning favorable sales out of probate, etc.
I want people to have reasonably priced health care. I want honest doctors, hospitals and nurses to get paid a fair wage. i want families to afford health care and Obama care, but when stories like these are published on http://www.DOJ.gov and http://www.HHS.gov (Health and Human Services or Medicare/Medicaid fraud), I think there’s quite a bit more work to be done in this area.
And the ARDC could help
From Ken DitkowskyOn Jun 11, 2014 9:30 AM, “kenneth ditkowsky” <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ken Ditkowsky
http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com
As some time ‘elder cleansing’ is going to be prosecuted, and some lawyers are going to be targets. I want Mr. Larkin to be deprived of the excuse that he did not know. I have that vivid memory of Larkin’s attorney walking up to me waving a letter to the Attorney General of the United States disclosing the elder cleansing and asking me if I was repentant for the outrageous act of reporting an ongoing felony. The fact that lawyer paid by the State of Illinois was not aware of the First Amendment and asked me if I was repentant for not engaging in the coverup of a felony gets the hair on the back of my neck to *****.
Ken Ditkowsky
Dear Readers
And I would like to remind all the lawyers out there that while they are not mandatory reporters under 320 ILCS section 20 which is the Illinois Elder Abuse Act, it was the Illinois Legislator’s intent that attorneys are strongly encouraged to report Elder Abuse as part of their jobs, as long as it does not violate a client confidence or create a conflict. Further, attorneys are not suppose to suborn perjury by letting their clients lie about elder abuse in court or in their pleadings–they must withdraw from a case if a client insists on lying about abusing an elder, disabled or child.
Many people out there think that lawyers can do whatever to protect a client, and that’s not true. We have to reveal the location of criminal tools–guns, weapons, etc. if ask that question in discovery or during a client’s deposition we cannot let a client lie about it. Fortunately most criminals and miscreants never tell their attorney where any tools for criminal activities are located, and we never want to know. The fact is 90% of all criminals and miscreants lie to us anyway and we know it and are wary of it.
As a result, before taking on a case, an attorney in Illinois in state court has a “Supreme Court Rule 137” duty to make a reasonable investigation of a case (documents from the client, inspecting the scene of a crime or pictures, receipts, bank account statements–etc., whatever is needed to ensure the suit is justified before filing it. In federal court, the duty is even stricter and comes under the Federal Rues of Civil Procedure Rule 11 prior to filing any litigation, or even continuing any litigation. Ken Ditkowsky was doing just that, on behalf of the friends and family of Mary G. Sykes when GAL Adam Stern called him up and threatened him with sanctions solely if Ken investigated the case.
That was the first time in 50 years of law practice Ken had been threatened in such a manner. I have not been threatened in 26 years of law practice, EXCEPT by one judge–Judge Connors–when I went to file an appearance for Gloria Sykes, and then one judge in Rockford was furious with me for bringing a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction in the Wyman Case–Judge Fabiano. I think Juvenile Justice also has problems, because when I went to represent a child in one of those court- rooms, I was told only attorneys from a list over in that court could do that, which I found strange, and I found an US Supreme Court case that a child has a right to select counsel. The child in that case was 12, mine was 14.
These peculiarities seem to crop up in courtrooms where the law is X but what is being done is Y. Adam Stern did carry through on his threat and joined with Cynthia Farenga in complaining about myself and Ken, and Ken was suspended for 4 years! Merely and mostly for pointing out on this blog that there was and is no jurisdiction in the Sykes case, and pretty much, no one seems to care in that courtroom. Not former Judge Jane Louis Stuart, not Judge (now Justice) Connors–she got promoted to the 2nd district Illinois Court of Appeals where she now writes legal opinions about how if there is no summons and complaint properly served, the court does not attain jurisdiction. Adam Stern did not care about jurisdiction, nor did Cynthia Farenga. Gloria appealed and the denial of her Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction was rubber stamped by the Illinois first district court of appeals and then the Ill. Sup. Ct. What’s up with that? Ditto for Carol and John Wyman, Carol Wyman now being deceased.
So the next step is to vindicate the rights of Carol Wyman and Mary Sykes in Federal Court alleging that their civil rights were violated in state court, there is a pattern of doing this, and many have suffered. Stay tuned. JoAnne
Dear Readers;
I have been invited to be on Cooper’s Corners tonight and I hope you will all watch as we talk about developments on this blog and in probate court.
Cooper’s corners is shown on the local access section of the North Shore cable/Comcast programming.
It is repeated in other areas and on the internet.
Together we can instill honesty, integrity and ethics into the 18th floor.
JoAnne
As you are aware, Michael Gearhart requests shared visitation be in place between father and mother, and is an automatic guarantee, unless one parent is found to be unfit.
Due to bias in the courts, sometimes one parent, though not declared unfit, is given no visitation at all, which is shameful and must be corrected.
Please support his efforts below:
From: “Michael Gerhardt (GGH LAW)”
Sent: Jun 10, 2014 9:46 AM
To: mgerhardt@gghlaw.net
Subject: Child Support Advisory Committee meeting update
CSAC is now saying that a draft of the proposed legislation on child support will be ready by next meeting (Monday, September 8, 2014 – be there).
But more interesting. Many advocates (particularly Sheila and Dave) have pounded away with FOIA’s, asking for a recording of the meetings, or allowing the public to record. (Under the Open Meetings Act, we can record). After discussing with their attorneys’ they have determined that we can record. And they will go one further, record all future meetings for an “official record.” So I say, FOIA the recordings; but more importantly, come to the next meeting and when there is the “Public Comment” period, make your past comments so that they may now go into the “record”, whereas your comments, never made it “into the record” in the past. This is important because, there will be testimony on the proposed Bill. And I guarantee that testimony by the CSAC (actually, Pam Lowry, who is really not a Committee member, although you would have guessed that she was the Chair, based on how she acts in the meeting.) will be, “There was no opposition.” We have heard this a 1000 times before. Put your concerns into the “official record.”
Also interesting, this was the shortest meeting and the one with the least substance. If this holds up in the future, the “public comment” periods will be very long because the meeting is to go until 3:30. Let’s get our concerns in.
Mick
Michael D. Gerhardt
Law Offices of
Gerhardt & Haskins LLP
730 West Randolph Street
Chicago, Illinois 60661
312-334-9021
NEW FAX: 312-284-4815
From: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com
Sent: Jun 9, 2014 9:39 PM
To: Janet Phelan <janet_c_phelan@yahoo.com,
Michael Edwards <michael@activistpost.com
Subject: Re: Ditkowsky v IARDC Petition for Writ of
Certiorari (June 6 2014)
Ken Ditkowsky
http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com
As you are aware JoAnne and I filed a civil rights lawsuit in the NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS which we sued Stern/Farenga/Schmiedel and Jerome Larkin. We did not sue the IARDC.
The judge, as likely to be expected, dismissed the suit stating immunity – Larkin was treated as
having sovereign immunity (the court suggesting that he was as administrator of the IARDC a ministerial employee.) As to Stern/Farenga he found that they were acting as GALs[when our civil rights were violated] and therefore immune under Illinois law.
By a prior cover, JoAnne and I sent you a copy of our brief. THE BRIEF WAS FILED IN THE 7TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. JoAnne will send you another
copy. The 7th Circuit has not ruled on our brief yet. As we did not sue the IARDC and we
sued them for their personal actions it is probable that if we get the liberal judges sitting on the court we win. If we hit the conservatives will have a bit of trouble. Our civil rights suit has an excellent chance of success as there is a reported case that is on all fours with ours.
The other suit involves the Democratic party’s attempt to discourage campaign contributions to Scott Walker by conducting bogus criminal investigations in the nature of the IARDC proceedings. The 7th Circuit stopped them in their tracks.
——————————————–
On Mon, 6/9/14, Janet Phelan <janet_c_phelan@yahoo.com
wrote:
Subject: Re: Ditkowsky v IARDC Petition for Writ of
Certiorari (June 6 2014)
From: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com
Sent: Jun 9, 2014 10:32 PM
To: civilrights.cv@ic.fbi.gov,
Eric Holder <askdoj@usdoj.gov,
illinois.ardc@gmail.com
Cc: tips@tribune.com,
JoAnne Denison <JoAnne@DenisonLaw.com
Subject: 18 USCA 4/Himmel
Ken Ditkowsky
http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com
The Chicago Tribune editorial today reports more
assaults on the First Amendment by Judge Sullivan.
The violations reported including what amounts to the wrongful false imprisonment (kidnapping) , assault, violation of the Constitutional rights are very serious. Where is Mr. Jerome Larkin and the IARDC? Certainly at this point in time Mr. Larkin is aware that he is charged with protecting the public – Professor Jones is a member of the public whose rights were clearly violated by a Judge who should be charged with knowing the First Amendment prohibitions.
Attorney JoAnne Denison was subjected to the said type of assault and again Mr. Larkin not only remained silent but aided and abetted the criminal behavior. Pursuant to 18 USCA 4 I am reporting this 18 USCA 371 action by Mr. Larkin to Law enforcement and as a citizen demanding that this terrible conduct be subjected to an HONEST
complete and comprehensive investigation.
Ms. Denison, Professor Jones and all person visiting the Circuit Court of Cook County are entitled to the protection of the First Amendment. There is no excuse for the public policy of the State of Illinois (735 ILCS 110/5) to be ignored.
Mr. Larkin is paid a substantial salary to administrate the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission. His action in ignoring the Chicago Tribune reports as to the indignity that was afforded Professor Jones and Ms. Denison is
reprehensible. His prosecution of Ms. Dension for her operation of a blog is beyond contempt!
It is clearly wrongful.
The IARDC has had the opportunity to prosecute these assaults on the First Amendment. It has as usual ignored its function and mission.
Pursuant to Himmel I am again notifying them of this terrible situation reported in the Chicago Tribune.
From Ken Ditkowsky, former attorney for reporting on corruption
Protest Mr. Ditkowsky’s suspension of 4 years by writing Mr. Larkin at the IARDC
150 E Randolph St, 15th Floor
Chicago, Illinois
or fax him or email him at the address shown on our website under whom to fax or email
This is the comment I posted on tribune.com in response to the story
TO THE SUNTIMES AND TRIB REPORTERS:
You can contact me anytime about dozens of stories of corruption in Crook County anytime or read my blog at http://www.marygsykes.com
my comment:
I am a lawyer in Chicago, fighting corruption and I can tell you over a hundred stories on that issue (there is a reason it is “crook county”). but my story today is HEY, THAT WAS ME. I was told just weeks ago in court room 1804 that I could not blog with my computer. I put it away. Then I was told no note taking, I had to sit there and do nothing. This is FROM THE DEPUTIES OF COOK COUNTY. I had a fit and published on my blog. I gave the deputies a lecture impromptu on first amendment rights. What did they respond? It would LOOK BAD to our supervisor so they have to do this (abrogate the first amendment). I faxed Timothy Evans, presiding judge of the entire Cook County Court system and Sheriff Dart that this looks like corruption. How did they respond? When I went to renew my attorney ID so I do not have to stand in line in security and go through the scanner and xray for my belongings, they TOOK IT AWAY. Are we in US of Russia or what? But it is the public that has to DEMAND democracy. I am nearly a lone attorney (Kenneth Ditkowsky is another brave attorney fighting for your first amendment rights and so is Michael Gearheart and Lanre Amu) but the public has to demand respect for our rights. Us few attorneys, not believing in the “powers that be” and an “attorney code of silence” cannot do it alone. Please, write, fax and contact Sheriff Dart, Presiding Judge Timothy Evans and the ARDC and tell them YOU DEMAND YOUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.
Other excuses I am told why I cannot blog (note take with a computer and publish on the internet) or take notes: only the court reporters can do that, you might get it wrong, you have to be certified.
Please, no, the US Constitution and the Illinois Constitution do NOT require certification for anyone to participate in a democracy.
We don’t have a king and queen any longer. We shot the redcoats for that.
I am sorry, but there is no King Presiding Judge Timothy Evans, nor is there any King Sheriff Dart.
Remember the Sheriff of Nottingham in Robin Hood? Well Robin Hood as a child, it turns out was a neglected and abused “ward” of the Chancellor. He never forgot and that is why he became the nemesis of the Sheriff of Nottingham, fighting for the rights of the commoners and peasants in England.
Democracy is not a spectator sport. Write, call and fax Judge Evans and Sheriff Dart today and demand your First Amendment rights to have your cell phones, note take, blog and calendar all you want in court. Even record. These are public courtrooms with public conversations and proceedings.
The attorneys for too long have assisted, aided and abetted the courts and judges in a “code of silence” which has resulted in hands down, the most corrupt jurisdiction in the country, as noted by numerous studies.
We have to change this. We have to bring problems to the light of day and insist that things change and that we do want justice, honor, integrity and truth in Cook County.
Joanne
Ken did an amazing job on his Petition for Writ of Cert and let’s keep our fingers crossed.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwM2dicS1VcFJFdGc/edit?usp=sharing
The research and writing is astounding. Our Supreme Press Associate has filed this today and is emailing the ARDC attorneys and Jerome Larkin.
I personally think that after Judge Stuart “suddenly retired” after the discrepancies in the transcript between what she said and what was transcribed (I’m certain they were all in on it–and the Tribunal has said nothing in my case either)
It is NOW TIME TO DROP MY CASE AND KEN’S CASE AND APOLOGIZE FOR THE ARDC’S APPALLING BEHAVIOR.
The writing is on the wall–“GAME OVER”. Judges Kowamoto (remember the Alice Gore 29 gold teeth pulled story, that was her courtroom) and the no jurisdiction for 5 years Judge Stuart are now gone. What makes the IARDC and Jerome Larkin think they are so immune to a REAL AND HONEST investigation by the feds?
Let’s continue to stand firm for truth and justice, that the elderly on the 18th floor should be served well and that attorneys will blog and speak out against these grave injustices.
I don’t enjoy writing about what goes on in guardianships and probate, but people do have a right in this grand country to be warned.
I pick up more and more readers, including many, many attorneys that generally wish to remain anonymous each and every day.
This is the sad stuff they never taught in law school.
JoAnne
From Ken Ditkowsky:
Imagine this scenario. President Obama’s **** decides he needs a guardian. She files a petition and Judge Connors or Stuart is assigned. Naturally the President’s doctor is not going to certify him as incompetent and in need of guardian, so Judge Connors recommends that they get another doctor. Adam Stern recommends Dr. S or Dr R or Dr. A. Both of these individuals as a matter of rote will certify incompetency and have done so. Thus, we now have the documentation.
Of course, Mr. Stern will talk to the president and will inform the Court that Obama is disinterested in having a lawyer, and even though he has explained the situation to the President *****. Judge Connors then determines that Carl Rove would be an ideal guardian, and Peter Schmiedel a perfect attorney.
You think that the foregoing is fantasy – this is what happens almost daily – the only difference is the fact that the president has clout – Mary Sykes, Alice Gore et al do not and their families and supports can be intimidated. This dirty little secret is being kept from the public as the amounts of money garnered are just short of incredible.
I do not know if the Supreme Court will take my case, but they should. It is pure first amendment. Does a lawyer in 21st America have a right to complain when the new National Socialists prey on the elderly and the disabled! Quite frankly, the level of frustration that many of the family members feel is so great that it will not be long before some of the miscreants are going to have to deal with their victim’s Second Amendment ****.
Ken Ditkowsky, experienced corruption consultant and former attorney corruption victim
The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution and the
….COMMON LAW GRAND JURY
http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/state-pages-introduction ….
MaryGSykes.com 