While I am pondering the decision from the 7th circuit today which while scathing, was not a surprise at least to me. I am getting entirely used to the fact that the courts now rule 80% in favor of big business and big business interests and that the little guy does not stand a chance at all.
So from the 7th circuit we have fresh from yesterday:
and the 7th circuit decision can be found here:
In 7 pages of decision, not one mention of the First Amendment, not one mention of violation of Mary Sykes’ civil rights, not one mention that the blog and other concerned citizens and other concerned blogs have seen the summary removal of not one, but TWO probate judges and the scarcity of other attorneys involved.
Since this blog tells it like it is and there are the cases of not just Sykes, but also Gore, Bedin, Carol Wyman, Drabik, and a string of others, one wonders about this odd language:
In addition to misrepresenting the identity of his client, Ditkowsky and a colleague, attorney JoAnne Denison, launched a crusade against everyone concerned with the guardianship—Carolyn Toerpe, the judge, Mary Sykes’s guardians ad litem, and others. Through websites, petitions, emails, and blogs, they accused these persons of theft, bribery, and other misconduct. They did not, however, identify any evidence of crime; they treated their dissatisfaction with Carolyn Toerpe’s appointment as sufficient justi-fication for making sweeping and unsupported accusations.
The language is beyond odd, it is entirely bizarre. How did I become “Ken’s collegue”? Why are no other blogs mentions that feature Sykes, ie, NASGA and Probate Sharks, and how does the 7th circuit explain the disappearance of Judge Stuart from the scene?
We know the letter clearly says Ken was at the Rule 11 investigatory stage, we know that Judge Stuart said at first she never chained Gloria, and then she prevaricated on the witness stand and then I published a Bankruptcy transcript of PS and AS gloating Gloria had indeed been chained.
The other curious part of the decision is that it is pretty much absent of any law, which is extremely odd for a court decision, especially one from the federal circuit.
More odd, they claim I am not admitted to the 7th circuit when I clearly am. How do they think I have an attorney ID to load up documents there? How did that pleading get on Pacer for the 7th circuit.
It’s almost as if some lawyer goon or thug held a weapon to the 7th circuit and said “here, publish this–I’ll tell you the law and the facts”.
I guess they would be more convincing about “frivolous appeal” if they could have based it on the following:
1) while Ken was investigating, you are not to investigate any probate shenanigans if the GAL’s tell you not to (which AS and PS clearly said to Ken). All investigations of lack of jurisdiction and the railroading of a senior citizen must go through attorneys selected from the GAL list and they will decide, and not outsider attorneys, if and when Mary needed an attorney, and oh, by the way, she clearly did not, we can feel that in our bones. Damn what Mary wrote on a video posted on the internet and damn what Mary said about her estate and it does not matter she appeared perfectly competent in one video–Judge Connors could decide elsewise if she wanted to.
2) Cite the law that seniors, as they get elderly have eroded human and civil rights, well because they’re elderly and fairly useless. They don’t work, can barely walk and can’t feed themselves. Surely the US Constitution does not cover the frail, the elderly and the weak. The courts can decide their fate and that will be a locked down nursing home, chemical restraints and the stripping of their savings into accounts where probate judges and attorneys “know better” for them. They board dogs and cats in cages for months on end, why not grandma and grandpa? And while you’re at it, ban 90% or more of former friends and family. They need to work and not waste time visiting an useless vegetable, right?
3) Cite the law that says if you don’t like a blog, if you don’t like emails, websites, faxes and mail, you can declare all of that a “vendetta” and then shred the First Amendment. Ken wasn’t the only one worried, so were a variety of blogs and others–even numerous attorneys in the nation, worried, very worried about the “elder cleansing” scheme or trap that Mary and a host of seniors have fallen into, risking their very life, liberty, property and savings. Cite the law that Mary’s beloved home which she wanted to live in “until she died” with Gloria had to be sold at 1/3 of its appraised value and rubber stamped by the Probate Court. Please, do this for us.
4) Cite the law that permits Mary’s safe deposit box containing nearly $1 million or thereabouts in coins can be drilled without court order because, well Judge Connors’ team of attorneys in that court room told her repeatedly the coins didn’t exist. Well, then why the secrecy in drilling the box, why the lack of investigation. Why during my trial, it was a shock and sent the entire court into a tizzy when Gloria (who for sure was NOT permitted to testify) brought in subpoenaed documents (which took forever to subpoena because many miscreants did not want her to have this information), showing that a safe deposit box was drilled out, the contents emptied by the Plenary Guardian–without a court order! None of the GAL’s or the Guardian’s attorney every told Judge Stuart about that. So cite the law that the safe deposit boxes can be drilled, contents emptied and never inventoried.
5) Cite the law that a number of missteps in probate at some point doesn’t indicate theft, embezzlement, conversion and that does not dictate a full investigation.
6) The 7th circuit forgets Mary was not served with a summons and complaint, her safe deposit box was promptly drilled out by the Plenary Guardian without a court order and without an inventory, and the court appointed attorneys are careful not to allow anyone to ask any questions of the Guardian. The Guardian has never been asked to inventory and swear to the inventory of that box. The Guardian has never been asked why she drilled into a safe deposit box when signature cards on the box indicated it was in Mary’s and Gloria’s name.
A very curious decision by the 7th circuit. Typically the Federal Court of appeals judges are not blind, deaf and dumb. They look at all the facts alleged. They look for the holes, they require District Court judges to think, act and scrutinize.
But not in the Mary Sykes case. What these judges do is damn the facts! Let’s go and just accuse the whistleblowers of having no facts. And while we’re at it, we won’t cite any law.
It’s much easier to convince me that an appeal is frivolous, Lady and Mister Justices if you cite the facts, explain them away in some manner, find some law, even if it is worthless, lame and wrong or wrongly applied.
In this decision, there was none of that. It was basically, we don’t like what you are saying, we don’t like your blog, your websites, your First Amendment rights, your vendetta (really? the truth is now a vendetta, come on now, you might not like the truth, it might be inconvenient, it might be embarrassing to Illinois, a top ten contender for most corrupt state, but vendetta via blogs and websites to release one poor railroaded grandma from guardianship purgatory, don’t you really think that’s a bit much? Oh well, last time this “group” whatever group it is got Atty Melissa Smart to say the blog is like crying “fire” in a crowded theatre, so I guess vendetta is better).
Still, the lack of law and facts, the lack of just plain effort and the conclusory tone of “no one’s corrupt here, move along”, bespeaks a much darker side to all of this
Oh well, I was told that the nursing home corruption went “all the way up” and “it’s a deeply entrenched system that no one will ever believe”. I didn’t think the 7th circuit was part of it, but come on now, that decision, are you kidding?