I read with interest your comments concerning Ms. Denison’s blog and the prosecution of her by Mr. Larkin and the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission.  Then I noticed that amongst your other accomplishments was you taught students about the First Amendment.

As you are probably aware, there has been a concerted effort by Mr. Larkin to silence Ms. Denison’s blog and lawyer complaints against the corruption in the Illinois Courts in reference to elder cleansing.  Elder cleansing being the railroading of a senior citizen (or disabled person) into a guardianship, the isolation of the disabled person from family, friends, and prior life, the systematic looting of the estate, and finally an involuntary assisted suicide of the victim.    Backed up by affidavits and investigation Ms. Denison and others have made demands for an Honest complete and comprehensive investigation by law enforcement of this American Holocaust.   (The GAO report to Congress and reports from all of the United States discloses that the assaults on the disabled and senior citizen community are epidemic.)

Your article deal with whether or not Ms. Denison had a copyright so as to prevent the IARDC from using the blog in evidence at her disciplinary proceeding.   It is my suggestion that based upon the recent Supreme Court of the United States decisions the Disciplinary Commission had no jurisdiction to attempt to interfere with Ms. Denison’s speech as a first principle.    See: Alvarez, Brown, Ashcroft, Synder, Citizens United, McCutcheon.

While I am not an intellectual property lawyer I cannot understand how the IARDC copying poems by Janet Phelan that were part of the Blog copyright could be considered as not an infringement.  I also cannot understand how it is not chilling and not a violation of 735 ILCS 110 et seq, the First Amendment, 18 USCA 4, 18 USCA 371 for any governmental agency to attempt to silence a blog dedicated to disclosing corruption especially in a State that has the reputation that Illinois enjoys.   A recent article pointed out that we are number 2 in the Nation and have a corruption tax of $3008 per capita.

While we are on the subject, even though Larkin in his effort at censorship (using the IARDC as a vehicle) claims that statements are untrue, not one of the statements contained in the blog could be proven to be untrue.   Every statement made is verified by either the record in the Sykes case 09 P 4585 (Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois) or by affidavits of the people who have actual knowledge.    In addition on the blog are videos taken of Mary Sykes that demonstrate unequivocally that the suggestion as to her incompetency was grossly exaggerated.    (Mary prior to the appointment of a guardian did her own banking and her own audit disclosed that the person appointed as her guardian had stolen $4000.00 from her.   Mary went to the Courthouse and sought an order of protection.   This order of protection was shunted aside to appoint the person accused of the theft as Mary’s guardian).

As you are aware as a Constitutional Lawyer, guardianship has the potential to deprive an elderly and/or disabled person of some basic Constitutional Rights.    Thus, just about every State in the United States by statute has delegated to the Courts only such jurisdiction as might be necessary to reasonably accommodate the ward so that the Ward can enjoy the full fruits of American Citizenship.   Similarly Congress in enacting title 2 of the Americans with Disabilities Act has written into law a mandate to public institutions including the Courts to make the reasonable accommodation.

Thus, our Court have translators, ‘signors,’ wheel chair ramps and a host of other procedures set up strictly to ‘reasonably accommodate’ the disabled.   The Regulations are very specific and prohibit a shifting of costs or the excuse that making the reasonable accommodation is too expensive.

The key words are:  “reasonable accommodation”

Putting this situation into perspective, abusive guardianship’s are not reasonable accommodation!    Thus, when the Court sat on its hands and allowed Alice Gore’s mouth to be prospected for its gold filings, such was not a reasonable accommodation.   How then does the Court determine what is a ‘reasonable accommodation?’    Every state places a strong burden of proof upon the petitioner who seeks a guardian.   Not only does by statute the petitioner have to prove that the elderly person is incompetent, but the extent and nature.   Thus, the limitation of guardianship in Illinois found at 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3 (b) is accommodated.

In the Mary Sykes case and in thousands of other cases that found their way into the Courts (across the Nation) the statutory delegation of jurisdiction is ignored and Guardianship means “open season.”   Taking the Mary Sykes case as an example, Illinois has Procrustean due process standards. (see 755 IlCS 5/11a -10)   The common=law record in Sykes is very clear in demonstrating that these standards were almost totally ignored.  (Ergo – railroading of Mary)   Nowhere in the record is there any indication that there was a scintilla of evidence presented to the Court by any qualified person as to 1) Mary’s incompetence, and 2) the extent and nature.

Nevertheless, Mary was herded off, isolated from her loved ones and her former life including her younger siblings, her younger daughter, her friends, her neighbors, her garden club, her church etc.   No only was Mary physically removed, but, one of the guardian ad litem complained that Mary was agitated when she had contact with her prior life.  The Court then required supervised visitation of Mary.

I submit to you that agitation would be expected from any competent individual subjected to this outrage.  Putting it mildly – only a stone would not exhibit agitation and using a normal reaction as an excuse for isolation is unthinkable abuse. Indeed, the Americans with Disabilities Act has been violated and a felony committed! In these elder cleansing cases this is only the beginning!

The primary objective of the guardianship is the looting of the estate.   Mary had an estate that her younger daughter has estimated at 1.5 million dollars plus some valuable real estate.  Included in this estate was a gold coin collection valued at about a million dollars.    This coin collection happened to be in a safety deposit box in the name of Mary and her younger daughter.  (see Gloria Sykes affidavit).   Not one coin was inventoried; however, the guardian’s pecuniary situation improved from being a chronic insolvent with a unemployed husband to that of a person having the affluence to host lavish parties, display expensive jewelry and personal property, and do attractive remodeling to her home.

Mary’s home prior to the guardianship had an appraisal of approximately $700,000; however it was sold for less than 1/2 of the prior appraisal.  The sale was accomplished by a surrogate of one of the politically elite.

Mary’s sister and younger daughter (and others) have complained to the Mr. Larkin and the IARDC concerning the conduct of the two guardian ad litem, the judge and other lawyers.  The Communication from Larkin was quite interesting.   Mr. Larkin made his position very clear.   It was perfectly all right to steal Mary’s money, but complaining about it was ethically challenged.   (I was a complainer and I received a four year suspension.  Had I participated in the theft and became the scapegoat six months to a year would have been a maximum suspension. My crime was writing to the Attorney General of the United States).

Larkin’s aiding and abetting of these felonies associated with the elder cleansing of Mary Sykes, Alice Gore and a host of other victims taxes the patience of the families of the victims who every day are reminded that they and the disabled (elderly) victims are being denied the core principles of America and the lawyers that they seek help from are being intimidated by the very organization that advertises that it was formed to protect the public from dishonest lawyers (including those who were black robes).

For the record – as I have practice law for over fifty years not only was I not intimidated by I have taken up the fight against this assault on the core values of America as essentially a full time endeavor.    These core values are too precious to allow miscreants such as Larkin to destroy.   It is not a reasonable accommodation of a disability to destroy the life of the elderly or disabled person, loot his/her estate, and then provide them with a final solution.

Unfortunately, the saga of Mary Sykes is repeated almost daily.   It has occurred all over the United States with some instances so obscene that the word justice has become an oxymoron.   Florida with its guardians for profit has allowed its miscreants to punish objection to elder cleansing in the case of Barbara Stone with criminal proceedings!

Let me put the following proposition to you.   What kind of person would JoAnn Denison or I be if we stayed silent and did not report and/or attempt to disclose the American Holocaust aided and abetted by Jerome Larkin acting in concert with  ******.   (I can fill in names if you or law enforcement wants them.  However, they are all on the JoAnne Denison blog, NASGA, Probate Sharks **** blogs.    Ms. Denison is a hero for standing up to felons who prey on the elderly and disabled including those employed by the Illinois Attorney Registration and Distortion Commission f/n/a IARDC.