PROOF-The ABA Blog is HEAVILY CENSORED — many comments that Mary Sykes was railroaded and abused removed:

Note below the comments that were removed.  I want every to note that none of the comments contained ANY profanity, ANY disrespectful or ridiculous comments. Everyone posted something logical, true and what should be protected by the First Amendment.

Now I predicted that Jerome Larkin of the ARDC would call up someone at the ABA and tell them you had better not publish anything that supports Ms. Denison, Mr. Ditkowsky, Mr. Amu and for sure do NOT let the family post anything that they were treated by the Tribunal in a disrespectful manner, ignored and further abused.

I WAS RIGHT–SHAMEFULLY RIGHT.

But here’s what I did.  I SAVED THE COMMENTS ON SUNDAY NIGHT so we still have them.  Yup that’s right.  And guess what, now that the 7th circuit has said in MY decision that it was okay for the ARDC and their puppet goons Nextpoint to copy and republish MY stuff because it was for litigation purposes, now it goes right back to them.

I am publishing this for litigation purposes.  Copyright fair use, according to the decision sent to me via the ARDC and Nextpoint.

So go ahead and sue me ABA for copyright infringement. That’s right, it’s YOUR darned blog with the real and true comment published YOU wanted to hide and cover up.

Next step?  Did you know that you cannot lie about your competitor under the Federal Deceptive Trade practices/Lanham act?  That’s correct.  McDonald’s cannot say that Burger King burgers are made from genuine horse snot when they’re not.  That’s unfair competition.

Now, I run a blog and the ABA runs a blog.  The ABA posted a press release regarding my license and invited public comments.  Sorry for them, the comments are not what they wanted, so they removed the ones that support free speech, the first amendment, and most important, that my suspension was bogus and imparted by a kangaroo court because THE SYKES FAMILY TESTIFIED IN MY FAVOR THAT WHAT I SAID WAS TRUE.

I think there’s a good cause of action against the ABA for blog disparagement.  We’re competitiors and they cannot only keep comments that are one sided and unfair.

Please contact me if there are any attorneys out there interested in representing me on this one.

JoAnne Denison

  • JW said:

    A three year suspension is very reasonable in light of the irreparable damage she has caused the legal profession. In this case the lawyer cast false aspersions against the legal profession.

    Posted: Dec 03, 2014 12:18 pm CST
    Reply to this comment

    • momo said:

      If her allegations are true, then it wasn’t her that caused “irreparable damage [to] the legal profession”. It was the judges involved.

      What she did was expose the “irreparable damage [to] the legal profession” the judges did. Unless you consider exposure a worse “crime” than the exposed behavior.

      Posted: Dec 03, 2014 08:53 pm CST
      Reply to this comment

    • David said:

      People have been casting false (and true) aspersions against the legal profession since it became a profession. It’s unreasonable to believe that the general public holds lawyers and judges in very high esteem. Given a number of the comments I’ve read on this site, many of our own hold us in low esteem. And we, both lawyers and judges, bear the blame for this by so many of our daily actions. So have we become so thin-skinned that we no longer can tolerate any form of criticism, especially when it comes from one of our own? Perhaps Ms. Denison’s blog comments were not entirely true in the strictest sense. But did all of those involved in the case do enough to protect the woman over whom a guardian was appointed? Unless that question can be answered affirmatively, it seems to me that a three year suspension is quite harsh in this instance.

      Posted: Dec 05, 2014 08:12 am CST
      Reply to this comment

      • KenDitkowsky said:

        We earned the right to be held in ill-repute when we allow your personal Rights to be vitiated. For the record every fact allegation made is confirmed by affidavits and sworn statements of people with actual knowledge.

        Posted: Dec 07, 2014 08:11 am CST
        Reply to this comment

    • citizen1 said:

      Comment removed by moderator.

      Posted: Dec 05, 2014 03:07 pm CST
      Reply to this comment

    • joanne denison said:

      and just how do you know that the allegations were false in light of the fact the family members testified as to their truth and veracity and the hearing board was cherry picked to fight with them in open court? the entire proceeding was disgraceful and the nadir of the legal profession. go read the transcript on my blog at http://www.marygsykes.com. and fyi, the judge stuart “suddenly retired” after she lied on the stand about chaining the younger daughter who held a valid POA and threatened to euthanize her pets. how utterly disgraceful. yet the IARDC persists. its time to call for a grand jury investigation against jerome larkin who oversaw all of this and vehemently denies the facts, the witnesses, the court proceedings and the transcripts.

      Posted: Dec 07, 2014 01:06 am CST
      Reply to this comment

    • KenDitkowsky said:

      It is amazing how many lawyers could not pass the Constitution test that is required of pre-teens seeking to get into high school.
      When lawyers and judicial personal do not respect the Constitution they do irreparable damage to the legal profession. These lawyers ought to be required to refund their remuneration to their clients as they have not only demonstrated that they are ethically challenged, but they are patently incompetent!

      Posted: Dec 07, 2014 08:08 am CST
      Reply to this comment

  • Blue n’ Gold said:

    Denison may or may not have damaged the egos of the professionals involved. To them, “get a pair”. High school is over.
    The veracity, or lack thereof, is not proven as read here. Where is the “entertainment line”?
    As for the legal profession, no matter what seat in the courtroom one employs, the practitioners are amply damaging the profession without any help from others, within or without the bar. Just because you think you are awesome …
    No one will note nor long remember a blog about snakes and sharks. Get real.

    Posted: Dec 03, 2014 07:34 pm CST
    Reply to this comment

    • joanne denison said:

      thank you blue and gold. you hit it on the head. these miscreants ought go stop peeing in their panties and twisting them in wads. they need to go out and get a pair or take out a loan and get a pair. the transcript, the proceedings and what happened to poor mary was disgraceful.

      Posted: Dec 07, 2014 01:08 am CST
      Reply to this comment

  • BMF said:

    @ JW: How do you know the aspersions cast were false? Sounds a bit too familiar, to me.

    Posted: Dec 03, 2014 09:43 pm CST
    Reply to this comment

    • fiction fan said:

      He shall not cast aspersions on my asparagus.

      Posted: Dec 05, 2014 08:34 am CST
      Reply to this comment

      • Fireman527 Esq. said:

        Thank you for bringing a smile to my face. This comment is probably lost on the vast majority of readers – but not me.

        Posted: Dec 05, 2014 04:23 pm CST
        Reply to this comment

    • George R. said:

      Now, now, everybody knows they ain’t no corruption in Illinois courts.

      Posted: Dec 05, 2014 05:52 pm CST
      Reply to this comment

    • joanne denison said:

      go and read the blog and the transcripts and pleadings. it’s all documented. the iardc refuses to document to publish the pleadings. they know what they do and it’s disgraceful

      Posted: Dec 07, 2014 01:11 am CST
      Reply to this comment

  • Stanford said:

    A three year suspension seems very harsh. I have seen friends destroyed by the “feeding frenzy” of divorce lawyers. While I don’t condone the publication of harmful falsehoods, I hope the IRDC thinks twice about what could be perceived as unfair treatment of whistleblowers. Public denouncement of lawyers’ greed over the best interests of their clients should not be discouraged. I’d say let the alleged victims find relief in court by suing for defamation where a judge and jury can decide.

    Posted: Dec 04, 2014 12:12 am CST
    Reply to this comment

    • joanne denison said:

      A three year suspension is not harsh when you have to consider they have to cover up the mining of 99 year old Alice Gore’s 29 gold teeth and implanting a feeding tube against her will because no way a nursing home will lovingly cut her food and spoon feed her. 3 years? If they want to cover up that behavior, they’d better make it 300 years. Their indifference to human suffering and agony is astounding.

      Posted: Dec 07, 2014 12:26 pm CST
      Reply to this comment

  • KKKKKKKKKKK said:

    Anyone who has ever practiced in the Cook County Probate Court knows that what she said has more than a reasonable basis in fact, and we’ve all seen worse among the cozy little club of lawyers and judges up there. Her only sin was actually telling the rest of the world about the emperor’s lack of clothes.

    Posted: Dec 04, 2014 09:24 am CST
    Reply to this comment

    • BMF said:

      “Her only sin was actually telling the rest of the world about the emperor’s lack of clothes.”

      You’re probably right. However, as I tell my clients, when engaging in whistleblowing, it’s best to remember that no one ever sent Jesus a thank-you note, either. You better have a plan “B”, make sure your key witnesses don’t chicken out, and hopefully, you have some friends higher up on the food chain than the people you’re up against that you can depend on.

      Posted: Dec 04, 2014 11:08 am CST
      Reply to this comment

      • joanne denison said:

        actually, one day Jesus healed 10 people and one came back to thank him. that person asked why he was the only one, and Jesus said, that’s just the way it is and blessed him. I don’t worry about thanks, I worry about doing what is right and helping those who cannot speak for themselves, namely, the elderly and disabled.

        Posted: Dec 07, 2014 01:43 am CST
        Reply to this comment

  • Netochka Nezvanova said:

    “Denison began blogging after a judge refused her application to represent the elderly woman’s daughter.” This confuses me. I was under the impression that a client may be represented by the legal counsel of her choice. Why must one apply to the court to represent someone? Or is it more that the court found the daughter didn’t have standing to intervene in that case, so her representation did not allow her to appear?

    Posted: Dec 04, 2014 04:48 pm CST
    Reply to this comment

    • Tired West Coast Lawyer said:

      I don’t practice in Illinois, but I do practice conservatorship law in California. The only reason the judge would have to approve representation would be if the daughter wanted her fees to be reimbursed out of the mother’s estate, which would throw an entirely different wrinkle on this blog. If the daughter didn’t have standing, then denial of the petition to appear wouldn’t involve appointment of counsel.

      Posted: Dec 05, 2014 11:23 am CST
      Reply to this comment

      • Retired Atty said:

        Only reason? According to the proposed recommendation on the IARDC’s web site, the reason that you came up with is not mentioned at all.

        Posted: Dec 05, 2014 12:47 pm CST
        Reply to this comment

        • Tired West Coast Lawyer said:

          Netochka N was asking why the Court would have to approve the attorney’s application to represent the daughter, as a client has the right to counsel of their choice. I was referring to my experience, in another jurisdiction, admittedly, where the court approval of an attorney’s representation of a particular party only when the party expects their fees to be covered by the subject person’s estate. The article did not say that the Court declined to allow the daughter to intervene, only that the Court refused to allow the attorney to represent her. As NN pointed out, that seems strange, so I pointed out a possible reason. If Court approval was necessary because of the expectation of fees, then a material issue has been left out. Otherwise, I’ve never heard of a rule that allows the Court to veto a party’s choice of counsel that they are paying for to represent them, unless proposed counsel is not admitted to the jurisdiction. It just sounds like we’re not getting the whole story.

          Posted: Dec 05, 2014 01:01 pm CST
          Reply to this comment

          • Retired Atty said:

            Agreed. We are not getting the whole story. The above post links to the proposed suspension. A review of the proposal will show that it is written so poorly that the facts are not easy to understand. Apparently, one daughter (Gloria) who objected to the GALs initially filed a pro se pleading. At some point, the judge demanded to know where certain estate assets were. When she claimed ignorance, the judge ordered her to be taken “to a quiet place” but allegedly did not know that the deputies had placed handcuffs on her. The “Respondent (attorney) testified, when she was in court, she observed the judge rolling her eyes, cutting Gloria off and telling Gloria to be quiet. Respondent stated a number of orders were entered without a briefing schedule or after pleadings from Gloria had been stricken.” At this point, it would certainly appear that Gloria needed an attorney.

            Posted: Dec 05, 2014 01:42 pm CST
            Reply to this comment

            • Tired West Coast Lawyer said:

              These certainly are material facts. I’d expect a little more depth from the ABA.

              Posted: Dec 05, 2014 02:48 pm CST
              Reply to this comment

              • Robert said:

                You’re new here. I can tell.

                Posted: Dec 07, 2014 12:03 pm CST
                Reply to this comment

              • Gloria Jean Sykes said:

                A few people at ABA know the whole story and the facts in and regarding In re The Estate of Mary G. Sykes. The problem is as ‘the other daughter’ who was and continues to be demonized by the IARDC, attorneys Peter Schmiedel, Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga, and judges Maureen Connors, and Epstein at the Ill Appellate Court, and Judges Rooney (Chancery) and MacCarthy (Probate), I have yet the time to write a professional investigative report or produce/write the documentary (in production) on Adult Guardianship. The Truth leaves tracks — and I believe the ABA and other media outlets will publish a thorough, impartial investigative report — and as I can’t edit myself out of this story, I can do what I do better than most: report an accurate, unbiased investigative report on Adult Guardianship which will include my mother, Mary G. Sykes’, story. AS I wrote below, if you want further information — the facts, please feel free to email me at gloami@msn.com. Or, you can simply believe what the IARDC, and other bloggers publish. We all have choices and this is your choice. In the meantime, remember that a now 96 year old woman is begging to be freed, returned to her home, and the people she loves and trusts. Let’s see who has he courage to stand next to me, Tim, Annie, and other people who also know the truth and have been victimized by the judicial for living the truth. gloami@msn.com

                Posted: Dec 07, 2014 01:40 pm CST
                Reply to this comment

            • Gloria Jean Sykes said:

              You have no idea of what you are saying of which most of the above you stated is untrue. I attended the August 26, 2009 proceeding to support my mother in my mother’s petition for an order of protection naming Carolyn Toerpe the abuser and financial exploiter. 8 other family members and friends also showed up in Court and Toerpe’s attorney Harvey Jack Waller somehow managed to have Adam Stern appointed as special GAL, and I and all of Mother’s friends and family, the abusers. Mother was not in court as she was held hostage in DuPage County. I filed no pleadings until after GAL’s Stern and Farenga had all of my assets frozen. I was never before the Court, actually and the court had no jurisdiction over me.. or my mother!

              FYI I never claimed “Ignorance”. There were about 10 witnesses who came to court to testify on behalf of my Mother and they were all sent out into the hall —

              If you want the facts then email me. Otherwise, please don’t repeat the lies of Adam Stern, Peter Schmiedel and Cynthia Farenga. Read the transcripts.

              In sum, every person, family member and friend, and even my mother objected: my mother filed the petition for an order of protection naming Carolyn Toerpe the abuser and Toerpe wih he help of a half dozen court fravored attorneys converted the POP to a Temporary Guardianship naming the abuser, Toerpe.

              Thank you.

              Posted: Dec 07, 2014 02:21 pm CST
              Reply to this comment

        • KenDitkowsky said:

          Every State guardianship statute that I’ve read has a common theme – protect the elderly and the disabled for abusive guardianships and elder cleansing. Each is consistent with Americans with Disabililties Act title 2. Thus, the cottage industry of elder cleansers to continue in operation has to prevent dissent. In the Sykes case just about every lawyer was threatened in some manner or another so that Mary Sykes could not obtain independent representation. JoAnne and I were both part of the mix.
          Jerome Larkin and the IARDC are part of the problem 18 USCA 371. JoAnne’s blog is part of the 18 USCA 4 disclosures that all citizens are required by law to provide when they observe felonies. Elder cleansing encompasses a number of felonies.

          Posted: Dec 07, 2014 08:19 am CST
          Reply to this comment

        • KenDitkowsky said:

          Every State guardianship statute that I’ve read has a common theme – protect the elderly and the disabled for abusive guardianships and elder cleansing. Each is consistent with Americans with Disabililties Act title 2. Thus, the cottage industry of elder cleansers to continue in operation has to prevent dissent. In the Sykes case just about every lawyer was threatened in some manner or another so that Mary Sykes could not obtain independent representation. JoAnne and I were both part of the mix.
          Jerome Larkin and the IARDC are part of the problem 18 USCA 371. JoAnne’s blog is part of the 18 USCA 4 disclosures that all citizens are required by law to provide when they observe felonies. Elder cleansing encompasses a number of felonies.

          Posted: Dec 07, 2014 08:19 am CST
          Reply to this comment

        • KenDitkowsky said:

          Every State guardianship statute that I’ve read has a common theme – protect the elderly and the disabled for abusive guardianships and elder cleansing. Each is consistent with Americans with Disabililties Act title 2. Thus, the cottage industry of elder cleansers to continue in operation has to prevent dissent. In the Sykes case just about every lawyer was threatened in some manner or another so that Mary Sykes could not obtain independent representation. JoAnne and I were both part of the mix.
          Jerome Larkin and the IARDC are part of the problem 18 USCA 371. JoAnne’s blog is part of the 18 USCA 4 disclosures that all citizens are required by law to provide when they observe felonies. Elder cleansing encompasses a number of felonies.

          Posted: Dec 07, 2014 08:19 am CST
          Reply to this comment

        • KenDitkowsky said:

          Every State guardianship statute that I’ve read has a common theme – protect the elderly and the disabled for abusive guardianships and elder cleansing. Each is consistent with Americans with Disabililties Act title 2. Thus, the cottage industry of elder cleansers to continue in operation has to prevent dissent. In the Sykes case just about every lawyer was threatened in some manner or another so that Mary Sykes could not obtain independent representation. JoAnne and I were both part of the mix.
          Jerome Larkin and the IARDC are part of the problem 18 USCA 371. JoAnne’s blog is part of the 18 USCA 4 disclosures that all citizens are required by law to provide when they observe felonies. Elder cleansing encompasses a number of felonies.

          Posted: Dec 07, 2014 08:19 am CST
          Reply to this comment

        • KenDitkowsky said:

          Every State guardianship statute that I’ve read has a common theme – protect the elderly and the disabled for abusive guardianships and elder cleansing. Each is consistent with Americans with Disabililties Act title 2. Thus, the cottage industry of elder cleansers to continue in operation has to prevent dissent. In the Sykes case just about every lawyer was threatened in some manner or another so that Mary Sykes could not obtain independent representation. JoAnne and I were both part of the mix.
          Jerome Larkin and the IARDC are part of the problem 18 USCA 371. JoAnne’s blog is part of the 18 USCA 4 disclosures that all citizens are required by law to provide when they observe felonies. Elder cleansing encompasses a number of felonies.

          Posted: Dec 07, 2014 08:19 am CST
          Reply to this comment

    • joanne denison said:

      not in illinois. in illinois, you only get an attorney selected from a “secret list”. go ahead and call the 18th floor probate court and ask them for the list of attorneys “allowed” to represent wards. you will get silence.

      Posted: Dec 07, 2014 01:14 am CST
      Reply to this comment

  • CleanLawyerAfraidtoBlowtheWhistle said:

    I suspect this attorney found herself in violation of one of the unwritten real rules of court that we should not publicly discuss the malfeasance and corruption of other lawyers and judges in our fraternity/sorority. In our world, it is often worse to call someone a liar than to actually be one. It is also usually worse to call another lawyer corrupt than to actually be corrupt. Sad but true.

    Posted: Dec 05, 2014 04:56 am CST
    Reply to this comment

  • Anonymous said:

    Were First Amendment considerations concerned? This doesn’t smell right.

    Posted: Dec 05, 2014 06:20 am CST
    Reply to this comment

    • joanne denison said:

      the IARDC told me that it would consider my First Amendment right if and when it decided was appropriate. In a nut shell, no. They were cherry picked to do a job and they did it. Choo choo railroad. Ask them how they pick tribunals and you will get silence.

      Posted: Dec 07, 2014 01:48 am CST
      Reply to this comment

      • Retired Atty said:

        The impact of this upon freedom of speech should be disturbing to attorneys who value that right.

        If freedom of speech is important to you, why not focus upon that? Have you directly contacted the ACLU? Or has anyone done so on your behalf? Or have you otherwise found someone who is willing to represent you and focus upon the First Amendment?

        I assume that you are familiar with the Supreme Court’s’ 1991 Gentile v State Bar of Nevada decision and its progeny. I think that you need an attorney who will select a judicial forum rather than a public one and focus upon the freedom-of-speech issue.

        Respectfully, I think that it is a mistake to invite or compel readers in a public forum to engage in work to understand or verify the details of what is going on. It distracts from the main issue. No one is going to follow the suggestion to “Ask them how they pick tribunals.”

        Respectfully, I also think that it is a mistake to use so many metaphors. In just a few lines, for example, you refer to “nut shell,” “cherry picked”, and “Choo choo railroad.” This, too, distracts from the main issue which, if raised, might preserve your license to practice law.

        Because you are also a patent attorney, you might be able to continue to practice patent law in Illinois and hold yourself out in Illinois as a patent attorney. Please see the Supreme Court’s 1963 Sperry v. Florida decision.

        Although very few of us intend to ever start a blog to criticize judicial corruption, your potential disbarment for doing so can have a chilling effect upon others of us. Please get a First Amendment attorney to represent you. Please don’t screw this up.

        Posted: Dec 07, 2014 10:35 am CST
        Reply to this comment

        • joanne dension said:

          And what pile of cash do you think I have lying around to get a “first amendment lawyer” to do this. First, if an Illinois lawyer, the ARDC will go after him or her for representing me. We don’t need lawyer no. 4 suspended for supporting the truth. Second, this is my BLOG. I get to use metaphors, hyperbole and exaggeration. It’s what I think, not a professional diatribe no one wants to read online. Third, I help these probate victims for low cost or free all the time against the serious issues of lack of jurisdiction, due process and isolation of the elderly. I do it because I care, making me the only self appointed public defender for probate in Illinois. That’s what makes me so scary and they’re afraid of that. I DO stop the stealing, the thefts, the lack of notice, hearing and findings. I therefore expect any attorney to assist me knowing 1) he or she risks her livelihood and 2) it will be low cost or free.
          Also, if being the 1st and bravest (dumbest) lawyer to start a blog on corruption is on my shoulders alone and I can’t screw it up, if other lawyers are silent and non supportive and don’t come to my aide when I am in need, do THEY really deserve THEIR first amendment rights. Democracy is NOT a spectator sport (League of Women Voters) I expect more attys to get off their duffs and start faxing, writing and emailing and calling Jerome Larkin of the ARDC and the Ill. Sup. Ct and DEMAND an investigation into the Sykes case and others, and btw, while you are all at it, ask Jerome Larkin why he and his staff attorneys do not ethics report under the Illinois Ethics Act of 2009 which mandates ethics reporting for all Illinois state agency management and staff. You will get more silence.

          Posted: Dec 07, 2014 11:19 am CST
          Reply to this comment

  • SME said:

    …and that’s why it may be hazardous to be a lawyer. Your non-lawyer neighbor puts up an angry blog about something and the only thing he’s exposing himself to is a possible liable suit. Your neighbor can still work at his job as an engineer. You on the other hand can lose your job and your ability to work at a new job based on the whim of a disiplinary committee.
    Why did I ever think this was a good idea?

    Posted: Dec 05, 2014 06:27 am CST
    Reply to this comment

  • Sid said:

    Power always protects power. Lawyers have a duty to “out” corruption. Using the weapon of discipline in this instance wis wrong. The defamation laws – if a specific person, not an institution or a murder of lawyers – is wronged, are there for that purpose. Let’s face it, just about all lawyers become judges because of their political activity (pejoratively, political hacks) or bar association connections (just an elite form of politics). At times – especially if judicial advancement is in the air – payback or corruption is ignored or mentally denied; because – aw shucks – it’s unfortunately necessary, the way things are done. Every lawyer knows that. We just hope that it doesn’t get too bad and hurt our clients or us. We all know that the “in” lawyers get the guardianships, appointments, and the benefit of the doubt in rulings. One young lawyer, truthfully stating that his adversary was misstating the facts of an issue was met with the judicial, “I know him, I don’t know you.” right from the bench. That was in Missouri, but it’s not unusual anywhere – just usually not so baldly stated.

    Posted: Dec 05, 2014 06:46 am CST
    Reply to this comment

  • ms.chief53@yahoo.com said:

    I’m beginning to see the faintest flicker of light at the end of a long dark tunnel. I hope it’s not a train.

    Posted: Dec 05, 2014 06:48 am CST
    Reply to this comment

  • Mags said:

    I’m appalled that the First Amendment wasn’t raised until the 9th comment here! Her blog comments should be protected, and if she has defamed, she is lible in tort.

    Posted: Dec 05, 2014 06:55 am CST
    Reply to this comment

    • SME said:

      That is correct. The sole remedy against anybody else is a tort action. For lawyers, it’s also a disciplinary committee that puts a halt on one being able to earn a living. This is why I maintain my proficiency and contacts in my non-lawyer profession. I’m good at it and it’s not subject to the whims of the state bar.

      Posted: Dec 05, 2014 07:07 am CST
      Reply to this comment

  • large weasel said:

    No 1st amendment rights. Along with Rights comes responsibility. 3 years is harsh given “victims” rights to sue for defamation. If she thought the probate folks were bad , wait till she sees what the receivers do to her cases. Perhaps a years suspension. I find that the filing of “false” suits was not more prominently considered as a “conduct” problem.

    Posted: Dec 05, 2014 08:46 am CST
    Reply to this comment

    • SME said:

      “No 1st amendment rights.” ??? “Along with Rights comes responsibility.” That can be used to invalidate just about any right the Constitution guarantees.

      Posted: Dec 05, 2014 04:56 pm CST
      Reply to this comment

      • joanne denison said:

        Exactly my point SME. If we don’t have unfetttered 1st amendment rights, then we hand off our right to say what must be said to the US government to determine what we can say or what we cannot say. Do we really want that? Isn’t that what the British did in 1776, controlled the printing houses? Why isn’t the ARDC over at the Chico Trib or Suntimes telling them what to print?

        Posted: Dec 07, 2014 11:22 am CST
        Reply to this comment

    • KenDitkowsky said:

      If JoAnne stole her clients money the suspension would be about a year – reporting criminal activity in the circuit of Cook County is considered by Jerome Larkin and the Illinois ARDC to be a much more serious matter.

      Posted: Dec 07, 2014 08:25 am CST
      Reply to this comment

  • Perspective said:

    Not saying what this lawyer did was right. But for some perspective, consider the ABA story about the lawyer who sexted three different clients and had actual sex with one of them in his office (before writing off about $4,500 in fees). Then he lied to investigators about the incidents.

    He’s been suspended 5 years.

    Posted: Dec 05, 2014 09:01 am CST
    Reply to this comment

    • Retired Atty said:

      It is not alleged that the attorney in this case “sexted” any clients or anyone else. It is also not alleged that the attorney in this case had sex with any clients or anyone else.

      Posted: Dec 05, 2014 12:55 pm CST
      Reply to this comment

  • PTCESQ said:

    Hey, I heard about this really nifty idea called the First Amendment… Grow up and stop whining; lawyers make too much money and are a little too full of themselves IMHO.

    Posted: Dec 05, 2014 09:18 am CST
    Reply to this comment

  • And the Beat Goes On said:

    This is very troubling. An attorney makes a statement about perceived misconduct and now she is restricted from making a living for THREE years. We are all advised to have six months to a years savings to cover our expenses. They intended to do some real damage to this woman. The punishment far exceeds the crime, especially if her aspersions were made in good faith. If they wanted to hurt her this badly, it makes it seem that they really do have something they are trying to hid.

    Posted: Dec 05, 2014 09:25 am CST
    Reply to this comment

    • And the Beat Goes On said:

      hide.

      Posted: Dec 05, 2014 09:26 am CST
      Reply to this comment

    • joanne denison said:

      Don’t worry, I have no savings. I live on faith, hope and prayer. It’s worked so far.

      Posted: Dec 07, 2014 11:26 am CST
      Reply to this comment

  • Justpassingby said:

    I have always been aware of the potential for attorney discipline for disparaging the integrity of the bench, but I have remained baffled as to how an attorney relinquishes his First Amendment right to criticize the bench qua government officials by virtue of becoming a member of a bar association. As attorneys, we are in a unique position to criticize Officers of the Court, and our right to do so should be protected by the society as sacred, even if we are crazy and wrong.

    Posted: Dec 05, 2014 09:28 am CST
    Reply to this comment

    • Passingby in the other direction said:

      Since it isn’t government restriction of free speech, it isn’t a First Amendment issue. She’s free to continue blogging, just not as an attorney. We do give up a little of our freedoms when we agree to join this club. I do agree it’s too harsh though.

      Posted: Dec 05, 2014 11:32 am CST
      Reply to this comment

      • joanne denison said:

        That’s just the problem. Being admitted to the bar isn’t a social club. You are bound to uphold the Illinois and US constitutions. 18 USC sec 4 makes it clear that attorneys must report felonies to the authorities. The State of Illinois does nothing, the FBI only takes on certain cases, so if law enforcement, the court system fails, the next authority in a free, open and democratic society is the media. We have first amendment rights and we have a free and open media. If you don’t have a backbone, take out a loan and buy one. To participate in these cover ups is also a violation on treaties that protect against torture, and yes torture is defined as isolation and restrictive confinement and chemical restraints. 30 to 40% of all chemical restraints are sold to nursing homes and most are dispensed not in accordance with federal and state laws. We are poisoning our elders.

        Posted: Dec 07, 2014 12:32 pm CST
        Reply to this comment

  • Realist said:

    “Aspersions” about a Court of Cook County, Illinois, are purportedly “false” ?. Yeah right. we all have read many. many articles about the courts of Cook County, and they contain a ton of “aspersions.” The moral of this story if you want to expose bad things about that court and you are an attorney who knows about them, get an non-attorney friend to print what you know. They have not lost their 1st Amendment protection, like the Illinois attorney at issue apparently has lost.

    Posted: Dec 05, 2014 10:36 am CST
    Reply to this comment

  • JG said:

    Forget it Jake, It’s Chi(na)town.!

    Posted: Dec 05, 2014 11:24 am CST
    Reply to this comment

  • Doug Schafer said:

    We refer to dsyfunctional computer files and programs as “corrupt,” and the term equally applies to dysfunctional probate, guardianship, and disciplinary systems. I publicly referred to the latter system as corrupt in the late 1990s after the bar’s disciplinarians quickly dismissed the facts I presented to them about a lawyer who plundered an estate for several years before being elected a judge. Eventually, after 3.5 years and after I had disseminate selected facts publicly, that lawyer-turned-judge was disrobed by my state’s supreme court for his “a pattern of dishonest behavior.” The 2003 state supreme court opinion that suspended my license for 6 months made 7 references to the judge’s corruption, but asserted that I should have exposed him without disclosing a comment by my former client who gave the judge a Cadillac. We lawyers and judges are human beings with human faults, including our tendency to reject criticism of friends and popular folks with good reputations. We need to resist those tendencies, and objectively consider the merits of criticisms by whistleblowers. Regarding guardianships, I’m immersed in a case in which a wealthy woman adjudicated in 2009 to “partly” incompetent has been denied a right to counsel in subsequent court proceedings at which her remaining rights have been revoked. Corrupt system? Regarding Chicago/Cook County, does nobody recall Operation Gaylord, the FBI sting of its corrupt courts? I chronicled my own 1996-2003 case at http://www.DougSchafer.com.

    Posted: Dec 05, 2014 01:16 pm CST
    Reply to this comment

  • Michael2255 said:

    Perhaps JW was just being sarcastic. Irreparable harm — haha.

    Posted: Dec 05, 2014 02:47 pm CST
    Reply to this comment

  • citizen1 said:

    Why should a closed “panel” of human beings who do nothing but attempt to look out for the legal profession and its strained “ethics” sit in judgment in this matter. What ever happened to the right to a trial by jury before a valuable property right, i.e. a well earned license to practice law, is “suspended”. Three years. Why not just give her the death penalty? What is she supposed to do for those three years? I believe in free speech, particularly when the comments are directed to a branch of government. Since when is the judicial branch protected from criticism and comment? Oh, I forgot, they sit in their own judgment. Absurd.

    Posted: Dec 05, 2014 03:10 pm CST
    Reply to this comment

  • citizen1 said:

    So, an attorney “blogs” using her right of free speech to express her OPINION about corruption in the probate system of Cook County, Illinois. From what I KNOW about Cook County courts, there is a PRESUMPTION of fraud, political corruption (Democrats are simply slated by the wonderful politicians in Cook County and then voted in by the ignorant electorate). Then the so called ARDC, a wholly owned branch of the Illinois Supreme Court, consisting of politically connected and bought Judges (like Karmeier bought by State Farm and Phillip Morris), or the Chicago politician’s wife, or former Bears placekicker (just wonderfully qualified Judges). What other branch of government can ignore the First Amendment and sit in judgment for its own self serving benefit, suspending and disbarring lawyers for critical comments. Oh, you should read the Rule, it actually encourages lawyers to say GOOD things about Judges. But critical opinions? Move out of Illinois. I did and believe me, I have never looked back. It is a morally and financially corrupt state. As they say, the state that is a city, and that city is Chicago.

    Posted: Dec 05, 2014 03:21 pm CST
    Reply to this comment

  • Anna Gray said:

    RIP, dear First Amendment. Our lying hypocritical society cannot afford you anymore.

    Posted: Dec 05, 2014 03:21 pm CST
    Reply to this comment

  • citizen1 said:

    So, an attorney “blogs” using her right of free speech to express her OPINION about corruption in the probate system of Cook County, Illinois. From what I KNOW about Cook County courts, there is a PRESUMPTION of fraud, political corruption (Democrats are simply slated by the wonderful politicians in Cook County and then voted in by the ignorant electorate). Then the so called ARDC, a wholly owned branch of the Illinois Supreme Court, consisting of politically connected and bought Judges (like Karmeier bought by State Farm and Phillip Morris), or the Chicago politician’s wife, or former Bears placekicker (just wonderfully qualified Judges). What other branch of government can ignore the First Amendment and sit in judgment for its own self serving benefit, suspending and disbarring lawyers for critical comments. Oh, you should read the Rule, it actually encourages lawyers to say GOOD things about Judges. But critical opinions? Move out of Illinois. I did and believe me, I have never looked back. It is a morally and financially corrupt state. As they say, the state that is a city, and that city is Chicago.

    Posted: Dec 05, 2014 03:21 pm CST
    Reply to this comment

  • citizen1 said:

    Is it not ironic that our government encourages free speech and demonstrations by the citizens of OTHER countries, but in America the right of free speech has become meaningless. Remember, this lady was expressing an OPINION based on her own knowledge of the facts. the record in the matter is nonsensical and does NOT support any discipline whatsoever. And why should these handpicked members of the ARDC have any right to even weigh the evidence? Where is the right to a jury trial? Why must Judges and lawyers attempt to avoid criticism by their own profession? I say a Jury should make this determination when there are disputed issues of fact, NOT a bunch of self serving hooligan Judges and lawyers. And Illinois lawyers and Judges at that. Is there NO Illinois lawyer who will come to the defense of this lady? Where is your chivalry, gentlemen?

    Posted: Dec 05, 2014 03:28 pm CST
    Reply to this comment

  • kDenver said:

    I think some comment writers are not reading the article or the linked article. She was disqualified from representing the daughter because she had represented the mother and was possibly a witness regarding the validity of the estate planning documents and the mother’s capacity at the time the documents were signed. The suspended attorney went far beyond expressing mere opinions. The fact finder determined she met the reckless falsehood standard. You can appeal if you lose. You can call your legislator for reform if you lose. You cannot go around badmouthing everyone involved.

    Posted: Dec 05, 2014 04:37 pm CST
    Reply to this comment

    • Retired Atty said:

      Saying that Attorney Denison “had represented the mother” (i.e. Mary) seems to go beyond the way that those words are normally understood when referring to an attorney and a person. Where in the proposed disciplinary report, if any place, did the authors state that she did more than notarize a document? The report refers to a “Prior counsel had withdrawn” from the probate proceeding and who had been replaced by Attorney Denison. In the absence of a claim by the GALs and in the absence of a statement in the report that she had prepared estate planning documents, isn’t it more likely that another person prepared the estate planning documents and that Attorney Denison only notarize the mother’s signature on one? True, that may be sufficient to disqualify Attorney Denison from representing the daughter, but is that the thrust of her complaints about the actions of the judge? IMO, she is complaining about other issues and the disqualification is just one. That seems to be one reason why the report and recommendation is so long.

      Posted: Dec 05, 2014 07:27 pm CST
      Reply to this comment

    • Tim Lahrman said:

      If I may, there appears to be some confusion that I’ll try and make clear here — In 1998 the mother and daughter bought a Chicago home which was held in a joint tenancy w.ROS. This was a second home the two owned in joint tenancy w/ROS, the two houses are on adjoining lots, one the mother lived in [also the daughter’s childhood home] and the daughter lived in the second home next door. In 2001 there was an insurance claim involving some water damage and mold found the second home. This insurance claim resulted in litigation and during the years of insurance litigation the daughter lived in the first house with her mother because the second home was rendered uninhabitable due to the mold contamination. Because there was no mortgage lien on the second house and because the mother’s only intended interest in the house was not to occupy and possess except if ever exercising her ROS, the daughter was the owner and beneficiary on the insurance policy and she was the only party sued by the insurance company. In or about 2008 there is a settlement of the insurance case and the only function served by Attorney Dennison in all this was to notarize the mother signature on an apportionment agreement related to the settlement of the insurance litigation. The mother was never a party to the insurance litigation, attorney Dennison was never counsel of record in the insurance litigation, and Dennison was not legal counsel for the mother on the apportionment agreement, the mother had three other attorneys advise her on and present at execution of the apportionment agreement. It was early winter 2008 the mother and daughter were happy, the years of litigation was behind them, plans were made and contracotrs were ultimately hired to remediate the second home and restore it fir for habitation and out of the sky wanders in an outcast daughter who cozies her way into re-kindling mom for a lunch here and a day trip there, etc etc. In the spring of 2009 the joint tenant daughter and the mother travel on a working vacation to LA and on their return to Chicago the mother discovers that money is missing from her bank account and the contents of her safe-deposit box were gone. In the weeks following and in due course the mother files a petition for an order for protection naming the outcast daughter as the Respondent — and before ever answering the protective order petition the outcast daughter pertitions for and secures her appointment to be emergency guardian for the mother … Attorney Dennison and attorney Ditkowsky both sought permission to represent Mary, both were disqualified, both have now been disciplined by the Bar, Mary remains under guardianship of the outcast daughter who has still never answered the protective order petition — and millions of dollars are lost to the casual shrug of shoulder by all involved.

      The mother has been forcibly removed from her home and domicile in Cook County, she has been secreted away, held incommunicado and isolated for years now, in an undisclosed location … all the while, the band plays on and its business as usual in a probate guardianship, retaliate against ad killer the messenger who is simply striving to do what is right.

      I hope tis clear up some of the confusion.

      . . . .

      Posted: Dec 07, 2014 03:10 am CST
      Reply to this comment

      • joanne denison said:

        Excellent job Tim. Thanks for doing that. One little point is Ken tried to represent Mary because Mary told Gloria she wanted him to “get her out of this mess” back in 2020. Gloria did just that. I never tried to represent Mary, I know better they will go after any attorney who tries to represent a ward, and threaten them. Those $$$ go only to favored attorneys on a list. I only tried to represent Gloria and that was enough of a threat to stop the felonies which were soon to occur and they strenuously got Judge Connors to rubber stamp that AND she threatened me that if I represented Gloria I could lose my law license so SHE was doing ME a favor. What a crock.

        Posted: Dec 07, 2014 11:31 am CST
        Reply to this comment

    • Marys_Niece said:

      To clarify, Ms. Denison being a neighbor and friend, had previously acted in the capacity of a notary for the proposed ‘ward’, years before. She did NOT represent her.

      Posted: Dec 07, 2014 01:14 pm CST
      Reply to this comment

      • Gloria Jean Sykes said:

        My mother was not a ‘proposed Ward’ at the time she, Mary G. Sykes, and I, ‘the other daughter’ were walking our dogs after my mother had met with Larry, her attorney at the Center of Concern in Park Ridge: mother suggested we ask JD if she knew a notary — and as we walked by JD’s home, we stopped in. This was in Oct. 2008. Soon after my mother and I traveled with our pooches to New York (ground Zero, Ellis Island, et al. and DC (Pentagon, and visit to NBC, the network where I worked for some 35 years) to visit with a friend. JD never represented either my mother or me in Lumberman’s v. Gloria Sykes, a homeowner’s insurance policy contract dispute, where I was the only policy holder! But now I’m a head of myself. My mother, Mary G. Sykes is a human being, and Guardianship is unconstitutional and a violation of title II of the ADA.

        JD welcomed us in her home, professionally and properly was a notary only, and then the three of us had tea and talked about our furry friends.

        Posted: Dec 07, 2014 01:52 pm CST
        Reply to this comment

        • joanne denison said:

          I agree to all of that. I was a notary, nothing else. I helped Gloria with another lawsuit but she was never formally my client then, just a friend. The ARDC pushes it and stretches the truth to get (railroad) what they want.

          Posted: Dec 08, 2014 01:20 am CST
          Reply to this comment

  • Raymond Zuppa said:

    The degree of child like naivety by many of the lawyers comments is scary. If the lawyers are that naive God help us all. That’s is why we have such things as indefinite detention and electronic surveillance of phone and emails without a warrant.

    I worked in a bureau that conducted a judicial corruption probe. There were arrests and convictions but the ones that were let go because they were connected — that is what was truly astounding. No one knows about them.

    Judges ran unopposed in a certain county because it was a one party county. Judicial candidates simply paid the party boss tens of thousands of dollars — upwards of a hundred thousand dollars — to the party boss to be placed on the ballot where they ran unopposed and became judges.

    What shocked me was how common it was — it exists in other counties.

    The awarding of receiverships to well connected attorneys where exorbitant fees robbed individuals and corporations wherein random assignment of cases was nothing but a lie.

    All the big receiverships happen to go to the same judge and his same well connected attorneys. I truly believe there was no quid quo pro and I also bought a bridge in Brooklyn.

    The perverse manner in which Disciplinary Committees are comprised of attorneys who might have an axe to grind with an attorney or two — and as such the offending attorney is perpetually investigated for such things as the appeal of the result in a fee dispute case while posting an appeal bond.

    You can always appeal to the same machine.

    You can always go to your legislature who is part of the same machine.

    Wise up folks. I trust no findings.

    Posted: Dec 05, 2014 08:01 pm CST
    Reply to this comment

  • Another Realist said:

    Chicago = Cook County = Operation Gaylord (Gov. Otto Kerner in prison) = Illinois = Probate Court = corruption.
    Enough Said.

    Posted: Dec 06, 2014 08:44 am CST
    Reply to this comment

  • Another Realist said:

    Chicago = Cook County = Operation Gaylord (Gov. Otto Kerner in prison) = Illinois = Probate Court = corruption.
    Enough Said.

    Posted: Dec 06, 2014 08:44 am CST
    Reply to this comment

  • citizen1 said:

    We not only encourage human beings in other countries to rebel against their governments when they trample their civil rights, e.g. rights to property (law license), due process and free speech, but we even provide them with weapons to attack their government. In this country, we just bleat like the old sheep we have become. Lawyers should have NO rights to express their opinion if it is critical of another lawyer or Judge. Why not just make that the rule and get it over with.

    Posted: Dec 06, 2014 03:00 pm CST
    Reply to this comment

  • CyberGuy said:

    Forget the first amendment. Criticize some judges? Because everything in the press is 100% true and accurate. ever try to bring a libel/slander suit? Next to impossible. But talk about judges? No can do. All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

    Posted: Dec 06, 2014 05:58 pm CST
    Reply to this comment

  • JoanneDenison said:

    Okay, I AM the attorney in question, and I have to thank you who all saw the obvious holes (like Swiss cheese) in the ARDC story and by the end of the comments, you did a fairly good job. Congrats. First of all, Mary did NOT have a choice to an atty. I pointed that out. Attys in probate come from “secret lists” and the wards have no choice. Second, my witnesses DID come to my trial but ended up arguing with a rubber stamped tribunal over how they were mistake they 1) did not get any required statutory notice of Mary’s guardianship hearing; and 2) Mary was never served. That’s right. Go look it up. No service, no jurisdiction. 09 P 4585. But the court and the ARDC covers it up. Why? $1 million in gold coins are missing. Her house was appraised at $700k in Jan and then sold 2 months later for $238. The Realtor? Dick Mell Jr (family to Patti Blago and her dear hubby Rod) And there’s more. 10 pages more. The ARDC has it’s own problems and all of it is on my blog and I’m not stopping. The ARDC can stuff it. I will go to probate and I will report the thefts, the railroading, the elder abuse and financial exploitation. So don’t worry. 3 years is not enough to stop me. I will be your reporter. I will expose. And I will go to Washington DC and tell the Senate too.

    Posted: Dec 06, 2014 10:06 pm CST
    Reply to this comment

  • JoanneDenison said:

    If you think the likes of Jerome Larkin and his crew of thugs can stop me, think again. I will expose them and their retaliatory ways that ruined Atty Lanre Amu and Atty Ken
    Ditkowsky for speaking out too. They violate the First Amendment, they suppress and crush the dissent of US attorneys exposing corruption. The above poster was right, Cook County Court = corruption. In Cook County an honest pol is one that once bribed, stays bribed. my blog is at http://www.marygsykes.com and she is still at risk. All the money to liquidate her assets (approx $350k) went to the attorneys fees of GAL’s Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga, Fischel and Kahn and Peter Schmeidel. Mary got zip, nada, $0. The ARDC wants to cover that up too. Judge Stuart lied at my trial and had to “suddenly resign”. Judge Kowamoto was reported on my blog to pull the 29 gold teeth of 99 year old Alice Gore and then she was starved and dehydrated to death. Response of ARDC/Jerome Larkin? We are all stupid idiots and should go away. Who does this? Peter Schmeidel testified he deeply cared for Mary and protected her, but liquidated $350k in assets for ATTYS! Judge Stuart is gone, Judge Kowamoto is gone. Cynthia Farenga closed her law practice. Adam Stern had a $60k IRS tax lien for over 14 mos on his home. YOU DECIDE who should be suspended. I’ll vote Jerome Larkin and his gang of thugs any day. Thanks to the ABA for providing and open and honest First Amendment forum for my comments.

    Posted: Dec 06, 2014 10:15 pm CST
    Reply to this comment

  • Prov2828 said:

    Dear Chicago Tribune Editor,
    “I know three attorneys in Illinois who should be praised. They have been sanctioned by the bar association for speaking out about corruption in the judicial branch. We know it exists because our loved one and ourselves are victims of that abuse in guardianship cases across the country. Murder, Elder Abuse, Isolation, Theft of the families estate and victimizing the family is past epidemic; it is a HOLOCAUST! To excuse it away claiming sibling rivalry is ludicrous. There is no way that rises to the level of trillions of dollars in the pocket of a well oiled syndicated criminal machine on steroids that has no boundaries and extorts people’s “life, liberty and property“. Where are our representatives and superior agencies who are supposed to control corruption in office? If you want proof contact any of us and we will OVERWHELM you.

    We are thankful for the few remaining warriors like Mr. Ditkowsky, Ms. Denison, Mr. Amu and ALL OTHERS, who risk their livelihoods to speak out for us who are being terrorized by those levying War against us, collaterally adhering to our Enemies, giving Aid and Comfort to each other while claiming they are serving the people.

    WHEREFORE the judicial agents have committed treason to our country pursuant to Art. III Sec.III CL. II. We demand our Trial by Jury to hear these crimes pursuant to Art. III Sec.II Cl. III and the 7th Amendment. “””

    Posted: Dec 07, 2014 12:41 am CST
    Reply to this comment

  • Tim Lahrman said:

    I know this attorney, I know about the blog, the poor woman under guardianship, and I know of her daughter. I support every persons’ right to free speech, association and conscience but I do not agree with attorney Dennison’s selection of words, phrases and legal perceptions upon which she founded her blog. I am not convinced that attorney Dennison effectively communicated on the subject matter or with her formulation of the legal issues. I predicted she would be disciplined if not disbarred over this blog and I am not proud of the fact I was right, never mind in spirit and intent attorney Dennison is right also.

    In close, may I suggest to those with an interest in this story — this is not yet over and you may wish to take a look at and keep watch over case no 1:14-cv-07549 in the US District Court [ND Ill.] to follow the story of this elderly woman and her daughter who, on September 25, 2014, sued the State of Illinois and the Cook County Circuit Court Probate Division, et al. for disability discrimination in violation of Title II of the Americans’ With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12132; see also 28 CFR Part 35 et seq.

    Thank you to the ABA for running this important story, to the IARDC for its hubris for self-promotion of the story, and thank you again to the ABA for providing this public forum to accommodate the free exchange of information and ideas regarding this important subject involving significant concerns of historical public importance. As a society of persons and institutions both private and public, we will ultimately be judged on how we treat the most vulnerable among us. The practices of probate guardianship over our elderly and disabled population is known to be a deplorable national disgrace, Congress wrote a report on the subject in 1987 and sub-titled it, “A National Disgrace”, and in 1990 Congress passed the ADA because, if we cannot stop the corruption, at least we have the means within us and the historical political fortitude behind us to end the discrimination if we can get the story out and attain the remedy in time for Mary, and those like Mary, to smell again before it is too late the sweetness of personal liberty and freedom.

    Thank you kindly for hearing me out and for the equal opportunity to participate in this discussion.

    .

    Posted: Dec 07, 2014 01:54 am CST
    Reply to this comment

  • Marys_Niece said:

    What happened to Mary, and what has continued is disgraceful, disturbing and downright criminal. As a family, we tried to protect her from exactly what she feared the most. We have been unsuccessful.
    Why was Mary’s request for an order of protection ‘lost’?
    Why were Mary’s siblings and younger daughter not properly notified?
    Why was Mary not appointed an attorney when she requested one?
    Why have Mary’s videotaped requests been ignored by BOTH guardian ad litem?
    Why is Mary still isolated from her family?
    Why is Mary not allowed to speak to her daughter, sister, or nieces and nephews?
    Why did the Judge ignore Mary’s objections?
    Why was Mary’s house ‘sold out from under her’, as she feared would happen?

    And most importantly, why do those in charge turn a blind eye?

    Ms. Denison and Mr. Ditkowsky have had the courage to speak out, and enlighten others as to what may befall them in their twilight years. In reality, if there is enough $$$
    involved, it appears that this can happen to any one of us in our twilight years.

    Posted: Dec 07, 2014 02:26 am CST
    Reply to this comment

    • joanne denison said:

      Please note “Mary’s niece” was one of my witnesses at my trial. SHE was the one, a disabled person herself with a walker that argued with the judge that I was right there were in fact serious felonies committed and still are being committed (secreting Mary away, isolating her from 20+ friends and family and someone taking $1 million in gold coins IS criminal elder abuse 320 ILCS sec 20/4 and IS a class X felony in Illinois. The blog does not lie. There are strings of felonies being committed in probate, the judges regularly quash discovery on them–as in the Sykes case. At my trial Gloria finally served a subpeona on the bank and it turned out the Judge was never told nor a court order obtained, that the safety deposit box containing the coins (belonging to Mary and Gloria jointly) was drilled out soon after the guardian was appointed! And yes, by the end of the case $350k of Mary’s assets were liquidated and ALL went to attorneys fees! not a dime to Mary. It’s all shameful, the nadir of the legal profession and it’s all on the blog. We should all be demanding a grand jury investigation of Jerome Larkin

      Posted: Dec 07, 2014 11:40 am CST
      Reply to this comment

    • joanne denison said:

      And I want to thank the niece and her 85 year old mother for coming down to testify for me when both are disabled it’s hard for them to walk. But I also want to make of record is the way the ARDC Tribunal treated them which was utterly shameful. They tried to convince the neice and her mother that the case was “sour grapes”, they lost and to “go away.” They were downright rude to them and clearly indifferent to human pain and suffering, which as we all know is a sign of psychosis. Those are the people they get on these tribunals–goons and thugs indifferent to human pain and suffering. 99 year old Alice Gore had her 29 gold teeth pulled and a feeding tube inserted against her will–she wanted to eat. But the nursing homes don’t want to spend 15 min cutting, chopping and hand feeding the elderly so they they pull any valuable teeth and insert a feed tube they hand twice per day. This is as bad as the worst state run orphanages in China, yet hundreds of “professionals” know about it, do it or aide in it and no one speaks out. Jerome Larkin knows about it. Does he do anything? No, he actively sends out letters arguing with family members that strings of felonies, the theft of millions, the isolation and abuse of seniors does not in fact exist when in fact it does. He is not just indifferent to human suffering he will adamantly have his goons and thugs write and argue it does not exist.

      Posted: Dec 07, 2014 11:51 am CST
      Reply to this comment

    • joanne denison said:

      Another little correction to Tim’s post is not only did he tell me that I would be disciplined/disbarred for speaking the truth about the Sykes case, but so did many, many other probate victims and attorneys. As someone above noted, it is better in Illinois to be the liar than to point out the liar and the lies, it is better to be the thief than to point out the thief and the theft. And while Tim has told me he would like to change certain thinks about my blog or the way I write, I have never refused any request to post or comment. The ARDC, conversely does not run a full and fair blog, it does not allow comments, but it claims to be truth and justice.

      Posted: Dec 07, 2014 01:40 pm CST
      Reply to this comment

    • joanne denison said:

      Oh! Oh! I know the answer to where did the orders of protection go to and where we found them–both Gloria’ and Mary’s (Gloria was beaten by Fred Toerpe, the Guardian’s husband, and the Petition for Order of Protection was “lost”). It’s on the blog. Apparently there is a clerk in a division with a shelf with about a 1′ stack of “lost” court pleadings. You know the ones the court system’s friends want to deep 6? Yeah, I found it in that stack one day, hunting from clerk to clerk, court room to court room and supervisor to supervisor to get to those. I reported it to the FBI, but it’s amazing in this day and age, to find blatant corruption where a stack of dozens of deep sized documents exist on some back room shelf, never to be heard from again, and not on the electronic docket. That went on the blog too. I bet that stack is still there and no one did anything about it.

      Posted: Dec 07, 2014 02:45 pm CST
      Reply to this comment

  • gordon dempsey said:

    For a 3 year suspension of a top ten law school grad who passed out flyers, criticizing exploitive values and behavior in the bankruptcy cartel and state government in Indiana, see foundationforlegalreform.org/why Hoosiers should vote no on Judge massa Nov 4, and gentileassociation.org/the courts. Gentile v State Bar of Nevada (1991) ignored again.

    Posted: Dec 07, 2014 06:19 am CST
    Reply to this comment

  • John said:

    Appointments, guardianships, Administration, all part of the club, those in benefit ,.those out grouse

    Posted: Dec 07, 2014 06:39 am CST
    Reply to this comment

  • Oversee said:

    (No Subject)

    Mary Mieczynski

    11/18/12

    To: Mary Mieczynski

    Hello,

    My name is Mary Mieczynski and I am in a battle for my sons freedom. This predator guardian (Rebecca Fierle) and her pen toting lawyers will destroy his life. They already have put his whole family through absolute hell. Anthonys Mother, Mary is retired from the Gov. his Father Allen is 100% disabled ex -military. Fierle and her lawyers have confiscated $330,000.00 from the Mieczynski . This money was from the sale of their home in 2006. The so-called professional guardian has taken thousand of dollars from her victims. My son receives $3,600.00 a month from an annuity his parents fought for back in 1983. Anthony, (My son) has NOT received a dime from his annuity after this Fierle got a judge to give it over to her (2006.) Fierle also would be very rude and inconsiderate toward Anthony. When Anthony called Fierle and wanted to know about his money and what she spent, Fierle would slam the phone down with Anthony on the other end. She would state:” Go talk to the Judge.” After three to four calls to her over a week, Fierle was outraged and stated to Anthony over the phone, “ If you call me anymore I will put you in the crazy house.” Anthony has lived indepentedly and has not seen Fierle for over four years . Anthony removed himself from Fierles evil plan back in July 2008.

    Fierle spends all of Anthony’s money on herself, her Lawyers and their staff. In other wards they Feed financially off him. Anthony went to three forensic psychologists and all three stated that Anthony is competent. When we gave the reports to the Seminole court house in Sanford Florida the judge stated : ‘I won’t except these reports.” No-One has help stop this injustice to date. We wrote to and called the so-called authorities. NO-ONE is or will set the record straight for my son and out family.

    Thank You,

    Mary Mieczynski 772-924

    Posted: Dec 07, 2014 09:07 am CST
    Reply to this comment

  • Oversee said:

    STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF

    Before me this day personally who,being duly

    Sworn, Deposes and Says:

    In The Circuit Court, Of The

    18th Judicial Circuit, In And

    For Seminole County, Florida

    Probate Division Case No. 2006-GA-1828

    In RE: Guardianship of

    AnüM)ny Mieczynski,

    Date: 01-06-2013

    Rebuttal to Ian Gildens Formal Notices dated 12-07-2012

    To Start Gilden put the name of Charles William Nabors as the alleged incapacitated person and then linking Allen Mieczynski and Mary Mieczynski names with a bogus case number: CASE NO. 48-

    2012-CP-000958-O. is going on! I would call this gross incompetency at the least. Why is no-one putting a stop to this. Falsifring a legal document is a felony.

    Who is he to demand a judgment or ask for relief from us. Ihe Mieczynski family never wanted anything to do with Ian Gilden or Rebecca Fierle, Dobbins, Santoian. They protested their involvement

    from the in May 2007 , We will continue to protest this hardship today md in the future.

    Wayne Mcdonough has replaced Fierle with another guardim in Indian River county where Anthony Mieczynski (my son) lives with his Mother and Father.

    To Petition by Guardian For Authorization To Employ investinent Advisor and To

    Invest Guardianship Funds

    ( Evidence found on Rebecca Fierle, This shows that Fierle is Unfit to be Anthony s Guardian)

    See-Exhibit: A-I and A-2: Guardianship of Ruth M. Taylor File No. 48-2004-CP-002139-O

    See-Exhibit: A-3 andA4•. Ruth W. Thompson File No. 2002-11361-PRDL

    See-Exhibit: A-5 and A-6 : Herman Thornburg Case NO. 2005-CP-003110-0

    See-Exhibit•. A-7 to A- 10 Private investigator

    See-Exhibit: A-11 Shows Fierles Bankruptcies

    See-Exhibit: A-12 and A-13: Citifinmcial Equity Services Inc vs, Fierle, Rebecca (Foreclosure Prop.) See-Exhibit: A-14 to A-22 : Info. given by Private investigator

    See-Exhibit: A-23 And A-24: Statement dated 8-27-2008

    See-Exhibit: A-25 : Statement dated 5-23-08

    See-Exhibit: A-26: Lake Mary police report- via Fierle. Wanted Anthony locked-up??

    See Exhibit: A-27 and A-28: Dr. Belsky M.D. A Forensic Psychiatry ( dated 😦 9-23-2008).

    See-Exhibit: A-29 : A letter from Anthony to Ian Gilden 10-30-2007

    Posted: Dec 07, 2014 09:42 am CST
    Reply to this comment

  • gem said:

    I have no legal training but I think I have some analytical skills and what I see here has to most certainly do with the continued growth of a “monster”. The monster that is rapidly growing, is called “Base Feelings”. This monster is growing from the disregard in out great nation of the basic core values that were so important generations ago. Out of a stream of discontent,indifference, and the “what do you have go give Me” attitude in our great nation today, we can conclude that the marriage of Avarice and Greed have become the parents of this monster! .
    “Base feelings” is fighting against the opposing siblings wanting to remain alive in our nation, with names such as “Speak the Truth” Defend Rights, Honor Human Life, Respect the Elderly or Disabled, Take Responsibility, End all Abuse , Defend the Defenseless, Have Integrity, and Fight for Restoration of our Constitutional Ideals of Civil and
    Human Rights! This is what I see Ms. Denison was trying to do here from the beginning, when she took on this blog, call for outrage of the wrongs that were permitted to go on in a courtroom that were wrongful, illegal and corrupt, going against our Constitutional Rights and against our basic freedom given to state our opinion as we see it! Ms. Dennison was doing what she thought was noble and correct. If everyone is going to be reprimanded in the SEVERE and UNJUST way this lady has, it is the beginning of the end of all that our Nation has held sacred for centuries. We would no longer be free, but insecure if and when we may be able to voice our opinions without fear of repercussions! Let’s consider the future of our children, what type of a world will they have living in fear or retaliation, in a broken system who only defends and covers only the powerful “good ole boy country club” attorneys and squashes and abuses the rest and their petitions in Courts! This episode of corruption and fraud in the Courts is happening in a stedy flow in the guardianship cases particularly, inside the Probate Courts! This needs to be STOPPED before more lives under guardianship abuse!!!! Let’s live up to the standards of our Founding Fathers tried to instill on our Nation…!

    Posted: Dec 07, 2014 10:28 am CST
    Reply to this comment

  • gem said:

    Last sentence in my posting..”needs to be stopped before more lives perish under fraudulently appointed guardians and their continued guardianship abuse….on our Nation…! Shame on corruption and fraud in the Courts, and on completely unfair rulings due to retaliation by the persons exposed!!!!

    Posted: Dec 07, 2014 10:41 am CST
    Reply to this comment

  • Janet Phelan said:

    In the process of researching the ARDC for an article subsequently published in New Eastern Outlook, I came upon the stunning realization that Mr. Jerome Larkin and his band of merry men over at the ARDC are utter scofflaws. They have not filed their mandated ethics (financial) disclosures and refuse to return reporter phone calls when the rationale for this is questioned. So once again, Greylord raises its ugly head. Why are the attorneys at the ARDC not filing statements of their financial status and income? Why is the Illinois Supreme Court not responding to this disclosure? This financial disclosure hanky panky was also revealed on JoAnne Denison’s blog. To my way of thinking, this is another case of Kill The Messenger. Denison is to be honored for her bravery.

    Posted: Dec 07, 2014 11:15 am CST
    Reply to this comment

  • Gloria Jean Sykes said:

    I am the other daughter, and I will be responding shortly. No other person has all of the facts regarding this case and if you want the facts, please contact me. gloami@msn.com (FYI I have attempted to respond but my computer keeps locking up). That said, I will have a response to all of this but in he meanwhile, I welcome any emails. As the Texas Rangers once said,”No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that’s in the right and keeps on a-comin’.”

    I will not be scared off and I will keep on a comin’ until I save my mother’s life.

    Hopefully all of you can handle the truth. Stay tuned.

    FYI Please if you want the facts read the transfripts on the blog MaryGSykes, in particular, the August and September 2009 transcripts.

    Posted: Dec 07, 2014 11:49 am CST
    Reply to this comment

  • Janet Phelan said:

    What is happening in this matter is not confined to the state of Illinois. Attorneys across the country who are speaking out against court corruption are being suspénded or disbarred. Andy Ostrowski, Richard Fine, Grant Goodman, Don Bailey, the list just keeps getting longer. The message being sent to attorneys is quite clear—toe the line and keep your mouth shut. I report on these issues for New Eastern Outlook and have also written a book about my own experience in guardianship court, entitled EXILE. I would encourage anyone who thinks that JoAnne Denison got a fair hearing in front of the ARDC panel to read the transcripts. They are, of course, up on her infamous blog. Then, you can go hold a memorial service for Justice, because she has expired.

    Posted: Dec 07, 2014 01:25 pm CST
    Reply to this comment

    • Gloria Jean Sykes said:

      Unfortunately Janet, you and I and almost everyone else is on the outside looking in — and the victims on the inside, like my mother, are silenced by being isolated, held hostage by the perpetrator(s) who are protected by the Cottage Industry of attorneys, discriminating against the elderly and disabled. There may be others but I only know of one person on the inside willing to speak — but regretfully, ignored by advocates on the outside. Justice has not expired — she’s just waiting for the right case to land on her desk. I believe that case has been filed and to date, none of the defendants have appeared or answered.

      There are many scholars, judiciary, and non-attorneys who today are making a difference in this cause —

      At the time the ISC rules in this case, I and my colleague will complete our investigaive report on Adult Guardianshiip and I hope the ABA will publishe it, along wih the national main=stream media who have already agreed to publish the investigative report.

      In sum I did not testify. My mother did not tesify at the ARDC proceeding for either JD or Ken Ditkowsky. And as all these blog reports are fiine and dandy, until I (and prayerfully my mother) speak to the public regarding this case at bar, as unjust as it may be, and is, the IARDC’s opinions and speculations, and one-sided look at the Sykes case remains just that: one sided with terstimony from the perpetrators, attorneys Peter Schmiedel, Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga, Judge Jane Louise Stuart and Judge Maureen Connors.

      I disagree that the message is to keep ones mouth shut. I believe the IARDC is challenging all of us, attorneys and non-attorneys and praying that all of us are cowards.

      Keep looking at this from the outside looking in, and you can’t prevail.

      But then, I’m just ‘the oher daughter of Mary G. Sykes.

      Posted: Dec 07, 2014 02:08 pm CST
      Reply to this comment

      • Gloria Jean Sykes said:

        I’ll have my personal response posted by tomorrow morning.

        Thank you all for your time and interest in this issue.

        Again, I am open for discussion via personal email, gloami@msn.com

        Posted: Dec 07, 2014 02:10 pm CST
        Reply to this comment

      • joanne denison said:

        that is correct. Gloria did not testify because the Tribunal banned her because she refused to turn over 12,000+ emails to me over 5 years–most of which were either attorney client privileged (which I did not breach, even for the likes of this Tribunal), or they were covered under the Illinois Reporter’s Privilege. Gloria holds that. I do not. And the IARDC rules do not allow me to breach Illinois law to get at her stuff.
        Conversely, the IARDC witnesses–Judge Connor (no longer in probate, at 2nd circuit writing decisions on jurisdiction, the jursidction she missed in Sykes; Judge Stuart who changed her testimony on the stand and the transcript was altered (spoliation of evidence) and the ARDC refused to order the court reporter to turn over the audio; Sharon Opryszek, litigation counsel who I filed a motion to remove because of her prior witness tampering and changing transcripts (yes, there is a pattern at the ARDC), Peter Schmeidel who swore up and down he assiduously and selfless cared for his wards and all his other (friend) judges and attorneys liked him (honor among thieves, you ask me), but in 5 years, he never saw Mary but got over $200k from her $350k liquidated assets; Adam Stern with his $60k tax lien appearing sometime after $1 million is missing in gold coins from the Sykes estate and he blocks all discovery (why is that needed?); Cynthia Farenga, whose husband has over 100 property transactions on his public property records, etc. has closed up her office. Judge Stuart is gone, I’d like to know about her “sudden retirement”. You get the point. These people are “doing the nasty” in probate and they are the ones the Tribunal chooses to side with to protect their own at the ARDC. And how are those Tribunals chosen anyway? It’s clearly not random.

        Posted: Dec 07, 2014 02:54 pm CST
        Reply to this comment

  • c farenga said:

    I am commenting for one reason only, and then in a limited way. JoAnne, Ken and Gloria and Tim Lahrman have been publishing untruths and fabrications about Mary Sykes” case for the last 4 1/2 years and they are not going to stop.. The denial of their complaints, which JD,, KD and GS have in total filed in virtually every court level including state and federal, in multiple divisions of state court, of appeals and requests for reconsideration, all of which they have lost, speaks to the untruths of their claims. There is no way that every court, panel and individual judge from the 7th Circuit down is corrupt. As the briefest example of their untruths, I have not retired from the practice of law , let alone for any reason related to the Sykes case. JD has made this claimed before and I have corrected her, just as I have informed her that the real estate transactions she accuses my husband of making (not that she has described what is wrong with them) were not made by my husband, who has a very common first and last name. One last clarification, and I am limiting my comments because I too could write endlessly about this case : Gloria Jean Sykes HERSELF filed a petition to have her mother declared a disabled person (incompetent) . She could not possibly have more clearly submitted herself to the Court’s jurisdiction. A hearing took place at which she presented witnesses and cross-examined them. The saddest fact of all is that Gloria Sykes has refused to visit her mother because of the Court’s requirement that a supervisor be present. Regardless of her vehement opposition to this requirement, she has chosen to deprive her mother of her company rather than abide by a condition which might have been waived n the future if she’d comported herself during any visits she’d chosen to make. Adam Stern and I beseeched her to visit her mother despite needing a supervisor and told her that her case would in no way be legally prejudiced by using a supervisor. Yes, she could have been visiting her mother but preferred to make another choice. Both Adam and I volunteered to serve as supervisor without charge in order for a visit to take place. Actions speak louder than words. These people are living in their own universe. Their untruths to my comment will be forthcoming..

    Posted: Dec 07, 2014 03:50 pm CST
    Reply to this comment

    • Janet Phelan said:

      Nonsense, Cynthia. I have read your testimony from the official transcripots and you inpeach your own credibility. For example (and the limits of time and space here impel me to focus on this, for now) you state in your testimony that you don’t know anything about the me gold coins that Denison, Ditkowsky etc allege are unaccounted for. Then you state, well, maybe there were one or two….THAT’S LIKE BEING A LITTLE BIT PREGNANT, MS. fARENGA. EITHER THERE ARE NO GOLD COINS AND THIS IS A MATTER OF OBJECTIVE REALITY OR THERE WERE A NUMBER OF GOLD COINS AND WHERE ARE THEY?

      Posted: Dec 07, 2014 04:19 pm CST
      Reply to this comment

    • Gloria Jean Sykes said:

      Ms..Farenga, I’m glad you surfaced, unhappy that you still believe you can pursue your agenda now commenting on an ABA article (IARDC press release), complete with misinformation and, well, lies. Your testimony for ARDC hearings regarding the Sykes case are contrary to what you state above. Regarding what I did or did not do, I did not testify because I was prevented by Jerome Larson and attorneys. That said, please all who would like to k now the facts, the transcripts are available on the MaryGSykes blog. You will read that I always reported to the court, when given the opportunity, my mother was highly competent: transcripts from August 26, 2009 and September 21, 2009 evidence this. I will say no more, except to invite Cynthia Farenga to a public LIVE stream interview where a known and respected reporter will interview Farenga and me. You can bring all your alleged evidence, and I will provide the public all of my evidence, including but not limited to all of the digital recording of my mother at supervised visits — and from June 2013, from the Sunrise Senior Living, LLC, where Toerpe placed my mother without a court order. We can do the LIVE stream interview the 27, 28, or after court on the 29th December, 2014. (I invite all interested people to attend the 29th December proceeding where I have refiled and should be heard a request for change of venue to he Elder Law Division and for the Court to comply with Title II of the ADA. Courtroom 1804, 10 a.m., Daley Center, Chicago)

      I await your response to my invitation Cynthia Farenga, and we can end all this back and forth, she said/he said BS. Let’s let the naion, he world decide who is telling the truth. One thing: my mother must be present and have an opportunity to speak her truth.

      Again, I’m glad you surfaced Cynthia Farenga.

      Posted: Dec 07, 2014 05:58 pm CST
      Reply to this comment

    • Tim Lahrman said:

      I am commenting for one reason only, because my name has been used and my integrity put in issue and so I will begin by saying that I agree with you Cynthia, it is not corrupt from top to bottom and in fact, not only do I not refer to this matter as involving corruption it is well known that I do not agree with formulating the legal issues on any theory of corruption. I see the situation and issues as being discrimination — and I am eager to see the ADA case move forward. Sadly I don’t get much help with what I do — everyone else in the cause is running around either lobbying legislatures to write new laws or otherwise screaming about corruption, that I am extremely busy and so I’ll be brief, and limited in what I address while un-spinning your legal fictions.

      In a post last evening I laid out the early history of this matter up to the point of the guardianship commencing and a petition for a domestic violence protective order. So, lets disclose truthfully Cynthia that at the inception of the guardianship and when you received notice of the first hearing and your appointment — you wrote a letter to the court indicating that you would not be in attendance for any hearing and that you believed the hearing was improvident because it appeared that Mary had not been served and in fact that she was residing in DuPage County not Cook County. Is this letter true Cynthia? I have read it, you signed it, so tell me, what is true? Truth is that you wrote and sent the letter to the court and it is likewise true that you did not appear at the hearing, right? It is also true that you know what happened at the hearing, but you learned what happened after the fact. True? So you know and I know that at the hearing the outcast daughter/petitioner, who secreted the mother out to DuPage County and away from her home in Cook County, did not bring the mother to court and so in court for this 1st guardianship hearing were the outcast daughter/petitioner, the joint tenant daughter and two sisters of the mother. It is also true that the joint tenant daughter and the mother’s two sisters had not been served on the guardianship matter but rather they were present in the probate court on notice of hearing from the Family Relations Division that the domestic violence protective order petition had been transferred to probate. – I can only imagine the poor judge at this hearing — the judge has a guardianship petition up for call, the petitioner is present w/counsel, the appointed GAL is not present, and here are three family members believing they are in court for the protective order matter who have no idea about the guardianship petition. So what happened Cynthia, truth is Adam Stern happens to be in the courtroom and the court appoints him “Special GAL”, orders him to investigate and report to the court before the next hearing. True Cynthia? Yes, it is, we know. So you learn of all this from Adam Stern after the fact and as GALS you both do some “investigation” in order to report to the court at the next hearing. True? Okay so the 2nd hearing date arrives and at the hearing the mother is now present, petitioner by counsel, the joint tenant daughter with counsel accompanied by the mothers two sisters, and what happens Cynthia? Did you and Adam Stern file written GAL reports? Truth is no, there were no written GAL reports filed. Truth is you had little to say and Adam Stern did most all the talking, truth is that Adam Stern w/o one fragment of evidence or any evidence of how he did his investigation upon what criteria simply blurted out —- “Gloria [the joint tenant daughter] abuses her mom and has financially exploited her”, and we all know that the mother responded to the court clearly by saying [paraphrasing and w/o referring to official transcript] your Honor I would like to correct that young man, my daughter Gloria would never abuse me. True, right Cynthia ? True also that you stood there silent at the second hearing and said nothing more about the service of process and venue issues either, right Cynthia?

      And know, a pause for the cause — because its now Cynthia’s turn to address the truths rather than spin the matter upon her formulations of what are the untruths. I mean, after all, how could we ever know what is untrue until we know just what is true. I respectfully yield the next post to Cynthia for her response and I reserve any further comment as may be needed. I saw she does not respond — I bet a cup of coffee and a doughnut it.

      Posted: Dec 07, 2014 08:12 pm CST
      Reply to this comment

      • KenDitkowsky said:

        Ms. Farenga had the courage to speak out. I do not see Mr. Stern, Ms. Schmiedel, Mr. Larkin or any of the people who have acted in concert to place Mary Sykes in her own gulag.

        Ms. Farenga has a right to speak out, comment, and even torture the facts so that they are unrecognizable. This is the right that JoAnne and everyone who has commented on the article in the ABA journal depicting a felony assault on the First Amendment by a unit of the Supreme court of Illinois.

        It is our collective duty to fight to the death to protect Ms. Farenga’s First Amendment Rights even if she opposes us having such rights. This is a core value of America!

        It is too bad that so many lawyers do not understand our heritage and the oath that they took when they became lawyers. It is a shame that the public is paying six figure salaries to these lawyers and that they are able to infringe on our rights protected by the BILL of Rights. (NB. For the benefit of Mr. Larkin – that is the first ten amendments to the US constitution).

        No matter how you slice it – the JoAnne Denison decision referred to in the ABA article is a warning! DO NOT TAKE YOUR RIGHTS AS A CITIZEN FORGRANTED!

        Posted: Dec 07, 2014 11:08 pm CST
        Reply to this comment

    • KenDitkowsky said:

      Ms. Farenga has been challenged to prove that the allegations made in the Sykes case are untrue. let us start with Jurisdiction:

      1) examine file 09 P4585 and show anyone a summons that meets the requirements of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10. No only will you not find one, but there is also no return of service.
      2) Show us any affidavit of service upon either Mary’s two siblings or her young daughter 14 days prior to a hearing on her competency. There is none in the file
      3) Show evidence of the Court ever hearing an incompetency hearing. Again you will find none. Of course you will find some action that ignored step one and the criterion of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3. Thus, you have a clear example of railroading.
      4) Now lets address the gold coins. There was about a million dollars in gold coins removed from a safety deposit box. Where is the inventory. As Farenga and Stern were not present and the IARDC never called anyone was familar with the contents of the safety deposit box how could any reasonable person suggest that something was needed to be looked into.
      5. Why are there two guardian ad litem?
      6. Each allegation made is supported by an affidavit. The allegations of corruption are backed up by the evidence deposition of one judge, the resignation of another judge etc.

      Distortion of the averments is a favorite technique of the miscreants. No one suggested that all the judges are corrupt – however, it is very clear that some of those assigned to the probate division are not kosher. It is also apparent that on a level playing field Ms. Farenga would not be a favorite. Farenga is fully aware that while that knowing that the notice requirements of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10 are jurisdictional nevertheless not only was involved in conduct that most citizens would consider inappropriate but never made any effort to protect the very rights that the statute sought to protect.
      Of course, she never reported to the Court such suspicious conduct on the part of the guardian as:
      1) demonstrating sudden wealth
      2) wrongful and consistent isolation of Mary from her family. On one recent occasion the family found Mary had been moved to a nursing home. They drove out to see Mary only to be threatened with arrest, forced to destroy pictures of Mary, etc.
      It was not until the guardian admitted to her own personal negligence to a family member that it was learned of Mary’s trips to Edwards Hospital. Of course Farenga denied it as she makes her excused herein.

      One of the problems with the elder cleansers is that the word “truth” has a meaning that is foreign to the rest of it. To the miscreant elder cleansers Truth is what they want it to be, not what it is.

      It is really said that Farenga attempts to justify the isolation with the suggestion that somehow an award winning journalist (Gloria Sykes) who has been invited into the company of the President of the United States has to have a supervision to see her mother.
      Such is per se abuse that Ms. Farenga has admitted!

      As a side I saw one of the bills submitted by the supervisor – several hundred dollars was charged for services rendered a dog! (I saw the bill when Ms. Sykes exhibited it on a public access television show called Cooper’s corner!)

      I do not have say anything further. Ms. Farenga has condemned herself in her own statement. Talk to any of the victims of elder cleansing and their families. Each has virtually the same complaint.

      The Americans with Disabilities Act is the law of the United STates and also Illinois. How is having two guardian at litem appointed who essentially act as additional attorneys for the plenary guardian a reasonable accommodation? How is removing an not inventorying a million dollars in gold coins a reasonable accommodation? How is the admitted isolation of a citzen a reasonable accommodation?

      Posted: Dec 07, 2014 10:54 pm CST
      Reply to this comment

  • Tom Youngjohn said:

    This article sums up my general problem with Bar Associations censoring attorneys’ conduct. The proper thing would have been for any aggrieved individuals to have sued Denison for libel. Tell me I’m wrong. But what this looks like is the offended individuals (who carried weight with people who carried weight with the Bar Association’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel) didn’t buddy up to the right people at the Bar, and G-d forbid attorneys exercise their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. I’m trying to be polite. Heaven help me were I to clearly express my feelings.

    Posted: Dec 07, 2014 09:18 pm CST
    Reply to this comment

    • Tim Lahrman said:

      shocking to the conscience is it not? I think so, I also think the IARDC has done more harm to the public’s confidence in the integrity of the profession than Dennison ever caused.

      Posted: Dec 07, 2014 09:57 pm CST
      Reply to this comment

      • Tom Youngjohn said:

        “didn’t buddy up to the right people” should be “buddied up…” Goodness.
        Anyway, look. I’m biased against Bar Associations. I either have a blind spot that I didn’t have before, or I see things more clearly. Either way, free speech should remain that way. And that’s a bias I’d guess more than a few here would share.

        Posted: Dec 07, 2014 10:12 pm CST
        Reply to this comment

        • KenDitkowsky said:

          When I was young lawyer in 1961 I was told that in Cook County, Illinois it was not what you know, but who you knew. It is sad, but true. Read the Farenga comment! She is well aware that every statement that either JoAnne Denison or I made was backed up with either affidavits or testimony. The playing field that Mr. Larkin and the IARDC present is not level. Without specifics Farenga can call a fact that everyone knows is a fact and absolutely accurate a lie, and not only with the IARDC declare it an untruth, but his panels and the Supreme Court of Illinois will mouth it as true.

          I believe the motivation for Farenga’s letter is the mention of her husbands involvement in real estate transactions.

          One of the scandals that has been noted is the fact that judicial sales are usually sales as a discount, and in these guardianship cases a 700,000 dollar property can be sold for a little over 200,000 dollars. This appears to have been the situation in the Sykes case. The court routinely rubber stamps these transactions. (The Sykes property was reported to have been appraised at 700. The miscreants are reported to have represented that it had to be sold because of *****. Up popped a politically connected broker and a sale was arranged. (at a little over 200,000). Quite obviously the purchaser is a nominee. By a series of mesne sales it is expected that the miscreants will sell the Real Estate to the Ultimate purchaser for something North of $700,000. It is believed that many of the sales are run through a series of nominees who get paid for their service. We do not know for sure, but, there are people who believe that Ms. Farenga’s husband has been involved in some of these transactions.

          The long and short is that a profit of about 1/2 million will be ultimately made on the subject property.

          The ward (i.e. the elder under guardianship) will be short changed by a 1/2 million dollars. The miscreants will report their 1/2 million dollar profit as a capital gain and have a nice piece of change for a couple days work.

          NB. As these funds have been derived from a breach of fiduciary relationship the money should be taxed as ordinary income for both Federal and State purposes. I’ve written the Justice Department about this situation .

          If Ms. Farenga’s husband is involved in any of these transactions (especially those in which she is a guardian) it would be ample motivation for her to try to feel the need to justify the amorality that is openly and notorious exhibited in the Mary Sykes case 09 P 4585 (Cook County).

          Tom – if you knew the right people you could be a millionaire! The only criterion is that you lack a moral compass!

          Posted: Dec 07, 2014 11:45 pm CST
          Reply to this comment

        • KenDitkowsky said:

          When I was young lawyer in 1961 I was told that in Cook County, Illinois it was not what you know, but who you knew. It is sad, but true. Read the Farenga comment! She is well aware that every statement that either JoAnne Denison or I made was backed up with either affidavits or testimony. The playing field that Mr. Larkin and the IARDC present is not level. Without specifics Farenga can call a fact that everyone knows is a fact and absolutely accurate a lie, and not only with the IARDC declare it an untruth, but his panels and the Supreme Court of Illinois will mouth it as true.

          I believe the motivation for Farenga’s letter is the mention of her husbands involvement in real estate transactions.

          One of the scandals that has been noted is the fact that judicial sales are usually sales as a discount, and in these guardianship cases a 700,000 dollar property can be sold for a little over 200,000 dollars. This appears to have been the situation in the Sykes case. The court routinely rubber stamps these transactions. (The Sykes property was reported to have been appraised at 700. The miscreants are reported to have represented that it had to be sold because of *****. Up popped a politically connected broker and a sale was arranged. (at a little over 200,000). Quite obviously the purchaser is a nominee. By a series of mesne sales it is expected that the miscreants will sell the Real Estate to the Ultimate purchaser for something North of $700,000. It is believed that many of the sales are run through a series of nominees who get paid for their service. We do not know for sure, but, there are people who believe that Ms. Farenga’s husband has been involved in some of these transactions.

          The long and short is that a profit of about 1/2 million will be ultimately made on the subject property.

          The ward (i.e. the elder under guardianship) will be short changed by a 1/2 million dollars. The miscreants will report their 1/2 million dollar profit as a capital gain and have a nice piece of change for a couple days work.

          NB. As these funds have been derived from a breach of fiduciary relationship the money should be taxed as ordinary income for both Federal and State purposes. I’ve written the Justice Department about this situation .

          If Ms. Farenga’s husband is involved in any of these transactions (especially those in which she is a guardian) it would be ample motivation for her to try to feel the need to justify the amorality that is openly and notorious exhibited in the Mary Sykes case 09 P 4585 (Cook County).

          Tom – if you knew the right people you could be a millionaire! The only criterion is that you lack a moral compass!

          Posted: Dec 07, 2014 11:45 pm CST
          Reply to this comment

        • KenDitkowsky said:

          When I was young lawyer in 1961 I was told that in Cook County, Illinois it was not what you know, but who you knew. It is sad, but true. Read the Farenga comment! She is well aware that every statement that either JoAnne Denison or I made was backed up with either affidavits or testimony. The playing field that Mr. Larkin and the IARDC present is not level. Without specifics Farenga can call a fact that everyone knows is a fact and absolutely accurate a lie, and not only with the IARDC declare it an untruth, but his panels and the Supreme Court of Illinois will mouth it as true.

          I believe the motivation for Farenga’s letter is the mention of her husbands involvement in real estate transactions.

          One of the scandals that has been noted is the fact that judicial sales are usually sales as a discount, and in these guardianship cases a 700,000 dollar property can be sold for a little over 200,000 dollars. This appears to have been the situation in the Sykes case. The court routinely rubber stamps these transactions. (The Sykes property was reported to have been appraised at 700. The miscreants are reported to have represented that it had to be sold because of *****. Up popped a politically connected broker and a sale was arranged. (at a little over 200,000). Quite obviously the purchaser is a nominee. By a series of mesne sales it is expected that the miscreants will sell the Real Estate to the Ultimate purchaser for something North of $700,000. It is believed that many of the sales are run through a series of nominees who get paid for their service. We do not know for sure, but, there are people who believe that Ms. Farenga’s husband has been involved in some of these transactions.

          The long and short is that a profit of about 1/2 million will be ultimately made on the subject property.

          The ward (i.e. the elder under guardianship) will be short changed by a 1/2 million dollars. The miscreants will report their 1/2 million dollar profit as a capital gain and have a nice piece of change for a couple days work.

          NB. As these funds have been derived from a breach of fiduciary relationship the money should be taxed as ordinary income for both Federal and State purposes. I’ve written the Justice Department about this situation .

          If Ms. Farenga’s husband is involved in any of these transactions (especially those in which she is a guardian) it would be ample motivation for her to try to feel the need to justify the amorality that is openly and notorious exhibited in the Mary Sykes case 09 P 4585 (Cook County).

          Tom – if you knew the right people you could be a millionaire! The only criterion is that you lack a moral compass!

          Posted: Dec 07, 2014 11:45 pm CST
          Reply to this comment

        • KenDitkowsky said:

          When I was young lawyer in 1961 I was told that in Cook County, Illinois it was not what you know, but who you knew. It is sad, but true. Read the Farenga comment! She is well aware that every statement that either JoAnne Denison or I made was backed up with either affidavits or testimony. The playing field that Mr. Larkin and the IARDC present is not level. Without specifics Farenga can call a fact that everyone knows is a fact and absolutely accurate a lie, and not only with the IARDC declare it an untruth, but his panels and the Supreme Court of Illinois will mouth it as true.

          I believe the motivation for Farenga’s letter is the mention of her husbands involvement in real estate transactions.

          One of the scandals that has been noted is the fact that judicial sales are usually sales as a discount, and in these guardianship cases a 700,000 dollar property can be sold for a little over 200,000 dollars. This appears to have been the situation in the Sykes case. The court routinely rubber stamps these transactions. (The Sykes property was reported to have been appraised at 700. The miscreants are reported to have represented that it had to be sold because of *****. Up popped a politically connected broker and a sale was arranged. (at a little over 200,000). Quite obviously the purchaser is a nominee. By a series of mesne sales it is expected that the miscreants will sell the Real Estate to the Ultimate purchaser for something North of $700,000. It is believed that many of the sales are run through a series of nominees who get paid for their service. We do not know for sure, but, there are people who believe that Ms. Farenga’s husband has been involved in some of these transactions.

          The long and short is that a profit of about 1/2 million will be ultimately made on the subject property.

          The ward (i.e. the elder under guardianship) will be short changed by a 1/2 million dollars. The miscreants will report their 1/2 million dollar profit as a capital gain and have a nice piece of change for a couple days work.

          NB. As these funds have been derived from a breach of fiduciary relationship the money should be taxed as ordinary income for both Federal and State purposes. I’ve written the Justice Department about this situation .

          If Ms. Farenga’s husband is involved in any of these transactions (especially those in which she is a guardian) it would be ample motivation for her to try to feel the need to justify the amorality that is openly and notorious exhibited in the Mary Sykes case 09 P 4585 (Cook County).

          Tom – if you knew the right people you could be a millionaire! The only criterion is that you lack a moral compass!

          Posted: Dec 07, 2014 11:45 pm CST
          Reply to this comment

        • KenDitkowsky said:

          When I was young lawyer in 1961 I was told that in Cook County, Illinois it was not what you know, but who you knew. It is sad, but true. Read the Farenga comment! She is well aware that every statement that either JoAnne Denison or I made was backed up with either affidavits or testimony. The playing field that Mr. Larkin and the IARDC present is not level. Without specifics Farenga can call a fact that everyone knows is a fact and absolutely accurate a lie, and not only with the IARDC declare it an untruth, but his panels and the Supreme Court of Illinois will mouth it as true.

          I believe the motivation for Farenga’s letter is the mention of her husbands involvement in real estate transactions.

          One of the scandals that has been noted is the fact that judicial sales are usually sales as a discount, and in these guardianship cases a 700,000 dollar property can be sold for a little over 200,000 dollars. This appears to have been the situation in the Sykes case. The court routinely rubber stamps these transactions. (The Sykes property was reported to have been appraised at 700. The miscreants are reported to have represented that it had to be sold because of *****. Up popped a politically connected broker and a sale was arranged. (at a little over 200,000). Quite obviously the purchaser is a nominee. By a series of mesne sales it is expected that the miscreants will sell the Real Estate to the Ultimate purchaser for something North of $700,000. It is believed that many of the sales are run through a series of nominees who get paid for their service. We do not know for sure, but, there are people who believe that Ms. Farenga’s husband has been involved in some of these transactions.

          The long and short is that a profit of about 1/2 million will be ultimately made on the subject property.

          The ward (i.e. the elder under guardianship) will be short changed by a 1/2 million dollars. The miscreants will report their 1/2 million dollar profit as a capital gain and have a nice piece of change for a couple days work.

          NB. As these funds have been derived from a breach of fiduciary relationship the money should be taxed as ordinary income for both Federal and State purposes. I’ve written the Justice Department about this situation .

          If Ms. Farenga’s husband is involved in any of these transactions (especially those in which she is a guardian) it would be ample motivation for her to try to feel the need to justify the amorality that is openly and notorious exhibited in the Mary Sykes case 09 P 4585 (Cook County).

          Tom – if you knew the right people you could be a millionaire! The only criterion is that you lack a moral compass!

          Posted: Dec 07, 2014 11:45 pm CST
          Reply to this comment

        • KenDitkowsky said:

          When I was young lawyer in 1961 I was told that in Cook County, Illinois it was not what you know, but who you knew. It is sad, but true. Read the Farenga comment! She is well aware that every statement that either JoAnne Denison or I made was backed up with either affidavits or testimony. The playing field that Mr. Larkin and the IARDC present is not level. Without specifics Farenga can call a fact that everyone knows is a fact and absolutely accurate a lie, and not only with the IARDC declare it an untruth, but his panels and the Supreme Court of Illinois will mouth it as true.

          I believe the motivation for Farenga’s letter is the mention of her husbands involvement in real estate transactions.

          One of the scandals that has been noted is the fact that judicial sales are usually sales as a discount, and in these guardianship cases a 700,000 dollar property can be sold for a little over 200,000 dollars. This appears to have been the situation in the Sykes case. The court routinely rubber stamps these transactions. (The Sykes property was reported to have been appraised at 700. The miscreants are reported to have represented that it had to be sold because of *****. Up popped a politically connected broker and a sale was arranged. (at a little over 200,000). Quite obviously the purchaser is a nominee. By a series of mesne sales it is expected that the miscreants will sell the Real Estate to the Ultimate purchaser for something North of $700,000. It is believed that many of the sales are run through a series of nominees who get paid for their service. We do not know for sure, but, there are people who believe that Ms. Farenga’s husband has been involved in some of these transactions.

          The long and short is that a profit of about 1/2 million will be ultimately made on the subject property.

          The ward (i.e. the elder under guardianship) will be short changed by a 1/2 million dollars. The miscreants will report their 1/2 million dollar profit as a capital gain and have a nice piece of change for a couple days work.

          NB. As these funds have been derived from a breach of fiduciary relationship the money should be taxed as ordinary income for both Federal and State purposes. I’ve written the Justice Department about this situation .

          If Ms. Farenga’s husband is involved in any of these transactions (especially those in which she is a guardian) it would be ample motivation for her to try to feel the need to justify the amorality that is openly and notorious exhibited in the Mary Sykes case 09 P 4585 (Cook County).

          Tom – if you knew the right people you could be a millionaire! The only criterion is that you lack a moral compass!

          Posted: Dec 07, 2014 11:45 pm CST
          Reply to this comment

        • KenDitkowsky said:

          When I was young lawyer in 1961 I was told that in Cook County, Illinois it was not what you know, but who you knew. It is sad, but true. Read the Farenga comment! She is well aware that every statement that either JoAnne Denison or I made was backed up with either affidavits or testimony. The playing field that Mr. Larkin and the IARDC present is not level. Without specifics Farenga can call a fact that everyone knows is a fact and absolutely accurate a lie, and not only with the IARDC declare it an untruth, but his panels and the Supreme Court of Illinois will mouth it as true.

          I believe the motivation for Farenga’s letter is the mention of her husbands involvement in real estate transactions.

          One of the scandals that has been noted is the fact that judicial sales are usually sales as a discount, and in these guardianship cases a 700,000 dollar property can be sold for a little over 200,000 dollars. This appears to have been the situation in the Sykes case. The court routinely rubber stamps these transactions. (The Sykes property was reported to have been appraised at 700. The miscreants are reported to have represented that it had to be sold because of *****. Up popped a politically connected broker and a sale was arranged. (at a little over 200,000). Quite obviously the purchaser is a nominee. By a series of mesne sales it is expected that the miscreants will sell the Real Estate to the Ultimate purchaser for something North of $700,000. It is believed that many of the sales are run through a series of nominees who get paid for their service. We do not know for sure, but, there are people who believe that Ms. Farenga’s husband has been involved in some of these transactions.

          The long and short is that a profit of about 1/2 million will be ultimately made on the subject property.

          The ward (i.e. the elder under guardianship) will be short changed by a 1/2 million dollars. The miscreants will report their 1/2 million dollar profit as a capital gain and have a nice piece of change for a couple days work.

          NB. As these funds have been derived from a breach of fiduciary relationship the money should be taxed as ordinary income for both Federal and State purposes. I’ve written the Justice Department about this situation .

          If Ms. Farenga’s husband is involved in any of these transactions (especially those in which she is a guardian) it would be ample motivation for her to try to feel the need to justify the amorality that is openly and notorious exhibited in the Mary Sykes case 09 P 4585 (Cook County).

          Tom – if you knew the right people you could be a millionaire! The only criterion is that you lack a moral compass!

          Posted: Dec 07, 2014 11:45 pm CST
          Reply to this comment

        • KenDitkowsky said:

          When I was young lawyer in 1961 I was told that in Cook County, Illinois it was not what you know, but who you knew. It is sad, but true. Read the Farenga comment! She is well aware that every statement that either JoAnne Denison or I made was backed up with either affidavits or testimony. The playing field that Mr. Larkin and the IARDC present is not level. Without specifics Farenga can call a fact that everyone knows is a fact and absolutely accurate a lie, and not only with the IARDC declare it an untruth, but his panels and the Supreme Court of Illinois will mouth it as true.

          I believe the motivation for Farenga’s letter is the mention of her husbands involvement in real estate transactions.

          One of the scandals that has been noted is the fact that judicial sales are usually sales as a discount, and in these guardianship cases a 700,000 dollar property can be sold for a little over 200,000 dollars. This appears to have been the situation in the Sykes case. The court routinely rubber stamps these transactions. (The Sykes property was reported to have been appraised at 700. The miscreants are reported to have represented that it had to be sold because of *****. Up popped a politically connected broker and a sale was arranged. (at a little over 200,000). Quite obviously the purchaser is a nominee. By a series of mesne sales it is expected that the miscreants will sell the Real Estate to the Ultimate purchaser for something North of $700,000. It is believed that many of the sales are run through a series of nominees who get paid for their service. We do not know for sure, but, there are people who believe that Ms. Farenga’s husband has been involved in some of these transactions.

          The long and short is that a profit of about 1/2 million will be ultimately made on the subject property.

          The ward (i.e. the elder under guardianship) will be short changed by a 1/2 million dollars. The miscreants will report their 1/2 million dollar profit as a capital gain and have a nice piece of change for a couple days work.

          NB. As these funds have been derived from a breach of fiduciary relationship the money should be taxed as ordinary income for both Federal and State purposes. I’ve written the Justice Department about this situation .

          If Ms. Farenga’s husband is involved in any of these transactions (especially those in which she is a guardian) it would be ample motivation for her to try to feel the need to justify the amorality that is openly and notorious exhibited in the Mary Sykes case 09 P 4585 (Cook County).

          Tom – if you knew the right people you could be a millionaire! The only criterion is that you lack a moral compass!

          Posted: Dec 07, 2014 11:45 pm CST
          Reply to this comment

        • KenDitkowsky said:

          When I was young lawyer in 1961 I was told that in Cook County, Illinois it was not what you know, but who you knew. It is sad, but true. Read the Farenga comment! She is well aware that every statement that either JoAnne Denison or I made was backed up with either affidavits or testimony. The playing field that Mr. Larkin and the IARDC present is not level. Without specifics Farenga can call a fact that everyone knows is a fact and absolutely accurate a lie, and not only with the IARDC declare it an untruth, but his panels and the Supreme Court of Illinois will mouth it as true.

          I believe the motivation for Farenga’s letter is the mention of her husbands involvement in real estate transactions.

          One of the scandals that has been noted is the fact that judicial sales are usually sales as a discount, and in these guardianship cases a 700,000 dollar property can be sold for a little over 200,000 dollars. This appears to have been the situation in the Sykes case. The court routinely rubber stamps these transactions. (The Sykes property was reported to have been appraised at 700. The miscreants are reported to have represented that it had to be sold because of *****. Up popped a politically connected broker and a sale was arranged. (at a little over 200,000). Quite obviously the purchaser is a nominee. By a series of mesne sales it is expected that the miscreants will sell the Real Estate to the Ultimate purchaser for something North of $700,000. It is believed that many of the sales are run through a series of nominees who get paid for their service. We do not know for sure, but, there are people who believe that Ms. Farenga’s husband has been involved in some of these transactions.

          The long and short is that a profit of about 1/2 million will be ultimately made on the subject property.

          The ward (i.e. the elder under guardianship) will be short changed by a 1/2 million dollars. The miscreants will report their 1/2 million dollar profit as a capital gain and have a nice piece of change for a couple days work.

          NB. As these funds have been derived from a breach of fiduciary relationship the money should be taxed as ordinary income for both Federal and State purposes. I’ve written the Justice Department about this situation .

          If Ms. Farenga’s husband is involved in any of these transactions (especially those in which she is a guardian) it would be ample motivation for her to try to feel the need to justify the amorality that is openly and notorious exhibited in the Mary Sykes case 09 P 4585 (Cook County).

          Tom – if you knew the right people you could be a millionaire! The only criterion is that you lack a moral compass!

          Posted: Dec 07, 2014 11:45 pm CST
          Reply to this comment

Comment on this article

1 thought on “PROOF-The ABA Blog is HEAVILY CENSORED — many comments that Mary Sykes was railroaded and abused removed:

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s