And while the ARDC denies that corruption exists in the courtroom, Philadephia is facing the music…

http://www.sott.net/article/257560-Nine-Philadelphia-judges-arrested-on-charges-of-corruption

Apparently, legal problems aren’t over in Philadelphia when 6 judges are arrested for fixing tickets.  Some were for a set price and some just because they needed to take care of their friends.

It’s the hardest thing for an honest lawyer to charge your client when you know you get to court and there will be no justice for your client when everyone else has clout or an envelope of cash or some unfair bargaining form you’re not going to partake of, ever.

In most cases, the hard part is not that you’re going to lose, it will be that others will be gloating saying, “don’t you ever notice you never win” but you’re charging your client to go to a place where there will never be any justice, yet dozens of citizen complaints have been filed already regarding the practice and the FBI is silent and does not share, but the ARDC writes back letters that are nonsensical. (Sykes, Gore, Wyman, etc.)

Other cities and states have turned around 180 degrees when the public complaints just got too much for the authorities.  Let’s hope the turn around for the next state is Illinois.

Thanks for Atty Barbara Stone in Fla. for this article.

JoAnne

The Latest in the war against Disident honest attorneys in Illinois, JMD’s Petition for Interrim Suspension.

Dear Readers:

See below.  While the Petition for Interrim suspension was most likely written by SO, a champion against the rights of the public to a fair and just court system, and againt the First Amendment in all forms, the claims are that this blog “threatens irreparable harm to the public, my clients (I have no client complaints, please), and to the orderly administration of justice.”

No where in the 9 pages that were filed, is there any allegation made of a client willing to testify against me (many were contacted, and all politely declined, well, some not so politely, they told me), and how does a blog affect the orderly administration of justice.

Judges aren’t even supposed to read blogs.

The main claim to “orderly administration of justice” is that the Sykes case was “overly litigious” by Gloria due to this blog.  How is that?  It is never clearly explained.

The blog, as you well know, merely recites facts and laws so that people can judge for themselves and know their rights.

I think, the ARDC does not want the general public to know their rights, esp. in probate where the rule is to ignore the law (Sykes, Bedine, Wyman, Gore, Drabik, etc.) and grab all you can (Sykes, Bedin, Drabik, etc.)

See below and please explain to me if you can, how this blog “irreparably harms” you, the public, and how I irreparably harm my clients via blogging, and how a blog affects orderly administration of justice when the blog merely informs the reader of the statutes and case law.

If the playing field were fair, this would clearly be a frivolous pleading, but when you see the property records of Melissa Smart and Jerome Larkin, you clearly know what is going on.  And the appeal to the Ill. Supreme Court is no better. They denied my Citizens Participation Act petition and the ARDC wrongfully gloats about this illegal action against me.

JoAnne

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS
In the Matter of:
JOANNE MARlE DENISON
)
)
)
Attorney-Respondent,
) Commission No. 2013PROOOOI
)
)
No. 6192441 )
PETITION FOR INTERlM SUSPENSION
PURSUANT TO SUPREME COURT RULE 774
Jerome Larkin, Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission,
by his attorneys, Sharon D. Opryszek and Melissa A. Smart, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 774, respectfully requests that the Court issue a rule for Respondent Joarme Marie Denison to show cause why she should not be suspended until further order of the Court, effective immediately, for having engaged in conduct which threatens irreparable harm to the public, her clients, and to the orderly administration of justice. In support, the Administrator states:
1. SUMMARY
l, Respondent is a 57-year-old attorney who was admitted to practice law in Illinois
on May 8, 1986.
2. Respondent is currently the subject of a disciplinary proceeding in which she
initially appeared pro se; after four days of hearing, Nejla Lane filed her appearance as cocounsel.
Respondent participated in multiple pretrial hearings, filed multiple pre-hearing motions
with the Hearing Panel, the First District Appellate Court I and a motion for a supervisory order with the Supreme Court2, none of which was successful. The Hearing Board, following a six day hearing, has recommended that Respondent be suspended for three years and until further order.
‘In Re Denison v. ARDC and Larkin, docket number 1-13-1843 alleging a violation of 750 ILCS 110, the CItizens
Participation Act. On July 2, 2013. the Court dismissed the matter with prejudice.
, In re Denison v. tARDC. docket number 115688. On March 28, 2013, the Court denied Respondent’s motion.
of the Court. In re Denison, Commission No. 20l3PROOOOl. The November 21, 2014 Report and Recommendation of the Hearing Board is attached as Exhibit One.
3. The Hearing Board found that Respondent repeatedly made statements
concerning the integrity of judges, knowing that those statements were false, or made with
reckless disregard for their truth or falsity, engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, and
engaged in conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice. (Exh. One, at 24·35) The Board found that Respondent failed to appreciate the nature and seriousness of her conduct. (Id., at 51) Conversely, the Board found that the Administrator’s witnesses were credible and concluded that Respondent’s suggestions of bribery, impropriety and unethical conduct on the part of the judges and attorneys who testified against her were false. (Id., at 27)
4. The Board recommended that Respondent be suspended for three years and until
further order of the Court, finding that Respondent’s misconduct was serious, involved her
making numerous improper statements over a period of time, (Id., at 49) and that “the
circumstances as a whole leave us with very serious doubt whether or not Respondent is willing or able to conform her future conduct to proper legal standards.” (Id., at 50)
5. As described in additional detail, infra, Respondent’s misconduct meets the
requirements for an interim suspension under Supreme Court Rule 774(a)(2).
6. On December 12, 2014, Respondent filed exceptions to the Hearing Board’s
Report and Recommendation. As a result, the disciplinary proceeding is currently pending before the Review Board of the Commission.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE RESPONDENT’S MISCONDUCT
A. The Proven Misconduct
7. In the instant matter, the statements known to be false or made in reckless
2
disregard as to their truth and veracity are based on statements made by Respondent on a web log (hereinafter “blog”) concerning adult guardianship proceeding regarding Mary O. Sykes (hereinafter “Mary”) and persons involved at that proceeding. (Exh. One, at 1,3-4) In July 2009, one of Mary’s daughters, Carolyn Toerpe (hereinafter “Carolyn”) petitioned to be appointed guardian of Mary’s person and estate due to Mary’s dementia and memory loss (ld., at 4) Shortly thereafter, the Court appointed attorneys Cynthia Farenga (hereinafter “Farenga”) and Adam Stem as guardians ad litem (hereinafter “OALs”). Mary’s daughter Gloria Sykes (hereinafter “Gloria”) later filed counter-petitions contesting Carolyn’s appointment as Mary’s guardian. (ld.)
8. In November 2009, Respondent attempted to file her appearance on behalf of
Gloria in the probate proceeding; however, the court disqualified Respondent as Gloria’s
counsel. (Id., at 7) Gloria and Mary were involved in litigation (hereinafter “Lumbennan’ s case”) which involved settlement proceeds of $700,000 from the lawsuit. (ld., at 6) Respondent notarized Mary’s signature on the apportionment agreement, which relinquished Mary’s interest in approximately $700,000 in settlement funds, thereby turning over the entirety of the funds to Gloria. (ld., at 5-6) On December 7, 2009, the probate court disqualified Respondent as Gloria’s attorney due to her potential role as a witness related to the notarization of Mary’s signature on an apportionment agreement. (ld., at 7)
9. In December, 2009, after a multitude of probate court proceedings initiated by
Gloria. the probate court adjudicated Mary incompetent and appointed Carolyn her guardian.
(ld., at 5)
10. Beginning in November 2011, Respondent wrote and administered an internet
blog related to the Mary G. Sykes probate case (http://www.marygsykes.com) which alleged corruption in the probate court. particularly in relation to Mary’s guardianship proceeding. (ld.
3

at 8, 14)
II. Respondent’s blog included allegations of corruption by Judge Jane Louise Stuart,
Justice Connors (Exh. One. at 9) the GAls, and Carolyn’S attorney, Peter Schmiedel (hereinafter “Schmiedel”). (Id., at 7-16) Respondent’s allegations of misconduct were summarized on her blog in a “Table of Torts,” which accused the judges. attorneys and Carolyn of corruption, misfeasance, perpetration of misdemeanors and felonies, theft, forgery, and Greylord-type misconduct, including accusations of bribery and ex parle communications between GALs and the probate judge. (Id., at 8-15)
12. The Hearing Board found that Respondent authored all the statements charged in
the Administrator’s complaint, and that Respondent’s statements in her blog, “clearly convey the message that corruption affected the Sykes case and its outcome, with the judges and GALS benefitting, to Mary’s detriment.” (Id., at 25) Further, the Board found the suggestions made by Respondent in the blogs were false and that the statements impugned the integrity of the judges and attorneys in the probate matter. (Id.)
B. Findings of Misconduct by the Hearing Board
13. The Hearing Board found that Respondent’s statements were false, lacked any
legitimate factual basis, impugned the integrity of the judges involved in the Sykes guardianship matter and that Respondent made the statements with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity, in violation of Rule 8.2(a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct. (Id., at 25, 29-30) The Board further found that the statements accusing the judges, as well as the GALS, of serious misconduct in the Sykes matter were false and made with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity, and that by making the statements, Respondent engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the illinois Rules of Professional Conduct. (Id., at 25, 30) Finally,
4

the Board found that Respondent’s baseless accusations of misconduct by the judges and attorneys involved in the Sykes guardianship matter, her advising Gloria in filing of numerous frivolous motions often related to allegations on Respondent’s blog. undermined and interfered with the effective functioning of the judicial process and thereby prejudiced the administration of justice, in violation of Rule 8A(d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct. (Exh. One, at 33)
C. Aggravating Factors
14. The Hearing Board found that the “extent and relentlessness” of Respondent’s
“unfounded accusations of corruption by individual judges and lawyer,” caused significant harm and seriously impugned the integrity of Farenga, Stem and Schmiedel. (Id., at 42, 50) The Board found that Respondent neither understands the nature and seriousness of her misconduct, nor showed remorse, nor understood basic elements of practicing law. (Id., at 51-52)
15. The Board found that Respondent’s conduct during the pendency of the
proceedings represented a significant aggravating factor, as she repeatedly failed to follow the Chair’s orders, failed to comply with rules of the tribunal, and sought to have the Chair and opposing counsel communicate with her in a manner inconsistent with the rules of the tribunal.
(Id., at 52) The Board found that even while engaged in the disciplinary hearing, Respondent’s recklessness regarding the truth of her statements in the blog continued, as she accused others of serious wrongdoing, “without having a clue whether her allegations have any basis in reality.”
(Id., at 51)
16. The Board referred to Respondent’s blog post shortly before her March 9, 2014
cross-examination, wherein Respondent wrote that the office of the Cook County Public
Guardian had intentionally set a fire in which a number of persons died, for the purpose of
5
destroying records. (Exh. One, at 44) The Board found that in advance of the serious accusations, Respondent had not conducted any investigation into the truth of the accusation that the public guardian’s office intentionally set the fatal fire. (Id.)
17. The Board expressed concern over Respondent’s filing of multiple lawsuits, all of
which had been dismissed, against the persons involved in the Sykes guardianship case, as well as the disciplinary matter. (Id., at 43) On January 20, 2014, the day before Respondent’s disciplinary hearing began, a frivolous and specious lawsuit alleging civil rights was filed by Respondent, in the United States District Court, Northern District, entitled Ditkowsky and Denison v. Stern, Farenga, Larkin, and Schmiedel, docket number I: 14-CV -00375. The matter was assigned to District Court Judge Ronald Guzman, who, on April 21, 2014, dismissed the lawsuit for failure to state a claim. A copy of the order dismissing Respondent’s lawsuit is attached as Exhibit Two.
18. Respondent appealed Judge Guzman’s dismissal to the United Stated Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Ditkowsky and Denison v. Stern, el al., docket number 14- 1911. On November 19, 2014, the appellate court affirmed Judge Guzman’s dismissal of Respondent’s claims, calling the appeal, and lawsuit, frivolous and admonishing Respondent that while sanctions were not then being imposed; Respondent and Ditkowsky could not “move their campaign of vilification from the Internet to the courthouse and expect the judiciary to be unconcerned.” The Seventh Circuit’s opinion is attached as Exhibit Three.
19. On February 28, 2014, Respondent filed yet another lawsuit in the United States
District Court, Northern District, entitled Denison v. Larkin, Smart, Opryszek, Black Nextpoint, Inc., and the Dlinois Attorney Registration and DisCipline (sic) CommiSSion, docket number , The federal lawsuit was filed by Respondent and the now-suspended attOrney Kenneth Dilkowsky. In re Dllkcwsky, M.R. 26156, 12PRl4 (March 14,2014)
6
.’ .
1:14-CV-01470. That lawsuit alleged copyright infringement by the Administrator for using
portions of Respondent’s copyrighted blog as evidence against her in the instant matter. The matter was assigned to Judge Amy St. Eve, who, on August 13,2014, dismissed the matter for failure to state a claim. A copy of the order dismissing Respondent’s copyright lawsuit is attached as Exhibit Four.
D. Hearing Board’s Recommendation for Discipline
20. The Hearing Board had “serious doubt whether or not Respondent is willing or
able to conform her future conduct to proper legal standards.” (Exh. One, at 50) The Board found that even during the pendency of the hearing. Respondent continued with her recklessness. (Id., at 51-52) The Board found that Respondent’s misconduct continued during the course of the hearing. The Board concluded that Respondent engaged in the following misconduct:
a making a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with
reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the
qualifications or integrity of a judge, adjudicatory officer or public
legal officer. in violation of Rule 8.2 of the Illinois Rules of
Professional Conduct;
b. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation,
ill violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional
Conduct; and
c. conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, in
violation of Rule S.4( d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional
Conduct.
III. ARGUMENT
21. Supreme Court Rule 774(a)(2) allows the Administrator to petition the Court
during the pendency of a disciplinary proceeding for a rule to show cause why a respondent should not be suspended from the practice of law until further order of the Court. The petition must ailege that the Inquiry Board has voted a complaint; that the respondent committed a violation of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct which involves fraud or moral turpitude,

7

or which threatens irreparable injury to the public, his or her clients, or to the orderly
administration of justice; and that there appears to be persuasive evidence to support the charge.
22. In this case, the Inquiry Board voted a complaint against Respondent which was
filed on January 8, 2013. (Exh. One, at I) Following a six-day hearing in which Respondent
participated, the Hearing Board expressed serious doubt about Respondent’s willingness, or ability, to conform her behavior to comport with future legal standards, and found that
Respondent failed to understand the nature and seriousness of her misconduct. (Id., at 50-51)
23. Respondent’s misconduct meets the three requirements for an interim suspension
pursuant to Rule 774(a)(2). As discussed supra, the Hearing Board’s November 21, 2014 Report and Recommendation concluded that the Administrator proved misconduct warranting Respondent’s suspension for three-years and until further order of the Court. (Id., at 54) The Board recommended that Respondent’ s suspension continue until further order of the Court to protect the pUblic. (Id.) The Board expressly found that “Respondent’s lack of understanding of the ramifications of her conduct and of the importance of following proper legal procedures,” left the Board with “serious doubt as to Respondent’s ability to conform her future conduct to professional standards,” based in part, on Respondent’s continued accusations of others serious wrongdoing, “without having a clue whether her allegations have any basis in reality.” (Id., at 51, 54) The Board found Respondent’s continued, baseless allegations were available to a large
audience via her public blog which created a risk of harm to the reputations of the individuals criticized and damaged the public’s perception of the judicial system with unfounded allegations of corruption. (Jd., at 51)
24. The Court has imposed interim suspensions for similar misconduct. See, e.g., In
re Amu, M.R. 26545, II PR 106 (May 16,2014) (rule to show cause discharged and suspension
8
until further order of the Court for attorney who repeatedly made unfounded accusations
attacking judges’ integrity and expressed little comprehension of the harm caused by his actions) Like Amu, Respondent’s repeated false accusations against judges, her failure to conform her conduct to comport with the rules of professional conduct or acknowledge any misconduct on her part warrant an interim suspension.
25. The Seventh Circuit voiced their concerns over Respondent’s ongoing conduct in
filing frivolous appeals, as described in paragraph eighteen, supra.
VI. CONCLUSION
24. Based on the infonnation set forth above, the Administrator has established
grounds for this Court to issue a rule to show cause in this matter. A suspension until further order of court pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 774 is required for the purposes of protecting the public, the integrity of the profession and the administration of justice.
WHEREFORE, the Administrator requests that the Court issue a rule for Respondent
Joanne Marie Denison to show cause why she should not be suspended until further order of the Court pursuant to Rule 774.
Sharon D. Opryszek
Counsel for Administrator
One Prudential Plaza
130 East Randolph Drive, Suite 1500
Chicago, Illinois 60601-6219
(312) 565·2600
Respectfully submitted,
Jerome Larkin, Administrator
Attorney Registration and
Disciplinary Commission
By: Is/Sharon D. Opryszek
Sharon D. Opryszek

From Barbara Stone–Her List of Felonies or ‘Table of Torts” to help us all–victims and lawyers for probate victims

List of crimes in probate/List of statutes violated in probate

  • First degree felonies under Florida Statutes 825 committing financial fraud and exploitation in a sum of $100,000 or more from an eldery person
  • First degree felonies of abuse and aggravated abuse under Florida Statutes 825
  • Perjury 18 USC 1001–lying to the federal government department,division or agency.
  • Tampering with evidence (spoliation of evidence)
  • 18 USC 2071 deletion or tampering with court or government records
  • Obstructing justice
  • Dereliction of Duty
  • Violation of Bill of Rights, 1st & 6th Amendment
  • United States Constitution Art 3 Sec 3 (right to jury trial often denied)
  • Conspiracy under 42 USC 371
  • Theft, Conversion and Fraud, fraud on the court, intrinsic and extrinsic fraud and fraud in the inducement, misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, consumer fraud (nursing homes that lie and say a disabled person cannot leave without someone signing for them, or a doctor’s note or some nonsense)
  • Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
  • Tampering with court records, transcripts and other records (see, spoliation of evidence)
  • Forgery (of POA’s and wills)
  • Hobbs Act. 18 USC sec. 1951.  Extortion by force, violence or fear.  The Hobbs Act prohibits actual or attempted robbery or extortion affecting interstate or foreign commerce “in any way or degree.” Section 1951 also proscribes conspiracy to commit robbery or extortion without reference to the conspiracy statute at 18 U.S.C. § 371. (This is used for bribing judges.  It does not create a private cause of action).
  • Honest Services Act.  For civil servants.  18 USC sec 1346.   “a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.” Thus, a new crime of honest services fraud was created with the following elements: (1) a scheme to defraud that includes a material deception; (2) with the intent to defraud; (3) while using the mails, private commercial carriers, and/or interstate wires in furtherance of that scheme; and (4) that resulted in the deprivation of the intangible right of honest services.  Honest services is not just for crooked politicians but can also apply to an employer/employee relationship or a fiduciary relationship.
  • Computer crime act.  18 USC sec. 1030.  Using a computer to affect interstate commerce, damage a computer (computer hacking), obtain unauthorized information, use another’s password without authorization, access a computer without authorization and create economic damage or loss in interstate commerce, etc.  Provides for private cause of action.
  • Securing writings by deception (also see the tort of intrusion upon seclusion–for violation of HIPPA, improper disclosure of private writings, etc.)
  • Fabricated evidence that victim lacked capacity to give consent
  • Kidnapping
  • Abduction
  • Unlawful Restraint (also unlawful chemical restraint by psychotropic drugs which are contraindicated by the FDA for those under 20 and over 60–report to doctor’s licensing authorities)
  • Elder Abuse and Aggravated Abuse, (320 ILCS sec 20)
  • Elder Exploitation
  • Depriving crime victim of medical care
  • Discrimination (14th amendment.  must be in “suspect class” for race or sex.  discrimination against elderly in most states starts at age 60, 45 for employment)
  • Retaliation (under first amendment and ADA-Americans w/Disabilities 42 USC 22203)
  • Coercion, extortion, duress, incapacity
  • Defamation, slander, false light and libel against protective family members that recognize quickly something is seriously wrong in court and with the court proceedings themselves.  Discovery is denied.  Homes sold without notice and bank accounts drained quickly.  Wards drugged.  If a family member speaks out, then they “aggitated the disabled” and must be banned from visitation, or worse yet, they must have a $150 per hour supervisor who plays with a cell phone or tablet for an hour.  The “supervisor” often gets $10/hr if working for a tied in agency.  Family members have been set up for felonies to disqualify them as guardians.  Tied in agencies make up fake stories of aggitation, the ward cried, etc.  Some make up fake stories that a family member swore at them.  Some lock others living in the house out of the house without a court order, etc.  (Of course, the ward cries and is aggitated as they are locked away in a nursing home and their homes sold and bank accounts drained, but they blame it on the family members).
  • Attempted Murder
  • Premeditated Murder
  • Official Misconduct
  • Abuse of Power
  • Color of Law Abuse (no jurisdiction, no summons and complaint properly served on disabled, no family members properly notified 14 days in adance of any hearing to guardianize relating time, date and place of hearing)
  • Criminal Racketeering (RICO 18 USC sec 1961)
  • Human Trafficking
  • Money Laundering
  • False Arrest, False Imprisonment
  • Entrapment
  • Battery
  • Wire fraud, mail fraud (18 USC 1341) and bank fraud (all federal crimes); medicare fraud (for sending disabled back and forth between nursing home and hospital for false procedures, to fill beds, etc.)
  • Conversion, theft and embezzlement.
  • Breach of fiduciary duty, self dealing
  • Lying to the fed government and courts system to defraud the US government to obtain a right or benefit not entitled to 18 USC 1001
  • False imprisonment
  • Theft and Fraud, fraud on the court, intrinsic and extrinsic fraud and fraud in the inducement
  • Kidnapping
  • Abduction
  • Unlawful Restraint (see chemical restraint)  – chemical restraints (halodol, seroquel, fentanyl patches, lithium, narcotics including oxycontin, dilaudad, etc.) It is illegal to dispense chemical restraints for any psychiatric condition not FDA approved.  All or nearly all psychotropic drugs are not FDA approved for those over 60 or under 20 or patients that have any internal organ condition, or a disease or condition involving heart, brain, kidneys, liver, etc.  Report the doctor prescribing to the authorities for discipline.  Illinois has strick standards for dispensing psychotropic drugs which are not allowed without full disclosure and consent by the patient after exploring other treatment options including, but not limited to, therapy.  Many nursing homes have entire rooms, floors and buildings of illegally drugged disabled and elderly patients using chemical restraints without their consent or full disclosure.  A guardian cannot consent to this, the patient must consent themselves. 40% of all psychotropic drugs are sold to nursing homes. The government looks the other way.  Disgusting
  • Discrimination
    Retaliation under the ADA and 42 USC 12203, First Amendment Retaliation for speaking out.
  • SLAPP action for being sued for speaking out.  Citizen’s Participation Act in Illinois 735 ILCS 110/5
    Attempted Murder (use of contraindicated drugs, isolation from family members and friends, suspicious  falls leading to confinement to bed, etc.)
  • 18 U.S. Code § 3 – Accessory after the fact.  Note a defendant can be an accessory or aider and abetter of a crime or tort, before the fact, during the act, and after the fact.
  • 18 USC 4 Misprison of felony for failure to report felonious activities promptly to the auhorities.
  • Official Misconduct
  • Color of Law/Due Process violations Abuse – 42 USC 1983
  • Criminal Racketeering
    Battery for repetitive fractures, administration of chemical restraints contraindicated by the FDA,
  • Wrongful implantation of a feeding tube without consent, and deprivation of the sensation of food and chewing against her will
  • Loss of consortium between parent and child (a tort in 13 states in the US, not Illinois–yet)
  • Torture under the international treaties against torture for: chemical restraints, implanting feeding tubes against a person’s will and deprivation of sensation of taste, chewing and swallowing food because a nursing home will not spend 15 to 20 min. per meal assisting an elderly person to eat and drink, it costs too much.  Torture can also occur by isolation from many friends and family members.  Torture can also occur when the disabled is deprived of dentures, partials, hearing aides and glasses when needed.  Sometimes a disabled is forced to wear thick glasses when not needed.  This makes the disabled person more confused, speeds up dementia and confusion and death.  It is used as a device to make the person feel more vulnerable and threated. Stockholming may occur (keeping an elder dependent, as a prisoner and restrained until they think of their captor as a savior and master, rather than a despot). When the disabled person or family members attempt to report felonies to the authorities, Martha Mitchell Syndrome may result (where the person is telling the truth but no medical personnel will believe them, esp. psychiatrists and psychologists, it is too fantastical.
  • In some instances, the disabled will cause to suffer a fall when first in the nursing home and will be deprived of medical care so hip and leg fractures do not heal and the disabled must be bed ridden with pain or in a wheel chair.  In other cases, disableds that can walk with a walker or shuffle are told never to stand up or walk, they are a fall risk and they put an alarm on them 24/7 to keep them in bed or a wheelchair because inadequate staff has no time to walk with them with a belt or assistance to provide necessary strength and balance.  Leg muscles quickly atrophy, making the person feel more frail and vulnerable than necessary.  Nursing home hours are likely illegal because a disabled cannot stay up and watch a movie or late night show, as she used to with friends and family.  In many cases, a disabled is barred from leaving a nursing home with friends and family and can no longer go to any familiy gatherings, chruch events, as they used to. Some disableds spend years in a nursing home indoors, never seeing the light of day and are told by staff and/or management they cannot or must not leave the facility, even to take a walk.
  • Deprevation of wholesome food and nutrients.  Most nursing homes have no diets that include many fresh, organic quality vegetables and nursing homes do not insist on testing residents for nutrients that are likely lacking such as vitamins B (prevent depression and anxiety) C (in lyposomal or lypospheric form to be easily absorbed.  C is an essential nutrient to all cells), D3 (sunlight is best, but residents should be tested and supplemented if levels are below 50 to 100 nGr/mL), probiotics and sulfur.  Nursing home diets are famously high in carbs and sugars contributing to obesity, dementia, heart disease, inflammation in joints and arthritis, etc.

I will update this list–thank you Atty Barbara Stone for starting it and all the input from all of you victims out there that have told me dozens and dozens of sneaky, underhanded and deceptive means for isolating, torturing and hastening the demise of the elderly, generally in for profit nursing homes across the US.

Why is Tim Lahrman a “disabled adult” in Indiana–read his press release!

Tim Lahrman is one of the most intelligent, thinking and philosophical persons I know.  His cognitive skills are excellent and have been through the many years that I and others have known him.  But, back when he was young, he built up a very successful and profitable electrnoics business.  He ran it successfully.  Bad news for him, he had an evil greedy brother with an evil greedy attorney and a rubber stamping court. So despite his prowess and business accumen, that meant nothing to a probate judge and next thing he knows, at approx. age 21, he is stamped a “disabled adult”, primarily due to the fact that the court was told he uses cannibis setiva for recreational purposes.  Now coming to the age when medical marijuana is starting to become a right and a recognized and effective treatment and cure for problems from depression and anxiety to cancer, and it it generally perceived as quite safe in use, the faud on the court of Tim Larhman being adjuicated disabled is fairly absurd and bespeaks very little about the Indiana probate system as being a massive, decades long fraud on the court.  Since his brother stripped every dime out of that business, together with court connected attorneys, and drove the business into the ground quickly,   Tim has dedicated his life to writing briefs, complaints, grievances and other advocacy items for probate victims and their terrorized families.

Recently, he has filed an Americans With Disabilities complaint in Federal Court in Indiana, an excellent pleading that even many highly skilled attorneys would be jealous of.  I will try to publish the complaint so that it helps other court victims in similar situations.

Here is his intelligent, well written Press Relase concerning his case.  Whatever the
State of Indiana thinks about him is “disabled” is light years from reality.  It bespeaks the ramapant corruption of probate laws when used in probate court where black can be white and all the judges and court connected attorneys will pat themselves on the back making such a superior agreement between themselves.

Tim L. and I am here to say the corruption of probate law usage has no clothes.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 21, 2015
Elkhart Indiana: DISABLED RESIDENT SUES TO BE INCLUDED
Not many people want to be named in a lawsuit but such is not the case for Elkhart County resident Tim Lahrman — he has sued to be included. That’s right, he has sued because he wants to be sued and in an odd twist of justice Lahrman, who is disabled, has sued the Elkhart County Superior Court No. 2 (Stephen R. Bowers, Judge) for excluding him from participating in an ongoing lawsuit involving Lahrman’s Elkhart home and residence of twenty-two-plus (22+) years.
Title II of the Americans’ With Disabilities Act 1990* (“ADA”) prohibits state and local governments from discriminating against the disabled and excluding the disabled from an equal opportunity to access, participate in, benefit from and effectively communicate with, any of the “services, programs and activities” of a public entity – the state and local courts included. In a 2011 Title II ADA case involving the City of LaPorte, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr. agreed with those disabled plaintiffs, who were suing over access to city sidewalks, and found that “everything government does is a program, service and activity of a public entity.” The ADA is not so completely one-sided however and there are exceptions and affirmative defenses recognized by the ADA which in fact limit a public entity’s liability under the ADA but, by and large, the U.S. Supreme Court has said, “[I]n sum, Title II requires … special accommodations for disabled persons in virtually every interaction they have with the State.”
Filed on January 20, 2015 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, Lahrman’s lawsuit did not stop with just Judge Bowers and the Elkhart Superior Court No. 2, Lahrman likewise sued the Elkhart County Circuit Court and Judge Terry Shewmaker who Lahrman says in his lawsuit – excluded Lahrman, because of his disability, from equal access to participate in equally, benefit equally from and effectively communicate equally effectively with, the services programs and activities of the public entity Elkhart County Circuit Court. The lawsuit also names defendant the Chief Judge of the Indiana Court of Appeals, the State of Indiana, the Office of Indiana Attorney General and the Indiana Supreme Court Division of State Court Administration which, according to Lahrman’s lawsuit, “serves the public in a consumer protection capacity by administratively regulating Indiana attorneys and judges so as to ensure for the Indiana public an educationally qualified and professionally competent judiciary” – a responsibility that according to Lahrman the state of Indiana as a public entity is failing miserably where disability discrimination and ADA compliance are involved.
In the ninety-plus (90+) page federal lawsuit filed by Lahrman who has no attorney and is appearing pro se in representation of himself, in addition to the Title II disability discrimination claims against state and local public entities Lahrman also sued the Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”), Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC and Green Tree Servicing LLC (as successors of GMAC Mortgage LLC) for; violations of the Fair Housing Act; violations of both
federal and state consumer protection laws; and, as relating to Fannie Mae, for violations of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act 2008 (“HERA”).
The case of Timothy J. Lahrman v. Elkhart County Superior Court No. 2, Stephen R. Bowers, Judge, et al. [Case No. 3:15-cv-026] will be one worth watching for it may well have far reaching implications for both the community of disabled individuals and American homeowners all across the nation. Residing quietly in the Michiana community since 1989 Lahrman has dedicated his retired life to the study and research of both the history and law of guardianship/conservatorship. Lahrman is among the nation’s leading advocates working for reform and accountability in the law and practice of guardianship/conservatorship which according to Lahrman is an experience he would not wish on his own worst enemy. According to Lahrman more than a million American adults are under guardianship/conservatorship is every state in the country and in ever y state in the country families are crying foul – just as are the shareholders in Fannie Mae crying foul — about the conservatorships/guardianships that are so negatively impacting the lives of millions of Americans.
____________________________________
For more information contact: timlahrman@aol.com

As per Ken Ditkowsky’s prediction, Assisted Involuntary Suicide for the Disabled may be closer than you think.

Perhaps the IARDC and Jerome Larkin aren’t so unethical as we think.  Perhaps we are turning our morals and ethics back to 1930 Germany when Hitler said it was okay for parents to euthanize infants with defects that “weren’t good enough” for their parents.  What do you think?

Dutch doctors euthanize woman suffering from ringing in the ears
By Wesley Smith
Euthanasia is a voracious beast, its hunger never assuaged.
Now, in the Netherlands, a woman was lethally injected because of severe tinnitusFrom the DutchNews.nl story:
A special clinic in The Hague, set up to help people whose doctors do not support euthanasia, has been reprimanded for helping a 47-year-old woman with chronic tinnitus to die, broadcaster Nos says on Monday. The independent commission charged with monitoring how Dutch euthanasia rules are applied recognises that extreme tinnitus could be a reason for mercy killing but said Gaby Olthuis should have undergone further psychiatric research.
The story mentions a potential prosecution. That threat has no teeth. I recall one case in which a doctor killed a disabled baby–murder under Netherlander law–and received a 3 week suspended sentence. Ditto a doctor who euthanized an anorexia patient–and the medical association was up in arms
I have moderate tinnitus. It ain’t fun. And I am sure louder ringing than I currently experience would be very disturbing. But killed for it?
Euthanasia is a voracious beast, its hunger never assuaged.
Reprinted with permission from National Review Online.

Read below and I want to thank Janet Phelan for bringing this to my attention.

The use of assisted suicide, voluntary or not, is vociferously opposed by this blog.  Life is precious and should never be taken for granted.  Grandmas and grandpas should be treasured, given great respect, and not stuffed into nursing home cages like a boarded cat or dog when you are on vacation and do not want to be bothered.

The mission of this blog is to treat grandma and grandpa and any disabled person with the utmost care and concern for their welfare, as if they were the President of the US, The governor of Illinois, the mayor or whatever.  These are important people in our lives who know all about life and are a continuation of respect for life, past, present and future.  Join with us today in opposing involuntary assisted suicide for the elderly, making sure they are aging in place if they want to and that they are appropriately visited and socialized and have a phone, as long as they want one.  I am still being told of too many cases where elders are isolated and drugged and placed in nursing homes against their will and this is shameful behavior–esp. when it comes from the court system and court connected/appoitned attorneys.

JoAnne

From Ken Ditkowsky–false accusations are apparently part of the system.

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Jan 16, 2015 4:32 PM
To: “newseditors@wsj.com” , “wsjcontact@dowjones.com” , “newseditors@dowjones.com”
Subject: Fw: Fw: here is my FRCP 17 motion

The War on the Elderly and the Disabled continues to be waged by not only a select group of corrupt public officials and corrupt judicial officials.   Attached to this e-mail is a draft of a Brief that JoAnne Denison is filing with the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission as I write this message to you.
In today’s journal AD complains that he was falsely accused of sexually molesting a minor.   He justly weeps bitter tears; however, the tragedy of his situation is minor compared to what Grant Goodman has to deal with in Arizona, JoAnne Denison is dealing with her in Illinois and literally dozens of Attorneys are dealing with all across the United States.     Let me explain.
A cottage industry has grown up in recent years.    It has become very profitable for corrupt judicial officials and their favorite appointees (also lawyers) to literally seize a senior citizen or an infirm person, place him in a guardianship.    Once in the guardianship the individual is isolated from family, friends and prior life so that the live savings (and estate) can be looted and redistributed to more worthy persons.    In Cook County, Illinois the Mary Sykes case 09 P 4585 stands out as a posterboard case.    Mary was literally seized off the street and removed from her home to an adjoining county.   Proceedings were of course commenced in Cook County and every civil right and human rights that Mary had was forfeited.    (Ms. Denison’s brief which is attached goes into much more detail).
Mary’s estate was ravaged as Mary was separated from her family and prior life.     The Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission has spared no expense to ‘cover up’ the criminal activities going on openly and notoriously in the Courtrooms of the Daley Center.     I called for an Honest complete and comprehensive investigation of the assaults on the Bill of Rights that were going on in public.    I was prosecuted for ‘ethics violations’ and in particular for not being repentant for writing pursuant to 18 USCA 4 to the Attorney General of the United States to fully expose the string of felonies that were occurring.     Ms. Denison is being prosecuted for repeating the protests of literally dozens of seniors in similar circumstances on her blog.
Assuming that last night as we slept the Constitution of the United States was repealed, 47 USCA 230 protects the postings on Ms. Denison’s blog.     320 ILCS 20/4 provides her immunity for her 18 USCA 4 reports.     According to Mr. Larkin and the IARDC the Constitution and the exculpations mean nothing!    He has decreed (and the Supreme Court of Illinois will rubber stamp his decree) that Ms. Denison should be barred from practicing law for three years.     We understand he is so upset by the disclosure of the elder cleansing that he is asking for immediate suspension of her rights.   He has previously equated the 18 USCA 4 posting as yelling fire in a crowded theatre!     (First day of trial, Jan. 21, 2014, see Record on Appeal, http://www.marygsykes.com, ARDC v JMD tab).
You cannot make his stuff up.   AD is complaining that he has no forum to seek redress.  Herein in Illinois wherein it has been estimated that corruption costs $3008 per capita having a forum is a joke!   The fix is in!    An honest political soul is one who when bribed stays bribed!

Brief on Appeal for JMD–How many ways can we tell the authorities that the 1st Amendment is alive and kicking

Now you all know that when I am quiet for a day or two I am up to something, so here is my Appeal to the Reivew Board at the Atty Regn and Disc. Comm.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwMkV5UTBnLXNXS2c/view?usp=sharing

This is the scan.  It is replete with First Amendment assertions–those that are generally in pristine condition at the ARDC because they are unused and kept under lock and key!

You can also read it below.

This blog is dedicated to you, my fans and probate victims.  No one knows more than you, and certainly no one at the ARDC knows how you have suffered.  You all file horrendous complaints (Gore, Drabik, Wyman, etc.) and the ARDC/Jerome Larkin dismiss them out of hand and often write nonsensical letters back (Sykes, Gore, etc.)

But rest assured I am here for you.  On Mar 13, 2015 at 9:30 am at 130 W Randolph, One Prudential Plaza on the 8th floor, there will be my oral argument before the Review Board of the ARDC.  Please be there for support.  I want the Review Board to see the victims of the 18th floor and other probate courts around the nation.

Candice Schwager, an attorney in Texas has pledged support.  Barbara Stone an attorney from New York who is on bracelent monitoriing for objecting to her aged mother receiving Miralax–a dangerous synthesized chemical compound to relieve constipation–has pledged support.

We need to band together.  We need to form a cohesive group that the fleecing of the elderly in court will not be tolerated, and then drugging them with chemical restraints, implanting feeding tubes to save time and effort at for profit nursing homes, depriving them of the sense of taste, eating and chewing, is an abomination in the US today, and certainly subject to the International Treaties against torture, in all of its forms.

Our elderly and disableds need to be protected. The truth needs to be told.  We are not doing the job we should to protect vulnerable citizens of the US and worldwide.

The protection of our disableds and elderly are the hallmark of advanced civilization and show compassion, empathy, sympathy, patience and tolerance.  These are all lessons we need to hone.

Let’s pray for them all today and that the Review Board will have the compassion, empathy, sympathy, patience and tolerance that so far has been impenetrable at the IARDC.  At my trial, the ARDC proudly proclaimed that lack of empathy, sympathy, compassion, patience and tolerance for the elderly and disableds is “sour grapes.”  We need to change that attitude.

Joanne

Now comes Respondent Atty JoAnne Denison and herewith files her Brief to the Reivew Board which respectfully moves the Board to DISMISS all charges against the undersigned counsel. The undersigned counsel has done nothing other than run a blog relating to probate matters and the targeting of the elderly to drain their estates and leave them destitute by operation or color of law. She has not stolen anything, she has not neglected any client matters, in fact no clients at all have complained about her.  The only entities complaining about her are judges and attorneys of questionable character– a character which the public has the right to judge, fairly and openly.
She has been a patent attorney for approximately the last 30 years without any public discipline.  She has served many clients for low cost or free or on a payment plan.  No client complaint to date has resulted in any disciplinary action.  The present disciplinary action does not involve any client complaint.  Rather, the present disciplinary action has left Ms. Denison with unwavering support from other blogs, notably, http://www.probatesharks.com, NASGA or http://www.stopelderabuse.org, Atty Candice Schwager’s popular probate blog (www.schwagerfirm.com) and other probate blogs.  Ms. Denison says nothing different or better or worse than any of these other blogs.  Her blog is fairly much the same and tells the same tale of targeting a senior, guardianizing them, often without jurisdiction, placing them against their will into a locked down nursing home, liquidating all assets while telling the court it is for the “good of ward, the ward needs the money” but in reality most will go to court appointed attorneys, and to a nursing home not mentioned or wanted in the ward’s advance directives.  Then the ward will be chemically restrained, without due process of law, and when the estate is depleted, the ward will experience problems with nutrition and dehydration and death quickly follows.  It is a plan found nationwide and the undersigned attorney hears of, is emailed or is called regarding at least one two three cases nationwide per week.
Her blog speaks the truth and is quickly approaching 90,000 views since December of 2011.
She is respectfully asking for dismissal on the following grounds: 1)  47 USC § 230 for the internet immunity act which provides immunity to people who post on the internet and it provides a proper remedy for anyone objecting to posts; 2) the First Amendment to the US Const.; 3) Ill. State Const. Article 1, Section 4; 3) 320 ILCS § 20 Elder Abuse Act, immunity for reporting Elder Abuse; 4) 42 USC § 22203 for Retaliatory Acts for reporting discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act; 5) the common law defenses to defamation, slander and libel, including, but not limited to: hyperbole, exaggeration, opinion etc., 735 ILCS § 110-1/2 or the Citizens Participation Act; 18 USC § 4 for Misprison of Felony in reporting crimes to the authorities and showing others how to report these crimes to the authorities pro se.
The blog reports nothing but the truth, and publishes hundreds of documents, pleadings and evidence of the truth in Probate.  The ARDC, in prosecuting a blog that does nothing but tell the truth, promote honor, decency, education, truth and justice, does great harm to the public.
The prosecution of a blog by the ARDC is wrong. The premise that the media obstructs justice, disrupts the orderly administration of justice is a pure fabrication, worth of only the most desperate of fascist countries such as Iraq, Iran and N. Korea, and such fascism has no place in the democracy of the United States.  In the US, there is no such legal theory such as “shoot the messenger” or “blame the media.”  The press is free and democratic.  Accordingly, any complaint against a Blogger, must be DIMISSED.
3) The Legal Issues for Review:
a) Can a blog owned and operated by an attorney create clear and convincing evidence for discipline under Rule 8.2 regarding a judge, especially when it was shown at trial that the Judge changed her testimony, the transcript was also altered, and all of this amounted to Fraud on the Court–all of which was ignored in the Nov. 21, 2014 decision rendered by the Tribunal?
B) Can a blog owned and operated by an attorney create clear and convincing evidence for discipline under Rule 8.2(c) when all of the transcripts, evidence, pleadings regarding the allegedly false statements made were on the blog and the public could decide for itself, and post comments and commentary, but no adverse comments and commentary have been made, despite the fact the blog has had about 80,000 views?
b) Can an attorney respondent be found by clear and convincing evidence to have lied or made reckless statements regarding activities in the 09 P 4585 case when in fact, most of the family and friends were barred from testifying at trial because they would have testified contrary to the Judge and court appointed attorneys in violation of Rule 8.4(d)?
c) can an attorney respondent be found by clear and convincing evidence to have lied or made reckless statements regarding activities in 09 P 4585 case when in fact, all of the expert witnesses on blogging in probate, and who knew the Sykes case intimately and the family, and were banned from testifying because the Tribunal did not need those experts?  However, in reality, the Tribunal wanted to ban testimony highly favorable to Respondent.
d) Can an attorney respondent be found by clear and convincing evidence to have violated any of Rules 8.2, 8.2(c) or (d) on the basis of the Tribunal asserting a legal basis of “blame the media” or “shoot the messenger”?
e) Can an attorney respondent be found by clear and convincing evidence to have violated any of Rules 8.2, 8.(c) or (d) regarding an attorney engaging in lies, deception or reckless statements when the Tribunal itself admitted that the Subject Case 09 P 4585 was a hotly “contentious legal proceeding”? (p. 30, Decision)
(the other charges were apparently dismissed)

The facts and Background
As noted above, much of the trial centered around the Sykes 09 P 4585 case wherein Mary G Sykes was railroaded into a guardianship and was not served with a Summons and Complaint or read her rights as required by the Illinois Probate Act
The only entities making claims against her are those that are court appointed attorneys working the probate court system for fees and appointments.  On the witness stand, each of Judge Stuart, Attys Peter Schmeidel, Cynthia Farenga and Adam Stern self declared they were amazing and miraculous advocates of the disabled with no parallels.   Unfortunately, on cross examination it turned out Peter Schmeidel never saw Mary Sykes in 5 years, and Cyntia Farenga and Adam Stern, Mary’s two Guardians ad Litem (GAL’s) saw her for less than an hour total!  Each of the witnesses the ARDC put on, had massive issues with integrity in their handling of the Mary Sykes probate case–all of which was reported on the Subject Blog in great detail.  The Tribunal admits that the Kathy Bakken testimony indicated the case was hotly contested (p. 30, ¶ 2) However, the Tribunal never explains either why it needed to take the side of the ARDC witnesses (Stuart, Farenga and Stern) over the family witnesses (Gloria, Kathleen, Scott) and the Probate Expert witnesses (Ken and Bev Cooper, Sylvia Rudek), all of whom had to be barred from testifying about the Sykes case in order for the ARDC to win their case.
In the case of Mary Sykes, 09 P 4585, Ms. Sykes, a 90 year old widow of a Chicago Police Officer, living in Norwood Park in Chicago, was removed from her home, stripped of her human and civil rights, forced to live in Naperville, Illinois with a daughter she was estranged from, and not at all in her her advance directives, then separate her from about a million dollars in gold and valuable coins–all without first obtaining jurisdiction of the court.  Illinois Probate Act requires 14 days advance notice of the time, date and place of a guardianship hearing–this notice was never received by Mary or her two elderly sisters, Yolanda Bakken and Josephine DiPietro.  In addition, no sheriff’s service could be found on her (Resp Exh. A).
This is how the entire blog started–with one elderly woman who was stripped of her rights in 2009, the younger daughter fighting to get her mother and her property back, and a blog that tells the entire story, day by day with articles and postings by many attorneys, friends and relatives of Mary. The blog–www.marygsykes.com, which is mirrored at http://www.justice4every1.com tells the entire sordid tale of an elderly woman stripped of her rights, stuck in nursing homes she did not want to ever live in, and railroaded into a guardianship where discovery was denied, the probate court refused to look at the advance directives of Mary Sykes and appoint her younger daughter, Gloria, who held that rights.
From a simple blog over one lone case in November 2011, came an avalanche of dozens and dozens of other cases telling the same story over and over.  A wealthy senior is targeted for guardianship in a number of ways, through a survey at a hospital, senior center or from a nurse, or from lawyer; then a petition is filed, a deal is made who will be the guardian and who will be the guardian’s attorney, who will be the Guardian ad Litem or GAL, and other players are bought in–case managers, social workers, visiting nurses–you name it, they are assigned to the case, generally for hundreds of dollars per hour, when a comparable off the street rate would be $20 to $40 per hour.  The ward or targeted ward has no say in anything.  If she is lucky, she will get an attorney.  In Mary’s case, videos on the internet near the time of her alleged “incompetence” show her with excellent higher cognitive skills–talking about her daughters, her estate and what she wanted. Scott Evans would have testified that in fall of 2009 Mary was still part of a neighborhood card group, and the last time she played, they played canasta (a complex game) and she beat the pants off of everyone!  She wanted to live in her own home until she died and have Gloria, the younger daughter, care for her.  She never said she wanted to live at Carolyn’s home, or a nursing home, or have her home sold, but that is exactly what happened in 09 P 4585.
Then the senior is generally place against her will into a locked down nursing home (Wyman, Drabik, Tyler, Frake, etc.) and is chemically restrained with psychotropic drugs which are not FDA approved and which are dispensed without knowledge or consent of the patient in contravention to Illinois Law.
And the true crux of all of these cases–and what the Tribunal sorely wanted to cover up during the trial, was the fact that Mary’s home was appraised at $700,000 in one month and then a few months later sold for $238,000.  In addition, what was left over after the sale and mortgage payoff pretty much went to attorneys fees, with GAL’s admitting to taking about $50k or $60k from the trust for attorney’s fees.  Further, fact witness Scott Evans was banned because he was to testify that it would all go to attorneys fees, and that is pretty much what has come to fruition.  Peter Schmeidel and Fischel and Kahn has put in a fee claim out of the estate for well over $100,000!
The undersigned counsel presently devotes 90% of her time to providing legal services to probate and court room victims of corruption for low cost or free or a reasonable payment plan.  No other attorney in Illinois does that. She now devotes all of her time and energy to cleaning up the messes these other “probate attorneys” leave behind in their quests to target seniors, drain estates, place seniors in nursing homes where they do not want to be, ignore any advance directives, and sell off paid up homes and cars and drain bank accounts ostensibly for “the good of the ward” when in reality, it is for the good of many court connected pocketbooks.

A) Improper rulings by the Tribunal over evidence and witnesses demand a new trial or reversal.

Respondent appeals the barring of Scott Evans and Gloria Sykes.  Gloria Sykes was barred because she did not turn over 12,000+ emails over 5 years in discovery. She claimed attorney client and Illinois Reporter’s privilege because she is a professional award winning reporter and journalist, and when not caring for her mother full time, that was her chosen profession and still is.  She is in the process of contacting media, providing interviews on Elder abuse and legislation, and she is working on her own book and docudrama regarding her mother.  She is a professional producer of documentaries and docudramas.  Had the undersigned attorney turned over the emails without the permission of Ms. Sykes, she could have been found liable for a breach of the Illinois Reporter’s Privilege law.  The undersigned attorney has absolutely no assets and no insurance to take on that type of liability for a breach of Ms. Sykes’ rights in and to her own Reporter’s intellectual property.  The ARDC never offered Ms. Denison any immunity for breaching that law.  Gloria’s profits could have easily reached millions of dollars in books sales and video sales.  It is a chance not worth taking.  But more important, it encourages an attorney to break the law so the ARDC can go on a discovery fishing expedition.
If the charges are not completely dismissed, then Respondent is requesting a new trial because Scott Evans was not allowed to testify and he was present at many, many court proceedings and would have stated the blog stated the truth.
Gloria Sykes is the younger daughter and she would have testified that the blog stated the truth about her mother’s 09 P 4585 case and she held the last valid Power of Attorney for Health care, and that POA was ignored by Judge Conners in the probate court.  She would have further testified, than in contradiction to what Judge Stuart testified, that Gloria was not chained in her ante room to divulge Gloria’s assets, that Judge Stuart did in fact have her chained by her deputies and did in fact have her deputies threaten her pets with euthanization.
Gloria Sykes should have been allowed to testify.
Ms. Denison’s experts should have been allowed to testify.  Mr. Ken Cooper runs a popular blog entitled http://www.probatesharks.com.  He was barred from testifying as an expert on probate blogs, despite the fact his blog is extremely popular and has more than 70,000 views per year.  He would have testified he was familiar with the case, with the family’s claims regarding the probate case and that Ms. Denison’s blogs fairly reported upon those claims.
Ms. Sylvia Rudek was barred from testifying despite the fact that she is an expert in the probate court victim arena and the NASGA blog has more than 150,000 views per year.  NASGA runs a “most wanted” list which is not a laudatory position, and each of the ARDC witnesses testified that they were attorneys of good standing and well respected in the courtroom. The NASGA “most wanted” list tells the truth and a much darker side to what these attorneys and the judges involved in the Probate Court have done to Mary Sykes and other probate victims.  Each of Judge Stuart, Judge Connors, Peter Schmeidel, have been featured on the NASGA “most wanted” list–as a dire warning to the public to stay away.
(5) Legal Argument
a) The First Amendment and Free Speech
The First Amendment is a core American value that the US Supreme Court has determined not to be subject to being impeded or otherwise censored except under extremely limited circumstances.  The Supreme Court has decreed the Rule of Law and has been unequivocal in stating that a citizen’s right to unimpeded free speech is superior to the whim of persons temporarily in power.
The First Amendment abrogates, except in extreme circumstances not present herein, the government’s power to dictate and control the speech of an US citizen.  The Court’s free speech declarations have been embodied in the following cases:
United States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 2537, 183 L. Ed. 2d 574 (2012), Brown v. Entm’t Merchants Ass’n, 131 S. Ct. 2729, 180 L. Ed. 2d 708 (2011), Ashcroft v. Am. Civil Liberties Union, 542 U.S. 656, 124 S. Ct. 2783, 159 L. Ed. 2d 690 (2004), Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S. Ct. 1207, 179 L. Ed. 2d 172 (2011), Citizens United v.
Fed. Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310, 130 S. Ct. 876, 175 L. Ed. 2d 753 (2010). 7 McCutcheon v. F.E.C., 12-536, 2014 WL 1301866 (U.S. Apr. 2, 2014)
In Peel v. Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Comm’n of Illinois, 496 U.S. 91, 97, 110 S. Ct. 2281, 2286, 110 L. Ed. 2d 83 (1990), In re Sawyer, 360 U.S.
622, 640, 79 S. Ct. 1376, 1385, 3 L. Ed. 2d 1473 (1959).Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 97 S. Ct. 2691, 53 L. Ed. 2d 810 (1977), In re Primus,
436 U.S. 412, 98 S. Ct. 1893, 56 L. Ed. 2d 417 (U.S.S.C. 1978). Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030, 111 S. Ct. 2720, 115 L. Ed. 2d 888 (1991) make it clear that no dichotomy is drawn between attorney and other citizens.
In this case, each of Schmeidel, Farenga and Stern have a remedy.  If they felt the blog was so reckless and untrue, they might have filed an action in defamation, false light or libel.  As of the writing of this brief, they have undertaken no such action.  They themselves have voluntarily acted in a “hotly contested” case, placing them in the public spotlight.  As a public figure, they have nearly no recourse for statements they do not like.  Likewise, Ms. Denison cannot sue any of them for any comments each of them have made about her, on the blog or not on the blog; at the Tribunal or not at the Tribunal proceedings.  Because she has chosen to run, own and maintain a blog about probate, those that differ with her opinions will have the unfettered right to make them, and  litigation is not the remedy to put a gag on these individuals.
One very important point that the Tribunal entirely missed was whether or not the 09 P 4585 court ever attained jurisdiction over Mary Sykes.  Mary Sykes lived in Norwood Park in Chicago.  She was well known in the neighborhood and a friend of Ms. Denison’s for many years.  The Illinois Probate act requires:
The court attains jurisdiction over the allegedly disabled person by personal service upon him of a copy of the petition and summons not less than 14 days before the hearing. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 110½, ¶  11a–10(e); see, McCormick v. Blaine (1931), 345 Ill. 461, 178 N.E. 195.) It is also a jurisdictional requirement that the petitioner give notice of the time and place of the hearing by mail or in person to the nearest living relatives of the allegedly disabled person not less than 14 days before the hearing.
Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 110½, par. 11a–10(f); see, In re Guardianship of
Sodini (1988), 172 Ill.App.3d 1055, 123 Ill.Dec. 67, 527 N.E.2d 530.” In re Estate of Steinfeld, 158 Ill. 2d 1, 630 N.E.2d 801, 807 (1994).

A letter from Sheriff Dart’s offices as Respondent’s Exhibit A was completely ignored by the Tribunal.  There was no jurisdiction over Mary and there is yet no jurisdiction over Mary.  In addition, the Tribunal ignored the following:
To protect the elderly and the disabled, Illinois
law states:
“(b) Guardianship shall be utilized only as is necessary to promote the well-being of the disabled person, to protect him from neglect, exploitation, or abuse, and to encourage development of his maximum self-reliance and independence. Guardianship shall be ordered only to the extent necessitated by the individual’s actual mental, physical and adaptive limitations.” 755 ILCS 5/11a-311

The Tribunal never inquired into the fact, and witnesses were banned that would have testified (Scott Evans, Gloria Sykes, Kathy Bakken, etc.) that Mary was isolated from 20+ former friends and family and she was secreted away to a remote location (Naperville) which was unfamiliar to her and not in her advance directives.  The Tribunal ignored all of this when it tried to convince Ms. Denison’s witnesses that the Sykes probate matter was nothing more than “sour grapes.”  However, Ms. Denison and other probate experts and attorneys assert that there were serious violations of the law, amounting to corruption of law.
By limiting an individual’s right to make decisions, guardianship not only divests the individual of the important right to self-determination but also marginalizes that person and removes him or her from a host of interactions involved in decision making. In this way, guardianship segregates a person from many critical aspects of social, economic, and civic life. See, Leslie Salzman, Rethinking Guardianship (Again): Substituted Decision Making As A Violation of the Integration Mandate of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 81 U. Colo. L. Rev. 157, 160 (2010).
Illinois’ stated policy is to protect its citizens from over-reaching by government is recited in 755 ILCS 110/5. Immunity to people such as the Respondent is granted in 320 ILCS 20/4. County of     DeWitt v Am Fed’n of State Cnty, Mun Employees Council 31 298 Ill App3d 634, 637–38, 699 NE 2d 163, 166 (1998) makes it clear that Courts are required to comport with the Policy of the State as enacted by the legislature.
Respondent, as a citizen, is entitled to Equal Protection of the law in its fullest degree. It was and is ultra vires for government to discriminate against the Respondent in undertaking a blog to promote truth and justice in Probate amidst a plethora of claims such integrity is sorely lacking. In particular, it is a denial of equal protection for government (IARDC) to enhance punishment for not participating in ‘obstruction of
justice,’ or other 18 USCA 371 behavior. It is ultra vires for government to enhance punishment for not being repentant for compliance with Federal and
State law.
“a basic First Amendment principle that freedom of speech prohibits the
government from telling people what they must say.” Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47, 61, 126 S.Ct. 1297, 164 L.Ed.2d 156 (2006) (citing West Virginia State Bd. of Ed. v.  Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642, 63 S.Ct. 1178, 87 L.Ed. 1628 (1943), and Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 717, 97 S.Ct. 1428, 51 L.Ed.2d 752 (1977)).

“At the heart of the First Amendment lies the principle that each person should decide for himself or herself the ideas and beliefs deserving of expression, consideration, and adherence.” Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 641, 114 S.Ct. 2445, 129 L.Ed.2d 497 (1994); see Knox v. Service Employees, 567 U.S. __, 132 S.Ct. 2277, 2288, 183 L.Ed.2d 281 (2012) (“The government may not . . . compel the endorsement of ideas that it approves.”).

Were it enacted as a direct regulation of speech, the Policy requirement would plainly violate the First Amendment. The question is whether the Government may nonetheless impose that requirement as a condition on the receipt of federal funds.” Agency for Int’l Dev. v. Alliance for Open Soc’y Int’l, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2321, 2327, 186 L. Ed. 2d 398 (2013).
On April 2, 2014 the Supreme Court of the United States reiterated the core principle of the First Amendment and pointed out that “when the Government restricts speech, the Government bears the burden of proving the constitutionality of its actions.” United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 529 U.S., at 816.” McCutcheon v. F.E.C., 12-536, 2014 WL 1301866 (U.S. Apr. 2, 2014).
The Tribunal in its decision  does not explain how their position is the least and best restrictive means to protect Free Speech. An arbitrary pronouncement that the First Amendment is not applicable to Respondent’s speech begs the question and the policy of Illinois stated in 18 USCA 4, 320 ILCS 20/4, 735 ILCS 110/5 and/or the First Amendment. The First Amendment “is designed and intended to remove governmental restraints from the arena of public discussion, putting the decision as to what views shall be voiced largely into the hands of each of us, . . . in the belief that no other approach would comport with the premise of individual dignity and choice upon which our political system rests.” Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 24, 91 S.Ct. 1780, 29 L.Ed.2d 284 (1971). As relevant here, the First Amendment safeguards an individual’s right to participate in the public debate through political expression and political association. see Buckley, 424 U.S., at 15. McCutcheon v. F.E.C., 12-536, 2014 WL 1301866 (U.S. Apr. 2, 2014).
In United States vs. Alvarez (infra) the Supreme Court of the United States stated:
“[A]s a general matter, the First Amendment means that government has no
power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U.S. 564, 573, 122
S.Ct. 1700, 152 L.Ed.2d 771 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). As a result,
*2544 the Constitution “demands that content-based restrictions on speech be
presumed invalid . . . and that the Government bear the burden of showing
their constitutionality.” Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 542 U.S.
656, 660, 124 S.Ct. 2783, 159 L.Ed.2d 690 (2004)”. United States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 2537, 2543-44, 183 L. Ed. 2d 574 (2012) Unpopular and universally condemned
expressions of speech are no exception to the principle “***** government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U.S. 564, 573, 122 S.Ct. 1700, 152 L.Ed.2d 771 (2002) Brown v. Entm’t Merchants Ass’n,
131 S. Ct. 2729, 2733, 180 L. Ed. 2d 708 (2011). Thus selling violent video games to children was protected by the First Amendment. Indeed speech depicting cruelty to animals was ruled protected, to wit:
“speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits. The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs. Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it.” Id.

The Constitution is not a document “prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 178, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803)”. United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460, 470, 130 S. Ct. 1577, 1585, 176 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2010).
Indeed, specifically directed prohibitions on First Amendment Rights such as are being applied to the instant Respondent in these proceedings are totally in
contravention of the core values of America and the Supreme Court mandate of Snyder vs Phelps, 131 S.Ct. 1207, 179 L.Ed.2d 17279.   As judges in Illinois are elected, it is respectfully submitted that they are afforded no protection outside the scope of the trial environment required to foster a fair trial. Attempts to shelter a judicial official from disclosure of allegations of misconduct, is overbroad.
In the First Amendment context, however, this Court recognizes “a second type of facial challenge,” whereby a law may be invalidated as overbroad if “a substantial number of its applications are unconstitutional, judged in relation to the
statute’s plainly legitimate sweep.” Washington State Grange v. Washington
State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442, 449, n. 6, 128 S.Ct. 1184, 170 L.Ed.2d 151
(2008)” United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460, 473, 130 S. Ct. 1577, 1587, 176 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2010).
It should be noted that: “Courts, too, are bound by the First Amendment.” Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310, 326, 130 S. Ct. 876, 891, 175 L. Ed. 2d 753 (2010)1    In Citizens United the Supreme Court stated:
“The ongoing chill upon speech that is beyond all doubt protected makes it necessary in this case to invoke the earlier precedents that a Statute which chills speech can and must be invalidated where its facial invalidity has been demonstrated.
**********
“Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy, for it is the means to hold
officials accountable to the people.” See, Buckley, supra, at 14–15, 96 S.Ct. 612 (“In a republic where the people are sovereign, the ability of the citizenry to make informed choices among candidates for office is essential”). The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information to reach consensus is a precondition to enlightened self-government and a necessary means to protect it. The First Amendment “‘has its fullest and most urgent application’ to speech uttered during a campaign for political office.” *340 Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Comm., 489 U.S. 214, 223, 109 S.Ct. 1013, 103 L.Ed.2d 271 (1989) (quoting, Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265, 272, 91 S.Ct. 621, 28 L.Ed.2d 35 (1971)); see Buckley, supra, at 14, 96 S.Ct. 612.
(“Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates are integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution”).
********
“Political speech is indispensable to decision making in a democracy, and this is
no less true because the speech comes from a corporation rather than an individual.” Bellotti, 435 U.S., at 777, 98 S.Ct. 1407, (footnote omitted); see ibid. (the worth of speech “does not depend upon the identity of its source, whether corporation, association, union, or individual”); Buckley, 424 U.S., at 48–49, 96 S.Ct. 612 (“[T]he concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance *350 the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment”); Automobile Workers, 352 U.S., at 597, 77 S.Ct. 529 (Douglas, J., dissenting); CIO, 335 U.S., at 154–155, 68 S.Ct. 1349 (Rutledge, J., concurring in result).” Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310, 349-50, 130 S. Ct. 876, 904, 175 L. Ed. 2d 753 (2010).
“The First Amendment does not permit the State to sacrifice speech for efficiency.” Riley v. National Federation of Blind of N. C., Inc., 487 U.S. 781, 795, 108 S.Ct. 2667, 101 L.Ed.2d 669 (1988). Arizona Free Enter. Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, 131 S. Ct. 2806, 2824, 180 L. Ed. 2d 664 (2011).
It is axiomatic that herein society has a vested interest in Government restraint and government providing a level playing field.
“The Government has a strong interest, no less critical to our democratic system, in combating corruption and its appearance. We have, however, held that this interest must be limited to a specific kind of corruption—quid pro quo corruption—in order to ensure that the Government’s efforts do not have the effect of restricting the First Amendment right of citizens to choose who shall govern them.” McCutcheon v. F.E.C., 12-536, 2014 WL 1301866 (U.S. Apr. 2, 2014).

The US Supreme Court has been very clear and forceful in its protection of the First Amendment while the Tribunal appears to ignore this Court’s words, to wit:
It hardly needs elaboration to make it clear that the question of the total insufficiency of the evidence to sustain a serious charge of professional misconduct, against a backdrop of the claimed constitutional rights of an attorney to speak as freely as another citizen, is not one which can be subsumed under the headings of local practice, customs or law. In re Sawyer, 360 U.S. 622, 640, 79 S. Ct. 1376, 1385, 3 L. Ed. 2d 1473 (1959)
It is therefore respectfully suggested that Illinois, its courts, its commissions, and the IARDC lack the power and the jurisdiction to directly or indirectly over-rule the Supreme Court of the United States or make compliance with State and Federal Statutes regarding reporting Elder Abuse, misprison of felony, conspiracy, etc., a disciplinary offense. The decision of Tribunal to suspend Ms. Denison for three years in light of the Free Speech mandates of the US Supreme Court cannot stand.  See,  Loving v. I.R.S., 917 F. Supp. 2d 67, 80 (D.D.C. 2013) aff’d, 742 F.3d 1013 (D.C. Cir. 2014).  That various individuals sent her items to post showing the public how to submit complaints and grievances to the authorities and encouraging them to do so to stop the lawlessness they were experiencing in court, should in fact be a Constitutionally protected activity for a blog.  Instead, showing actual examples of grievances and complaints to the proper authorities turned into discipline for Ms. Denison.
The Supreme Court of Illinois in a recent attorney disciplinary case ruled that:
“Before professional discipline may be imposed under Supreme Court Rule 770, the Administrator must demonstrate that the attorney violated the Rules of Professional Conduct. To the extent that any of our prior cases suggest that an attorney may be subjected to professional discipline for conduct that is not prohibited by the Rules of Professional Conduct or defined as misconduct therein, we hereby reject such a suggestion. As a matter of due process, an attorney who is charged with misconduct and faces potential discipline must be given adequate notice of the charges, including the rule or rules he is accused of violating. Personal misconduct that falls outside the scope of the Rules of Professional Conduct may be the basis for civil liability or other adverse consequences, but will not result in professional discipline.” In re Karavidas, 2013 IL 115767.

Karavidas was accused of a breach of fiduciary relationship. Respondent herein, in her capacity of a private citizen owning and operating a free speech blog on current probate legal topics was accused of relating to law enforcement and other citizens certain words and phrases that a judge and some count appointed attorneys found to be objectionable based upon information received from the public and from court records.  The family and friends of these probate victims agreed with the assessment and in fact wrote many of their own posts and comments along the same lines.  It is curious how the ARDC intends to monitor and control language on blogs, and in particular prevent attorneys from agreeing with public information and comments.  For an attorney to say “no comment” or worse yet, have to take the side of deviant attorneys and judges, would greatly harm the public.
It follows therefore, from the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision In re Karavidas, 2013 IL 115767, that a lawyer/citizen who complies with the law, may in fact be violating Rule 8.2 and promoting a code of silence which is like a hot petri dish placed under a lamp for corruption to grow and flourish. It is unfortunate that Illinois ignored, and is continuing to ignore, recent and relevant Supreme Court cases in Alvarez, Brown, Ashcroft, Snyder, Citizens United, Peel, McCutcheon, etc.
More recently, The Virginia Supreme Court is reported to have rejected in a Commercial disclaimer case the ‘will of the wisp’ arbitrariness of the State Attorney
Regulators. See Hunter v. Virginia State Bar ex rel. Third Dist. Comm., 285 Va. 485, 744 S.E.2d 611 (2013) cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 2871, 186 L. Ed. 2d 913 (U.S. 2013). 2013 WL 2279706.  In the Hunter case, a lawyer blogged about winning criminal cases, and some clients took exception to the blog posts on the basis the information, while true, was embarrassing to them.  Fortunately, the Hunter court decided that the posts were true, that court proceedings were public and accordingly, attorney Hunter had not violated any professional rules of conduct, and the First Amendment protected his speech and right to do so.  In the Hunter case, the court noted the blog was commercial in nature, but afford it broad free speech protections.  In the present case, the ARDC has already admitted the Mary Sykes blog in question is non-commercial, and accordingly it should be granted near complete protection from any interference or disciplinary action.
The record of proceedings in this “disciplinary proceeding” is replete with irregularities that are very troubling. The irregularity rises to the seriousness of over-riding the First Amendment protections decreed by this court. Unfortunately, this and the other ‘irregularities’ must be addressed as they are denials of Constitutional rights to wit:
1. Requirement by the IARDC that Illinois lawyers violate 18 USCA 4 and ignore 18 USCA 371.
2.  Requirement that Rule 8.2 may be unconstitutional as it promotes a “code of silence”, prevents lawyers from coming forward with evidence of court corruption involving serious deviation from the laws because said lawyers may be targeted by the ARDC for being the messenger.  Certainly in the Alice Gore case, where a 99 year old woman was isolated from 20+ family members for 10 months and then her 29 gold teeth were pulled and a feeding tube inserted for the convenience of a for profit nursing home, the ARDC sent the family several nonsensical letters denying any wrongdoing on the part of the court appointed lawyers who put her there or the judge, for that matter.  In the Sykes grievance letter filed by Gloria Sykes, she received a response that Adam Stern was now her GAL!  It took two weeks for Atty Black-Guitterez to proclaim she made an inadvertent mistake.  Serious complaints regarding probate matters are dismissed by ARDC attorneys with outright denials, or nonsensical letters.  These have been published on the blog as examples of ARDC work, cover ups and protection of favored attorneys.  The public has a right to know.
3.  Never noting in the Decision that Judge Stuart changed her testimony about chaining the younger daughter, Gloria while on the witness stand and threatening Gloria’s beloved pets with euthanasia.  The Respondent moved during trial for the audio and was denied.  The Respondent filed a separate later motion and was denied.  By not discussing this additional Fraud on the Court in its Decision, it would appear that the Tribunal itself is part of routine Probate Court legal corruption cover ups.
4. Refusal to provide meaningful discovery.  When the ARDC said it would take the depositions of the family member at end of April 2013, it abruptly canceled and the undersigned had to take them at her offices.  Amazingly enough, the ARDC attorneys then engaged in numerous tactics to bar Gloria Sykes’ working dog Shaggy, whom she depends upon to prevent serious and severe panic attacks while in court room situations.  She suffers from PTSD or Litigation Abuse Syndrom and must have her dog with her who warns her of impending panic attacks from stressful courtroom situations.  Her dog is covered under the ADA.  When the Respondent then went to file the family depositions with the ARDC clerk of court, they moved to strike them because they supported completely the truth of information published on Respondent’s blog.  In addition, when Gloria Sykes finally obtained some meager information on the whereabouts of the missing $1 million in valuable coins, the ARDC tried to even quash the discovery return on that, blaming the subpoena on Ms. Denison without any proof.  It turned out Gloria Sykes served the subpoena and brought the signature cards and activity sheets to the trial on the day she was to testify.  The ARDC went bezerk and tried to ban it.  The signature cards showed clearly that once appointed Guardian for Mary Sykes, the older daughter Carolyn, used her powers to drill out a safe deposit box owned by Gloria and Mary Sykes jointly.  Judge Stuart was not informed of this.  The box was never inventoried.  Judge Stuart explained on the stand that a court order was required before a Guardian could drill out a jointly owned safe deposit box.  That never happened.  What really happened is Adam Stern received a $60,000 tax lien in 2012, and the Guardian started sporting expensive clothing and jewelry and additions to her home–all of which was ignored by the two GALs.
In addition, the Tribunal refused to view one of the videos on the internet, taken in late 2009 with Mary Sykes engaged in a 10 minute diatribe video where she clearly makes it know what her advance directives are (she wants both daughters to care for her as she ages), where she wants to live (her own home), how her assets are to be divided (equally, between Carolyn and Gloria, with neither to get one dime more than the other), and she goes into great, thoughtful detail over her end of life decisions and what should happen.  The Tribunal did not want to view the same video that Judge Garber wanted to see, and after which he declared that Mary was completely competent, that he worked in probate for years, and she should have never been guardianized.
If there were ever a case for getting a one sided decision, and then reading the rest of the issues in the case and sensing a cover up, 13 PR 1 has to be a classic case.
5.    All citizen complaints filed against the judicial officials were ignored by the IARDC (as happened in Wyman, Bedin, Drabik, Tyler and others). Ms. Denison’s private communications to law enforcement and other citizens were liberally
tortured, misrepresented and misinterpreted. Ms. Denison had no standing in the Sykes case except as an outraged private citizen and former family friend of Mary Sykes who could suddenly no longer see her.  Interpretations that were clearly not in accord with objective reality were stated as if they had been based upon foundation and evidence, but evidence had never been presented.
6.  In June 2013, Ms. Denison, Gloria Sykes and Scott and Delores Evans were able to locate Mary Sykes in a nursing home and visit with her.  After some time, the Guardian arrived and grabbed Mary Sykes forcibly, pushing her down a hallway and declaring to Mary Sykes she could NEVER see her beloved Gloria again. The abuse was reported to the authorities and nothing ever came of it.  The nursing home staff denied seeing what Ms. Denison, and the other visitors clearly saw–Carolyn grabbing Mary so forcibly she winced and cried out, and then Carolyn shoved her down the hall making nasty comments designed only to grievously upset both Mary and Gloria.  Then the police arrived and questioned everyone, Ms. Denison asked repeatedly if she could leave, and finally the officer said yes, but then it turned out he talked on the phone to Adam Stern and down and out to the parking lot and after Ms. Denison, the police officer asked for 30 minutes of video be destroyed–though he had no right to even ask that.    Again, more actions were taken in a cover up. The staff saw Ms. Denison’s video and they said nothing.  Ms. Denison asked Mary if she could video and she agreed.  Mary Sykes made numerous statements clearly indicating thinking on a high cognitive level.  That had to be destroyed, legal or not.  This event was never addressed by the Tribunal.
6) Conclusion
Professor Margaret Tarkington in her law review article The Truth be Damned: The first Amendment, Attorney Speech and Judicial Repudiation, 97 GEO. L J. 1567, A Free Speech Right to Impugn Judicial Integrity in Court Proceedings, 2009 Boston College Law Review 363 points out how ironic it is that the keepers of the conscience of the legal profession are so hypocritical that they carve out a right for themselves to deny the legal practitioners their First Amendment Rights.
The façade created by such decisions as In re Karavidas, 2013 IL 115767 leads to the illusion of scholarship and contemplation. In cases such as the instant case the affirmation of the IARDC’s overbroad interpretation of Canons of Ethics creates
a ‘trap for all comers’.
The IARDC’s regulation is nothing more than a ‘naked’ usurpation of the Rights and Liberties that the US Supreme Court has labored to preserve over 230 years. The decision of the Tribunal makes a mockery of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.
How can any legitimate tribunal rule that compliance with the Congressional mandate:
“Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.” 18 U.S.C.A. § 4 (West)
How, in light of this statute, is it so ethically challenged as to merit a three year suspension for blogging about Probate and showing how to draft a proper grievance or complaint to the authorities?
Indeed, the affirmation of the IARDC’s actions creates a clear and present danger to the public and American democracy as it teaches that severe punishment is to be expected if a citizen complies with a Federal Criminal Statute of which an
unelected group of lawyers does not approve. The abdication of responsibility by the Tribunal is very troubling. Ms. Denison was not a lawyer in the Sykes case. In re Estate of Sykes, 2011 IL App (1st) 110001-U. Judge Connors denied her permission to appear. Thus, she had ‘no skin in the game’ except as a citizen activist
complaining of the denial to Mary Sykes of her liberty, the separation of Mary Sykes from her family and activities, and the liberation of Mary’s substantial assets without any inventory of those assets being filed in the Probate Court 09 P 4585l, or the Guardian ever being deposed or questioned regarding these assets. The misrepresentation of said fact by the IARDC is intolerable and wrong.
Respondent respectfully urges this Honorable Board to review the
decision of the Tribunal, to reaffirm the rights of the lawyers of the United States of America as to their inalienable rights, and the rights of all citizens to read full, complete and honest lawyer blogs, and allow said attorneys to speak out freely against corruption in the Courts, communicate amongst themselves and with the public, and discuss freely without interference current issues involving elected officials such as judges, including but not limited to those sitting in the Cook County Probate Court.  Respondent also respectfully request this Board subpoena the remaining necessary records in the Sykes case to find out where the missing coins went by requesting the digital security video for the safe deposit area of Pullman Bank to find Mary the remainder of her assets.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

_______________________________
JoAnne M. Denison
Nejla Lane

Prepared By:
JoAnne M. Denison, Atty. No.  14,867
Denison & Associates, PC
5940 W Touhy Ave, #120
phone:  312-553-1300
fax:  312-553-1307
http://www.denisonlaw.com
JoAnne@DenisonLaw.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned attorney – Respondent herewith certifies that on Friday, January 16, 2015, she served an original and one copy upon the clerk of the Commission, and 3 copies upon the other party to review pursuant to Rule 302 (b) via USPS first class mail, postage prepaid

Atty Steven Splitt – 3 copies

Attn: ARDC, One Prudential Plaza, 130 E. Randolph St, 125th Floor

Chicago, IL 60601

via personal delivery

and an original and one copy upon the clerk of the IARDC, 8th floor.

__________________________________

JoAnne Marie Denison

NOTE: PLEASE SAVE TREES BY ACCEPTING EFILING. PIXELS NEVER DIE AND THEY DON’T CLEAN THE AIR.