Widespread corruption in Orange County Cal. causes court to disqualify 250+ prosecutors!

While we have long heard many, many rumblings of wide spread corruption in Orange County California, this judge actually DID something about it–he banned 250+ prosecutors from involvement in his court room.

Turns out the Orange County evidence system contained loads of manufactured, supressed and tainted evidence–all manufactured by the prosecutors and those that assit them.

In addition, informants were placed in jail cells next to represented defendants without consent or knowledge waiting to manufacture or listen for any evidence that would guarantee a conviction–despite the fact there was plenty of evidence to already convict.

This means hundreds of convictions may be overturned once the lawyers and Public Defenders get to the bottom of the massive scheme of corruption.

Does it sound familiar to our nation’s probate system?  To the ARDC that goes after HONEST attorneys that merely speak up and tell the truth to protect Illinois’ most vulnerable citizens–the elderly and disabled?  Mr. Amu was trying to fairly represent his immigrant clients–mostly poor and mostly did not speak English very well.  But he spoke out as soon as corruption was noted.  As soon as Mr. Larkin and his ilk found out that Mr. Amu was destroying a series of cover ups in the Illinois court system, he had a fit and prosecuted Mr. Amu with kangaroo evidence and a kangaroo court.  The the Northern District Court of Illinois rubber stamped his suspension, just as they are getting ready to do mine.

The most important part of all this work tho, is not the individual attorneys involved in tracing and tracking the corruption.  It is seeing how far and how wide it goes.

In Orange County California, it apparently prompted some 500+ pages of affidavits attesting to corruption in that jurisdiction.  Orange County Cal. has 3 million residents, very similar to Cook County. The parallels are fairly astounding.


Let’s hear it for those brave Public Defenders who speak the truth and stand for truth and justice in Democracy.


Two new lows from the ARDC and Review Board–Banning Mr. Amu and Lying about case law

First, my decision from the Review Board today:


Next, the comments of Ken Ditkowsky

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: May 28, 2015 10:46 PM
To: “JoAnne M. Denison” , Probate Sharks , Tim NASGA , Nasga Us , Matt Senator Kirk , Eric Holder , “J. Ditkowsky” , “FBI- ( (” , KRISTI HOOD , Chicago FBI , BILL DITKOWSKY , Bev Cooper , “newseditors@wsj.com” , ISBA Main Discussion Group , “information@iardc.org” , “postmaster@iardc.org” , Federal Bureau of Investigation , Jay Goldman
Subject: Re: Banning Mr. Amu from the ARDC — questions?

Given the state of the Illinois Supreme Court and the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission filing anything with the IARDC is a waste of time and effort.     I read the opinion of Larkin’s kangaroo committee and was shocked that the lawyers on the committee intentionally and deliberately misrepresented the Alvarez case.     
What occurred was not just intellectual dishonesty – it was actual prevarication as to the ruling of the Court.
Ignorance of the Law is said to be no excuse, and lawyers are presumed to know the law.       In the opinion of the Review Board of the Illinois Disciplinary Board it appears that the Administrator and his kangaroo panel intentionally misrepresented the ruling in the recent Supreme Court cases that Ms. Denison cites including but not limited to United States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 2537, 2544-2545, 183 L. Ed. 2d 574, 587-588, 2012 U.S. LEXIS 4879, *16-18, 80 U.S.L.W. 4634, 40 Media L. Rep. 1953, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 468, 2012 WL 2427808 (U.S. 2012)  
In the most dishonest, disreputable, and wrongful manner the panel takes the following words are an exact quote from the Alvarez decision that the Administrator and his stooges misrepresent:
The Government disagrees with this proposition. It cites language from some of this Court’s precedents to support its contention that false statements have no value and hence no First Amendment protection. See also Brief for Eugene Volokh et al. as  Amici Curiae  2-11.  HN6 LEdHN[6]   [6] These isolated statements in some earlier decisions do not support the Government’s submission that false statements, as a general rule, [2545]  are beyond constitutional protection. That conclusion would take the quoted language far from its proper context. For instance, the Court has stated “[f]alse statements of fact are particularly valueless [because] they interfere with the truth-seeking function of the marketplace of ideas,” Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 52, 108 S. Ct. 876, 99 L. Ed. 2d 41 (1988), and that false statements “are not protected by the First Amendment in the same manner as truthful statements,” Brown v. Hartlage, 456 U.S. 45, 60-61, 102 S. Ct. 1523, 71 L. Ed. 2d 732 (1982). See also, e.g., Virginia Bd. of Pharmacysupra, at 771, 96 S. Ct. 1817, 48 L. Ed. 2d 346 (“Untruthful speech, commercial or otherwise, has never been protected for its own sake”); Herbert v.Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 171, 99 S. Ct. 1635, 60 L. Ed. 2d 115 (1979) (“Spreading false information in and of itself carries no First Amendment credentials”); Gertz,supra, at 340, 94 S. Ct. 2997, 41 L. Ed. 2d 789 (“[T]here is no constitutional value in false statements of fact”); Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 75, 85 S. Ct. 209, 13 L. Ed. 2d 125 (1964) (“[T]he knowingly false statement and the false statement made with reckless disregard of the truth, do not enjoy constitutional protection”).
These quotations all derive from cases discussing defamation, fraud, or some other legally cognizable harm associated with a false statement, such as an invasion of privacy or the costs of vexatious litigation. See Brief for United States 18-19. In those decisions the falsity of the speech at issue was not irrelevant to our analysis, but neither was it determinative. The Court has never endorsed the categorical rule the Government advances: that false statements receive no First Amendment protection. Our prior decisions have not confronted a measure, like the Stolen Valor Act, that targets falsity and nothing more.
HN7  LEdHN[7]   [7] Even when considering some instances of defamation and fraud, moreover, the Court has been careful to instruct that falsity alone may not suffice to bring the speech outside theFirst Amendment. The statement must be a knowing or reckless falsehood. See Sullivansupra, at 280, 84 S. Ct. 710, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 (prohibiting recovery of damages for a defamatory falsehood made about a public official unless the statement was made “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not”); see also Garrisonsupra, at 73, 85 S. Ct. 209, 13 L. Ed. 2d 125 (“[E]ven when the utterance is false, the great principles of the Constitution which secure freedom of expression . . . preclude attaching adverse consequences to any except the knowing or reckless false-hood”); Illinois ex rel. Madigan v. Telemarketing Associates, Inc., 538 U.S. 600, 620, 123 S. Ct. 1829, 155 L. Ed. 2d 793 (2003) (“False statement alone does not subject a fundraiser to fraud liability”).
This section is a discussion of the government’s arguments – not the Court’s decision.   Thus to  claim that the Alvarez Court carved out an exception to content related speech is clearly dishonesty on the part of the Administrator, his attorneys, and his rubber stamp panels.      Let me make the allegation perfectly clear, to wit:    The Hearing panel, the Administrator and the Review panel openly and notoriously misrepresented in their opinion the Law.    Such is intolerable and is totally unprofessional and unethical.     Certainly whomever wrote the opinion in the Denison opinion was aware that he/she was acting fraudulently,      The Supreme Court of the United States has clearly made political and content related speech to be protected by the First Amendment.     It did not single out untruthful statements and it is fair to say that the Supreme in Alvarez rebuked the statement that the Disciplinary Board advances with the words:
The First Amendment itself ensures the right to respond to speech we do not like, and for good reason. Freedom of speech and thought flows not from the beneficence of the state but from the inalienable rights of the person. And suppression of speech by the government can make exposure of falsity more difficult, not less so. Society has the right and civic duty to engage in open, dynamic, rational discourse. These ends are not well served when the government seeks to orchestrate public discussion through content-based mandates.

United States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 2537, 2550, 183 L. Ed. 2d 574, 593, 2012 U.S. LEXIS 4879, *32, 80 U.S.L.W. 4634, 40 Media L. Rep. 1953, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 468, 2012 WL 2427808 (U.S. 2012)
For the Record the Court ruled:
The Nation well knows that one of the costs of the First Amendment is that it protects the speech we detest as well as the speech we embrace. Though few might find respondent’s statements anything but contemptible, his right to make those statements is protected by the Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of speech and expression. The Stolen Valor Act infringes upon speech protected by the First Amendment.

United States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 2537, 2551, 183 L. Ed. 2d 574, 594, 2012 U.S. LEXIS 4879, *35, 80 U.S.L.W. 4634, 40 Media L. Rep. 1953, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 468, 2012 WL 2427808 (U.S. 2012)
The disgraceful act of Mr. Larkin’s kangaroo committee has reached new lows of dishonesty and corruption.    
Unfortunately, the Illinois Attorney Registration of Disciplinary Commission, Mr. Larkin, and those who act in concert with them are mostly lawyers and mostly paid by the public.    As public employees they commit their crimes in the course of their employment and very often are able to get away with serious criminal acts by claiming immunity etc.    The mantel of legitimacy hides many felonies; however, this opinion in the Denison case is so wrong and ethically challenged as to mandate not only an HONEST investigation, but the forfeiture of the licenses of every attorney involved in the prosecution.      Rule 8.3 requires lawyers to complaint of this type of unconscionable acts by lawyers to Disciplinary authorities.      8.3. is thwarted as the ethically challenged lawyers are the Disciplinary authorities!.       18 USCA 4 requires felonies to be reported to law enforcement.     This particular criminal act committed in derogation of the Civil Rights of JoAnne Denison is being reported herewith to law enforcement.
It is proper to the challenge the law, custom, usage, and even habits.       However, if Mr. Larkin and those he acts in concert with want to challenge a law it is respectfully suggested that the judicial authority of the Supreme Court of the United States should not be challengeable by blatant misrepresentation of the cases and the law!      Indeed, some honesty should be demanded of agents of the Supreme Court of Illinois! 

Next, we have Mr. Lane Amu, an unfairly prosecuted HONEST attorney who was suspended for three years for making honest statements about corruption in three of his cases–statements which were never denied by the judges involved, and all three judges reversed their decisions.  Most notably, one of the judges Lynn Egan, had to resign from her position on the Board of Directors of a corporate entity whom her brother-lawyer represented and appeared before her on behalf of that same corporate entity.  It is most interesting she resigned from that Board, but not as a Judge for her ethical violation.  Mr. Amu’s assertions are showing effects–but the effects are ignored by the Judiciary and the ARDC, but not the corporation involved.

So, what does the ARDC do?  Reverse his decision. Write an apology to him?  Of course not!  They ban him from filing motions with the Clerk of Court of the ARDC.
See the letter:


Sent: May 28, 2015 4:08:12 PM
To: loamu@aol.com; Kenneth Ditkowsky [Ditkowsky Law]; Atty Barbara Stone;
Atty Candice Schwager
Subject: Re: Banning Mr. Amu from the ARDC — questions?
Auto forwarded by a Rule

This is interesting.  So many questions.

1) Why is Lanre Amu being denied access to a Government State of Illinois office?
2) Was there a court order issued?  If so, why was he not served? Who received a copy of the court order, if anyone?
3) What happened to Mr. Lanre Amu is Fraud on the Court.  All orders issued during a Fraud on the Court tained case are void ab initio.  Has there been a ruling on the Fraud on the Court issues he suggests?
4)  Did Mr. Jerome Larkin ban Mr. Lanre Amu from the premises, if not, who did this?  What were the grounds?
5)  Does not Mr. Amu have a constitutional right to gain admittance to the ARDC to file motions?

let me know if you have further questions.  I would like to publish.


And I have to add, this smacks of the underhanded tactics used in corrupt cases.  I can’t tell you the number of cases I have seen where a probate victim, for whatever reason, loses an attorney, then all victim’s pleadings are struck on oral motion, or they are ignored or lost and forgotten (Sykes, Jones, et alia).  This is not supposed to happen.  It is a constitutional right to be pro se and have one’s pleadings respected.
Orders to ban the filing of further pleadings are simply unconsitutional. They should never be entered, and they never are, by HONEST judges.  And HONEST attorneys don’t move to strike them simply because the litigant is now pro se.  An honest judge is supposed to protect pro se litigants and not summarily strike and ignore pleadings.
And Mr. Tim Lahrman, a probate victim himself, I wish to direct this new article to Mr. Larkin today:
The fight for freedom, democracy, civil and human rights and liberties for senior citizens and the disabled in the US is NOT over.  We will fight.  We will be vociferous.  We will ask those who lie, cheat and steal, take kickbacks, supress Democracy, supress the First Amendment to step down and resign.  We will ask the States Attorneys to do their jobs — or resign.  We will ask the FBI and federal monitors to step into the State Court system and do their job until we achieve justice and dignity for the elderly and disabled persons in Illinois and across the nation.
Justice is Truth in action.

From Ken Ditkowsky–We must stand up for our rights if we want to preserve our Democracy

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: May 28, 2015 12:01 PM
To: “loamu@aol.com” , “joanne@justice4every1.com” , “verenusl@gmail.com” , “timlahrman@aol.com” , “nasga.org@gmail.com” , “matt_abbott@kirk.senate.gov” , “jdit@aol.com” , “askdoj@usdoj.gov” , “civilrights.cv@ic.fbi.gov” , “chicago@ic.fbi.gov” , “drditkowsky@aol.com” , “tips@tribune.com” , “janet_c_phelan@yahoo.com” , “bev.cooperscorner@yahoo.com” , “letters@suntimes.com” , “foxnews_7d7b711af105dca690ab56169c0ff242@newsletters.foxnews.com” , “ginny.johnsoncheeserings@gmail.com” , “sa3456@msn.com” , “fiduciarywatch@gmail.com” , “statesattorney@cookcountyil.gov” , “isba@list.isba.org” , “aclu@aclu.org” , “scottcevans@hotmail.com” , “ecarter@atg.state.il.us” , “glenest03@yahoo.com” , “bstone12@hotmail.com” , “prov2828@hotmail.com” , “illinois.ardc@gmail.com” , “schwagerlawfirm@live.com” , “tips@cbschicago.com” , “sheriff.dart@cookcountyil.gov” , “zamirkatan@aol.com” , “llessura@gmail.com” , “jnjgldmn@aol.com” , “activistpost@gmail.com” , “tvfields@oh.rr.com” , “newseditors@wsj.com” , “nvallone1@gmail.com” , “webmaster@abajournal.com” , “consult4lj@yahoo.com” , “jimdit@earthlink.net” , “kozakm1@gmail.com” , “drrob2007@yahoo.com” , “k_bakken@att.net” , “utterby@sbcglobal.net” , “info@deepfriedbrownies.com” , “60m@cbsnews.com” <60m@cbsnews.com>, “johnhowardwyman@gmail.com” , “maryrichards45@gmail.com” , “truthbetoldradio@gmail.com” , “acluofillinois@aclu-il.org” , “writejanet@live.com” , “kev_pizz@hotmail.com” , “information@iardc.org”
Cc: “pmanson@lbpc.com” , “pusateri@lbpc.com” , “sgarmisa@hoeyfarina.com” , “rstrom@lbpc.com” , “lwood@lbpc.com” , “questions.insideout@gmail.com” , “arin@nextions.com” , “kmcdonough@smsm.com” , “mscodro@jenner.com” , “denise.c.garcia@microsoft.com” , “oluk@nshn.com” , “bhaan@leesheikh.com” , “celia.gamrath@cookcountyil.gov” , “lyndsay@lmarkey.com” , “seth.darmstadter@klgates.com” , “alongo@cassiday.com” , “jgabala@illinoiscourts.gov”
Subject: Re: Amu’s Supplement to Motion to Reverse Suspension of Law License

Subject:  Racism
Unlike the racism of the 1950’s today’s bigots are much more subtle but just a venal.     Some of these miscreants have found their way into the political closet and occupy positions of important and public protection.    Today’s racist does not refer to his victim in a pejorative manner, and in fact he open donates money to organizations that ostentatiously claim to be monitoring and protecting the rights, privileges and immunities of the minority targeted.    The big lie that today the ‘show’ is more important than the substance and thus there are huge numbers of ordinary people who feel that they have been sold out or at not considered important by their leaders and their government.
The Judicial process is the ‘escape value’ of American society.     It is in this forum that the founders of America decreed that individuals, corporations, and mighty and the powerless would all be equal, receive due process of law and adjudicate fairly and appropriately their disputes.     Thus, it is reasoned that while citizens had the right to protest and exercise their FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS it would be unnecessary.     Of course the naivety was obvious as humanity has and will always have an element of corruption and avarice that cannot be filtered out.
This does not mean that Americans have to live with corruption.     We of course have to be diligent and we have to ‘stand up’ for our rights if we wish to retain them.    
The Lanre Amu case is particularly interesting in that it was the Administrator of the IARDC’s duty to prove by clear and convincing evidence whatever facts that he alleged constituted Mr. Amu’s misbehavior.    In particular the Illinois Court has stated:
it is a rule well recognized, that where the evidence to prove a fact is chiefly, if not entirely, in control of the adverse party and such evidence is not produced, his failure   [395]  to produce the evidence tends to strengthen the probative force of the evidence given to establish such claimed fact. [Citation.] The burden of producing evidence, chiefly, if not entirely, within the control of an adverse party, rests upon such party if he would deny the existence of claimed facts. [Citation.] Where a party alone possesses information concerning a disputed issue of fact and fails to bring forward that information, and it is shown that it can be produced by him alone, a presumption arises in favor of his adversary’s claim of fact. [Citation.]”
In the cause at hand, the Administrator failed to show that the means of proving the proportionality of the fees was in the exclusive possession of respondent such that the burden-shifting rule of Beldingapplies.  HN7 SHAPE  \* MERGEFORMAT   It is essential that the Administrator prove each allegation by clear and convincing evidence. In re Enstrom, 104 Ill. 2d 410, 416, 84 Ill. Dec. 486, 472 N.E.2d 446 (1984).  The complaint alleges that respondent participated in a division of legal fees that was not in proportion to the services performed and the responsibility assumed by each  lawyer . Thus, it was the Administrator’s burden to prove  that the fee division was disproportionate to the services performed and the responsibility assumed by both respondent and Rosenblum.
It has been Mr. Amu’s contention that the Judge’s that he was complaining concerning were corrupt.     One of the Judges’ (Judge Egan) was the subject of a Crain’s Chicago Business article that ironically made the very same assertion that Mr. Amu made.        This fact is hardly a coincidence as the hearing panels of the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission have very ‘sorry’ reputations.     “Wired” is a polite way of referring to them as it is not unusual for them to make findings in favor of the Commission without any evidence being presented to them [1] .      Amu has complained vigorously of being ‘railroaded’ and wrongfully suspended to deaf ears.
The publication of the Crain’s Chicago Business article making the exact averments that Attorney Amu has made highlights the disconnect between the Illinois commission doing its job of protecting the public and having a private agenda contrary to the Constitutional mandate of both the Federal and State Constitutions.       The public certainly would give much more credence to Crain’s than Jerome Larkin!       Indeed, it is a matter of public record whether Judge Egan is on the board of plaintiff, her brother is the attorney for the plaintiff, and whether the judge is presiding at the trial.      Such is an up or down situation.      If the commission found by clear and convincing evidence that the public record, Amu, and Crain’s were all lying and the Administrator was the only ‘truth teller’ such would and should be suspect.     That apparently is what they did and the Supreme Court of Illinois not only affirmed but found by the interim suspension of Amu that reciting the public record by an attorney is inherently dangerous to the public safety.
Forgetting that a reading of the decision of the hearing board, review board et al gives the impression of a racial nexus for the proceeding and forgetting the history of Mr. Larkin – i.e. the barring of Diane Nash from the kangaroo proceedings involving JoAnne Denison, and his refusal to apologize or even disingenuously try to offer an excuse for the racist act,  this latest act by Larkin individually and as the alter=ego of the Illinois Supreme Court is so outrageous as to call for an investigation by the Justice Department of yet another act of racism, and Larkin’s corruption.
When lawyers cannot count on fair play and honesty in their own personal dealing with the Supreme Court of Illinois it is no wonder that the public in general holds the Court system of the 2nd oldest profession is such low repute.    In point of fact the justice system if the ‘elder cleansing cases’ and these disciplinary cases are examples the public is correct that the Illinois Justice System is terribly corrupt and unreliable.
Let is backtrack for a moment.    Assume for the purpose of argument only that Mr. Larkin was misled and acted in objective good faith.     The Crain’s article is now called to his attention!   What does he do?   
The fact is Mr. Larkin has not apologized to Mr. Amu and now that he knows that Amu’s statements were in point of fact truthful he is not in the forefront of seeking Mr. Amu’s license to be returned to him.      Certainly, Larkin is not offering restitution to Amu for the defamation, insult, and personal wrongful conduct!      Basic decency would have required Larkin to come forth immediately upon finding out about a “mistake” and tendering an apology.      He did not I expect he will not.      The fact remains that Amu has been punished because he, as man having a dark hue to his skin, complained about a fair skinned judge and accused her of corruption.     To Larkin it is intolerable that a respected publication made the same averment!      
By my definition Larkin’s conduct is unacceptable,  racist and so ethically challenged that he has forfeited any respect that he might have had and should be instanter investigated and removed from public office.      There is no place for ‘racists’ in government.    The principle of equality before the law for all is too important to be shoved under the rug no matter what political mentor sponsors Mr. Larkin.

[1] In my proceeding a panel solved a jurisdictional problem by inventing without any testimony or even an assertion by the Administrator that required notice to family members of a hearing was obviated by the family members having knowledge of a hearing to determine Mary Sykes incompetent.      The panel was so anxious to please the administrator that they found that the undisclosed family members had knowledge.    The knowledge was not specified to be prior, but, as the result was predetermined that fact or the fact that the Court record in the Mary Sykes case revealed that no such hearing ever was held.    The finding of Mary Sykes’ incompetency was based upon an order being handed to a judge and she rubber=stamping the same.     The Court file was kept out of the proceeding as it would have disclosed that the Administrator once again was not truthful.

Al Jazeera tells the truth about guardianship….what is going on?

And while Mary Sykes is not even in the grave yet, and has no autopsy or tox screen, and while mainstream press in Chicago won’t even touch all of this, we have Al Jazeera coming in and telling the truth about a Texas guardianship gone wrong, way wrong.


So I guess that is the upshot of all of this. While Presidential Oligarchys and Grand Regiemes try to herd the US Sheeples against the Arab nations, what we have is Al Jazeera telling the truth and doing the exposes on corruption in the US.  What have we come to?

What has our nation come to that Chicago mainstream media refuses to touch the Sykes Case, the famous pulling of Alice Gore’s 29 gold teeth, and her drugging and death, but Arab press steps in and tells the unvarnished inconvenient truth about drugging and death and conversion of assets of seniors in the US?  Complete with video evidence.

In the Sophie Reichert case, all of a sudden she said the OPG was okay to be her guardian, she did not want a lawyer to take an opposing view, she did not want to come to her own trial.  None of it videoed. Then the court sealed the trial and the transcripts.

Do we have to go to Al Jazeera to get the truth?


On the Passing of Mary Sykes–an article to her tribute

Dear Readers;

Ken Ditkowsky wrote me today and noted that Mary Sykes “died in captivity.”  Well said. And as to be expected, there is or will be a fight over a tox screen adn autopsy and embalmning the body.  Gloria has alerted the authorities once again to the shenanigins of CT.  Death on a long weekend, skip the autopsy and tox screen, please.

But the funeral director has been alerted, and his duty is to ensure that abuse is reported, in contentious situations, an autopsy and tox screen is conducted, and then Mary is put where she is supposed to be.

The family is worried about last rites.  Family has contacted Mary’s priest and of course he said he did not do that for her.  Mary is Catholic.  Her last directives to Gloria were to remain in her home as long as possible (on Avondale and not in a nursing home, just to clarily for some people that just “don’t get it”, and to

First order of busines for Carolyn was apparently it was desireable Mary died on a long weekend, just like Lydia Tyler.  Next, there is no funeral.

Those were not Mary’s wishes.

Read Ken’s favorite article on her at:


This tells you who Mary was–a strong independent, clear thinking woman who cared for her community.  I understand Yolanda, her sister is the same, and an activist to boot.

Also, there are some rumors on yet a new will CT had executed in Dec. 2009 when Mary was guardianized.  I can hardly wait for that one to surface.  In Dec 2009 Mary is guardianized, the proceeding was filed starting 7/2009, so what’s up with the “new will” cutting off Gloria completely.  After all, Dr. Shaw testified that Mary was incompetent when the Lumerman’s Settlement Agreement was signed in 2008, there was a notary present (me), but my testimony was never taken or subpoenaed.  Of course not!   Can’t do that in a cover up operation.  According to CT, Mary is incompetent.

Mary was compent to have Gloria as her POA in Dec. 2009, she was equally competent in July of 2014 when Scott and Dolores Evans, Gloria and I saw her and took her video (with her permission), in June 2014. The ARDC had a fit about that (and refused to show the prior video at my trial showing she was clearly competent), and Stern apparently used a minion with the Naperville police tell me to destroy that video under threat of arrest (spoilation of evidence)–someone that should clearly know better it is a First Amendment right to take and keep important trial evidence, which he did not do.

So, far nice and good cover up (and I’m talking to you, Mr. Larkin, administrator of the ARDC).  We have Judge Connors invovled, Judge Stuart (who lied at my trial and had to “suddenly retire”), Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern, Peter Schmeidel (who has a number of cases people complain to me are corrupt), Dr. Shaw and Dr. Rabin.  Now we have Aicha MacCarthy involved. (Another judge who learns of misdeeds by attorneys and refuses to investigate).

And I don’t have a license, so I just get to continue to ask the questions and blog about how the loss of my license is tied to this “fraud on the court.”  Each and every bit. And the bits just keep on getting worse and worse.

Now truly it is a win-win situation for me.  People still flow in, call and email me about corruption and lazy me, I get to sleep in and don’t have to go to court ever again.

Evil and greed doesn’t have to deal with me in court.  Now I can really focus.  I can investigate and get others to do so.

I don’t care about money, only truth and justice, so what do they think they are going to do now?  Ken is vociferous, Lanre is vociferous, I am still available, all the time to any court corruption victim.

They tell me what is going on.  In person, over the phone and over email.  Distraught and victimized by the court system, I am always here to serve them, as noted at my trial 24/7 per day.  I am an unstoppable force.


From Paul Clark–on violating the oath of office, the the Heller law

To: jmdenison,
May I suggest you get out your copy of volume 16 second edition of American Jurisprudence and check this out. Penalties for violating the oath of office. specific to the judicial oath of office at about section 152 or 155. The 9th circuit court in San Francisco just over ruled the US supreme court. concerning the ruling in the Heller case. That appears to me to be a violation of the oath of office as the matter had already been heard and resolved by the US supreme court and the 9th circuit ruled against it. The violation in failure to uphold a settled ruling is a violation of the oath of office and requires resignation or impeachment and removal from office and disbarment. When the oath of office is violated, all power and authority of that office is immediately terminated. If the judicial officer refuses to resign he must be impeached and removed from the bench/office. further he can never hold another job paid for with any form of government funds and or that requires an oath of office. The Heller ruling is now the law of the land. You can not be required to lock up a gun for home self protection. This case may chip the iceberg Dr. Cordero is looking for. and it can not hurt our cause.

From Ken Ditkowsky–the worm can turn at any time


From an article from the UK.  For years, investigative reports of one woman investigating a pedophile ring were ignored, dismissed, she lost jobs and funding because of her dogged efforts to protect women and girls in the UK from a pedophile ring where girls were seduced and groomed, and then raped.

The police (mostly male) dismissed the allegations as imagined and/or the girls were “slags” and participated willingly in the scheme.  Disgusting.  These are children to be protected–not taken advantage of.

Now the story has broken some barriers and the police are beginning to prosecute, which many suspects are in hiding.

Fortunately for guardianships, when someone DOES investigate and the feds DO get invovled, the paperwork is all in the courtroom files.  The stories are on the internet and on my blog. Every day I collect new stories and pass them off to the FBI.

It is so bad in probate now, that honest attorneys are telling their clients not to file bar complaints against the usual suspects in probate (the Farengas, Sterns and Schmeidels and Soehligs) because any bar complaint will be met with sanctions and isolation.  Some attorneys are brave enough to say this in secret, but I hear now even the ARDC attorneys are advising that in complaint intake.

What a sad, sad event.  These attorneys know that the public’s human and civil rights are being violated and they themselves are telling the public they will be retaliated against if they file complaints.

But let’s keep on working toward justice.  I get at least one story per week, my Motion to Reconsider my suspension (with tons of new information regarding corruption) has been filed and is up on this blog already.

Let’s continue to pray for justice and truth to rule again.

And please pray for the Sykes Family, Gloria, Kathy and Yolanda.  Mary is apparently not well.  We don’t know the details, but I hear she is being isolated from former friends (me) and family, and there is “a list” of who can visit and who cannot.

Mary didn’t make this list.  Mary and I had a great relationship, but now I am isolated from her because I know they sold her home for 20 cents on the dollar, went after Gloria’s assets for their own attorneys fees, the case has no jurisdiction, they terrorized Gloria, shut off her heat when she was a tenant in her mother’s home, Fred Toerpe brutally beat Gloria several times and her requests for a Protective Order were shuffled off to a secret court room in a secret place and removed from the docket.

How corrupt can you get in a case?  Oh that’s right, a safe deposit box was drilled out by the guardian and not inventoried and all discovery was quashed and $1 million in valuable coins is missing.

So that’s why I am suspended.  I speak the truth.  I warn the public.  What I hear I investigate.  I listen to the scores of courtroom victims out there.  I see what is going on.

Jerome Larkin wants my neck he can have it.  But my advice to him, is to start investigating.  Let me serve discovery in my case for the gold coins, take the deposition of the CF, AS and PS and most of all Fred Toerpe and Carolyn Toerpe and stop quashing discovery in the Sykes case.

The public knows this is not normal. They know a motion to quash is the same as a motion to cover up.

Jerome Larkin, straighten up and do your job.  Investigate Kerry Peck for his treatment of Al Frake, the death of 99 year old Alice Gore, the changing of my transcript and the attorneys involved (most likely yours, but so what, get rid of them), the death of Dorothy Baker, the drugging and forced hospice of Mary Sykes, Adam Stern telling personnel at Sunrise to delete video footage on my camera during last year’s visit.

Stop protecting evil and greed.  Just do your job like I do my job.

I consider my suspension, Ken Ditkowsky’s suspension and Mr. Lanre Amu’s Supension to be nothing more than “Fraud on the Court”.  Fraud on the Court is fraud extrinsic to the proceeding where deals are made, the judge (or Tribunal) is not randomly chosen, but secretly chosen for a purpose–to rule in the favor of one side or another, etc.

Fraud on the Court has no limitations period, it must be seriously considered in any court of law no matter when it is brought up–first day of court, 10th day of court, 100th day of court, 1st appeal or 10th appeal — it does not matter.

Lyle Harrison is now in jail for 6 months and has no one to represent him.  He merely filed counterclaims in his case and because the Judge has an interest in Hardware State bank, whom he is filing claims against, Atty Eberspacher filed a Motion for Sancitons and to imprison poor Lyle-indefinitely.  The 6th judicial circuit is out of control.

Please pray for him.  Please pray for Gloria, Kathy and Yolanda as they go through this time of intense horror after being victimized on the 18th floor of the Daley center, then at the ARDC and no one cares.

But eventually the Truth comes out. Justice is done.

Let’s see what the Ill. Supreme Court says.  I represent about 20 or so poor and lower middle class clients who have had severe violations of their human and civil rights.  I am no one.  I don’t have money.  I am not powerful or influential.  I don’t donate massive funds to the judges (which should be banned, btw) to curry their favor.

Justice Thomas Kilbride wants more of the common person in court. Right now, Illinois appeals courts rule 70% of the time in favor of large corporations. That has to change or we are on our way to an oligarchy.

I want people this Memorial Day weekend to remember those that are victims to the court system, those that have died there without investigation and closure, to join movements for peace and justice.  This is the day we remember to save society and not rip it apart.