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.


ARDC v. JMD 13 PR 1–Motion to Reconsider Interrim Suspension


And the Text is below.

I would like to thank everyone for preparing declarations for this Motion and sharing your stories and for reviewing the brief and providing your helpful comments.

Many thanks.

I am most grateful to have so very many loyal clients help me and want me so that I can continue to serve the indigent and lower middle class and NFP’s that help everyone in Chicago.

You have all been very, very kind to me and I greatly appreciate it.


The brief is also in text below.

The undersigned attorney, who primarily serves those who cannot
otherwise find counsel in probate matters, and those who require very low cost or
pro bono service, herewith files her Supplemental Reply to the Administrator’s
request for an interim suspension pursuant to Rule 774 which was filed with the
Supreme Court of Illinois on the basis that Respondent has engaged in conduct
involving fraud or moral turpitude or which threatens irreparable injury to
the public, clients or orderly administration of justice. Id. Respondent has
done none of that, all she has done is own and maintain a blog for the public and
Probate Victims that openly and honestly discusses all problems, troubles and
issues in probate, and especially in the Illinois Probate courts, although probate
fraud and abuse appears to be rampant all across the US. The Tribunal in its
decision never explained how the undersigned’s probate blog–or any blog, for
UNDER RULE 774 CORRECTED 3/24/15. A copy of this pleading was also sent to Steven
Splitt for informational purposes only
that matter, is a danger to the public.2 It further never explained how a blog or
any publication interferes with the “orderly administration of justice.” While it
states that the Tribunal believe the case was bogged down in ancillary issues, it
never gave any proof that was due to Respondent’s blog–or any blog, which all
the blogs were saying the same thing. Gloria contacts them all and posts on
them all. Why single out Respondent’s blog? The Tribunal complains about
Jurisdiction being the key to the problems, but it never could explain why Exhibit
A, Sheriff Dart had written a letter he had no evidence that Mary Sykes was ever
served. Mary was never served. Sheriff Dart admitted it. Was the Tribunal
calling the Sheriff and his office liars? If so, why does the Tribunal get to make
this highly defamatory claim in its decision, but Respondent cannot truthfully
make the claim on her blog that Mary was never served.
This question was never answered by the Tribunal.
The undersigned had filing a Request to Supplement because 1) she was
unable to upload a copy of the Record on Appeal from the Tribunal which shows
their shameful behavior during trial, attacking family members for no reason and
banning necessary blogging experts during the trial and obstructing important
2To constitute defamation per se based on imputing the commission of a crime,
the crime must be an indictable one, involving moral turpitude and punishable by death
or imprisonment rather than by fine. Moore v. People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals, Inc., 402 Ill.App.3d 62, 69, 342 Ill.Dec. 321, 932 N.E.2d 448 (2010). The
words do not need to meet the technical requirements necessary for an indictment. Id.
However, the words must fairly impute the commission of a crime. Id.
Jacobson v. Gimbel, 2013 IL App (2d) 120478, 986 N.E.2d 1262, 369 Ill.Dec. 626 (Ill.
App., 2013)
testimony. Nine disks were enclosed for each of the Illinois Supreme Court
justices. These were in a prior Supplement, which was rejected, but it is
requested that they be incorporated into this Motion for Reconsideration
First and foremost, a blog is not “fraud or moral turpitude”. The tribunal did
not make a finding of “fraud” in its lengthy decision. It also did not make a
finding of “moral turpitude” in its finding. In fact, the word “fraud” is not found
anywhere in the decision, nor is moral turpitude. In the case of Green v. Trinity
Intern. University, 801 N.E.2d 1208, 344 Ill. App.3d 1079, 280 Ill.Dec. 263 (Ill.
App., 2003), the Plaintiff did not state a claim for defamation, because the
statements she alleged defendants made amounted to an inference of “moral
turpitude” were in fact protected by the First Amendment. Id at. 1219.3
3 In Anderson, our supreme court held that an employer’s comments to an
employee’s prospective employer that she did not “follow up on assignments” and did
not get along with her coworkers could reasonably be construed to signify “nothing
more than that the plaintiff did not fit in with [the defendant’s] organization and
perform well in that particular position.” Anderson, 172 Ill.2d at 415, 217 Ill.Dec. 720, 667
N.E.2d 1296. In Marczak v. Drexel National Bank, 186 Ill.App.3d 640, 643, 134 Ill.Dec. 441,
542 N.E.2d 787 (1989), the court ruled that the following statement was capable of
innocent construction: “`[The plaintiff] did not perform up to the high standards
expected of officers of the Bank. She had some problems getting along with her
supervisors and other officers; at times she was uncooperative and did not have the
Bank’s best interest at heart; and she did recently refuse to perform one of the
responsibilities of her position.'” In so holding, the court concluded that the statement
could be interpreted to mean that the plaintiff had trouble getting along with others
and did not fit into the organization. Marczak, 186 Ill.App.3d at 645, 134 Ill.Dec. 441, 542
N.E.2d 787. Beitzel’s comments about plaintiff can reasonably be construed in a similar
fashion. Plaintiff has not cited any authority in which statements similar to those at issue
in this case have been sufficient to sustain a cause of action for defamation per se
[which requires an assertion of “a crime of moral turpitude”. Green v. Trinity Intern.
University, 801 N.E.2d 1208, 344 Ill. App.3d 1079, 280 Ill.Dec. 263 (Ill. App., 2003)
It is most interesting that the ARDC is equating and asserting that
blogging or publication of thoughts and opinions regarding attorney’s courtroom
behavior and antics amount to “fraud” or “moral turpitude” requiring an interim
suspension. Many defamation case revolve around claims of allegations of
“moral turpitude” to state a case for defamation, yet under the First Amendment,
Illinois courts resoundingly dismiss those causes of action, leaving the press free
and open. There should be no difference with Illinois blogs and those in
particular regarding courtroom activities.
Also, we bear in mind that whether the publication in an
alleged libel action is capable of defamatory meaning is a question,
in the first instance, for the court. Chapski v. Copley Press, 92 Ill.2d
344, 352, 65 Ill.Dec. 884, 888, 442 N.E.2d 195, 199. If the
publication is not capable of defamatory meaning in the first
instance, the court is required to rule that the publication is not a
defamation as a matter of law and the suit should be dismissed.
This is not merely an aphorism or Illinois law, it is part of the
first amendment guarantee of free speech which we all enjoy
as Americans. See Greenbelt Co-op Publishing Ass’n v. Bresler
(1970), 398 U.S. 6, 90 S.Ct. 1537, 26 L.Ed.2d 6; New York Times
Co. v. Sullivan (1964), 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686,
714. Flip Side, Inc. v. Chicago Tribune Co., 564 N.E.2d
1244, 206 Ill.App.3d 641 (Ill. App. 1 Dist., 1990).
While the Tribunal claims that the blog interfered with the “orderly
administration of justice” no testimony was presented that Gloria Sykes did not
have other counsel, when in fact she did. In fact, Gloria Sykes had a long string
of attorneys from Jay Dolgrin to Joel Brodsky and others who advised her quite
frequently, with or without filing an appearance. Pleadings that Gloria filed, with
her own legal advice and counsel appeared on the blog, but Respondent did not
draft any of them. They were drafted by other attorneys and paralegals. Those
pleadings appeared after the fact they were presented in court–each of them
ignored or stricken, accordingly it is difficult to understand why the Tribunal found
that the blog incited Gloria Sykes to write pleadings “which bogged down the
proceedings.” The blog publishes what has been presented in court, and does
not draft pleadings for clients, though there are plenty of sample pleadings on
the blog for others to follow. Saying that a blog incites a litigant to file frivolous
pleadings is the same thing as saying pro se litigants must not have access to
law libraries else they will file improper and frivolous pleadings that bog down a
The Sykes court had its opportunity to allow Respondent to represent
Gloria, it turned that down, leaving Gloria Sykes without counsel and a complete
mistrust of the court, the judicial system and all probate lawyers. After that,
Gloria Sykes did her best on her own to draft and file pleadings. She never
wanted to hire another lawyer again. That is what the probate court and
attorneys wanted and wished for, and that is what they received. For the most
part, they struck or ignored Gloria’s pleadings, so it is not understood how
striking and ignoring pleadings “bogs the court down.” Or, for that matter, how a
blog about probate can be used to incite others to f ight for justice and file
improper pro se pleadings that bog down a court. No connection between the
conclusion and the facts were ever made.
Fraud on the Court
What is “Fraud on the Court?”–from http://www.marygsykes.com, written by a
pro se litigant, Ms. Rosanna Miller of Ohio, herself, also a probate victim
turned her own paralegal.4
A judge is an officer of the court, as well as are all attorneys.
A state judge is a state judicial officer, paid by the State to act
impartially and lawfully. A federal judge is a federal judicial
officer, paid by the federal government to act impartially and
lawfully. State and federal attorneys fall into the same general
category and must meet the same requirements. A judge is not the
court. People v. Zajic, 88 Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 (1980).
2. What is “fraud on the court”?
Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a
proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in “fraud upon the
court”. In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir.
1985), the court stated “Fraud upon the court is fraud which is
directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud
between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements
or perjury. … It is where the court or a member is corrupted or
influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has
not performed his judicial function — thus where the impartial
functions of the court have been directly corrupted.”
“Fraud upon the court” has been defined by the 7th Circuit
Court of Appeals to “embrace that species of fraud which
does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud
perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial
machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial
task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication.”
Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore’s Federal Practice,
2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated “a
decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a
decision at all, and never becomes final.”
3. What effect does an act of “fraud upon the court” have upon the court
4Post from Jan. 14, 2014 written and submitted by Rosanna Miller whose Father
was found living in filth and feces after leaving him with her brother James who
allegedly stole hundreds of thousands from the Father and let him live in filth and
squalor in the family home courtesy of the Probate court and Attorney Fansler who
inserted himself in Claire Miller’s POA and revoked Rosanna’s. That case remains
Fraud upon the court” makes void the orders and judgments
of that court. It is also clear and well-settled Illinois law that
any attempt to commit “fraud upon the court” vitiates the
entire proceeding. The People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E.
Sterling, 357 Ill. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934) (“The maxim that fraud
vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies to
judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions.”);
Allen F. Moore v. Stanley F. Sievers, 336 Ill. 316; 168 N.E. 259
(1929) (“The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which
it enters …”); In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 (1962)
(“It is axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything.”); Dunham v.
Dunham, 57 Ill.App. 475 (1894), affirmed 162 Ill. 589 (1896); Skelly
Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 338 Ill.App. 79, 86 N.E.2d
875, 883-4 (1949); Thomas Stasel v. The American Home Security
Corporation, 362 Ill. 350; 199 N.E. 798 (1935).
Under Illinois and Federal law, when any officer of the court
has committed “fraud upon the court”, the orders and
judgment of that court are void, of no legal force or effect.
As an example of Fraud on the Court, the ARDC Tribunal still has not
provided the undersigned with the audio portion of the transcript which shows
how Judge Stuart changed her testimony on the stand and went from denying
that she ever had her deputies chain Gloria Sykes and threatened her pets with
euthanasia to changing her testimony mid sentence that she did.
Further, additional information reveals that the reason why Lisa Madigan
has not investigated the Sykes case and other probate is cases is due to the f act
her real name is Lisa Murray, she is the daughter of Joel Murray, not Mike
Murray and Joel Murray was a prominent criminal attorney in New York
defending major drug distributors in the US during the 1980’s.
1. Joel Murray was born and raised in Bronx New York, by Hirsch circuit
vaudeville performer Al Murray and Catskills hotel operator Claire Stier Murray.
He was sent to University of Wisconsin in 1960 on a boxing scholarship and later
received his law degree. He began legal practice in Illinois during 1964 as a
criminal defense attorney, representing drug dealers, corrupt politicians and mob
associates. He suddenly closed his practice in 1979 and began running
Simmons Airlines with his brother. Accelerated growth, and operating agreement
using American Eagle brand led to Murray’s eventual sale of Simmons in 1988 to
AMR parent for $78 million.
In 1988, Murray moved to residence in Laurel Canyon area of Los Angeles and
began financing and producing Broadway plays. Murray’s national touring
company was incorporated in Illinois during 1992. He maintained his Chicago
Gold Coast residence and condo in Florida as well.
Murray died in October 2009 and after funeral showing in Chicago was buried in
his hometown of Bronx in Jewish only cemetery, next to Lisa Murray’s paternal
grandparents. Lisa Murray was the only child of Joel Murray.
2. Fred Roti, son of mobster Bruno Roti, was a long time Chicago Alderman who
was indicted in Operation Greylord for fixing court cases. The DOJ in 1999
stated Fred Roti was a known mafia figure aka “made man”. His daughter
Rosemary now works for Tim Evans. His son Bruno F. Roti was indicted in 1980
in CPD motor pool kick back scandal and pled guilty serving brief time in prison.
Despite conviction, Bruno appears to now work for Sheriff Dart’s office or is on
Fred Roti’s grandson John Walz works in Attorney General office under Lisa
3. Sang Yul-Lee, ARDC hearing officer in Denison case, is law firm partner of
Thomas Matyas, father in law to Tiffany Madigan, half sister of AG Lisa Murray
Madigan. This fact was never revealed to Respondent before, during or after her
trial. The Chair had been advised that Respondent went to Lisa Madigan asking
for help on troubled probate cases repeatedly, and only received one letter
saying that her offices did not prosecute court corruption (though she is sworn to
do so), and no help or assistance or any prosecutions or investigations ever
This also explains why, after numerous letters to States Attorney Anita
Alvarez and Illinois Inspector General, Diane Saltoun, they wrote back the
undersigned, informing her that “they did not investigate or prosecute court
corruption,” when in fact they are sworn to eliminate it. These letters have been
published on the Subject Blog.
In addition, it appears that Presiding Judge Timothy Evans not only has
two daughters or granddaughters working for him in court scheduling for $100k
per year, he also has Rosemary Roti, daughter of Frank Roti, a known mobster
from New York. This explains how many cases are transferred to the “right”
judges for disposition (Vara v. Polastek, et alia). There are also stacks of files in
one presiding judge’s offices which have fallen off the docket and where one has
to track them down and the clerk says these are “special cases”–cases where
victims have filed Protective Orders (Sykes) and cannot get them heard on the
merits because the files are sequestered. This was reported to the authorities.
And in addition, after it is now famous in the probate division that
transcripts are changed by the “Official Court Reporters” (Estate of Frank
Wurster, Sykes 09 P 4585 case and others), it appears that the head of this
nefarious operation is Marilyn Filishio
(from the Official court reporter’s website)
and court reporters have disclosed to the undersigned they have quit or been
forced out after they were told to alter or suppress transcripts and they refused.
(Smart ladies)
Complaints have been filed with the ARDC but have gone no where. The
ARDC says that Mr. Tom Zimmerman is to investigate that organization (which
does not file any Ethics Reports under the mandatory Ethics Reporting Act of
2009), yet he repeatedly sends back letters (Exhibit A, Motion to Supplement)
denying any investigation of valid complaints.
A listing of the pro bono clients (or low cost attorneys) via their affidavits is
attached hereto.
The undersigned has done nothing but blog and investigate, blog and
investigate. For this, she has received death threats, her husband has received
death threats, she has had repeated damage to her car (in one instance being
blocked in by 2 suburban vehicles and a heavy object thrown at her car late at
night (2 am) on the Kennedy expressway, and in another sugar in the gas tank
leading to a $2,500 repair. The people involved are dangerous and a threat to
the citizens of the State of Illinois.
No one else does pro bono probate in the Probate division of Chicago and
Rockford. Case are run without jurisdiction (Sykes, Payton and Reichert) and
the undersigned is the only attorney who cares about all these probate and court
corruption victims. Recently, the undersigned has driven down to Moultrie
County for a court corruption victim (Lyle Harrison) because no one will help him.
He is jailed indefinitely merely because he will not withdraw counterclaims in his
case where the judges involved are protecting Hardware State Bank for failing to
fund a trust account for 9 children!5 Out of dozens and dozens of attorneys he
has contacted for help, only Ms. Denison has filed an appearance to help him.
He has no one and is wrongfully jailed indefinitely so that he will not lose his
farmland (1400 acres of prime farmland in Moultrie/Paitt counties). He has no
All of this is Fraud upon the Court. Respondent’s ARDC proceedings
involve layer upon layer of Fraud upon the Court–transcripts altered, a sitting
Judge changing her testimony on the stand, etc. Mr. Amu was suspended for
talking about 3 judges in Cook County who are known to be corrupt and each
5His transcripts have been changed also, and no one investigates. Upon
information and belief, the court reporter in question works for Judges Flannell and
Brosch and is controlled by them.
judge reversed a corrupt decision. Mr. Ditkowsky was suspended for
investigating the Sykes case, a case running without jurisdiction where $1 million
in gold coins (or near that amount) has gone missing and both the ARDC and the
09 P 4585 court have consistently quashed subpoenas and blocked discovery
upon the GAL’s involved–Stern, Farenga, Schmeidel, Soehlig, etc.
The ARDC has acted repeatedly in the Sykes case to quash discovery
and subpoenas on the missing gold coins. They are there somewhere.
Someone needs to find them for Mary and Gloria Sykes. Nonetheless, upon
information and belief, Mr. Sang Yul Lee knew this and did not recuse himself as
chair. He did not disclose his relationship at all to the Madigans and a possible
conflict knowing that Lisa Madigan had written Respondent a letter that her
offices would not prosecute probate court corruption, yet in fact she is charged
by her oath of office as being mandated to do so.
B. Respondent Moves the Illinois Supreme Court to declare her a
Whistlebower entitled to judicial protection.
Due to the contents of Respondent’s blog, the relentless persecution of her and
Ken Ditkowsky and Lanre Amu for merely speaking the truth, and the fact there
is a pattern of conduct in the Illinois court system and with the ARDC to hide and
cover up Truth and Justice, by means of distortion of the Rules of Professional
Conduct for Attorneys, Respondent herewith requests that the Illinois Supreme
Court protect her and save her from the injustices and persecution she is
currently experiencing by declaring her a “Protected Whistleblower” for her
actions in publishing her Blog. She requests that this status be awarded
Kenneth Ditkowsky and Lanre Amu as well.
(740 ILCS 174/10)
Sec. 10. Certain policies prohibited. An employer may not
make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy
preventing an employee from disclosing information to a
government or law enforcement agency if the employee has
reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a
violation of a State or federal law, rule, or regulation.
In this case, in effect, the ARDC is the ultimate employer for all attorneys.
In effect, the ARDC has created and enforced a “code of silence” that attorneys
must not talk about or disclose misconduct, even if it is serious or egregious, and
even if it leads to the illegal use of chemical restraints on disabled persons, and
even if it leads to their isolation, death by narcotics and a quick cremation.
Accordingly, when valid citizen complaints are filed, the ARDC refuses to
investigate and dismisses them out of hand.
Respondent is herewith asking the Illinois Supreme Court to rule that
attorney whistleblowers are protected from tied in courts, undisclosed deals and
crooked lawyers and judges. Further, Respondent requests, that the ARDC and
all probate attorneys file their Mandatory Ethics reports under the Illinois Ethics
Reporting Act of 2009 which requires that the head of the agency (ie, SCOI)
order the filing of reports by employees when they have not done so. During
phone calls to the ARDC, 90% of the attorneys became enraged when told they
had to ethics report and slammed the phone down angrily. Only one or two were
horrified they should be ethics reporting.
Respondent also claims protection as a Whistleblower when the ARDC
fails to file Ethics Reports, when it appears there have been $1.2 million in
mortgage payoffs to Mr. Jerome Larkin and he refuses to disclose why or how
this has happened and he himself refuses to file ethics reports disclosing all
sources of income when asked to do so. Respondent is respectfully asking
leave to file subpoenas for financial information and bank records on all of the
following: Jerome Larkin, Sharon Opryszek, Melissa Smart, Leah Black and
further, to subpoena US Bank/Pullman Bank to find out who drilled out the lock
box of Mary and Gloria Sykes without a court order and without informing Judge
Stuart to pull the video tape of the person removing the contents of the box, and
to serve a subpoena for a deposition upon her. Without this, there can be no
valid entry of any judgment against Respondent and her entire case is Fraud on
the Court–a tort that has no Limitations Period and must be taken seriously every
time a pleading is filed.
B. Behavior during Review Board hearing
During the Review Board hearing on April 10, 2015, approximately 10
probate victims/court corruption victims were in attendance. (Ditkowsky, Amu,
Frake, Shannon X, Tony Phillips, Gloria Sykes, Bev and Ken Cooper, Kaufman,
Frake, etc.) and most notably, Gloria Sykes stood up and gave a speech on how
she provided the undersigned with the information for the blog and it was wrong
of the ARDC to ban her as a witness at trial during the undersigned’s oral
argument because it was all true what was posted on the Subject Blog.
Incredibly, when the undersigned hired a court reporter for the hearing,
she was told by the clerk “not to set up” because they “don’t do transcripts” at
oral argument before the Review Board–which is an incredulous statement. The
clerk said he would check, but he never did. The undersigned was not
represented, had no assistant at the hearing and didn’t know the reporter had
not set up prior to beginning. After the proceeding, the clerk came up and said
that Ms. Denison was supposed to have asked and he indicated he never asked!
Regardless, the undersigned had most of her argument written out and it
is attached here to as Exhibit B to the Motion to Supplement which should be
considered as if fully incorporated into this pleading.
Honest Attorneys Threatened in Probate
In addition, dozens and dozens of clients have now been left without pro
bono or low cost representation in Probate. All of the undersigned’s clients have
been entirely supportive and understanding of the present situation. They have
known the only attorney you can get in probate is either one that is dishonest
and will drain the estate and sell homes for pennies on the dollar, or if you
happen to find one good honest one, the others will work to disbar that attorney.
Atty Ken Ditkowsky was threatened by Adam Stern that if he investigated
the Sykes case, Mr. Stern would have Mr. Ditkowsky disbarred.
The undersigned attorney was threatened not once, but twice by Judge
(now Justice) Maureen Conners if she tried to represent Gloria Sykes she would
be disbarred, despite the fact that there was no real conflict, the undersigned
had never represented Mary Sykes, she had filed no appearance, done no
work–the disqualification was merely for notarizing a document! Gloria Sykes
has never recovered from that miscarriage of justice and she is still pro se filing
papers everywhere she possibly can. She trusts no attorney. The ARDC blames
the blog, but the blog teaches the law. What Gloria is doing now, often falls
outside what competent counsel will do. If the miscreants in probate wished
Gloria no counsel, they have received their wish–and then some. Gloria has
struck back with a vengeance and then some. Gloria needed counsel and she
was wrongfully denied by the court in a very difficult emotionally charged case.
She has now become judgment proof and files pleading after pleading to save
her mother, get her mother’s $1 million in coins back and has pled the
Americans with Disabilities Act which is being ignored over and over in Probate
Cases–especially those where money and wealth is involved.
Cases without Jurisdiction
a) Mary Sykes. No evidence of service of Summons and Petition for
Guardianship upon Mary Sykes. The two Elderly Sisters never served with 14
day advance notice of the time, date and place of jurisdiction
b) MVP – Client’s son never served with time, date and place of hearing. Alleged
Disabled kept in lock down with a “nurse” that reports her every move, takes her
cell phone away and ensures she cannot contact anyone at any time. Client
does not want a guardianship. She is lucid and clear regarding what she wants.
Prize to “guardians”? Multimillion dollar mansion in valuable location
c) Miss LVP. Served on Friday Federal Express for hearing on guardianship on
Monday. All assets depleted in 8 years. Once had $300k home and $150k bank
account. Forced into locked down nursing home where she escaped. Now lives
in dilapidated housing where OPG left her which is dirty, filthy and she lives with
dangerous persons. After escape she lived on streets for 2 years begging for
food and housing money from the OPG. Most of the time, they did not answer
her calls. They never gave her any money. Eventually, they provided some
meager housing while OPG took massive fees. Housing was substandard and
one time they failed to pay bill (in winter no less) and she was on the streets for 2
months! Miss LVP once had a beautiful bungalow in Chicago with beautiful
furnishings and a paid up Cadillac. She had the finest things. All gone. She is
now afraid for her life, now money is depleted.
Clients left unrepresented and are at Risk
1) Dominic Spera. Was locked out of all his bank accounts by Rockford probate
attorneys. The undersigned counsel was the only attorney to represent him to
get an allowance. Client was homeless during winter for 5 months. Slept in park,
on porches in Rockford. Ate one meal out of garbage cans–all the while his
mother had over $800k in assets. Assets were in her name and Dominic’s
name. Father died 10 years earlier leaving all to wife and son. Probate
attorneys claimed it all and put it into Estate. Dominic repeatedly asked for an
allowance, but was always refused, leaving him homeless, penniless and without
food or shelter.
Dominic is an elderly, disabled adult, as declared by the court.
The undersigned got him an allowance, has helped with housing and
assistance. Dominic, without counsel, is now at risk. She has managed to patch
together one attorney for one appearance but nothing further is guaranteed.
A declaration from his priest, Father Jim, is attached hereto that
Respondent’s work is blessed and must not be interfered with. In the Catholic
Church, the words of a Father are the Word of God. To violate the Word of God
is to intentionally sin.
2) Tony Phillips
Years ago, had no counsel who would go up against David Martin. Now
he still has no counsel. Former counsel Nejla Lane was booted out of significant
contingent fees for a favored firm, and she has received only pennies on the
dollar for all her work. As a result, no attorney will represent this co-guardian.
Before the undersigned appeared, the prize of a $3 million vacant lot on Wabash
went from “purchaser” to “purchaser” without any hard money down. The
undersigned and Tony Phillips insisted on hard money to fund the estate,
obtained a contract from Capstone and $25,000 per month for holding the
property until finally sold. Now the Estate is well funded. The ploy? Let the
property go to foreclosure and have a “friend” buy it up cheap there. Tony
Phillips and the undersigned stopped all those shennanagins. Now it is likely the
property will go to foreclosure and sold for pennies on the dollar. David Martin
already wants to pay 25% of Respondent’s fee petition, even though she was
able to get Tony and his Mother out of poverty (that’s right, he was receiving
$1100 per month for support, while the attorneys for the estate had liened all the
properties with their fees for over $200k). Atty David Martin opposes all
attorneys, his fee petitions of hundreds of thousands of dollars are routinely paid
in full (for throwing properties into foreclosure) while opposing counsel gets
pennies on the dollar.
As an example, the undersigned finally presented her fee petition for
$50,000 after getting the family out of poverty and finding a hard money buyer.
She represented Tony Phillips for 2 years arguing for a fair deal and justice to
the estate. David Martin and others have been awarded hundreds of thousands
of dollars in fees. David Martin is asking, and will probably get, an award limiting
the undersigned’s fees to $14,000. He knows that the money will go to fight for
justice–and he does not want that.
3) Barabara Monaghan and the Estate of Sophie Reichert
Barbara Monaghan was a beloved Daughter in Law who was named
Successor Trustee and POA for her mother in law, Sophie Reichert whom she
knew for decades and they loved one another dearly, despite the divorce (which
was because the son Ronald was a known alcoholic). Work on this case?
Enormous. But Barbara has no counsel–due to the ARDC and SCOI. The OPG
stepped in, presented a trial so pathetic, the judge immediately sealed it and the
transcripts. The client, Barbara Monaghan was given 14 days for written
discovery and 10 days to disclose witnesses–a deadline impossible to meet so
all her witnesses and exhibits were stricken at trial.
All of a sudden, on the day of trial, Sophie changes her mind (per the
GAL) and does not object to the OPG being guardian (despite “severe”
dementia–which is it), and does not want to be present at her trial (though she
was adamant about this before and came to all court appearances before the
OPG stepped in to “manage” her) and she has said all along, for many long
months she wants Barbara as her guardian. Of course, none of these “sudden”
changes and waiver of important rights are video recorded by the GAL.
Upshot? Barbara was handling Sophie and her valuable, $2.5 million
building for $2400 per month. The OPG is now “guardian” and is draining the
estate at $10k per month–for the same services. While what the OPG does is
“valuable and laudable”, what Barbara did was “self dealing”–at four times the
cost! And with a Trust and POA which the OPG invalidates with a rubber stamp.
Son Ryan Reichert (who was immediately isolated from Sophie when the OPG
took over, as well as another grandstepson the OPG refuses to acknowledge but
was treated as a grandchild for years), is now 18 and wants to be Guardian. So,
what does the court do? At one hearing in February 2015 he files a cross
petition for guardianship. The court says it is “premature”. Within days later, the
OPG is appointed, and his petition never considered! In this case, the
undersigned and client were told ONLY the OPG could be guardian in the case
and no one else. Restraint of trade? Prior deal? No one will ever know.
But wait, there’s more:
4) Susan Block Former counsel, for months, never served her with foreclosure
proceedings. She was defaulted and on a Motion to Vacate filed by the
undersigned, was refused. She could have done a Deed in Lieu, or short Sale
but that was all gone. The undersigned should be filing a malpractice or asking
for fees and reimbursements, but she cannot.
5) Bella Perlman Kept in a nursing home for months against her will (the
nursing home kept on telling her that she could not leave without a doctor’s
signature, then she had to have a POA, then the POA was not good enough,
then she had to have a friend sign for her, etc.), the nursing home sued her for
$12k in fees–for one month after she was there claiming a “cancellation fee”, the
undersigned was to file counterclaims in her action. Now that is all gone.
6) Janet Bedin and Alexander Bedin
In late summer 2010, Dolores Bedin was finally diagnosed with pancreatic
cancer. I say finally because Janet Bedin, her daughter, decided to change her
mother’s medical team to Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago due to
their reputation and advertising they were the best in geriatric care. In summer
of 2010, after years of severe stomach pain and vomiting, and after MRI’s every
6 months of her abdomen to “watch a hernia” which was causing the pain,
Daughter Janet found out that her mother had massive pancreatic cancer that
had invaded the hepatic artery and was now incurable. Immediately she
obtained all the medical records and found out that 2.5 years earlier a small
benign polyp had formed on her mother’s pancreas. However, the doctors at
NMH never told her about it. As a result, the tumor grew over the years. At the
time of diagnosis in late summer of 2010, both mother and daughter were
distraught. Daughter Janet asked for her mother to receive cancer rehab, but
instead, NMH went on a terror campaign to send the mother home without
further treatment, ostensibly to die. When Mother Bedin did not leave NMH, the
staff enlisted the help of probate attorneys in Rockford to guardianize her and
forcibly remove her from the hospital to a dilapidated Chicago South Side
nursing home! On Friday, Janet Bedin was served with papers for her mother to
be guardianized on the next Monday. When she arrived in court on Monday she
was threatened by the probate attorneys they would institutionalize her brother,
who was developmentally delayed and a disabled adult, they would lock her
mother away forever in the worst nursing home on the South Side of Chicago
they could find and they would then take her assets and her mother’s assets to
pay fees. The family sued, the undersigned was pro bono counsel for Deft.
Alexander Bedin who was disabled, but now he has no counsel. The case is up
on appeal and it is unlikely that either Janet or Alexander can afford the
appellate process without her.
7. Estate of Janie Thomas
Marie Owens is a dedicated sister and caregiver to Janie Thomas for
years. She takes her into her home and makes sure she has food and clothes,
is clean and well groomed and well cared for. An estranged brother files for
Guardianship, and Marie files a cross petition for Guardianship. The OPG then is
nominated by one of the probate attorneys–one it turns out has terrorized the
family in the past, and the court awards guardianship to the OPG. When other 3rd
parties are mentioned, all the attorneys and the court find that the case MUST go
to the OPG, as if it were a done deal. They would consider no other petitioners.
Soon as the OPG is appointed, the family is isolated with a Monday to Friday 8
to 3 visitation order, when the OPG knows most of the family works.
Subsequently, Janie is frequently found at a nursing home without proper fitting
clothes, (hers are mostly missing so the clothes are makeshift), she is dirty and
unkempt, she has no personal toiletries no hairbrush, toothbrush, toothpaste,
deodorant and she is dirty and smelly. She is often found by Marie and others
dazed and confused with too many psychotropic medications either wandering
the halls in a daze or left sitting alone on a toilet calling for help.
Marie had problems finding counsel before because the court will not pay
out of the estate, they ignore POA clauses to pay attorneys and claim this is “self
dealing” when it is not, they freeze assets so only favored attorneys can be paid,
So now Janie is left alone and dirty and her POA sister Marie has had her
powers summarily and unjustly ripped away and there is no hope for Janie.
Reports of abuse to the court (first Judge Stuart, now Judge Aicha MacCarthy)
go right back to the abusers where nothing happens.
8. Gary Frake and Estate of Alan Frake
Gary Frake is the son of Alan Frake. When he found out a certain James
Stouffer had plundered perhaps hundred of thousands of dollars from his father’s
estate, he turned to the probate courts for help. They appointed Tom Kleinhenz
as the Guardian of the Person and Kerry Peck was his counsel of record. Since
that time, the case turned into a nightmare with a loving sister Jean Semrow
suffering as the victim of a wrongful Protective Order, a cousin Mike Messer who
can no longer call Alan Frake, and Alan Frake himself a victim of the court
system. Alan Frake has an estate of about $9 million. He was a strong, vibrant
elderly concrete business owner in Northbrook. He had about 10 rental
properties which should be rented out each at $2k per month. James Stouffer
steals from the estate and is given a pass. He rents on the site a $2k per month
property for $25 per month. The rest of the properties have been vacant for 24
months. A court appointed property manager does nothing to rent out the
properties. Gary Frake brings the estate renters, calls the property (mis)
manager and nothing happens.
Next, Alan Frake (“Father Alan”) wants to live at home, so Mr. Kleinhenz
brings in 2 professional “caretakers”. Instead of caretaking, Alan Frake is
enraged one day when he finds them engaging in romantic considerations in the
bedroom next to his and physically throws them out of his home. But who is
punished? Of course, the ward. Alan is promptly place at a locked down facility
and drugged with psychotropic drugs as chemical restraints to keep him there.
He has been drugged so violently, his cousin Mike Messer has not been able to
call him and talk to him for perhaps 18 months, the reports from credible sources
including his son Gary, is that he can barely lift his head, he can barely speak
and when he does all he can say is that he is in pain (undiagnosed hip pain) and
he wants to die. The reports of abuse are repeatedly filed with the court and the
court hands back reports of abuse to his abusers–Kerry Peck and Tom
Kleinhenz and Atty Footlick who all deny everything. At first they denied the
psychotropic drugging and then they admitted to it, but it “was only a little.”
The abuse continues and all–Gary Frake, Mike Messner and Jean
Semrow (sister) know that they are killing Alan. No one can stop any of this.
Now the family has no representation. No one is there to help Alan Frake,
imprisoned in a drugged body and in pain. The family, with Respondent’s
suspension, has given up all hope of justice.
8. Barbara Stone
Barbara Stone is an attorney licensed both in Florida and in New York. In
2012 or thereabouts she determined her brother had forged $700k in checks
from her mother’s accounts. She was told to hire an attorney and file for
guardianship, which she did. But what happened was a nightmare. The
Guardian and her attorney promptly obtained an order to remove Barbara from
the mother’s home in Florida, and they put in her place two Haitian “caretakers”
who barely spoke English and had no credentials or certifications. They moved in
all their belongings, TVs, refrigerators into the 2 bedrooms of Helen Stone’s
condo in Florida and began to “care” for her. They “cared” for her so well, that
just a few months later, Helen Stone was rushed to the ER with pneumonia,
lacerations, contusions, fractures, malnutrition (a drop in body weight in months
of 40 lbs, 145 lbs to 105 lbs), and she spent 3 weeks in the hospital recovering.
But in addition to removing Barbara from the home, banning her from seeing her
mother since January of 2014, they had her arrested for “interfering with the care
of a disabled person” and she has either been in jail or with ankle bracelet
monitoring since that time. She had done nothing other than 1) oppose her
mother from taking the drug Miralax, a drug that comes with black box warnings
not to use on the elderly or disabled and which agitates the patient (agitation
they blame on Barbara–not the wrongful use of a prescription medication); 2)
she also took her mother out for lunch and found she did not need a feeding
tube, her mother ate quite well6. Again, she was charged with “interfering with
the care and custody of a disabled person” and went to jail a second time.
Currently she is under a body attachment for filing pleadings in Probate Court in
Florida for merely trying to protect her mother, who is in grave danger from
isolation and psychotropic drugging.
The undersigned has helped Barbara with her situation, yet Barbara’s
mother remains drugged and in danger, and Barbara has not seen her mother
since January of 2014. Helen Stone remains in danger to this day. Barbara is
vigorously filing suits against the Judge and other miscreants in a brave effort to
save her mother from impending death and doom.
What has happened of the $600,000 in checks her brother forged?
Nothing. No Citations to Recover, nothing. The miscreants are focusing on the
fees they can take from the estate and Helen Stone is not at home, but in a
nursing home with drugs and a feeding tube at one end and a diaper at the
other. Respondent’s suspension means she cannot help Barbara by appearing
Pro Hac Vice in Florida, another jurisdiction rampant with tied in probate
attorneys that threaten honest attorneys with groundless bar complaints, and
now even arrest and imprisonment–all for merely filing pleadings.
6Feeding tubes are often placed in the elderly under guardianship not only so
that no one needs to take the time to feed a person that eats slowly, but also to deliver
psychotropic drugs they otherwise would not take. Of course, all of this is illegal under
the case of In Re Tiffany.
Odd statements by the Tribunal indicating ambivalence for what they did
Respondent presented favorable character testimony. Her character
witnesses described Respondent as a person who was generous
with her time, made herself available to persons who needed help
and did so pro bono. P. 53, Decision of Tribunal
While Respondent acted with reckless disregard for the truth of her
accusations, based on our impressions of Respondent, we do
not believe she was acting out of a deliberate purpose of
harming the judges and attorneys involved. Respondent
genuinely, though unreasonably, believed something was
wrong with the proceedings in the Sykes case. Respondent
knew Mary and Gloria before the guardianship. While
Respondent used decidedly misguided means, we believe
she was acting out of a sincere desire to help Mary. We
were also convinced Respondent truly believes there are
abuses in the probate system and the system needs to be
changed, to protect persons who are the subject of adult
guardianship proceedings. From our perspective, it appears
Respondent has genuine concern for senior citizens and
perceives the senior population as vulnerable, especially to
financial exploitation. This concern, as a general matter, is
a legitimate one, even though Respondent had no reasonable
basis for believing the judges or attorneys in Mary’s case were
corrupt.7 Id.
We do not believe Respondent acted with a self-serving
motive. The evidence did not support a theory that Respondent
was reaping a significant financial benefit from her activities
including operation of the blog.
7This is despite the fact that Judge Stuart “suddenly resigned”. Judge
Kowamoto, who was the judge on the Estate of 99 year old Alice Gore also “suddenly
resigned” approximately six weeks after the blog published that she was isolated from
20+ friends and family for 10 months and then her 29 gold teeth were pulled and she
was put on a feeding tube laced with drugs and a diaper at the other. She was then
killed with drugs and was sticks and bones at the time of death. Nothing has been
investigated by the ARDC despite numerous complaints filed by the family–all published
on the Subject Blog. If the Tribunal seriously believes that this behavior is acceptable
for sitting judges and probate attorneys to engage in, then they are as well part of the
problem and not part of the solution.
No one told the Tribunal to make these statements, they did them
Character Witnesses:
From Bev Cooper, who runs a local cable TV show for decades:
A. It’s an hour program uninterrupted.
Q. Okay. And I think the Panel is
looking for you to give testimony regarding my
When did you first meet me?
A. About three years ago — three,
four years ago, found you on a blog and was
very interested because we were experiencing
the same problems regarding probate that you
were blogging about.
Q. And we have had conversations; is
that correct?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. Numerous conversations?
A. Absolutely.
Q. Okay. And I’ve also — you’ve also
had at least probably five, ten hours to
talk to me and assess my character and
A. Absolutely. The highest of
integrity. Absolutely.
Q. Thank you. And with respect to —
you’re also aware of the work I do, correct?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. And is a lot of the work I do unpaid?
A. Oh, it is. Unfortunately, it is,
Q. And are you aware of the numerous
clients I have helped unpaid?
A. Oh, yes. Yes.
Q. Can you give us an example of the
names that you are aware that I have helped
without pay?
MS. OPRYSZEK: Mr. Lee, I’m going to
object. I don’t know what this has to do with
character and fitness.she — that she has worked on a pro bono basis.
Ms. Denison’s testified to that. I think the
record is clear. I think more specifics are
MR. ALNAQIB: Yeah. Why do we need
to know the names?
MS. DENISON: All right. We don’t
need to — that’s fine. I’ll withdraw the
MR. ALNAQIB: I’m asking. I’m not
telling you you don’t have to. I’m just trying
to understand why would we need —
MS. DENISON: Well, there’s a number
of people that I have helped, and I just wanted
her to establish the numerosity of that issue.
MR. ALNAQIB: She could give us a
number then.
Q. All right. They just want a number
and not a name. Okay?
A. Many. You’ve spoken to me about
many. I can pick out two right now: Gloria
Sykes regarding her mother, Mary, and Dominic,
who is a homeless gentleman that you are
Q. Okay. But there are others, correct?
A. Oh, yes. There are others. I’m
sorry. I’m caught —
Q. And we have exchanged numerous
emails, right?
A. Oh, yes. Absolutely.
Q. Okay. And are you — and what are
you aware of my work hours?
A. Constant. 24/7.
Q. Okay. And do you consider me to be
very dedicated?
A. Absolutely dedicated, honorable, with
integrity, always charitable, consideration for
others before yourself. Absolutely wonderful,
wonderful person.
MS. DENISON: All right. I think
that’s all the questions I have for this
From Ken Cooper, her husband and who also runs the popular blog
Probate Sharks for nearly 10 years:
Q. Can the witness please state his name
for the record?
A. Kenneth A. Cooper.
Q. And what is your address, Mr. Cooper?
A. 2446 Ridge, Highland Park.
Q. Can you briefly give us some
information regarding your background?
A. Yes. I’m a manufacturer of bronze
plaques and name plates, and I also produce a
blog called ProbateSharks.com.
Q. And what about your educational
A. I’ve got about three years of college
at Northwestern University.
Q. Okay. And how about your background
with respect to any charitable or eleemosynary
A. Yes. I was a volunteer clown for the
Shrine Circus. I was a Shriner and a Mason for
about the last fifty years.
Q. Okay. And how have you come to know
A. Through emails with a mutual friend,
Ken Ditkowsky; and eventually we met. I think
it was about — we knew you for about three
years, and then we met you about two years ago.
Q. Okay. And we’ve exchanged numerous
emails, have we not?
A. We have, yes.
Q. And we’ve talked in person numerous
times; is that correct?
A. We sure have.
Q. And you’re aware that I have been on
your wife’s cable TV show numerous times,
A. That is correct.
Q. All right. You are here today to
testify as to my character and whether or not
you consider me to be an asset to the legal
Do you consider me to be honest
and trustworthy?
A. I do. And I’d also like to add that
I believe that every young attorney who is
going through law school or passing the Bar
should see a movie called “A Man for All
Seasons.” And I believe that every attorney
should strive for the epitome of integrity as
Sir Thomas Mann.8
I also believe that you have
sacrificed and helped numerous people, and I
believe that you have arrived at that plateau
as a great person —
Q. Thank you.
A. — and a great attorney.
Q. Do you consider me to be hard working
and honest?
A. Always.
Q. And am I dedicated?
A. Yes.
Q. And have you learned of — let’s see.
And are you aware of my work schedule?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. And when can somebody reach me if
they have — if they need help or an issue?
A. Twenty-four hours a day, seven days a
Q. And that is by email or my cell
phone, correct?
A. That’s correct. Certainly.
Q. And what is your opinion as to
whether or not I have helped people and how
8Sir Thomas Moore.
many I’ve helped?
A. You certainly have. Many, many
people. As the king fish of ProbateSharks.com,
I come in contact with numerous people who are
having difficulty with the Probate Court of
Cook County specifically but many, many other
Probate Courts throughout the United States;
and I believe that you’ve been a big help to
many of these people.
Q. Thank you. And are you aware from
what these people have communicated to you
regarding fees and charging people?
A. That’s right. I understand that most
of the work that you do is without charge.
Q. And do I require people to pay up
front in order to help them?
A. No, not at all. You’re most helpful
to anybody who requires help.
MS. DENISON: All right. And I think
that’s basically it for Mr. Cooper.
Additional Affidavits
Additional affidavits hereto attest to the undersigned’s help and
assistance to the indigent and lower middle class. There is no one to protect
them now, without Respondent.
The undersigned respectfully moves this honorable court to enter this
pleading and the Transcript of the Record on Appeal (provided in 9 disks
delivered to the Clerk of Court previously with the Motion to Supplement), as if
fully incorporated into this pleading, including the Writ of Cert authored by Mr.
Kenneth Ditkowsky which contains a plethora of caselaw on First Amendment
rights, 320 ILCS § 20 Elder Abuse Act and 47 USC § 230 on the Internet
Decency Act which affords full protection to blog owners and those who post on
blogs. Congress has provided a statutory scheme for objecting to posts and no
one, including the ARDC has followed or even attempted to follow the statutory
scheme set forth by the US Congress.
Wherefore, for all of the above reasons, and especially since dozens of
blogging clients and court appearance clients will be left without any
representation, the undersigned is asking that she not be suspended, or that she
be allowed to represent these clients on a pro bono basis until they can find
other counsel.
If the Illinois Supreme Court and the ARDC is not willing to do this, then
she is asking that the ARDC and SCOI find and assign pro bono and low cost
representation for her all clients and others that they might find justice in the
Illinois court system.
The undersigned will be glad to provide an ongoing list to the Illinois
Supreme Court and the IARDC of probate and court corruption victims needing
probono and low cost representation where families have been terrorized, have
lost, or are about to lose significant human and civil rights and liberties and she
would like to have these victims represented.
The undersigned needs no compensation for this. She wants those that
are poor and in need to have low cost or free representation against evil and
injustice. If the powers that be have decided she is somehow a threat to this
system, then she is asking that other attorneys step up and take her place.
These people currently have no one and no hope. The court system is in
a mess and it will take a panel of attorneys who serve without pay or recognition
to clean it up.
The Illinois Supreme Court and the ARDC should set up such a program
as Respondent has run. They have the funding and the staff to do it. The
Respondent does not have the funding or staff to correct these injustices but the
Illinois Supreme Court and the ARDC does.
` In addition, Respondent is asking that the ARDC/SCOI install a Federal
Monitor on the 18th Floor of the Daley Center where probate victims and
terrorized families can take their complaints that their human and civil
rights are being grossly violated. A perfect place to install this monitor is
in the “glass room” next to reception where many clients have indicated
that their cases were divvied up to the OPG or certain probate attorneys
and deals were made rather than justice being done.
She earnestly hopes that one day the ARDC and Illinois Supreme Court
will have character witnesses say for them (in lieu of the dozens and dozens of
valid citizen complaints Respondent receives on a regular basis):
And I’d also like to add that
I believe that every young attorney who is
going through law school or passing the Bar
should see a movie called “A Man for All
Seasons.” And I believe that every attorney
should strive for the epitome of integrity as
Sir Thomas Mann.9
9Sir Thomas Moore. Of course, for all his valor, honesty, truth and justice, he
was eventually beheaded by Henry VIII, his family had to flee to the Continent, and his
head was placed on a pole outside the Royal palace for a month until his daughter took
I also believe that you have
sacrificed and helped numerous people, and I
believe that you have arrived at that plateau
as a great person –
(Ken Cooper, owner of Probate Sharks , Character Testimony for
Respondent, January 2014)
By: _____/esign/joannemdenison/____
Pro se
Prepared by
JoAnne M Denison
Justice 4 Every 1, NFP
5940 W. Touhy Ave, #120
Niles, IL 60714
312-553-1300 ph
it down. Respondent hopes that the Illinois Supreme Court will not have her beheaded
and the ARDC/Jerome Larkin place her head on one of the flag poles outside 130 E
Randolph St in Chicago for a month or so–for blogging. Of course she stands by her
blog and Mr. Larkin can have her neck, for all it is worth to him. The System must
change and the SCOI and the ARDC must be at the forefront in instilling these crucial
changes to ensure truth and justice is being accomplished for every case.

Very Scary Article–Netherlands allows family to “euthanize” grandma at 80 because she has Dementia


Or was it the inheritance?  Dutch law has become downright scary with courts being able to order euthanization for dementia and cancer.  Often the person is only suffering from depression or grief–both ailments are easily cured with care and attention.

This woman left no advance directives allowing for her euthanization, and rather than consult her, they said she did not have the capacity to make the decision.

It is not known whether she was present in court or who provided information to the court.

In any case, it seems that no one investigated, no one considered alternatives to make her feel happy and secure rather than wander down the road where a court orders the elder put down–like a cat or dog.

I pray this does not continue and that someone comes to the aide of the elderly to represent their rights and their needs as being blessed in society.


From Atty Candice Schwager–are State Probate acts unconstitutional? She says “hell yes”!

Reposted with permission of author:

As the Senate decides whether to grant wards of the State of Texas due process rights–crumbs off of the master’s table–I sit disgusted that these men and women are our leaders, wondering how we managed to elect such reprobate “non-representing” representatives. I am also beside myself contemplating how grossly incompetent the lawyers must be to draft legislation so clearly illegal, it’s not worth the paper it is written on. Does anyone know the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or even the meaning of the word “inalienable?” Inalienable means non-transferrable, yet Judge Guy Herman, Chief Probate Judge of Texas, will tell you that a disabled person’s “rights” are not removed, merely transferred to the guardian. That is illegal, but Herman has little regard for the Constitution as evidenced by recent rulings disregarding it.

S.B. 1882 is a bill relating to providing due process to wards in guardianship. S.B. 1881 a bill mandating that alternatives to guardianship be considered first, such as supported decision making. Despite the fact that both Bills demonstrate egregious violations of the 14th Amendment with respect to the elderly and disabled–in providing them less protection than other citizens–wards need these protections to convince the reprobate that they actually have some rights.

The entire Code reveals egregious violations of federal law by intentionally depriving citizens of privileges and immunities guaranteed by the United States Constitution, constituting felonies under 18 U.S.C. 241, 18 U.S.C. 242, treason, and official oppression, but Judges are nonetheless treating citizens like chattel–purportedly stripping them of inalienable rights “under Color of State Law.” 42 U.S.C. 1983.

Until the Estates Code is declared unconstitutional via a declaratory judgment action to be filed in Federal Court, advocates have little choice but to take the crumbs lawmakers offer. There are absolutely no protections for even proposed wards under the Estates Code and with each Bill, it’s getting worse. Lawmakers and activist judges who don’t respect the Constitution are finding new ways to exploit the elderly and disabled with limited liability or none.

To the Lawmakers whose consciences have not yet been seared with a hot iron, I implore you to end this insanity by repealing this void Estates Code and amending the Family Code to provide the same protections for the elderly and disabled as would be provided any citizen of the United States. This is treason to the Constitution and absolutely intolerable.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:

Section 1. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Relying upon the simple idea that all people are created equal with certain inalienable rights, slavery was abolished, women’s rights flourished, and discrimination was made illegal under the Klu Klux Klan Act a/k/a The Civil Rights Act of 1984, the civil statute being 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 grew from this to include the disabled and elderly as a suspect class that cannot be subject to discrimination, yet it is ignored. 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.

Intentionally depriving citizens of privileges and immunities guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution is criminal. 18 U.S.C. 241 and 242. This necessarily means that lawmakers are committing crimes against Texas citizens “under Color of State Law” when they draft void statutes that violate their rights. The ludicrous part is that everyone acts as if this is legal when it’s not. Guardianship as instituted in Texas is illegal, rendering most wards of the State “hostages.”

The Legislature is also considering a Bill, requiring judges to appoint attorney and guardian ad litems according to what is “fair” for the lawyers, as opposed to what is in the “best interest” of the proposed ward. The idea that lawmakers would even consider forcing Judges to “spin the wheel” or appoint according to the next name on a list of lawyers, as opposed to competence is offensive. What is this? Wheel of fortune? Or Pin the tail on the donkey?

The entire determination of whom to appoint as guardian ad litem or attorney ad litem for a disabled or elderly person should not be “whose turn it is.” Instead, it should be based upon the person’s needs and which appointee can best meet those needs. This is critical in determining whom to appoint as guardian ad litem because that person has the duty to decide what is in the elderly/disabled person’s “best interests.”

Whoever decided that lawyers had the capacity to determine what is in a disabled or elderly person’s best interest was sorely misguided in the first instance. I have seen the nightmare this arbitrary system of cronyism creates for the elderly and disabled in 100% of my cases because not once has the attorney appointed by the Judge understood the person’s disability. Without this basic understanding, it is ludicrous to give an attorney the responsibility of making Life-changing decisions for a stranger.

I have seen the failure to pick a competent GAL work catastrophically in most every case. The first involved a Board Certified Probate Lawyer who wrote the Guardianship Section of the Code. This woman also writes the exam for attorneys seeking Board Certification, but was incompetent to testify under Rule 702 regarding an autistic boy’s “best interests” because she knew nothing about autism even after 2.5 years of me spoon feeding it to her.

Without question, I am the most qualified special education / autism attorney in Harris County probate Courts after working 5 years, representing special needs children in schools under 25-year Texas Education Agency Hearing Officer, James Holtz. A pre-med major with an emphasis in psychology, my understanding of disabilities common to children and the elderly is extensive. Seeking to effectively communicate with the autistic children I represent, I’ve spent countless hours with families observing my clients–most of whom were non-verbal. Despite this work, it is incredibly challenging to be confident that an autistic child understands and is responding intentionally, as opposed to exhibiting echolalia, which is random phrases autistics repeat. The challenge of simply sustaining eye contact with a person on the spectrum typically leaves uncertainty as to their level of understanding.

I am an expert under Rule 702 with respect to special education and autism, but defer hands down to the parent because he or she simply knows their child, like a mother knows a baby. The same is true of any non-verbal child or adult. Families must learn to read them–as task that requires time and investment in the person’s life–far beyond what an ad litem can give.

The decision of what is in a person’s “best interest” can be life changing in guardianship and must involve consideration of what they want. Regardless of the level of impairment, guardianship is supposed to remove only those rights that are absolutely necessary for the ward’s protection. Guardianship should rarely, if ever, deprive a person of the right to self-determination, for to do so would violate the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The attorneys currently appointed to make these life changing decisions for non-verbal children and adults are incompetent to make the decision, regardless of Board Certification. This is because attorney ad litem and guardian ad litem certification requires a mere 3.5 hour course in which lawyers are taught nothing about disabilities. The end result is disastrous and not once have I witnessed any GAL make the right choice.

The solution is so simple if the REPTL Committee and Judge Herman would focus on the “person” guardianship was intended to protect instead of the money to be generated. The Family Code already has Constitutional protections built into the GAL appointment process, ensuring that qualified individuals are appointed to decide the “best interest” of children–with strict guidelines on qualifications to serve, duties and permissible fees. Under Rule 173, the term “Guardian Ad Litem” includes:

(A) a volunteer advocate appointed under Subchapter C;

(B) a professional, other than an attorney, who holds a relevant professional license and whose training relates to the determination of a child’s best interests;

(C) an adult having the competence, training, and expertise determined by the court to be sufficient to represent the best interests of the child; or

(D) an attorney ad litem appointed to serve in the dual role.

The focus of the appointment is “child-centered”, not lawyer-centered. Rule 173 and Chapter 107 of the Family Code provide multiple layers of protection for children, including but not limited to the appointment of an attorney, amicus attorney, child advocate, and/or other individual deemed appropriate by the Court. The Court seeks individuals who are most qualified to decide “best interests.”

The elderly and disabled are not afforded any degree of protection by the Estates Code in violation of the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause. Section 1054.054 merely states:

Sec. 1054.054. DUTIES.

(a) A guardian ad litem is an officer of the court.

(b) A guardian ad litem shall protect the incapacitated person whose interests the guardian has been appointed to represent in a manner that will enable the court to determine the action that will be in that person’s best interests.

There is no standard included in this rule and most attorneys forget they are required by the Texas Rules of Professional Conduct to be competent. Per the Estates Code, Guardianship is to be handled just like “dead people’s estates.” The end result is the elderly and disabled are treated like chattel, purportedly stripped of all Constitutional rights because the concept of a “limited guardianship” is a fairy tale. This is illegal and renders lawmakers guilty of crimes against Texas citizens “under Color of State law.” 18 U.S.C. 241, 241.

You can bet if Senators and Representatives were being taken hostage and robbed of their life savings, laws would change. But like most things, the suffering of elderly and disabled victims is out of sight, out of mind. The politically elite profiting from the suffering of our elderly and disabled loved ones are unmoved by the cries of the people they represent. Judge Herman is “sick of hearing it.” At the same time, we are fed a line of bull with the absurd lie that guardianship protects.

A simple reading of the Estates Code reveals the purpose of guardianship–money. People have become property of the State to tax, place bonds on, and take their life savings to fleece the lawyers and politicians. Were this not true, you would not see Judges and lawyers bickering in the Senate, with the ludicrous suggestion that Judges should appoint guardian ad litems according to a random list. Call it the Wheel of Fortune, Texas Lotto, or Pin the tail on the donkey, it’s asinine.

Why aren’t we talking about Bills that require some level of competency for the appointees? The reason is because this is not about protecting anyone. It’s not about the elderly or the disabled aside from additional ways we can find to exploit them. If Texas deemed elderly and disabled citizens “people” rather than “property” or “chattel,” this would not even be an issue. The elderly and disabled deserve better and the solution is simple–the Family Code.

From Ken Ditkowsky

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: May 19, 2015 5:07 PM
To: Eric Holder , “FBI- ( (” , Matt Senator Kirk , Probate Sharks , “JoAnne M. Denison” , Tim NASGA , Nasga Us , “J. Ditkowsky” , Chicago FBI , BILL DITKOWSKY , Chicago Tribune , Janet Phelan , KRISTI HOOD , Bev Cooper , SUNTIMES , FOX News Network LLC , Ginny Johnson , Diane Nash , Fiduciary Watch , Cook County States Attorney , ISBA Main Discussion Group , “Y. ACLU” , Scott Evans , Edward Carter , Glenda Martinez , Barbara Stone , RosANNa Miller , “Mr. Lanre Amu — Honest Atty Unfairly Persecuted By ARDC” , Illinois ARDC , Cook Sheriff , Rabbi Moshe Soloveitchik , Candice Schwager , Jay Goldman , “tips@cbschicago.com” , Tom Fields , “newseditors@wsj.com” , “ABAJournal.com” , “tips@abajournal.com”
Subject: Democracy is not a spectator Sport –

Since the day that the first charity opened its doors to donors there have been scam artists who have tried to profit on backs of the elderly and the disabled.    When I was the chairman of “boys and girls committee” the local Kiwanis Club I got a dose of reality.
The function of the Kiwanis Club was to raise money and distribute it to families and children in need – with a strong concentration of needy children.    The club was composed of businessmen in the particular area and it was our policy that not one dime of public money was to be used by the club.   All administrative and other costs came out of our own pockets.    We used the same type of fund raising as everyone else, but, on a particular day every year we got out on the street and sold peanuts to any motorist who might be passing by on a particular corner.
We raised a substantial amount of money but never enough.
At the time I was young man in my middle to late twenties and wet behind the ears ‘big time.’     Come fund raising time I had no shame.   After the deposition of the CEO of a large corporate stationery chain (who I was suing) I asked him what the company did with its shopworn merchandise.   He told me that they gave it away.    Naturally I asked him if he would give it to Kiwanis.     He gave me an affirmative.
Being naive I went to the charities that Kiwanis supported and I asked them to provide me with a wish list.     I got standbagged, but I was totally unaware of it.    They listed the kitchen sink.    I called the CEO and asked him if his company could supply the items on the wish list.    He did!   (Now that I think about it, some of the charities must have had heart attacks as semi-trailer trucks pulled up and delivered merchandise).
I cannot tell you how proud of ME I was.    I had filled the wish list and still had 100% of the money that I delegated to give away.
Luck happens to be my middle name, and I was blessed with having some dealings with a major food store.  (Jewel)     They had a catering service wherein they would provide a full turkey dinner with all the trimmings at your home for x dollars.    As the Attorney for Switchman’s local 1, I had arranged for dinners for the union members for both Thanksgiving and Christmas as a special price.
Thus, on my desk was a solution.    I call the CEO of Jewel and asked if I could add to the order = I wanted to provide the needy families in our area with Christmas and Thanksgiving Dinner.     He was agreeable and he also wanted to join in the effort.    It was not difficult to get a list of the needy families from the local religious organizations and thus on Christmas and Thanksgiving each needy family in the area had a little extra cheer – courtesy of Kiwanis.   (Jewel made our dollars stretch so that everyone on the list got dinners).
Come the annual meeting I anticipated getting a ‘well done’ or some other praise.    Indeed, I got what I deserved.   Every charity had a representative at our meeting to complain about me, my arrogance, and the disrespect that I had shown them.     Jack Pahl (the mayor of Elk Grove Village) fumed at the ungrateful bastards and started to say something but I silenced him.  Instead, I got up and thanked the charities for their praise and promised them that I would endeavor to furnish them the items that appeared on their wish lists for the next year.    At that they all walked out of the meeting.      (Of course, they were back soliciting again the following year!)  (I was reappointed by the club to my position for the next years).
The next year brought a new President to our club.    For reasons unbeknownst to any of us he transferred to our club from another one and expressed a wish to be our leader.    I am not certain what in particular he said but he was elected by acclamation!       The next year was a virtual repeat of the previous year, except our New President admonished me before I got the opportunity to deliver my ‘thank you’ speech.    This time the walkout was by about 3/4 of the membership.    Our new president was the sole surviving member after the meeting.
The Charities could have cared less about the people they serviced – they wanted the money that Kiwanis and other individuals and organizations provided them.     Delivery of tables, typewriters, office supplies etc meant that they actually had to service their client!     Cash could be used to pay salaries, solicit money etc.
The catered dinners were delivered without a fanfare or publicity.     Kiwanis did not want credit – the membership wanted to make some lives a little better – AND Kiwanis DID.
That foregoing events ought to have prepared me for the professional guardianship for profit scam.    It did not.    I did not learn from history and I met the elder cleansers!   The jurists who conspire with the elder cleansers are as venal as any of the miscreants and their and their cohorts ought to go to jail.
I noticed that in today’s Wall Street Journal the following article, to wit:

Four Cancer Charities Accused of Fraud

Civil suit alleges ‘sham charities’ took more than $187 million from donors

Tennessee Secretary of State Tre Hargett announces a federal lawsuit against four cancer charities on Tuesday in Knoxville, Tenn.ENLARGE
Tennessee Secretary of State Tre Hargett announces a federal lawsuit against four cancer charities on Tuesday in Knoxville, Tenn. PHOTO: MICHAEL PATRICK/KNOXVILLE NEWS SENTINEL/ASSOCIATED PRESS


May 19, 2015 3:22 p.m. ET

The Federal Trade Commission, all 50 states and the District of Columbia have filed a civil suit against four connected cancer charities and four people running them, accusing them of bilking more than $187 million from donors from 2008 to 2012.
The Cancer Fund of America Inc., based in Knoxville, Tenn.; Cancer Support Services Inc., based in Washington; Children’s Cancer Fund of America Inc., based in Powell, Tenn.; and the Breast Cancer Society Inc. of Mesa, Ariz., were all described as “sham charities” in the 148-page civil complaint, filed Monday in the U.S. District Court in Phoenix.
The complaint named as defendants James Reynolds Sr., James Reynolds II, and Rose Perkins—who are related—as well as an associate, Kyle Effler. It stated the four “have engaged in a massive, nationwide fraud, telling generous Americans that their contributions will help people suffering from cancer, but instead, spending the overwhelming majority of donated funds supporting the Individual Defendants, their families and friends, and their fundraisers.”


The organizations raised money as charities, but were instead “operated as personal fiefdoms characterized by rampant nepotism, flagrant conflicts of interest, and excessive insider compensation,” according to the complaint.
The complaint states the group leaders spent money to hire family and friends and buy cars, trips, luxury cruises, college tuition and even dating site memberships.

From Theresa Maxwell on the Guardianship of her mother, Mrs. Strege–isolated and abused in Court

From mainstream media–where the courts and judges won’t let stories be published.  This is a typical story that Jerome Larkin of the ARDC wants to stop honest attorneys from publicly speaking out against–myself, Ken Ditkowsky and Lanre Amu


Conway: The Strege case indicated to me that is a guardian can take a mother in this case and make a decision to move her into a different setting and then deny children access to that parent, there’s something wrong with that picture. We need a place where these families can go to challenge these decisions and question the guardian.

From the daughter–immediately after appointment of a “professional” Guardian (of death and family terrorism), all visitation by children, grandchildren and former friends.

TWELVE GRANDCHILDREN she could not longer see.

She was required to take a class on guardianship and it took weeks to see her mother.  When she saw her mother, she was aghast–medicated beyond belief, injuries, trips to and from the hospital.

The Guardian declined a request to be interviewed.

The “certified” guardian’s oversight manager said some are good and some are bad.

It may take 2 to 3 years to decertify a certified guardian.

Please pray for this family and the brave woman who took the story public.


From Atty Candice Schwager — Hoodwinked in Probate Court


What happens when the rule of law increasingly bows to the whims and violations of unaccountable public officials? Lawlessness in every branch and a system of law that caters to the elite, not the people. Our system of law is slowly being eroded by those at the top levels of our government in every branch to such egregious degrees that the law is not law anymore. Form takes precedence over substance. The appearance of legitimacy is all we have in guardianship anymore–unless you’re in a county without a “guardianship program.”

I have personally witnessed the stark contrast in crime and civil rights violations between counties that have “guardianship programs” and those who do not. In the former, it’s utter lawlessness and the Judges are hardly even in control of the bench any longer. In the latter, people are still treated like people and their civil rights are respected.

What’s the difference? Fort Bend County Judge Susan Lowry is a model Judge in guardianship, who follows the law and respects human rights because there’s no “program” in place to exploit people for profit. Harris County might as well be Guantanamo Bay–the elderly and disabled are chattel with no civil rights, if that were possible. In every Texas County with a “guardianship program,” Texas is engaged in human trafficking and it’s ugly. But it all starts in Austin.

We are witnessing the dismantling of our government. Texas was founded based upon principles of limited government and human rights, much like the United States. Our legal system was designed to serve the needs of all, but it’s being gamed by the politically powerful and elite–in violation of their duties to the people. We have become slaves to the governing elite, who enact legislation and suspend rules of law with the stroke of a pen in favor of themselves, lawyers, and corporations. The human toll is unimaginable because people have become the currency.

We are not just oppressed by our government, but owned by the governing elite like slaves, who view us as commodities to serve them, as opposed to officials serving us. No where more poignant is the message than in the Texas Estates Code, a treatise on human trafficking–where people are property and corporations are people. The end result is that corporations have more rights–if that were possible.

Guardianship started as a necessary evil and now it’s simply evil. It’s a system of human trafficking where corporations are appointed as guardians, but given limited liability when it comes to accountability for theft and harm. Where the law imposes no accountability or responsibility, but promises to protect you, beware. This suggests the standard is penal–if there is any standard at all. It also warns you that exploitation is coming and the people will be holding the bag, as usual.

We are supposed to believe Guardianship is about protection of human lives as we debate bonds, attorneys’ fees, ad litem fees, security for costs, safekeeping of an estate before someone is even in guardianship–and little else. We tolerate the REPTL Section of the Bar drafting legislation to line their pockets and Judges backing them up behind closed doors in violation of law and hardly even recognize when they are breaking the law anymore.

We pretend to have transparency where there is none. Where human rights are violated for profit, there can be no transparency. We look the other way when Judges appear hearing after hearing to testify in favor of Bills they had a hand in drafting and pretend to not know. We ignore separation of powers because it seems irrelevant until we realize a Judge is driving the Legislative process in Guardianship and runs a guardianship business alongside his Court. Lawmakers brush off violations of State and Federal Law–including treason, as inconsequential, too jaded to care anymore. It’s frightening to contemplate what is really going on.

Ethics rules are a joke when the law is tossed aside as irrelevant by public officials seeking to profit off of human beings. But common sense is sufficient for even the most naive to understand that “WE ARE BEING HOODWINKED” by public officials with a duty to protect us.


House Bill 1438 is the product of an entire summer of collaboration between Judge Guy Herman, Laura Unchurch and Craig Hopper with Representative Senfronia Thompson, yet they can’t manage to get the “committee substitute” with 8 “controversial” bills stuffed inside to ram through the House of Representatives in the middle of the night until well after 1:00 a.m and witnesses have gone home.

Why wasnt’s the Bill ready for people to actually read, testify, and express outrage beforehand? Rep. Thompson insisted that nothing controversial was added to the Bill–omitting the 8 highly objectionable, unconstitutional Bills rolled into this veritable midnight hoist. The Bill passed in little more than 24 hours with a third reading. Why the rush? All very good questions.

Witnesses waited patiently–over ten hours to testify until after 1:00 a.m. and doubted if this Bill was ever actually going to be called because it was the last one of 40 that day–certainly no coincidence. With the number of witnesses left by the time the its proponents were apparently summoned by private invitation–Judge Guy Herman, Craig Hopper, and Laura Unchurch, between 12:30 and 1:00 a.m., few witnesses remained to oppose it. Michael Easton was one such witnesses who would have demonstrated that H.B. 1438 is anything but “uncontroversial.”

House Bill 1438 is the end result of rogue public officials who refuse to take “NO” for an answer–from the people. It legislates theft from the elderly and disabled–who cannot object to the eminent domain. H.B. 1438 was the product a “bait and switch” that literally occurred in the middle of the night and smacks of impropriety and ethics code violations–undoubtedly the reason it had to be shoved down Texas’ throat. The resulting “Bill” is so grossly illegal, it is surreal that it is being treated as legitimate–on its way to the Senate for consideration.

House Bill 1438 declares War on the Constitution–treason–purporting to nullify inalienable rights at the very heart of our Constitution without due process of law. It purports to legislatively remove civil liberties and taking of property without due process of law, while violating Article I of the Texas Constitution, which prohibits charging for access to the Courts.

The war against the elderly and disabled just got worse, if that were possible, as I contemplate Habeas Corpus to rescue a hostage of Texas’ guardianship laws because I know probate court is a losing venue before I ever file. Our elderly and disabled have less rights than terrorists at Guantanamo Bay because they are apparently no longer considered citizens under this void Code of human trafficking.

Rep. Senfronia Thompson told the committee that the committee substitute was not yet available and only rolled in “a couple” of “non-controversial” bills–knowing this was untrue–to get the Bill passed. What was not revealed were the eight prior bad bills that were “rolled in” this unconstitutional Bill on its way to the Senate. Hookwinked in the Texas House!

The highly controversial, objectionable Bills rolled into 1438 include:

House Bill 2858 (H.B. 3669 83rd Leg.): purporting to run around the Supreme Court’s authority on recusal and place all power in the hands of Judge Guy Herman on who will serve as probate judge in Texas. This did not pass last session with Elliot Naishtat pushing so proponents decided to make it pass by suspending the rules and deceiving the public.

House Bill 1333 (H.B. 2303 83rd Leg.) did not pass the first time and was not presented for public testimony this session because advocates were howling in opposition to this illegal Bill. H.B. 1333 purports to give Court court investigators, with no credentials aside from knowing the Judge, carte blanche over your federally protected banking information in violation of the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978. It purports to permit spying to see how much money you have–so the Court can decide if you need “protection.”

HB 2733, HB 2829, HB 2858 Senfronia Thompson’s bills- and; HB 1333, HB 1921, HB 3137, HB, 3645, and HB 4058 by Rep. Naishtat. Naishtat has written or sponsored two dozen or so of Guy Herman’s Bills-at which time Herman testifies to support the Bill. Herman is a fixture in the Legislature, as opposed to a resource witness, which should have people up in arms about the conflicts of interest and violations of the Texas Constitution on separation of powers. Herman is a Judge, but looks like a lobbyist.

HB 2829 – Mandatory security for costs, no public hearing.
HB 2733 – Compensation in guardianship proceedings shall come through management trusts. Reimbursement of costs in guardianship against ward. Management trusts are created to fund lawyers while the elderly and disabled are put on Medicaid. Elderly are put in Medicaid nursing homes while the lawyers are guardians appointed by the courts spend the money from their trusts at $400 per hour.

If any of this were legal, it would mean that you can no longer complain or get help without paying a bond for security for costs. Texas has already removed Adult Protective Services and DADS’ jurisdiction to intervene, such that wards are only protected by the probate judge financially benefitting off of their incapacitation. Thank God, Habeas Corpus is free as a remedy to free your loved ones from being unlawfully detailed by the State of Texas.

Aside from the illegality for violating federal law and the Constitution, this Bill bypasses the Finance Committee in an attempt to amend the Finance Code surreptitiously with terms that would never get out of committee if the law were followed. H.B. 1333 (was H.B. 2303 by Eddie Rodriquez of Travis County and died in committee last year and revived at the prompting of Judge Guy Herman). Advocates verified during the 83rd Legislative Session that Judge Guy Herman brought the Bill.

Craig Hopper called H.B. 1438 “innocuous,” stating it promotes the “best interest”, but he did not say whose best interest. This Bill exploits the elderly and disabled, leaving only the lawyers to benefit–as usual. The Bill mandates safekeeping of assets without even so much as probable cause for guardianship or notification-at which time the Court begins paying lawyers and the tab starts, whether you end up “incapacitated” or not.

This Bill is more of the same–more layers of protection for the guardian, attorneys, courts, and guardianship programs. It is not remotely about protecting the ward because YOU CANNOT PROTECT WHEN THE GOAL IS TO EXPLOIT. Hopper then gets to the point–it reduces costs and hassle for lawyers by lowering their bonds. Aha! Now, when the guardian hurts you or steals your estate, the bond will be insufficient to cover their liability. How does removing responsibility and accountability for harm protect anyone?

The Bill is an attempt to legislate theft with no liability– a common theme for the proponents of these Bills, who have financial interests in them being enacted. It is shameful that proponents realize guardianship involves significant liability for harm and then remove all accountability intentionally for the harm caused. Contrary to Rep. Thompson’s statements, the Bills rolled into this bad bill are highly objectionable, controversial and unconstitutional.

Were it not so, the Bills would simply have been presented for public testimony as the law requires–or they would have passed last session instead of failed. Public testimony is not optional, but a legal requirement–even if it is a mere formality because the decision has already been made in violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act. By Judge Herman’s own statements, there are ethics code violations, but are those “small potatoes” too?

There’s a reason why these “Bills” are being stuffed in a midnight Bill with no public testimony–they know the Bill would never pass if people actually got to read it, testify and vote–as the law requires. Our elected officials apparently believe that they can make the law suit their own needs, suspend the rules, and that the simple stroke of a pen renders it legal because they do not understand the penal code and higher law.

This is treason to the Constitution resulting in crimes against the people by the government “under color of State law.” 18 U.S.C. 241, 242. When public officials step outside of the bounds of the law, they cease to represent the government and are personally liable. Do they know this? At the end of the day, the ends justifies the means,? Is that the message? Then what are the ends? A cursory review of these Bills reveals the answer to that question. The goal is making money off of people the State is charged with protecting and limiting liability for the harm done and it’s illegal.

Public integrity should not have a price tag, but it does. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) won’t investigate organized crime unless the dollar amount is over $400,000. Local officials will turn you away, saying it’s a civil matter. Where is the accountability for breaking the law?

In response to questioning on Judge Guy Herman’s decision to”have his cake and eat it too”, taking a six month sabbatical instead of retiring to get retirement benefits–he said it was “small potatoes.” Whether or not violating federal and state laws to fraudulently obtain a government pension is “small potatoes” is all relative, I suppose? But, for a public official, how is any penal code violation “small”?

Have we become so jaded that we allow our public officials to commit crimes and look the other because it’s “small potatoes?” At what point does it become relevant? What does Judge Herman know that we do not? I do not consider these infractions small potatoes because the end result is lawlessness. We are already there in probate court throughout the State, where secret deals, games, and crimes are occurring daily throughout Texas and it’s business as usual. We are half way down the slippery slope.

Lawyers with an ounce of integrity left need to lead the way so everyone can cut through the legalese and red tape. Lawyers know that federal and State laws are being violated. They need to care. They know how to draft legislation, which is why the current legislation is so frightening because it shows premeditation. They have contacts and resources. It’s only a matter of more of them utilizing these powerful tools.

Being a lawyer is about much more than billable hours and being a leader is about leading. If our public officials are not interested in leading, they should step aside because the job doesn’t call for serving yourself. If you think you can build your empire off the backs of the less fortunate, consider how well this idea turned out for those before you: King Henry XVI, Marie Antoinette, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin?

A lawyer’s duties extend to the vital needs of the public interest and the justice system–whether they accept that responsibility or not. Lawyers are deemed “officers of the court.” They can and should be GUARDIANS OF JUSTICE. I’ve have long understood that I am in law enforcement by virtue of those entrusted with this duty not enforcing the law.

People do not care about other people. Public Officials do not care about the public. Ron Paul coined the term “non representing representatives” which identifies the problem to a tee. Where are our representatives? Is the system only functioning to benefit the politically elite? Lawyers do not simply have a license to practice law, but a responsibility to honor the Constitutional and rule of law. Judges police the court system and should be a model for “upholding the law and Constitution,” not violating it. Leaders are not given the privilege to break the law without consequence and should not be taking it.

We are inches from complete and utter lawlessness in a system that is so corrupt and broken, it’s surreal. Will our response be complacency still? As you slumber, lawmakers are busy writing laws to take away your rights–your freedom and liberty without due process of law. We need a few good men and women to call this what it is–OFFICIAL OPPRESSION. Tex. Pen. Code 39.10.

Written by Attorney Candice Schwager in Texas.

Reposted with permission of the author

From Ken Ditkowsky–Stop the discrimination against those you oppose, Mr. Larkin

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: May 17, 2015 6:38 AM
To: Eric Holder , “FBI- ( (” , Matt Senator Kirk , Probate Sharks , “JoAnne M. Denison” , Tim NASGA , Nasga Us , “J. Ditkowsky” , Chicago FBI , BILL DITKOWSKY , Chicago Tribune , Janet Phelan , Bev Cooper , SUNTIMES , FOX News Network LLC , Ginny Johnson , Diane Nash , Fiduciary Watch , Cook County States Attorney , “Y. ACLU” , ISBA Main Discussion Group , Scott Evans , Edward Carter , Glenda Martinez , Barbara Stone , RosANNa Miller , “Mr. Lanre Amu — Honest Atty Unfairly Persecuted By ARDC” , Illinois ARDC , Cook Sheriff , “tips@cbschicago.com” , Candice Schwager , Rabbi Moshe Soloveitchik , Alyece Russell , Eric Blair , Jay Goldman , Tom Fields , Nancy Vallone , “newseditors@wsj.com” , Len Holland , “Jim (” , Elaine Renoire , “ABAJournal.com” , Martin Kozak , Robert Sarhan , Kathie Bakken , Martha Jantho , Doug Franks , 60m Cbs News <60m@cbsnews.com>, John Howard Wyman , “Truthbetoldradio (” , Mary Richards , ACLU of Illinois , Kevin Pizzarello , “information@iardc.org” , “JoAnne M. Denison” , Wsj Lts , “illinoislawyernow@isba.org” , Greg Coleman , “newseditors@dowjones.com” , The Wall Street Journal , KRISTI HOOD
Subject: Another of America’s dirty little secrets

America is not perfect, nor are we immune from the worst attributes of mankind.       The election of Mr. Obama was hailed as demonstration that we had matured and except for the lunatic, fringe a man’s race was no longer a barrier to election to the highest office in the land.    We, as a nation, had conquered our bias.     Unfortunately, our analysis was an illusion.   Indeed we talk a great game, but, right here in my parochial world I personally am confronted by the Illinois Supreme Court’s demonstration of racism in the Lanre Amu case (suspended for three years for practicing law while black- i.e. compliance with Supreme Court Rule 8.3 and 18 USCA 4) and the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary commission barring civil rights icon Diane Nash from a kangaroo hearing involving JoAnne Denison.  (FYI the banning of Diane Nash is not coincidental, she is well known in her field, has connections to Hollywood, was featured in the movie Selma, and has appeared on the Oprah Winfrey Show and has been invited to Oprah personal events and parties).
A single example does not make a trend nor a criminal enterprise, but, even in the small group of individuals who have joined together to defend the elderly and the infirm from the exploitation of seniors from judicial and political criminals we have some rabid racists who raise their ugly heads.     One group (whose rants I have attempted to block from my communications) actually claim that “Jews” are the cause of the problem of “elder cleansing.”    
Defending the elderly and the disabled from those who War against the aforesaid elderly and disabled is by definition a thankless task.     Indeed, do not expect gratitude or even the reward of looking in the mirror and being able to tell yourself – Job well done.     The fight that is being waged by me is for me.     I may become elderly or disabled and thus vulnerable to ‘elder cleansing.’     I’ve seen the ravages of ‘old age’ and ‘illness.’      I’ve visited clients in ‘nursing homes’ and I saw what happened to ES when he was placed in a nursing home for rehabilitation.     I’ve seen the level of care that my wife’s grandparents received when they were placed in a sheltered care facility to recover from an auto accident [1] .     I’ve practiced law in Cook County, Illinois for fifty three years.     I am not Pollyanna!      
During my practice of law, while no one discriminated against me until quite recently, I was aware that America’s core values were always under threat.      During World War 2  thousands of Americans who had ancestors in Japan were actually herded from their homes and placed in concentration camps in the Mohave Desert!     Like the Jews of Germany their entire life was snatched from them.    America to its credit did not ‘gas’ them or make slaves out of them, but, we did exhibit our shame and disregard for our ‘core values.’       Of course we did not disturb the Nazi sympathizers.     They openly operated in Chicago (at Lawrence and Western Ave) displaying all the symbols of the 3rd Reich and its anti-Semitic roots.    
The War against the Elderly and the disabled is a repeat performance.      
There is hope.     It took 70 years for persons of Oriental origin to finally stand up and call a spade a spade.      The following article appeared this morning on the internet.
Asian-American groups accuse Harvard of racial bias in admissions
 Yamiche Alcindor, USA TODAY 5:57 p.m. EDT May 16, 2015
(Photo: Elise Amendola, AP)
A coalition of Asian-American groups filed a federal complaint against Harvard University on Friday alleging the school engaged in “systemic and continuous discrimination” against Asian Americans during its admissions process.
More than 60 Chinese, Indian, Korean and Pakistani groups came together for the complaint, ……
“We want to eliminate discrimination of Asian Americans, and we want procedural justice for all racial groups,” Yukong Zhao, one of the chief organizers and a guest columnist with the Orlando Sentinel, told NBC News. “All racial groups should be treated equal.”

Robert Iuliano, Harvard University General Counsel, said in a statement that the university uses a “holistic admissions process” that is “fully compliant with federal law” to build a diverse class. He added that over the past decade the percentage of Asian American students admitted to Harvard College has increased from 17.6% to 21%.
“We will vigorously defend the right of Harvard, and other universities, to continue to seek the educational benefits that come from a class that is diverse on multiple dimensions,” Iuliano said.

Yet, Yukong Zhao, a 52-year-old Chinese-American author who helped organize the coalition, told The Wall Street Journal that there are longtime stereotypes of Asian applicants….”There is a lot of discrimination, and it hurts not just Asian Americans, it hurts the whole country,” he told the paper.

Contributing: The Associated Press
Democracy is not a spectator sport.     

[1] My father (a physician) and I paid a courtesy call at the Nursing home in Miami, Florida.    We were greeted by Judy’s grandparents.  Dad noticed that Judy’s grandmother’s arm was hanging limp.    He found she had been almost a week in the facility, examined according to the charts daily by a doctor and several registered nurses and no one noticed that she had an untreated broken arm.    He called the police, supervised the arm being set and raised holy hell.    As Judy’s dad was also a physician they got immediate action.    The nursing home changed its name, its ostentatious appearance and *****.     The operator today continues to operate dozens of homes and runs a full page ad in the Jewish newspaper picturing he and his wife.     
Ken Ditkowsky

Law from article on how 93 year old Texas woman is being held against her will in Silverado nursing home


Here is the law cited (so others can use in your cases)

State and Federal Law pertaining to advocating for the needs of the disabled under Title II or III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), the Elder Justice Act, the Older Americans Act, the Elder Bill of Rights as stated in Section 102.003 of the Texas Human Resources Code, Patient rights’ violations in Texas Administrative Code Sections 19.401-19.418, et seq, the First, Fifth, Fourteenth, Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Articles I and V of the Texas Constitution, 18 U.S.C. 241 (Felony violation of Constitutional Rights), 18 U.S.C. 242 (Conspiracy to violate Constitutional Rights), 18 U.S.C. 247 (Conspiracy to deprive Americans of Free Exercise of Religion), the Texas Penal Code Sections 22.04 and more mandating reporting of any suspicion of abuse, neglect, or exploitation of the elderly and/or disabled. Attorneys are mandated reporters and the attorneys in this case prefer the ostrich approach, while shooting the messenger that would tell you of the abuse–no secret in countless social media and traditional journalist’s articles Nationwide.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution has stated since its ratification in 1791: “Congress shall make no law. . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. The First Amendment’s free speech clause, includes written expression as well as spoken. Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc. (1991) 501 U.S. 560, 576 [111 S. Ct. 2456, 2465-2466, 115 L. Ed. 2d 504] (conc. opn. of Scalia, J.); see, e.g., Dallas v. Stanglin (1989) 490 U.S. 19, 25 [109 S. Ct. 1591, 1595, 104 L. Ed. 2d 18].) In Polk v. State Bar of Texas, Polk successfully enjoined the Texas State Bar from chilling his speech, even though he was critical of a District Attorney and Judge—suggesting corruption. 374 F. Supp. 784 (N.D. Tex. 1974).October 9, 2014 is the situs of the conspirators’ Motions for Sanctions and for Contempt and in the absence of the Judge barring the press and other concerned citizens, I invite you to come and testify as to why you believe the Courts should be open to the public in accordance with Article I, Section 13 (open courts provision) of the Texas Constitution. Our Texas Attorney General has promised to operate in the sunshine as it concerns our government–implying transparency of our government. Gag orders operate in darkness……

In Davenport v. Garcia, the Supreme Court of Texas stated, “We are fully aware that a prior restraint will withstand scrutiny under this test only under the most extraordinary circumstances. That result is consistent with the mandate of our constitution recognizing our broad right to freedom of expression in Texas. An individual’s rights under the state constitution do not end at the courthouse door; rather, the courthouse is properly the fortress of those rights. The first requirement of our standard advances from the prior holdings of Texas courts that only an imminent, severe harm can justify prior restraint, and in the context of gag orders, that harm must be to the judicial process. Ex Parte McCormick, 129 Tex. Crim. 457, 88 S.W.2d 104; Ex Parte Foster, 71 S.W. at 595.

Gag orders are almost without exception unconstitutional in civil cases unless the matter is sealed in accordance with strict constitutional mandates of Article I Section 13 and Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 76a. Sealing has historically been limited to sensitive cases involving juveniles and adoptions.

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S. Ct. 710, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1964). “All ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance — unorthodox ideas, controversial ideas, even ideas hateful to the prevailing climate of opinion” — fall within the full protection of the First Amendment. Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 484, 77 S. Ct. 1304, 1 L. Ed. 2d 1498 (1957). Legislation or Rules that aim at penalizing the publication of truthful information can seldom satisfy constitutional standards, Smith v. Butterworth, 866 F.2d 1318, 1320 (11th Cir. 1989), cert. granted, 493 U.S. 807, 110 S. Ct. 46, 107 L. Ed. 2d 16 (1989), and is generally presumed unconstitutional.

…the U.S. Supreme Court has long held that political speech about government issues or officials is “at the core of what the First Amendment is designed to protect.” Morse v. Frederick, 127 S. Ct. 2618, 2626, 168 L. Ed. 2d 290 (U.S. 2007)(citation omitted). There is universal agreement that a major purpose of that Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs. Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218, 86 S. Ct. 1434, 16 L. Ed. 2d 484 (1966). The Supreme Court has long held that regulations enacted for the purpose of restraining speech on the basis of content are presumptively violative of the First Amendment, Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41, 46-47, 106 S. Ct. 925, 89 L. Ed. 2d 29 (1986)

Also follow the cases on our websites, Let Ruby Go and SilveradoSucks.com! These are, of course, our opinions, and you are free to disagree with us. That is what democracy is all about……

I believe this was written by Candice Schwager, a tireless activist for senior/disabled rights down in Texas.


Flying the flag on a pick up truck a disatraction? No, a First Amendment right

Today Ken Ditkowsky pointed out an article where a student flew a flag on the back of his pickup truck and school officials issued him a warning notice, unbolted it and laid it in the back of the truck and told him to come back to school without it.

The outrage!


My flag is this blog, and Jerome Larkin of the ARDC has told me to take it down.  He doesn’t like what it says or why it symbolizes–freedom, and especially freedom from corruption in government.

Go ahead and ask him to disclose all of what he knows about the 6 people who died in the fire at the OPG.  I asked some older attorneys and was stunned at their answer.  Warning:  I am not going to reveal it here until the families have been informed and the miscreants have been brought to justice and publicly apologize, but they know who they are.

The families deserve closure.  Those that did wrong need to apologize and resign.

Jerome Larkin knows what I am talking about.  So do apparently Ms. Smart and Ms. Opryszek who went ballistic during my trial when the fire was mentioned.  I could not, for the life of me, figure that out.  Everyone with two brain cells that functioned from one year to the next knew that there were fires at the OPG that seemed to occur yearly, seemed to involve files storage, seemed to occur after 5 pm on a summer Friday.

Stories have been wiped from the internet (see my prior post).  A fire that within days was ruled a homocide with an accelerant was change months later to “accident” and stories removed.

The kids in South Carolina want to put flags in beat up old pick up trucks (I presume that was the real reason for the ban, the poor kids were doing it), and I have this blog and I get to ask  questions as a member of the concerned public who sees many inappropriate and wrongful decisions made in court at the Daley Center and elsewhere.

The ARDC picked on Mr. Amu because he was practicing law while black and represented poor, black, immigrant clients.  I, as a woman, a clear minority still in litigating attorneys (currently 70% of women drop out of active licensing within a few years after they start practice–no wonder there), and Ken Ditkowsky was also picked on because we do not represent large corporations, most of our clients are either indigent or lower middle class–just like YOU–the client terrorized in probate and elsewhere.

Bullies never pick on the big guys, only those they can stomp on.

I have not stopped publishing and investigating since my suspension.  I am busier than ever–with patent business and with phone calls to blog about cases in probate and seek pro bono or low cost counsel for these clients.

I am tired of what is going on at the ARDC and how the ARDC protects dishonest attorneys and goes after honest ones–only for telling the truth.

That has to end.

We have to protect seniors.  It has gotten so bad, they are killing them (Frake, Baker, etc.)

The families are terrorized and mortified by the probate court and attorney’s actions.


From Ken Ditkowsky –Larkin’s repeated violations of the Code of Ethics and his cover ups

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: May 15, 2015 4:45 PM
To: Illinois ARDC , “information@iardc.org”
Cc: Probate Sharks , “JoAnne M. Denison” , Tim NASGA , Nasga Us , “J. Ditkowsky” , Matt Senator Kirk , Eric Holder , “FBI- ( (” , Chicago FBI , BILL DITKOWSKY , Chicago Tribune , Janet Phelan , Bev Cooper , SUNTIMES , FOX News Network LLC , Ginny Johnson , Diane Nash , Fiduciary Watch , Cook County States Attorney , “Y. ACLU” , ISBA Main Discussion Group , Scott Evans , Edward Carter , Glenda Martinez , RosANNa Miller , “Mr. Lanre Amu — Honest Atty Unfairly Persecuted By ARDC” , Barbara Stone , Cook Sheriff , “tips@cbschicago.com” , Candice Schwager , Rabbi Moshe Soloveitchik , Alyece Russell , Eric Blair , Jay Goldman , Tom Fields , Nancy Vallone , “newseditors@wsj.com” , Len Holland , Elaine Renoire , “ABAJournal.com” , Martin Kozak , “Jim (” , Robert Sarhan , “newseditors@dowjones.com”
Subject: In re: Jerome Larkin – Violations of law and ethics

Mr. Larkin,
Supreme Court of professional conduct 8.3 reads:
Rule   8.3 . Reporting  Professional  Misconduct
·         (a)   A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of  Rule 8.4(b) or  Rule 8.4(c) shall inform the appropriate  professional authority. [1]
·         (b)   A lawyer who knows that a judge has committed a violation of applicable  rules of judicial  conductthat raises a substantial question as to the judge’s fitness for office shall inform the appropriate authority.
·         (c)   This  Rule does not require disclosure of information otherwise protected by the attorney-client privilege or by law or information gained by a lawyer or judge while participating in an approved lawyers’ assistance program or an intermediary program approved by a circuit court in which nondisciplinary complaints against judges or lawyers can be referred.
·         (d)   A lawyer who has been disciplined as a result of a lawyer disciplinary action brought before any body other than the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission shall report that fact to the Commission.
Mr. Lanre Amu did exactly what the Rule required.    He reported unprofessional conduct on the part of certain judges.      In fact you and the Supreme Court jurists in the Amu case are clearly violating 8.4 which states:
·         It is  professional  misconduct for a lawyer to:
o    (a)   violate or attempt to violate the  Rules  of  Professional Conduct , knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another.
o    (b )   commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects .
o    (c)   engage in  conduct  involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation [2] .
o    (d)   engage in  conduct  that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
o    (e)   state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official or to achieve results by means that violate the  Rules  of  Professional Conduct  or other law.
o    ( f)   knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in  conduct  that is a violation of applicable  rules  of judicial  conduct  or other law [3] . Nor shall a lawyer give or lend anything of value to a judge, official, or employee of a tribunal, except those gifts or loans that a judge or a member of the judge’s family may receive under  Rule  65(C)(4) of the Illinois Code of Judicial  Conduct . Permissible campaign contributions to a judge or candidate for judicial office may be made only by check, draft, or other instrument payable to or to the order of an entity that the lawyer reasonably believes to be a political committee supporting such judge or candidate. Provision of volunteer services by a lawyer to a political committee shall not be deemed to violate this paragraph.
o    (g)   present, participate in presenting, or threaten to present criminal or  professional  disciplinary charges to obtain an advantage in a civil matter. [4]
o    (h)   enter into an agreement with a client or former client limiting or purporting to limit the right of the client or former client to file or pursue any complaint before the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission.
o    (i)   avoid in bad faith the repayment of an education loan guaranteed by the Illinois Student Assistance Commission or other governmental entity. The lawful discharge of an education loan in a bankruptcy proceeding shall not constitute bad faith under this paragraph, but the discharge shall not preclude a review of the lawyer’s  conduct  to determine if it constitutes bad faith.
o    (j)   violate a federal, state or local statute or ordinance that prohibits discrimination based on race [5] , sex, religion, national origin, socioeconomic status disability, age, sexual orientation or by  conduct that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s fitness as a lawyer. Whether a discriminatory act reflects adversely on a lawyer’s fitness as a lawyer shall be determined after consideration of all the circumstances, including: the seriousness of the act; whether the lawyer knew that the act was prohibited by statute or ordinance; whether the act was part of a pattern of prohibited  conduct ; and whether the act was committed in connection with the lawyer’s  professional  activities. No charge of  professional  misconduct may be brought pursuant to this paragraph until a court or administrative agency of competent jurisdiction has found that the lawyer has engaged in an unlawful discriminatory act, and the finding of the court or administrative agency has become final and enforceable and any right of judicial review has been exhausted.
o    (k)   if the lawyer holds public office:
§  (1)   use that office to obtain, or attempt to obtain, a special advantage in a legislative matter for a client under circumstances where the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that such action is not in the public interest;
§  (2)   use that office to influence, or attempt to influence, a tribunal to act in favor of a client; or
§  (3)   represent any client, including a municipal corporation or other public body, in the promotion or defeat of legislative or other proposals pending before the public body of which such lawyer is a member or by which such lawyer is employed.
In red I’ve outline the various provisions that you have personally violated with your bogus and totally false complaints that you have brought against Mr. Amu, Ms. Denison and myself.     18 USCA 4, 18 USCA 241, 18 USCA 242, 18 USCA 1341 et al are all viable Federal Law.    
As your action in assaulting the First Amendment Rights of Mr. Amu, Ms. Denison and myself are in my opinion felonies they have been reported to the Federal Authorities.     As these act, in my opinion, are overt acts in furtherance of some very serious wrongful action by certain favored attorneys and jurists it is my opinion that you and the members of your staff who have acted in concert with your personal wrongful actions now enjoy joint and several liability with you for the United States Income Taxes and the State of Illinois Income taxes that accrued due to the breaches of fiduciary relationship and outright theft.
I trust that pursuant to prior demand you are retaining all documents and other material relating to these matters so that any investigation by the United States of America and/or the State of Illinois will not be hindered because of any possible destruction of documents and records .

[1] Mr. Amu in reporting the corruption of certain judges to the IARDC and appropriate authorities is complying not only with the Canons 8.3 but Federal Law.      This Rule of Ethics renders the complaint filed by Larkin to be at best an oxymoron, and at worst an overt act in pursuance of a wrongful agreement he had (or has) with the miscreants.    It is disingenuous for Larkin to place any attorney in a catch 22 situation, unless he intentionally violated basic Constitutional Rights protected by the Illinois Constitution and the United States Constitution.
[2] It is certainly dishonest to act in concert (or aid and abet) the railroading of a senior citizen or disabled person into a guardianship that results in the isolation of the victim, the theft of his/her assets, the deprivation of liberty interests and the dehumanization.    The Mary Sykes case 09 P 4585 certainly provides ample evidence of such dishonest and fraudulent conduct on the part of each attorney engaged in the prosecution of JoAnne Denison or myself.    It is certainly dishonest for Mr. Amu to be prosecuted for exercising his FIRST AMENDMENT rights and/or for reporting the corruption of certain judges pursuant to 8.3.
[3] Engaging in a cover=up of corrupt conduct on the part of Judges is certain knowingly assisting a judge in conduct in violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct.   The entire Amu complaint is an example of Larkin’s wrongful conduct.
[4] As a co-conspirator Mr. Larkin is acting in concert with the miscreants who seek pecuniary and other gains from their misconduct.
[5] The entire Amu complaint smacks of racism in its most obnoxious and infamous manner.    The use of “uncle Tom’s” in perpetrating racism is not exculpating!

From Tim Lahrman–breaking through the probate exception/Rooker Feldman doctrines–trying to get justice in Federal Court

Thanks Tim.

From: “timlahrman@aol.com” <timlahrman@aol.com>
To: kenditkowsky@yahoo.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 8:33 PM
Subject: well worth passing around —

305 F.3d 660 (2002)

A.D. BROKAW, Plaintiff-Appellant,
Karen WEAVER, Mercer County, State of Illinois, et al., Defendants-Appellees.



In support of her position, A.D. cites Nesses, 68 F.3d 1003. In that case, Nesses brought suit in federal court against the lawyers and some of the judges involved in a breach of contract case which he had filed in Indiana state court and lost. Id. at 1004. Nesses claimed that his opponents’ lawyers used their political clout to turn the state judges against him. Id. The district court dismissed Nesses’ suit for lack of jurisdiction based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Id. This court rejected that conclusion, reasoning that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not bar Nesses’ claim because his suit was not premised on a claim that the state court judgment denied him some constitutional right; rather, his federal claim was based on a right independent of the state court proceeding. As we explained in Nesses, any other conclusion would mean that “there would be no federal remedy for a violation of federal rights whenever the violator so far succeeded in corrupting the state judicial process as to obtain a favorable judgment , ….” Id. at 1005. Moreover, we reasoned that such a “result would be inconsistent with cases in which, for example, police officers are sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for having fabricated evidence that resulted in the plaintiff’s being convicted in a state court .” Id.

From Candice Schwager and Barbara Stone–Orders without Jurisdiction are Void

Judge Michael Genden in Florida has persecuted and prosecuted Atty Barbara Stone to no end.  She has only tried to protect her mother from severe harm and her mother is still in grave danger at the hands of the probate court and judges in Florida.  Barbara has not seen her mother in long months.  Reading from the transcript the other day, Lustig’s excuse is “it was a legal matter”.  No, it is not.  What the Lustig/Genden team is doing is seriously violating Helen and Barbara’s Constitutional rights to association and to love one another.

Read on.

Michael Genden has endangered the life and safety of Helen Stone.  Michael Genden has engaged in criminal elder abuse, aggrevated abuse and financial exploitation.  Michael Genden has abetted criminal elder abuse, aggravated elder abuse and financial exploitation.  Michael Genden has issued unconstitutional orders without an evidentiary hearing. Michael Genden has denied Barbara Stone and Helen Stone due process.  Michael Genden never had jurisdiction. Michael Genden issued fraudulent and void “orders” based on fraud and fraud on the Court which he orchestrated.  Michael Genden issued “orders” based on slanderous and defamatory statements which he knew were false. Michael Genden has illegally and unethically reversed his own albeit illegal decision.  Michael Genden has colluded with a criminal enterprise.  Michael Genden has engaged in ex parte conduct.  Michael Genden has engaged in illegal and unethical conduct in protecting, and covering up his own misconduct, criminal conduct of elder abuse   Michael Genden tried to muzzle Barbara Stone to cover up his illegal orders and elder abuse.  Michael Genden has violated the US Constitution.
1.    An order is void if it was procured by fraud upon the court,” In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill. App. 3D 393(1962)
2.    The United States Supreme Court has clearly, and repeatedly, held that any judge who acts without jurisdiction is engaged in an act of treason. U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101, S. Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed. 2d 392, 406 (1980): Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821).
3.  Due Process is a requirement of the U.S. Constitution. Violation of the United States Constitution by a judge deprives that person from acting as a judge under the law. He/She is acting as a private person, and not in the capacity of being a judge (and, therefore, has no jurisdiction). The United States Supreme Court, in Twining v. New Jersery, 211 U.S. 78, 29 S.Ct. 14, 24, (1908), stated that “Due Process requires that the court which assumes to determine the rights of parties shall have jurisdiction.”; citing Old Wayne Mut. Life Assoc. V. McDonough, 204 U. S. 8, 27 S. Ct. 236 (1907); Scott v McNeal, 154 U.S. 34, 14, S. Ct. 1108 (1894); Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 733 (1877).
4. The state Supreme Courts have held that those who aid, abet, advise, act upon and execute the order of a judge who acts without jurisdiction are equally guilty. They are equally guilty of a crime against the U.S. Government.
5. A void order is an order issued without jurisdiction by a judge and is void ab initio and does not have to be declared void by a judge to be void. Only an inspection of the record of the case showing that the judge was without jurisdiction or violated a person’s due process rights, or where fraud was involved in the attempted procurement of jurisdiction, is sufficient for an order to be void. Potenz Corp. v. Petrozzini, 170 Ill. App. 3d 617, 525 N.E. 2d 173, 175 (1988). In instances herein, the law has stated that the orders are void ab initio and not voidable because they are already void.
6.  A void order is void ab initio and does not have to be declared void by a judge. The law is established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Valley v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 254 U.S. 348, 41 S. Ct. 116 (1920) as well as other state courts, e.g. by the Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Miller. A party may have a court vacate a void order, but the void order is still void ab initio, whether vacated or not; a piece of paper does not determine whether an order is void, it just memorializes it, makes it legally binding and voids out all previous orders returning the case to the date prior to action leading to void ab initio.
7.  This principle of law was stated by the U.S. Supreme Court as “Courts are constituted by authority and they cannot go beyond that power delegated to them. If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of it, their judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply VOID, AND THIS IS EVEN PRIOR TO REVERSAL.” [Emphasis added]. Vallely v. Northern Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 254 U.S. 348, 41 S. Ct. 116 (1920). See also Old Wayne Mut. I. Assoc. v. McDonough, 204 U.S. 8, 27 S.Ct. 236 (1907); Williamson v. Berry, 8 How. 495, 540, 12 L. Ed, 1170, 1189, (1850); Rose v. Himely, 4 Cranch 241, 269, 2 L.Ed. 608, 617 (1808).
8.  Pursuant to the Vallely court decision, a void order does not have to be reversed by any court to be a void order. Courts have also held that, since a void order is not a final order, but is in effect no order at all, it cannot even be appealed. Courts have held that a void decision is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final. Consistent with this holding, in 1991, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that, “Since such jurisdictional defect deprives not only the initial court but also the appellate court of its power over the case or controversy, to permit the appellate court to ignore it. …[Would be an] unlawful action by the appellate court itself.” Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868 (1991); Miller, supra. Following the same principle, it would be an unlawful action for a court to rely on an order issued by a judge who did not have subject-matter jurisdiction and therefore the order he issued was Void ab initio.
9.  A void order has no legal force or effect. As one court stated, a void order is equivalent to a blank piece of paper.

A Judge has no lawful authority to issue any order which violates the Supreme Law of the Land.
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that all entities have the mandatory right of an adequate, complete, effective, fair, full meaningful and timely access to the court.
The First and the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right of association.
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment guarantees Due Process and Equal Protection to all. “No state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” United States Constitutional Amendment XIV and adopted by State of Indiana Constitution.
“Choices about marriage, family life, and upbringing of children are among associational rights ranked as of basic importance in our society, rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect. U.S.C.A. Constitutional Amendment 14.
Dated:   June 20, 2014

Barbara Stone

This pleading contains a whole lot of verbiage and case law that can be used in other cases, and perhaps most of all the Sykes case.

I wish everyone a wonderful Mother’s day, but I know the probate victim with a living mother in a nursing home or abuse situation is under tremendous stress and unhappiness because they often cannot see their own mothers.  The courts and probate attorneys don’t care and make no efforts, as in the Helen Stone and Mary Sykes case, for these loving children to see their mothers.

The injustice and illegality of it is all glossed over.

Please pray today for Helen Stone, Barbara Stone, Gloria Sykes and Mary Sykes and all the other mothers in an abusive guardianship where the courts and authorities look the other way and where we know the cases simply consist of a string of felonies and fraud on the court.

In Illinois, Larkin is responsible for all of the felonies in the Sykes case.  Write him and tell him that abuse in probate will not be tolerated.

The ARDC has now suspended the licenses of three attorneys–myself, Mr. Ditkowsky and Mr. Amu and does so in kangaroo courts banning witnesses left and right and acting scandously toward honest attorneys doing their jobs. Ask Larkin what he knows about Judge Patrick Murphy and the OPG fire that killed 6 people, ask Lisa Madigan about all the probate cases and who her real father was and what he really did for a living.

Until we clean up Illinois, the corruption will breed in the courts and the ARDC like the black death, and it only ends in an early and unjust death for disabled seniors.  Corruption is funny== kind of when it involves money.  But when it involves death, that’s a whole other story.


From Eliot Bernstein–Favorite quotes from Barbara Stone’s transcript

Thanks, Eliot for sending this along.

It’s interesting how the judge can’t figure out this guardianship, why Helen Stone bounces back and forth between hospital and nursing home.

It’s also interesting how Lustig says Barbara’s visiting her mother is a “legal issue”–no it’s not.  Also, who gives a hockey puck about the attorneys fees.   On Barbara and her brother stand to inherit from mom, and brother already forged $600k in checks out of mom’s account, so what is that even relevant?

Barbara is fighting to see her mother and report abuse.  Lustig and Lapides are running a cover up operation.

This judge is visibly concerned and Barbara should amend and go back.



THE COURT: Well, let me just state that, if

everything that you’re saying is true, it’s absolutely horrific. There is no doubt about it. It’s absolutely horrific. My only question to you, Ms. Stone, is: What is it that — what relief are you asking of me? What can I do, as a Broward County judge?


THE COURT: If what you’re asking for relief, I would have to appoint someone, uh, who’s an objective person, have them go and do an evaluation, get a medical evaluation, you know, immediately. I’d say within 24 hours. And then make a recommendation as to what they think should be done.

  1. 52

THE COURT: — and they do an independent evaluation as to what her condition is and have them report back to me. If they report back to meand say, “We need to have her in a hospital setting in order to evaluate her medical condition,” then I’ll consider it. I can’t just order that she be moved. I can’t do that.

THE COURT: “I don’t believe anything” —

  1. STONE: I understand.

THE COURT: — “you say, Mr. Lustig.”


THE COURT: I have to tell you though, Mr. Lustig, I’m very concerned with what I read here.


  1. LAPIDES: Sure. Absolutely.

THE COURT: You can stay there.



was called as a witness and, having been duly sworn, was

examined and testified as follows:



  1. Okay. Can you enlighten me a little bit here.

You can stay there. It’s okay.

  1. Okay.
  2. Or wherever you’re comfortable.
  3. I’m fine here. What — do you want to ask me questions? Do you want — what would you like to know, judge?
  1. I would like you to tell me what’s going on here.
  1. I am, along with Jacque Hertz, trying to do our best for Aunt Helen.
  1. So why does Ms. Stone keep having a problem with the way her mother is being cared for and treated?
  1. A. Because Barbara cannot control me.
  2. Well, forget about Barbara controlling you.

If I went to go see Helen Stone right now, what kind of condition would she be in?


  1. She’d be fine. She and I were out this morning.
  1. She’s fine?
  2. She’s fine. She’s an 87-year-old woman. She does have health issues.
  1. I don’t have a 100-year-old great aunt. She’s fine. [THIS IS JUDGE STATING SHE HAS A 100 YEAR OLD AUNT WHO IS FINE, etc.)
  1. Yeah.
  2. LUSTIG: Well, she has dementia, too.

THE WITNESS: She has dementia. She has a very unsteady gait. She is using a wheelchair. She gets physical and occupational therapy five days a week, which of course Barbara’s not aware of because she’s not allowed to see her mother. So she assumes that nothing is being done.

  1. STONE: Your Honor, may I ask why I’m not allowed to go see my mother? Maybe that would be a good question.

THE COURT: Well, we’ll get to that a minute.

  1. LAPIDES: Okay. When — when the MiraLAX, as Barbara calls it, issue came up, it was not about MiraLAX, Your Honor. That’s in Barbara’s mind. That’s what she wants to make —


  1. I want to hear more about the condition of Ms. Helen Stone.
  1. She’s fine. She was in the hospital because she —
  1. Well, why does she keep going? I mean —
  2. Okay.
  3. — did you read the —
  4. We’re talking about four times in two — two and — two plus years.
  1. Okay.
  2. Okay. All right.
  3. Is she eating? I mean —
  4. She can —
  5. — is she being force-fed?
  6. Okay. She is not being fed by mouth because she does not swallow properly. She aspirates, which means that the food and the, uh, liquids will go intoher lungs, which can cause pneumonia. That is a very serious health hazard. There has been —
  1. Well, how does she eat?
  2. She is being fed by a feeding tube. She gets all of her nutrition by a feeding tube. Barbara has countered that she has lost a hundred, uh — she’s lost 30 pounds.
  1. STONE: Forty.

THE WITNESS: Oh, 40 pounds now. Okay. So we’re at 40 pounds. Helen is now weighing 120 pounds. She is 4’10”. Um, I would venture to say with an additional 30 or 40 pounds, she would be seriously overweight. She is appropriately —


  1. So she’s eating? She’s being fed?
  2. She’s being –
  3. She’s gets regular —
  4. She’s given nutrition.
  5. She has regular care? She has doctors?
  6. She has — she sees the doctor, probably –I’d have to go back and look at my list. But, I mean, I have a list of –


THE WITNESS: The guardianship fees. My issue with the guardianship fees initially was that this is family. And I will not, uh, charge for taking care of my Aunt Helen. I just wasn’t going to do

  1. That’s what family does for each other.  However, I have spent untold hundreds and hundreds of hours dealing with the litigation that Barbara has initiated that has nothing to do with Helen.


  1. No. What I’m —
  2. And so I do take fees for that.
  3. Okay. Let me ask you this. Why can’t Barbara, if she had a — somebody with her, whatever you want to call that, a controlled visit, why can’t Barbara see her mother?
  1. LUSTIG: May I respond to that, since it’s a legal issue?

THE COURT: Why is it a legal issue? She’s the guardian.

  1. LUSTIG: No. It has nothing to do withher.


  1. LUSTIG: She can’t order it one way or another. There’s two pending stay-away orders from the criminal court, that we had nothing to do with.

THE COURT: Who had something to do with them?

  1. LUSTIG: The state attorney’s office.

THE COURT: But who initiated them?

  1. LUSTIG: The Aventura police and the Metro-Dade police when she —


  1. LUSTIG: — was arrested for abducting her mother when she took her mother off the premises, didn’t tell anybody. And they found her nine hours later in Fort Lauderdale. That’s why.

THE COURT: Why is that abducting? She’s her mother.

  1. LUSTIG: Because she was under a previous court order that she could not interfere with the facility. She could not interfere with her mother’s duty.

THE COURT: Okay. How does she get that changed? How does she get visitation rights to her mother?

  1. LUSTIG: You get an attorney, Your Honor. That’s what she’s been asked to do, instead of filing pro se, which is what’s been going on here. You get yourself an attorney, which is what Judge Genden ordered her to do. Get a Florida Barattorney and — to represent you. That’s all that needs to be done here. Okay? I can’t do anything about stay-away orders with the — with the criminal court. I don’t practice criminal law.  In reference to Judge Genden, he has an injunction and stay-away order that was issued against her after she abducted her mother.

THE COURT: All right. Let me go back. Ms. Lapides is telling me that she’s fine.


  1. You were with her this morning. You went out.
  2. Yes. We went out this morning.
  3. When you say you went out, where did you go?
  4. She had a doctor’s appointment and we went to see the doctor. And everything was fine.
  1. And so then she goes back for lunch and she gets fed by a feeding tube?
  1. Yes. She gets fed, actually, I think it’s five times a day. Smaller amounts because of her GERD

THE COURT: Ms. Stone, I am extremely sympathetic to the situation. I can’t even imagine


being in the position that you’re in.

THE COURT: Ms. Stone. Ms. Stone, again, with all due respect, again, I am very sympathetic to your situation. I feel horrible. Again, if this is what’s going on, I feel horrible that you can’t see your mom; that you’ve been prevented — that you’ve been arrested; that — like I said, I can’t


even imagine being in your situation. But having said that, I’m dismissing it. If you want to move to amend and if you can make a case for jurisdiction, then make a case for jurisdiction.

  1. BERNSTEIN: Your Honor?


  1. BERNSTEIN: As being a whistleblower of the Florida Bar, it becomes very difficult for attorneys to come and help her without fearing


retribution and threats and whatever from other members. You have solid evidence that that occurred from a member of the Florida Bar who puther —

  1.  LUSTIG: Your Honor —
  2. BERNSTEIN: — reputation and license on

the line. I’m just saying, from an outside casual observer.

  1. LUSTIG: Your Honor —
  2. BERNSTEIN: It’s very hard to witness —
  3. LUSTIG: I object.
  4. BERNSTEIN: It’s a very simple and narrow thing.
  1. LUSTIG: You want to put him on the stand?
  2. BERNSTEIN: Could you — could you protect her attorney by saying to her attorney, You’re not– you know, “You’re to report to me and tell me if anybody contacts you regarding this case, that’s outside of the typical channels in the case and immediately report to me for — and I will protect you”? Because I do know two of the lawyers she’s talking about and people are scared. I mean,you’re taking on a case where you’re helping somebody who’s blowing the whistle on serious judges in a racketeering scheme she’s described,



which is very serious allegations, as you know. So, you know — and she’s willing to take them on and do this, obviously. So all she’s saying is, I think, “I’ll come back to your Court with a modified amended complaint” —

THE COURT: And if it is for a whistleblower,

then you need to file that —

  1. BERNSTEIN: As a count.

THE COURT: I’m sorry?

  1. BERNSTEIN: As a count?

THE COURT: As a count.

  1. BERNSTEIN: Yeah.

THE COURT: And you need to state a cause of action.

  1. BERNSTEIN: Okay.

THE COURT: And not a hundred pages of attachments, criminal complaints. You need to

state a cause of action, if that’s what you want this Court to do, if that’s what your relief is,

then you need to plead a case for whistleblower.

  1. STONE: Your Honor, may I —

THE COURT: Not to say plaintiff is a whistleblower.

(A discussion was held between Ms. Stone and

Mr. Bernstein.)


THE COURT: Ms. Stone, are you listening? Ms. Stone. Ms. Stone, if you want to plead a case for whistleblower, you need to either hire a counsel or you need to research the statute on whistleblowing, what the elements are for a whistleblower, and you need to state those and list those all in a cause of action, if that’s what you are asking this Court. That’s not what I read in here, except you saying, “Plaintiff is a whistleblower.” Okay?

Eliot I. Bernstein inventor

Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – DL

2753 N.W. 34th St.

Boca Raton, Florida  33434-3459

(561) 245.8588 (o)

(561) 886.7628 (c)

(561) 245-8644 (f)



From Miami Florida again-study shows guardianships have little oversight and a lot of problems


A telling and chilling quote from the article, where one woman contracted brain tape worms from eating tainted meat served by her employer, she received a multi million dollar settlement, but lives in a dilapidated apartment with a “professional guardian” in charge of all her money.

“Deep inside me, I knew something wasn’t right with what they did,” Waters says. “But they have neckties and license to do what they did… I didn’t know how to handle the system.”

This is just another case where the attorneys, their case managers and supervisors, tied in nurses, etc. get paid hundreds of dollars per hour, while leaving the “ward” in dilapidated housing, no access to their funds, often isolated from friends and family, and then it’s drain, drain, drain the estate.

In hindsight, there were conflicts of interest from the beginning. For Royal Caribbean, placing a stranger in charge of her case was more manageable than an ex-employee who believed her life had been ruined by the company. Waters might demand a jury trial, but a guardian would settle. The company was even allowed to suggest a candidate: Jacqueline Hertz.

Hertz is a major figure in Miami’s insular system. A Bronx native who was a paralegal before becoming a professional guardian in 1999, she now oversees roughly a dozen wards per year, more than anyone else in the county. Between her company, Jacqueline Hertz & Associates, and several other businesses with elder-friendly names, she makes enough to rent an office next to Mount Sinai Hospital and own a $1 million house near the golf course on North Shore Drive in Miami Beach. Her husband, Stephen, is an attorney who sometimes represents her in guardianship cases. ­Jacqueline Hertz has never been charged with a crime or investigated for wrongdoing.

Hmm. Interesting.  Jacqueline Hertz actually HAS been charged with a crime (actually many felonies of elder abuse) by Barbara Stone.

I am not surprised to see Jacqueline Hertz’s name in this article.

To Collect Debts, Nursing Homes seize control over patients in New York


Looks like some probate court abuse is seeping into the mainstream media.

I believe a year ago, this story would have been quashed.  The first thing that happens in probate court when miscreants want to seize control of assets and granny is they make sure the POA and Successor Trustee have no assets to fight them (Reichert, Sykes, etc.) and then they isolate, medicate, drain the estate and eliminate.  Many states keep probate court records sealed–claiming personal information is divulged–but in reality it seems to hide gross civil and human rights violations and cover up elder abuse by probate connected lawyers and their “caretakers” who only abuse, neglect, starve, isolate and play body guard to the ward to ensure he or she does not speak to anyone the truth.

Next thing they do, if there are any media stories, they threaten to sue.

In mine and Ken Ditkowsky’s case, one of the GAL’s threatened to get Ken disbarred if he merely investigated the case.  He is now suspended for 4 years.

Judge Connors threatened my law license if I even attempted to represent Gloria Sykes, not once, but twice, and then now I am suspended for 3 years.

How does this happen in the US where honest attorneys get suspended and the miscreants–the liars, cheats and thieves go free with impunity?

Easy, the ARDC does not file Ethics Reports as mandated by the Illinois State Legislature.  When called by a reporter who asked why they do not do this, most of the lawyers there just yelled at her or slammed down the phone.  After that, she could no longer call any attorneys at the ARDC.

Trafficking in seniors is become blatant and rampant in the US (Frake who want to go home and has the assets to do so is not going home, Helen Stone is not going home to her daughter but is in the clutches of a nursing home, etc.)

In the Frake case, which I can no longer appear on, numerous reports of abuse were handed back to the attorney and RN abusers.  Nothing was done.  Mr. Fracke is being drugged with non FDA approved psychotropic drugs against his will as chemical restraints.  In just one year of this “treatment” his muscles have withered away to nearly nothing, but before he was a strong and vociferous concrete tradesman.

How does this happen in the US, and in the Chicago Cook County Court system and the ARDC proclaims that there is no corruption, yet they refuse to file Ethics Reports and everyone else over at the Daley center seems to know a whole lot better.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg.  Some of the more recent stories I have found (Lisa Madigan is not a Madigan but her real name is Murray and she is the daughter of Joel Murray, a famous criminal drug lord attorney who suddenly quit law after 15 years, moved to Chicago and bought a small airline for a $200k investment and then sold it 10 years later for over $100 million. What a win win for his biz.

Do we see any investigation of those allegations in the mainstream media?

We know that transcripts at the Daley center repeatedly are lost, suppressed or altered, I am told who is part of that crime.  Is the Chicago FBI doing anything about it?

As a lawyer who is just doing her job, I am constantly prosecuted, persecuted and hounded by the people who would harm our elders and disabled persons in Illinois while they operate their cottage industries freely.

Not yet, as I see.


Now from Michigan a Probate court is going to decide Blogger’s rights in Probate



In this case, one family blogging about THEIR OWN probate case became the victim of the court appointed lawyers demanding that the family cease and desist from posting, from saying things about certain attorneys involved in the case–and incredulously, the judge is listening and the attorney is billing for suppressing First Amendment Rights.

The blog in question is http://www.learnfromtom.com and I believe our stories are similar.

Within hours of the site launching March 19, emails from the family’s former attorney show Siporin demanded the site be shut down, threatening to send cease-and-desist letters to get the site shuttered.
Siporin then sent the family legal documents demanding to know who essentially gave Tom freedom of speech and the ability to talk about how he feels when not at Rainbow. Siporin – who claims to have several degrees and to have worked as an auditor for 30+ years in the corporate setting at organizations such as Arthur Andersen  – even went so far as to demand to know any authors (along with any addresses) of press releases on the site.
And most recently in his legal response to Anand’s petition to be removed as guardian – in a pile of paperwork left at the family’s doorstep and not signed for by anyone – Siporin asks the family court judge to “…redact all specific references to persons or organizations associated with this case published in the Learn From Tom (sic) blog.”
Siporin also asks the probate court to order the LearnFromTom.com site to “redact” what he alleges are “false and/or misleading statements.” It’s unclear what is meant by this, Anand says, as no proofs are offered.
I will be contacting the professors mentioned in the article and see if they can help my case.
Many of my clients are now left without representation.

Abuse and Corruption Rampant in Probate Court of Cook County, IL

Nancy J. Thorner

The end of life has many challenges for the elderly.  It can be a fast or a long goodbye and might involve a transition to assisted living, a nursing home, or a live-in caretaker. 

Now is the time to guard against opportunists, who like vultures are circling to claim flesh, whether the person is alive or dead, even if a large sum of money isn’t involved.  For elder abuse bi-passes color, race or creed and extends also to disabled children. 

Although the presence of wealth often brings out the worst in human kind, preying on the elderly can amount to nothing more than gaining access to the individual’s monthly Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security or Veterans Disability payments.  

Twenty percent of the elderly are subject to elder abuse.  Nine times out of ten the abuse is done by lawyers they trust.  Having developed a rapport with their lawyer, the elderly client signs over control of their personal and financial…

View original post 2,338 more words

From NASGA–Las Vegas couple given 3 options–police, psych ward or nursing home!

Darcy Spears: Did you feel like you and your wife were kidnapped out of your own home?
Rudy North: We were kidnapped and raped. Both.

Maybe not literally, but Rudy and Rennie North feel like they were violated–stripped of the life they were living together for 60 years.

He cared for her through her cancer and claims they were doing just fine.

Until a knock on their door in the Fall of 2013.

“They said they were officers of the court.”

Rudy says “the officers” gave the couple three options.

“One: We call the police. Two: We have you go to a psychiatric ward.”

Choice three? An assisted living facility.


Of course, the “professional” guardian denies it, but many confirm this is how she acts.

With total power to put the elderly in a nursing home, no one doubts this guardian threatens all the elders with police or a nursing home.

The target of this probate based pirate attack?  Apparently the couple had a large expensive art collection.


Spotting Mortgage Fraud–the atty liars, cheats and thugs from Eliot Bernstein

From Florida and ground zero for many, many fradulent practices by mega banksters comes the following slide show which makes it clear how mortgage fraud is perpetrated on the public.

Now that mortgages are sold over and over under MERS (Mortgage Electronic Recording System), this means that Mortgages are sold as commodities, like pork bellies, and no one often knows who truly owns the mortgage and note dozens of transactions later.

Fees can amass as mortgages are transferred, escrows escalate and late fees become phenomenal.


this is an excellent example of how to spot mortgage and note fraud and defeat proceedings for foreclosure.


Declared incompetent at age 91, former Broadway Singer sings her way out!

How wonderful is that? Age 91 and amassing rent due because her building is a slum and she was withholding rent, the Landlord allegedly put in a call to Adult “(anti) Protective Services” and was swiftly guardianized against her will and put in a Nursing Home.

Able to escape one day and get to court (try THAT in Illinois, strangely no one ever want to come and there are never any voice recordings of those agreements), she woos the judge back to the judge’s own sanity by signing Sumertime and another selection.

She then goes free and is able to go live at home.

Another success story this month.

See the article at:



PS–don’t get too excited about singing on the Daley center soon, or taking voice lessons, this lady’s attorney, Mr. Arthur Schwartz also had to file dozens of motions and  a few habeus corpus too to get her out.

cWhat is exactly the root cause of problems in Probate? Psychopathy

Neurological Basis for Lack of Empathy in Psychopaths

integral-options.blogspot.com/…/neurologicalbasis-for-lack-of-empathy. html

Sep 28, 2013  In this new study from Jean Decety (one of the preeminent scholars of empathy), he and his research team examined the ability of psychopaths …

In this new study from Jean Decety (one of the preeminent scholars of empathy), he and his research team examined the ability of psychopaths (or those who score highly on the PCL-R) to experience empathy for others’ pain.

When the most highly psychopathic participants imagined pain to themselves, their brains showed a typical neural response within the regions involved in empathy for pain, including the anterior insula, the anterior midcingulate cortex, somatosensory cortex, and the right amygdala. The increase in brain activity in these regions was unusually pronounced, suggesting that psychopathic people are sensitive to the thought of of their own pain.

But when participants imagined pain to others, these regions failed to become active in highly psychopathic subjects. The psychopaths – this is important – showed an increased response in the ventral striatum, an area known to be involved in pleasure, when imagining others in pain.

And it seems, according to a psychological researcher I am currently working with, apparently the disorders of narcissism and psychopathy seems to occur at much higher rates in doctors and lawyers.

I am not surprised from the behavior I see in large law firms and in the courtroom.

Maybe right below “In God we Trust” they need to have a poster “Got Psychopathy?”

I think the ARDC needs a “Got Psychopathy?” poster too for all they do.

From Ken Ditkowsky — explaining how Illinois Probate Coverups Work

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: May 2, 2015 11:54 AM
To: Mark R Ferran , “betsy@parentadvocates.org”
Cc: Eliot Ivan Bernstein , JoAnne M Denison

With the retirement of Judge George Leighton Illinois suffered a serious loss.  Probably our best lawyer, smartest judge, and a lone voice of integrity was gone forever.    Corrupt public officials and corrupt judicial officials danced in the streets with joy – an era was over.
Mr. Ferran – it appears that you are overqualified to be a lawyer.    Engineer and Lawyer!     Are you aware that so many lawyers being groomed to be judges barely read and write!     Many on the bench – especially in the probate division have one skill – they can use a rubber stamp and when a clout heavy fixer enters the court room the jurist (who when asked if he/she ever takes bribes say no) shows the proper respect planting a kiss on the posterior of the lawyer.
Words that connote honesty, integrity, and/or fidelity are unethical and can cause an ordinary lawyer to be sanctioned or suspended.    Quoting the law is punishable by contempt!      Understanding the law is not in the best traditions of the Illinois bar as it set today.
Thus, what difference who is placed on the bench.     Take a look at the fisaco that occurred in the Col Smith case down in Florida.    A judge actually appointed a plenary guardian in preference to the wife.   When she complained the guardian sought to annul the marriage on the grounds that she did not get along with him (the guardian).
In the Helen Stone case, she became too much trouble so they put Ms. Stone on a feeding tube.    When her daughter Barbara came to visit Ms. Stone pleaded for food.   Like a good daughter Barbara had the tube removed and took her mother to lunch.   The facade was exposed and they arrest Barbara for exposing their crime. They charged her (incredibly) with interferring with the custody of a disabled person!  This was not Barbara’s first arrest.  The first one when when she objected to giving her mother Miralax, a drug contraindicated for the eldery, with a Black Box warning on it!
In the Alice Gore case (Illinois) the 99 year old lady was placed in a nursing home so that the GAL could get a referral fee.     To do this they had to dig up a relative who was herself declared disabled and make her the guardian in preference to the successful members of the family including a daughter who has weekly television program.     After they managed to convert 1.5 million in assets to zero the greed bastards prospected Alice’s mouth for gold.   They found some and harvested it.     (They did not inventory it).    With no more assets to harvest – Alice died of dehydration and starvation.   The family had to find out for itself.
In the Wyman case, the husband decided that a guardianship was preferable to a divorce.   With the right lawyer he became the guardian and placed her in (the worst Illinois) nursing home to be raped repeatedly!    A little post guardianship induced mental stress works wonders.    Her sons try to intervene, and they are slapped with a Protective Order.  Mom Wyman manages to escape, is near death down 2 pints of blood, and the probate atttorneys lien the family home for tens of thousands of dollars.  When Mrs. Denison argued to the court this was a Fraud on the Court and the liens must be removed, the court ignored her.
The Sykes case is even more obnoxious in that Mary discovered that her oldest daughter had stolen money from her bank account.   She protested, received some threats and asked the Court for an order of protection.    The miscreant daughter hired an attorney and she became Mary’s guardian with complete power to loot the estate.   She did!  Then the home was liquidated for 20 cents on the dollar quickly.
There are thousands of these cases and they all have one thing in common  besides corrupt judges, corrupt lawyers, corrupt public officials *** – law enforcement is playing hear no evil, see no evil, do plenty of evil by inaction.   Even the IRS has been silent and has been letting these elder cleansing cases to be untaxed.
Mark – it is interesting just how many lawyers, judges, public officials et al are treating these cases with benign neglect.     Thus, you and your kind present a serious concern to the miscreants of all shapes and sizes.   Being qualified to practice law you might develop the tendency to believe all that stuff in the Constitution, in the Americans with Disabilities Act, in the Federal and State Statutes, in the Bill of rights etc.     Thus, you have the potential to upset the applecart!
Worse yet, you might call for an HONEST investigation ****.  If that happens, then Jerome Larkin, administrator of the Ill. ARDC and his minions (Opryszek, Smart, Splitt, Black Guiterrez) will come after the honest attorneys with a vengeance and another pack of lies they present before a Triumvirate Board they declare to be justice,  when in fact, it’s the furthest thing from Truth or Justice.
Ken Ditkowsky

From Atty Mark Ferran in New York–their probate cases of unmitigated Greed and Corruption

From a letter to a probate victim: —
Dear X;
I have an engineering degree summa cum laude and a law degree magna cum laude.  (probably something like a one-in-a-million combination)  I write to you because I possess black-and-white paper documentation that proves that New York Government Attorneys,  Expert-Witnesses AND Judges are routinely Lying to throw cases; that Judges now systematically and intentionally committing LAWLESS acts and omissions in violation of basic procedural rules and constitutional rights of (Pro Se) litigants.  Most of this information is explained below in the attached Draft of an Amended Federal District Court complaint that will be filed on Monday.  In my latest case, some Albany-NY Democrat Machine municipal attorneys got caught tampering with documentary evidence concerning a prior Fraud by them in a litigation concerning an illegal demolition of my mother’s deceased mother’s former home.   The emails in the PDF-print (obtained by FOIL REQUEST from the City) clearly show that the Attorney induced the City’s expert witness (engineer) to change the date/time settings on his computer to produce a false back-dated “draft” of a second false report, to create an illusion that the first false report (concealed from City records illegally) did not exist.  Then, the engineer botched the counterfeiting of the fake “draft” report, and you can clearly see where he tampered with the PDF-print to change the source-document in the Properties Field of the PDF.   This simpleton tampering left a “modified” date different from the “created on” date (impossible without manual post-printing PDF tampering).
Take a look at the tampered-PDF and the wrong-time sequence emails, (in the EVIDENCE PDF here attached) and see if you can find a place where I can POST these online permanently, for public inspection, and reference.
My personal property was inside the House when it was demolished, and I was in joint possession of the House (with my mother), with the expectation of inheritance of the House.  So, I am a properly joined CoPlaintiff in the lawsuit.  The City Attorney knows that I am a highly effective litigator, so they invented a NEW way to get me excluded from my own lawsuit.  They behave and think the way that predators separate the weak members of the flock from the strong; they set out to isolate my octogenarian mother as a plaintiff pro se. They are pretending that my personal property did not exist or was not pleaded and that I do not have “standing to sue” (for my own losses) because I did not “own” or “lease” the “premises” where my personal property was destroyed and taken from.  The Law is to the contrary.  Yet, they added the false accusation of “unauthorized practice of law” to increase the advantages to the Democrat Machine.
The first Democrat Machine Judge Lied in his decision to conceal the Fraud pleaded and revealed in the Complaint. He granted summary judgment based on a fictional allegation that the Judge himself invented.  This first Judge was sort of Reversed on Appeal, but in a manner that violated Plaintiffs’ Constitutional rights.  Five Days after that soft reversal, the Democrat Machine Judge was appointed to that same Appellate Division.
Can you help me find a way to post and describe and present and Post this documentary information (or parts of it) online.   I think it could take down the whole gang.  They are already committed to gansterism up to the Appellate Division level, and so I am filing a Federal District Court Complaint against the Judges for violation of right to Petition, Equal Protection, Due Process and other rights of Pro Se Litigants.


I PASSED the NY Bar Exam with high points in 1996.   I also PASSED the US Patent Bar Exam, which is said to be the  “hardest” Bar Exam in the US (though I did not think it was hard at all)  (And I passed that exam based on self-study alone).

I won my first Trial in Albany Traffic Court when I was 20 years old.  I won my first Federal Appeal at age 23 (argued before I began Law School)  21 F.3rd 11 (2nd Cir. 1993), and the Chief Judge of the Federal Court of Appeals said I was a “prodig[y]”.

I entered Law School with a 7/8ths full-tuition merit scholarship.  I had full-tuition merit scholarships to engineering schools.

I got A+ grades in Civil Procedure (From Distinguished Professor David Siegel (West Publishing)), Evidence, Ethics, and Real Property Tax.

As a scientist, and a computer expert, the lawlessness and criminality of New York’s judges was disconcerting to me, because in the court room, the B-students always outnumber the A+student, and together they make-up whatever pretended rules they want, without regard to any set of fixed rules or laws.   It is madness.  It is simply disgusting to have to take an appeal to compel a Judge to read and follow the basic law.  (I have many reversals on Appeal of State and Federal Judges)

BUT NOW, in New York, it is getting even WORSE, much much worse.

Now, you have to file a lawsuit in Federal Court against State Appellate Judges just to force them to follow the most elementary of Rules of Law and Civil Procedure: 1) “DON’T LIE” in your Decision; 2) “READ THE COMPLAINT”, and determine what causes of action are pleaded, before presuming to determine whether the Plaintiff has a right/standing “to sue” upon the facts pleaded; 3)  “FOLLOW THE LAW” even if that means your favored party will pay for his tort.

This [Draft] Federal District Court Complaint complains about LAWLESS State Court Judges that New York’s Governor Andrew Cuomo is fast-tracking up the chain of State Appellate Courts to position them for appointment to the Federal Courts, and even the U.S. Supreme Court, if and when he gets elected to President of the United States.

The Totally-Lawless and dishonest character of these Judges can affect everyone in the United States.

In this DRAFT Federal District Court Complaint, we have pleaded and Proved that New York State Court judges have LIED in written their decisions and have directly and expressly violated the Statutory and Constitutional Rights of litigants (especially Pro Se litigants) to Plead their Tort causes of action in the State courts against Democrat Machine operatives who employed fraud to transcend the limits of their lawful authority.

I believe that the related state court case being collaterally attacked is the first and only decision rendered by State Judges ever to declare with satisfaction that State Law failed to provide a “meaningful post-deprivation remedy”.   [Plaintiffs made no such argument.  Plaintiffs argued that the Complaint stated a Cause of Action for Fraud, Trespass and Conversion for each Plaintiff]  The Judges’ declaration (without purporting to fix this problem with State Law that the Judges themselves created) is itself a violation of the Constitutional Duty of the Judges to establish and maintaining meaningful post-deprivation remedies.  In this case, they made this absurd declaration as an excuse to IGNORE state law tort (trespass, fraud, conversion) causes of action pleaded against agents of New York’s Democrat Machine, preferring to substitute the narrower Federal Section 1983 cause of action, even though Plaintiffs refused to plead such a federal cause of action.  Plaintiffs’ State Complaint expressly states that Plaintiffs are not pleading any federal causes of action under section 1983.  It seems the State Court judges are trying to interfere with the Plaintiffs’ right to file a parallel Federal Court action.  Plaintiffs seek an injunction against the State Court Judges to restrain them from usurping jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ Federal Causes of Action.

The Plaintiff Nadia Ferran (my mother) is an octogenarian who owned her mother’s brownstone Historic District House at 54 Clinton Avenue in Albany, NY when it was targeted for an illegal “emergency demolition”.  A roofing contractor torched the roof and burned only “the roof” off of the House.  The flat roof simply burned away cleanly. There was no structural damage below the roof level.   But, the City Attorney Bradford Burns recommenced a civil engineer that he knew would Lie who then did Lie by stating that there was an invisible “bow” that he “could not see” in the lower front brick wall of the house.   After that was verbally challenged by myself, the City Attorney realized that was RIDICULOUS and then the attorney and the engineer destroyed and concealed the engineer’s original false report (dated November 14, 2011) and tried to substitute a different false report dated December 13, 2011 that he has REFUSED TO SIGN much less swear to in Affidavit form.  After that, in March of 2012 they changed the time/date settings on the engineer’s computer, to produce a counterfeit “draft” version of the December 13, 2011 report, to conceal the existence of the original false report (dated November 14, 2011).  You can plainly see in the attached PDF print of emails between and the PDF draft “properties” print that the engineer Lanaro changed the date/time settings on his computer to create the false-dated “draft”.

After that the Judge Eugene Devine pretended the unsigned false-report letter (December 13) was an Affidavit/Affirmation and the Judge quoted from this False Hearsay paper in his Decision granting Pre-Answer Summary Judgment.  Judge Eugene Devine also LIED about the content of the Defendant’s only actual “Affidavit” in the case.   Judge Devine invented a material false allegation that was not in the Affidavit, was not even argued for by the Defendants’ Attorneys, and Devine declared that this fictional allegation was dispositive of the summary judgment.   That summary judgment WAS REVERSED on appeal (for lack of “competent evidence), but the Appellate court did not condemn Eugene Devine for LYING in his decision.   Five days after this soft reversal was issued, Eugene Devine was appointed to that Appellate Division, and a little while after that, one of these Appellate Judges was appointed to the NY High Court, by Governor Andrew Cuomo.   Then a close staff attorney friend of Andrew Cuomo was appointed to hear the State case, replacing Eugene Devine.

Does New York Governor Andrew Cuomo intend to Appoint some these New York Judges to the U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Courts if and when he becomes President of the United States?  I think that is his present intention, so even if you are not in New York, it is urgent that you read this Complaint to understand exactly how TOTALLY LAWLESS New York Judges have become, and what that will mean to vulnerable people throughout the United States if they are imposed by Cuomo upon the People of the United States.

The new Arbitrary “Standing” Doctrine invented by these Judges to IGNORE and defeat pleaded Tort (e.g., Fraud, Trespass) causes of action can affect anyone, even parties represented by Attorneys.  But this doctrine does even more harm to directly Destroy the constitutional right of Pro Se (in pro per) litigants to PLEAD their causes of action Jointly without being falsely accused of the crime of “unauthorized practice of law”.

Judge Eugene Devine declared that “any submissions that he has made in this action as a pro se litigant will not be considered” upon the Motion to decide Plaintiff Mark Ferran’s “standing to sue”, whereupon Devine ignored the entire COMPLAINT (with respect to both Plaintiffs).

  • Richard Platkin’s March 13, 2015 Decision expressly acknowledged that Platkin purported to Decide Plaintiff Mark Ferran’s right “to sue” without any consideration of any of the causes of action accrued to Plaintiff Mark Ferran and pleaded in the Amended Complaint, stating: “any submissions that [Mark Ferran] has made (or may make) as a self-represented litigant … have not been (and will not be) considered.” (Parroting Judge Devine’s same violation of Plaintiffs’ Right to Be Heard, to Petition, and to the Equal Protection of the CPLR).

The words pro se mean “for self”. “[T]he right to file a lawsuit pro se is one of the most important rights under the constitution and laws.” Elmore v. McCammon 640 F. Supp. 905 (1986).

  • Judge Devine intentionally ignored the entire original Complaint (1413-12) with respect to both Plaintiffs (contrary to his legal duty under Leon v. Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]) (The Judge must read the Plaintiff’s Complaint) and  Windsor v. McVeigh, 93 U.S. 274 (1876) (The party’s pleading was “ordered to be stricken from the files”; The decision “of a court, pronounced against a party without hearing him or giving him an opportunity to be heard, is not a judicial determination of his rights and is not entitled to respect in any other tribunal.” Syllabus). ALL “Parties whose rights are to be affected are entitled to be heard.” Baldwin v. Hale, 68 U.S. (1 Wall.) 223, 233 (1863).

This Federal Complaint points out the Judge’s Lies with particularity and lucidly shows that these Judges are TOTALLY LAWLESS.   The relief requested includes a declaration that these JUDGES ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, for lack of capacity or intent to KNOW and abide by the LAW of the Land.

The complaint “challeng[es] the constitutionality of state court Judges Eugene P. Devine, Richard M. Platkin, John A. Lahtinen, Leslie Stein, Elizabeth A. Garry, Robert S. Rose.”

Because of the nature of the case, the Complaint Pleads Procedural and Substantive LAW, and establishes Constitutional Duty of Judges by reference to Quotations to Constitutional cases.  The footnotes appear at the end.

—– Original Message —–