My review for Amazon:
Michael Volpe’s Book on Chris Mackney–describes court corruption in amazing detail.
I have just finished Mr. Volpe’s book on court corruption, and in particular the experiences of Mr. Chris Mackney-as he worked his way through a highly troubled divorce with a ex-wife with an interesting family secret that came out during his own internet research: it was there he discovered that his wealthy father in law had been convicted of murder, had likely been involved in much more criminal activity, and his ex-wife conveniently forgot to tell him during their long marriage.
As a result, the father-in-law, a Mr. Scamardo (what an apropos name), went to great lengths to fund a divorce for $1.2 million which of course involved dozens of failures of the court to simply follow the law, set reasonable child support for the father and a fair co-parenting schedule. What happened instead was a complete nightmare leading to his own suicide when judgments against him ended up for over $100,000. Mr. Mackney never in fact did receive his share of equity in the marital residence which would have wiped out the debt; instead he continually struggled to fend off multiple unfair motions, one after the other. His ex-wife had him arrested and jailed four times. Once she and her attorney claimed attempted extortion when, after multiple attempts to reduce his child support to a level he could afford, he threatened to go to the media if it wasn’t reduced. He spent 3 months in jail awaiting trial, only to have the jury acquit him of extortion, deciding that child support is for the child so no money could be extorted from the ex-wife.
During the overly litigious divorce, the extreme motion practice of his ex-wife cost him his job and all future job prospects. One job was lost when Mrs. Mackney went and tried to depose his boss. That was the end of that job.
Mr. Mackney’s child support was based on an old tax return when he happened to make over $250,000 for the year as a Realtor in 2007, at the height of the real estate boom–something he never did before, or after that year. But the child support was set at $2,800 per month year after year and the court refused his many motions to decrease it at any time, even after Mr. Mackney lost his job, had no income and his ex-wife continually hounded him in court and harassed him outside the courtroom.
There are great descriptions of many of the lengths his ex-wife went to engaging in deception, trickery, parental alienation, describing him as mentally ill, when he clearly was not.
Mr. Mackney lost his custody rights when he failed to fax in one receipt to the court–he simply forgot or was confused.
Of course, all of Mrs. Mackney’s sins were always forgiven by the court.
Mr. Mackney, for most of the divorce proceedings, was forced to attend court pro se because he had no income and no attorney. In addition, “professionals” assigned to the case always sided with the wife, because, as many of you already know, he who pays gets the total cooperation from any professional assigned to the case and will attack the less wealthy litigant, engaging in slander, libel, false light and defamation, unless and until the appropriate fees are paid. Make no mistake, there are court appointed experts that can be bought and who can change their testimony for the highest bidder and most prompt payer.
The book is a very interesting read and I highly recommend it for those going through, or might possibly face, a contentious and overly litigious proceeding with someone hell bent on utter destruction of their ex. Utter destruction of a spouse, parental alienation, Legal Abuse Syndrome, suicide by men during divorce and other concepts of outrageous unjust litigation are aptly identified and discussed.
Highly recommended. Thank you Mr. Volpe for bringing this to the attention of the public, and more particularly those who are in need of your expertise and analysis to protect them. The book is interesting and well written. The emails of Mr. Mackney during all his troubles and tribulations were preserved by Mr. Volpe and they are republished at the end of the book. The ex-wife somehow was able to wrest a copyright registration out of the court, and she then went on a campaign of unconstitutional gag orders to remove all derogatory information about her and her ex-husband from the internet.
From: kenneth ditkowsky <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Sep 29, 2015 10:30 AM
To: (write me for Ken’s list of people to email for assistance)
Subject: Re: Fw: Bullet points on Larkin
from the FBI website press release:
Michael J. Anderson Named Special Agent in Charge of Chicago Division
|Washington, D.C. September 21, 2015|
Director James B. Comey has named Michael J. Anderson special agent in charge (SAC) of the FBI’s Chicago Division. Mr. Anderson most recently served as SAC of the New Orleans Division since 2012.
Mr. Anderson began his career as a special agent with the FBI in July 1995. He first reported to the Miami Division, where he investigated public corruption, including a juror bribery case involving a continuing criminal enterprise that imported more than 75 tons of cocaine into the Miami metropolitan area.
In 2001, he was promoted to a supervisory special agent position in the Public Corruption Unit of the Criminal Investigation Division, where he served as the FBIHQ liaison to numerous investigations, involving judicial, law enforcement, contract, regulatory, municipal, and congressional corruption.
Later that year, Mr. Anderson reported to the Washington Field Office to supervise investigations into public corruption, government fraud, and civil rights. During his tenure, he supervised the investigation of super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff and Louisiana Congressman William Jefferson.
In 2006, Mr. Anderson returned to the Public Corruption Unit at FBIHQ as its chief. In this role, he oversaw the Hurricane Fraud Initiative to address Katrina-related public corruption and government fraud, and he launched the International Contract Corruption Initiative (ICCI) targeting Iraq reconstruction-related fraud and corruption. The ICCI eventually evolved into a permanent unit in the Criminal Investigative Division.
In 2007, Mr. Anderson reported to the Dallas Division as an assistant special agent in charge overseeing intelligence, public corruption, white-collar crime, civil rights, covert operations, and the foreign language program.
Mr. Anderson returned to FBI Headquarters in January 2011 as the chief of the Employee Services Section in the Human Resources Division. Among other duties, he oversaw the FBI’s performance appraisal and management system, awards, payroll and benefits, retirements, the on-boarding new employees program, and the Human Resources Division service center.
In July 2012, Mr. Anderson reported to the New Orleans Division, where he oversaw all FBI operations for the state of Louisiana. Notable successful investigations involved the Deepwater Horizon environmental disaster; former New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin; and the Harvey Hustlers, a notorious neighborhood-based violent gang.
Before joining the FBI, Mr. Anderson received a bachelor’s degree in accounting from the University of Iowa and was employed by KPMG. He also received a Juris Doctor degree from Southwestern University in Los Angeles. He is a certified public accountant and attorney.
Mr. Anderson is a native of Alexandria, Minnesota and is married with one daughter.
Mr. Anderson reports to Chicago in mid-October.
Sounds like this guy might be perfect to clean up both probate court and the ARDC with his degree in accountancy he will be well aware of the tax penalties for criminal activity at both the state and federal level, and he will also be aware that often attorneys, judges and court connected service providers can rip off, endanger and even murder (Sykes, attempted Carol Wyman, Gore, Drabik, Jaycocx, Richards, etc.)
I hope we can at least get autopsies and tox screens for all seniors that die when the money runs out, such as Sykes, Baker, etc.
From: ginny johnson <email@example.com>
To: kenneth ditkowsky <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Bullet points on Larkin
I think we ought to call him! These e-mails are being forwarded to the Department of Justice, but I certainly would appreciate his being contacted by someone in addition to me. We can give him a challenge:In Sykes find the following:1) Summons complying with the Statute2) Return of Summons3) 14 day prior notice of hearing on competency of alleged disabled person4) evidence of hearing on competency5) ADA compliance see 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3b.6) accounting for contents of safety deposit box7) accounting s that reflect all assets of the disabled personSheriff Dart addresses 1 and 2. Mr. Schmiedel is reported to address 3. Mr. Stern item 4. Ms. Farenga item 6. As dozens of people have examined the file and none of these items were found, it is suggested that the new AG in Chicago has a slam dunk case of civil rights violation, mail fraud, tax fraud etc.
From: john wyman <email@example.com>
To: ginny johnson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: kenneth ditkowsky <email@example.com>; Pizzarello <firstname.lastname@example.org>; JoAnne M. Denison <email@example.com>; Sylvia Rudek
Subject: Re: Fw: Bullet points on Larkin
A new director of The FBI has just been appointed to the Chicago office,his specialty is public corruption!!!! Micheal Anderson out of that great state of Louisiana .before that he was in Washington taking down the big boys!!!
maybe its about time we call him ,he starts his job on Oct 22nd. Just Saying John Howard WymanOn Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 8:34 AM, ginny johnson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:Thank you Ken- point well taken 🙂One day Ken, we all will get these lying abusers of the law –You/all of us just keep on pushing forward – God is on our side – yet he is SLOW and on his time -our hearts are in the the right place we just need to continue to do our job to expose – guardian abuse etc and show LOVE to protect our elderly-those words are the key ingredients for God – we all need to stick together to fight for the truth- God will Punish the evil – its the matter of time ..In NC it has come to my knowledge – I, went,called, emailed, mail, info. to the AG Roy Cooper- 10 or 11 times to be completely ignored – I have just learned that Roy Coopers wife – was also an appointed guardian – SO,that is why he would not take my info. you see, these kinds of little quite things leak out over time-NOW Cooper wants to run for Governor – how is that going to work for him – when this is exposed? my case is the same a Skyes -my father a WWll decorated Vet. POW /MIA/Captain of B- 17 shot down by Germans crashed his landed his plane and saved lives -yet the appointed guardians of Aging Family Services Heather J under her care he was dead in year – a man who at 95 was play golf the day before abducted from his home for- GREED – 1.5 million missing – lock out of his own home – drugged – dead in year and the abuse in the mean time…
GINNY JOHNSON <email@example.com >
I don’t know How you consider this to be better care than what he was receiving at his Home!!So Far he has had,1. 4 falls2. 1 hospital visit3. weight loss4. no exercise5. no outside fresh air6. no physical therapy7. teeth with nothing was done8. personal items missing9. $5000.00 hearing aid missing now10, multiple bruises11. burst blood vessel in his eye12. anxiety attacks13. high blood pressure14. heart palpation’s15. stressed out of being there16. several missed appointments from Va.
17. Va. called me and said you missed several of Dad’s appointments, Heatherall in 3 weeks
My Dad and I prefer that he be allowed to stay with Dr. Dunlap who has been his physician for 41 years! He is fully aware of my Dad’s blood disease!!.
These are the exact words from my father to me every time I visit; “I AM VERY UNHAPPY MAN and I WANT TO GO HOME, I might as well die, if, I have to live in here, life is no fun any more, I was POW once, why again ”
Not to mention my on going concerns of sanitary conditions of the facility!
Heather, you being an employee of Aging Family Services as appointed medical guardian’s by the court, are responsible for my father’s well being and his best interest!!!
Every time I hear or see this, it makes me SICK, especially since I am only allowed to visit Dad from 1 Pm to 2 Pm daily with supervised visit. By the way, no one explained to me why I am allowed to visit my father for only one hour. And, furthermore, why did I not receive a personal phone call from you last Thursday and, again, today when my father fell, instead of email messages.
After tomorrow’s meeting with Reka, I would like for you to call me to discuss the results of your conference as well as discussing how the 17 bullet points, which I stated at the beginning of this message, can be improved upon. I would also appreciate a follow up email concerning how you and Aging Family Services intend to make things better for my fatheOn Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 8:47 AM, kenneth ditkowsky <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:Ginny: Your criticism is well taken; however, it would be unconscionable to give public servants, like Jerome Larkin, who pervert their public trust even a moment of a breather. The quest for Justice must proceed at full force and effect until Larkin and his co-conspirators find the ‘cover up’ of the elder cleansing scandal is no longer profitable.Subject: Way is Jerome Larkin such a focal point in the fight to destroy the cottage industry of ‘elder cleansings.’Ms. Johnson, you are absolutely correct. I am boring people with my concentration of the criminal activities of Jerome Larkin, the Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission. Your criticism is well taken. However, I am not obsessed with him, it is just that he is the focal point of the cabal of corruption that is the ‘cancer’ attacking the heart of Rule of Law.Please allow me to explain. Jerome Larkin was not forced at gun point to become the Administrator of the Illinois Attorney *** Disciplinary Commission (IARDC). His salary is quite substantial as are the responsibilities that he undertook. In addition as an attorney he took a very serious oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America and the State of Illinois. The people he supervises and acts in concert with all have similar backgrounds. No one is under any compulsion. The criminal acts that they participate in by either performing them or being 18 USCA 242 or 18 USCA 371 co-conspirators are all voluntary associations.When a citizen, such as Gloria Sykes, Barbara Stone, Dr. Sam Sugar, you or I make a complaint to a lawyer disciplinary commission, the aforesaid complaint is not a nuisance or inconvenience, it represents a serious attempt by a citizen to address the fact that some lawyer is being accused of a serious miscreant act. That act might be criminal, it might be unethical, or it might be just a misunderstanding, but nevertheless it is not a ‘joke’ nor an inconvenience. The lawyer disciplinary board or commission is a bastion promulgated to protect the public from dishonest judicial figures.Unfortunately, at least in Illinois, and probably in just about every other State, corruption has crept into the process and dishonest and corrupt lawyers, judges, and judicial officials have crept into the system and turned into a fiefdom designed to protect the aforesaid dishonest individuals. Jerome Larkin has distinguished himself in his quest to destroy and assault the Bill of Rights and the Core values of American democracy.Using the Sykes case 09 P 4585 (Cook County, Illinois) as an example it is apparent that in 2009 (and maybe before) Gloria Sykes contacted the IARDC and sought their assistance in obviating the obvious corruption that was being promulgated in the Courtroom of the Honorable M Connors. The victims of this perfidy were primarily Mary Sykes, but collaterally Gloria Sykes. NB. It should be noted that whether you are fond of Mary Sykes and Gloria Sykes, or enjoy a profound dislike for either of them, both are citizens and entitled to the full faith and credit of the Law and all the protections thereof. The law is blind, deaf and dumb as to personality of the litigants.The complaint to the IARDC similarly was not something to be taken lightly or discriminately. The complaint was a warning shot that there was a cancer in the Court room of Judge Connors and if not extricated it would pervert the cause of Justice. Unfortunately, the public servants at the IARDC were ‘wired’ and like some many of the victims and family members of elder cleansing victims the public employees at the IARDC did not look upon their duties as a ‘call to arms’ to protect the public, but, as a means to in some way obtain a benefit from the abuse, isolation, and exploitation of the elderly and disabled victims.The case is reported to have been assigned to Attorney Lea Black. Attorney Black is another of the overpaid cadre of attorneys administered by and supervised by Jerome Larkin. The attorneys employed in Cook County, Illinois usually obtain their jobs through some form of clout. The prime jobs are with the US Attorney’s office. The lower tier jobs are with the IARDC and similar organizations and while the lawyers are overpaid their prospects for the future are muted. Thus, even though the responsibility is awesome the prestige is minimal.We have to assume that Ms. Black did her job and that she was supervised by Jerome Larkin. Thus when she obtained her assignment she did a Rule 137 investigation. This meant that she went to the Court house and pulled the Mary Sykes file 09 P 4585. If she did this were would have followed a protocol:1. Jurisdiction. 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10. In order to obtain jurisdiction it is axiomatic the affected party has to be served with summons. Sheriff Dart and the file both attest to the fact that Mary Sykes was not served with summons or the complaint as required by the statute. Thus, there was no jurisdiction. However:i. As we are dealing with an alleged disabled person, to meet the Notice and Hearing requirement of due process some competent person has to be notified in order to make certain that Mary Sykes was not railroaded into a guardianship and the loss of her liberty and property. The statute requires a 14 day prior notice to close or near family members such as siblings, children et al. Ms. Black would have seen immediately that no such PRIOR notice had ever been afforded either sibling or Mary’s younger daughter. Thus, as such is jurisdictional the second criteria to establish jurisdiction was ignored.ii. The statute provides for a waiver of jurisdiction under certain circumstances – which are not found in this case. A look at the file reveals pro-active fraud on the Court by the petitioner which of course was ignored. It appears that the Sheriff was directed to serve Mary Sykes at her home in Chicago; however, Guardian Cynthia Farenga in a letter to the court pointed out that Mary Sykes had been spirited off to Naperville, Illinois and the guardian was instructing the Sheriff to serve Mary at a location that the plenary guardian applicant knew she was not. In fact, Mary was being held as a prisoner at the plenary guardian applicant home in Naperville, Illinois.[Thus as a Matter of Law there was no jurisdiction and the obvious Fraud negated any waiver.}2. Hearing. The second prong of due process is the fact that there has to be a hearing. The file discloses that there was no hearing as to Mary’s competency, and Guardian ad Litem Adam Stern wrote to Gloria Sykes an e-mail wherein he admits that indeed, there was no hearing. The hearing was obviated by Stern, Farenga, and the Attorney for plenary guardian drafting an order, which the corrupt jurist duly rubber stamped.Mary Sykes was thus ‘railroaded’ into a wrongful guardianship and her citizen forfeited. All of this is in the public record. (I tried to subpoena the Court file, and was denied – the file by itself demonstrates the wrongful conduct of the two guardian ad litem and the attorneys for the plenary guardian who have and continue to perpetrate a ‘fraud on the court.’All of the forgoing is part of the public record and is conclusive as to criminal conduct occurring in the Circuit Court of Cook County. All of the foregoing was known or should have been known to Attorney Black, Jerome Larkin and every one of the individual lawyers, jurists, and judicial officials involved in any way in the Mary Sykes case. Jerome Larkin and the IARDC were requested to do an HONEST INVESTIGATION into the matter. Instead, each elected to act in concert with the two guardian ad litem, the wrongfully appointed plenary guardian, her attorneys and the various judges assigned to the case. The object of their conspiracy was to: 1) elder cleanse Mary, 2) obfuscate any protections that citizens might be entitled to, and 3) intimidate any source of protest.The Larkin experience is so obscene, reprehensible, and so venal that it is mandatory for every lawyer to publicize his breach of the public trust loudly and often. The assault on the Bill of Rights and the Constitution is at the level of terrorism. White Collar crimes such as Larkins are more devastating to a free society that blowing up “World Trade Centers.” Larkin teaching ethics to lawyers is an oxymoron, but nevertheless an insult to the public conscience.The foregoing is not the half of it! The Mary Sykes case is not a lone case in the wilderness. It is one of hundreds that Larkin and his gang at the IARDC are covering up. Another prime example of Larkin’s total amorality is the Alice Gore case. Therein, he and his cronies covered up the theft of 80 pound of Silver coins and a gold prospecting venture in Alice Gore’s mouth. The guardian ad litem who orchestrated this holocaust like activity roams the 18th Floor of the Daley Center polluting the Justice system with every step. She is a heroine! She is a master at ‘elder cleansing’ and of course she also teaches legal ethics.The success of the IARDC and Larkin in their intimidation efforts is spectacular. The Supreme Court of Illinois rubber stamps violations of the RULE OF LAW with impunity. This most recently occurred in the JoAnne Denison case. The subversion of the Rule of Law was hailed by the ABA in an article in their journal! There was no outrage and no call for a hue and cry.Indeed, as long as the legal profession tolerates the abrogation of its function and the dissipation of the Rights, Privileges and Immunities of Americans I cannot and will not remain silent. As Larkin is the lynch pin of the cover-up of the corruption in Illinois his role has to spread of record. Every day he appears to generate a new outrage that must be addressed – and I am here (hear) to make as many people aware as possible. The man (Larkin) is the axis of the conspiracy in Illinois and he being hauled before the Bar of Justice is lynch pin of abrogating this particular ISIS assault on America.NB. As Illinois is almost bankrupt, it would be very nice if the Attorney General’s office representing the Illinois Department of Revenue would collect from Mr. Larkin and each of his co-conspirators the taxes, interest, and penalties generated by their participation in the conspiracy. It would be a feather in her (AG Madigan) to at the very least obtain the State of Illinois portion of the booty stolen from countless senior citizens and disabled people.—– Forwarded Message —–
From: Kenneth Ditkowsky [Ditkowsky Law] <email@example.com>
To: “firstname.lastname@example.org” <email@example.com>
Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 10:34 PM
Subject: FW: Bullet points on Larkin
From: ginny johnson[SMTP:GINNY.JOHNSONCHEESERINGS@GMAIL.COM]
Sent: September 28, 2015 10:34:12 PM
To: Kenneth Ditkowsky [Ditkowsky Law]; Janet Phelan
Subject: Bullet points on Larkin
Auto forwarded by a RuleKen -hope you are doing well… to make your point you must be clear there is way to much writing on LarkinJust –Bullet point a list on Larkin stating the statues that he and his cronies violated –this is a suggestion – bc his done a lot of S**** and you have written way to much tofollow to make your point – use the bullet points and time lines once donecontinue to send it to the police – and file a law suit on his ass then he will knowyou and JoAnn mean business – you have plenty of evidencegood luck
I would be glad to nominate anyone that sends me a short synopsis of your personal fight for truth and justice in probate or other areas of the Court System.
Tell me about how you are running a blog, writing or have written a book, have filed pleading after pleading to enforce rights against a corrupt system and I will nominate.
This is our chance to get recognition which is currently nearly impossible because the court connected and appointed attorneys threaten everyone with litigation all the time and engage is slander, libel, defamation and false light.
See below and thanks Ken, for passing this along.
The fight against White Collar Crime was indeed changed. In fact it has been lost!
If you read the American Bar Journal post of last week concerning the suspension of JoAnne Denison you have have immediate recognition of exactly what I am pointing out.
As a citizen and as an attorney, JoAnne Denison is entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. This right includes the right to comment in a negative manner as to any elected official including a judge. The right is about as broad and unlimited (subject to defamation laws as you can get). In fact the recent Supreme Court of the United States cases have given new teeth to the right.
All attorneys when they obtain their licenses to practice are required to take an oath to defend and honor the Constitution. In essence this is a promise to follow the Rule of Law, act honorably and at the very least tell the truth to the Court.
One of the most serious white collar crimes is the crime that isolates, abuses, exploits or otherwise abrogates the civil rights of the elderly and the disabled. Preying on the elderly and the disabled for profit (breach of fiduciary relationship) is one of the lowest endeavors of white collar crime imaginable. However, it is also one of the most common and one of the most protected. In fact attorneys who complain about specific instances of this white collar criminal activity (elder cleansing) are punished by long suspensions of their law licenses. Forget about lawyer rule 8.3. Reporting the crime causes disciplinary action and in the case of Attorney Grant Goodman FRCP 11 sanctions.
JoAnne Denison reported in her blog (protected by 47 USCA 230) the abuse, isolation, exploitation and the theft of several million dollars in assets from the Mary Sykes estate 09 P4585 (Cook County). She also reported other similar criminal endeavors, and along with yours truly demanded an Honest investigation.
Jerome Larkin the administrator of the Illinois attorney disciplinary commission (I ARDC) is thus is the lawyer I would nominate. Larkin and his gang of 18 UsCA 242 and 18 USCA 173 co-conspirators rigged a facade of kangaroo hearings first to intimidate in frighten lawyers not to speak out, and then when the words and phrases started to be echoed by many in the public discipline the lawyers who spoke out. The First Amendment was abrogated and here in Illinois the Supreme Court of Illinois not only disciplined attorney Denison for speaking out in accordance with 18 USCA 4, 430 ILCS 20/4,**** and her moral duty on an interim basis but as the ABA pointed out in its recent article – gave her a 3 year suspension.
The ABA has done its part also in protecting white collar criminals. It has not raised a scintilla of protest! It is demonstrated the the professional associations that have been created by laws are not only impotent but apparently disinterested in the Civil Rights of its members. The ‘cover up’ created by Larkin and his 18 USCA 371 (242) co-conspirators has been so effective that the ‘elder cleansing’ has become a National scandal and a criminal enterprise that rivals the Gulags, and North Korean justice.
Larkin and his co-conspirators also are leaders in the promulgation of tax evasion. You of course are aware that breach of a fiduciary relationship is a taxable event, and the bounty (booty) obtained is taxable income. It appears that Larkin has not included dime one on his Illinois ethics statement and we have it on good authority that his 1040 does not disclose it either.
As Larkin and his co-conspirators are getting away with their white collar activities of coverup and fraud in violation of Federal and State law – and government turns the other cheek – they deserve nomination. Moral behavior may be totally lacking, but their success and continued exploitation and elder cleansing of senior citizens and disabled people speaks for itself.
From: National Law Journal <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To view this email as a web page, go here.
I sat quietly and politely as I was railroaded, as Lanre Amu was railroaded, as Diane Nash was denied access to public accommodations, as Gloria Sykes was denied reasonable accommodation, and as dozens of senior citizens were abused, exploited and deprived of their civil rights. Oh – I made a little noise, but, by in large *****.
The suspension of JoAnne Denison for the admitted basis of exercising her First Amendment Rights has crossed the line in the sand. This action by the conscience of the legal profession transcends decency and any claim to adhering to the Rule of Law. It is a direct attack on every liberty interest that America hold dear. The action is akin to blowing up the Trade Center in New York. No act of terrorism could be as venal as using State of Illinois/public money to advance the interests of criminals in black robes and lawyer clothes who are proactively engaging in a War against the Elderly and the Disabled. (Elder Cleansing).
There are few acts that a government or public official can perform that comes close to the perfidy and infamy that is illustrated by the suspension of Ms. Denison for exercising her First Amendment Rights.
So do I intend to do about it? I noticed another blog – “Ugly Judge” There must be hundred of them. My computer skills are that of a dinosaur so getting the word out and alerting others that we have right here in America a movement that is dedicated to destroying our liberty – especially if we are old, disabled, or vulnerable (and have a dollar or two in our jeans).
Janet – I noticed that “Ugly Judge” had a piece concerning the alleged nefarious activities of Melody Scott – how do I get that blog and others to expose the criminal elder cleansing that the media refuses to disclose? The face of the enemy is still a nameless, faceless bureaucrat who we have on information and reasonable belief the name JEROME LARKIN.
This criminal Civil Rights violation perpetrated upon JoAnne Denison must be a matter of public knowledge so people can choose whether North Korean democracy or the prior America democracy is to be ours!
For the record – I wish I was being over dramatic – but when the Supreme Court of Illinois rubber stamps an assault on Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution and the Bill of Rights we have some real trouble! When the ABA reports the criminal civil rights violation and does nothing – we have more than real trouble. *****
I wonder if he thinks it will get him better Yelps. When the public finds out, I’m sure they’ll overwhelm every site they can find with criticism of his horrible conduct in failing to uphold the US constitution, as he was sworn to do.
The judge fined the woman just for using the word “scam” and “con artist”. Well if companies can use “puffery” in ads to get you in the door or at their website on false terms and conditions, it seems to me this woman is free to say what she wants. And if “scam” and “con artist” is her choice of words, so be it.
Obviously this judge needs to retake his 6th grade civics exam on the Bill of Rights. He wanted her to say “did not live up to the contract terms” instead. Well, if that were the case then HE or the Government should write all reviews.
However the US Supreme Court has made it clear that the government cannot tell the public what to say, nor can they tell the public to refrain from speech.
Well, Jerome Larkin will be proud of the judge. He thinks that public criticism of judges and attorneys acting badly should result in years of suspension by the attorney involved (Ditkowsky, myself and Lanre Amu) despite the fact the US constitution says otherwise and the public is tired of a “code of Silence” which really equates to a “Code of Corruption Unfettered”. Never mind that all of the judges and players in question are well known already for acting badly and already have a slew of websites and blogs telling the truth about them.
For the Illinois Atty and Regn Comm, Truth is their complete stranger. Nope, don’t let that nonsense in their doors. Put your head in the sand like an ostrich. Hear no evil, speak no evil and for sure don’t fix any evil.
The ABA supports such nonsense and shuts down commentary and their commentary sections whenever someone says something critical of attorneys or the judicial system. Someone needs to send these guys some big boy and big girl pants and diapers.
What utter nonsense
Fairness requires that I give the IARDC a chance to cleanse itself!
The Denison case ranks very high in the list of infamous legal decisions. In my view it is number 1. The Dreyfus decision, Dred Scott, and Denison are all equally infamous, however, Denison is a modern day assault on America’s core values that is directly abrogating the written opinion of the Supreme Court of Illinois in Alvarez and the current and recent decisions.
The IARDC can salvage some dignity by recalling its wrongful assault on America with public apologies and the immediate termination of the employment of the attorneys involved in the cases in which this assault occurred. This outrage has to be followed by the commission starting disciplinary proceedings against the rubber stamp lawyers who sat on panels which knowingly and notoriously rubber stamped the 18 USCA 242 actions of Mr. Larkin .
It is very clear that if high school freshman have to know the Constitution it is not too much to ask that lawyers who charge the public hundreds of dollars an hour ought to be familiar the Rule of Law and core values of America as well.
Please publish the following and get as wide distribution of this Call of Arms as possible. The article in the ABA journal (exhibit 1) is so repugnant that if we wish to retain our democracy we have to start a ground swell of protest. Benign neglect is not an option when the core value of America is being threatened by the legal profession and a bunch of corrupt jurists:
Days of Shame
For years the learned profession of the law has come to enjoy ridicule and slander. What do you call it when a bus load of lawyers crashes off a bridge into the Mississippi River and all are killed? The answer: “a good start!” Metaphors for lawyers are not flattering and you can expect at every gathering someone is going to make a remark that suggests lawyers are dishonest, amoral, and the cause of everything bad in society. As a lawyer it is always amusing to have one of the most vociferous and obnoxious of the lawyer baiters a day or so later come into my office asking for my help in resolving some legal problem that requires not only discretion but knowledge of facts that my client would blush if he had to disclose to his wife.
That was before I stumbled into the ‘elder cleansing’ scandal and the War on the Elderly and the Disabled. Prior to that time the lawyers that I dealt with by in large were honest, decent, well read and nice people. Most lawyers were people who I could take at their word and trust with my deepest confidence. The relationships were mutual. The parasites that I ran into in the Mary Sykes case 09 P 4585 were a breed apart. The worst ‘scum’ were a step up from these lawyers and had much more integrity. A casual brush with one or more of them in a hallway in the Daley Center made my skin crawl and activated a need for a bath in lye soap.
I had heard of such lawyers but except for Ms. ***** I had never had contact with any. Exactly how I was so sheltered is a mystery, but most members of the profession (including the most irritating) were people I was not ashamed of. That is, until yesterday, when the ABA published the article on JoAnne Denison’s suspension, and did not express outrage and a demand for the immediately impeachment of the offending jurists and all who acted in concert to assault the First Amendment. The article is attached hereto and made part hereof as exhibit 1.
The Legal profession has on occasion not covered itself with glory. The case of the Dred Scott decision the Supreme Court failed to meet its responsibility and stand up for core principals of America – Liberty and Justice. Again in Buck vs Bell the Court failed to recognize the concept of Equal before the Law. (This case was the legal justification for the Holocaust.) In the JoAnn Denison case the America Bar Association and the organized Bar looked the other way as corrupt Illinois jurists rubber=stamped a ‘cover up’ orchestrated by outrageously corrupt lawyer disciplinarians who were openly and notoriously protecting criminals with law licenses who were ravaging the hard earned savings of the elderly and disabled. In the Denison case the ‘booty’ being protected included but was not limited to a million dollars in gold coins (Sykes) and eighty pounds of silver coins (Gore). Her blog also referred to large land thefts and the eight million dollar Tyler estate all of which were being covered up. Most seriously, she was threatening the ‘grab’ of Mary Sykes’ million dollar home (including land) and disclosing the details of the tax evasion scheme that was essential to elder cleansing of Mary Sykes.
The Bar Association with all this information at hand, reported the assault on First Amendment and the Bill of Rights by high ranking judicial criminals as if Denison had been admonished for eating one chocolate cookie too many. There was no outrage, no call for an investigation (Honest or otherwise), and certainly not even a protest. What there was however the editing and cutoff of outrage that citizens expressed when they heard that the Judiciary had abdicated its responsibility and was protecting overt criminal activity?
It is no wonder that the public feels that a bus populated with lawyers falling off a bridge and killing all on board is a “good start!” Indeed, in all candor, lawyers take an oath to defend the Constitution. The Denison decision demonstrates that even though we require our ‘pre=teens’ to have knowledge of the Constitution prior to entering high school, we apparently do not require our lawyers to have knowledge of the document when charging $500 a hour to honest citizens for legal services.
The lawyers involved in the Denison case (including the Supreme Court justices) have demonstrated ‘contempt for the Rule of Law’ and those who attorn to such action are in breach of their oath. Such individuals are a cancer and enemies of our democracy. There is no excuse for any lawyer being a party to an assault on the basic and core values of American democracy and in particular the Bill of Rights. The racism that the Illinois Disciplinary Commission (IARDC) and its administrator orchestrated in the Amu case (and against Diane Nash) is not an anomaly – it is a commonplace staple. In most situations it is an undercurrent, but Jerome Larkin and his 18 USCA 242 co-conspirators are not ashamed of their conduct – they published in the Lanre Amu case that attorneys with a dark skin who complain concerning corruption are not welcome in Illinois to practice law.
While the Illinois Supreme Court has ruled that it is unethical (sans Rule 8.3 and 18 USCA 4) for lawyers to voice a call for an HONEST investigation once again I, and a large group of lawyers who are afraid to voice opposition to the criminal element of our profession, call for an HONEST investigation, and if wrongdoing is found for the most vigorous prosecution of the miscreants. This is our call for a War Crimes trial of Jerome Larkin and his 18 USCA 371, 18 USCA 242 co-conspirators. Justice Jackson is deceased. But I am certain we can find another advocate for the concept of decency, honor, and integrity by public officials.
Lawyer gets suspension for blog posts about ‘feeding frenzy’ of connected lawyers
POSTED SEP 24, 2015 12:46 PM CDT
An Illinois lawyer who blogged about a probate case has been suspended because of her posts alleging a “feeding frenzy” of court-connected lawyers in Chicago’s “sleazy world of probate.”
The lawyer, JoAnne Marie Denison, was suspended for three years, and until further order of the Illinois Supreme Court, the Legal Profession Blog reports. The Sept. 21 suspension follows a May decision in which a review board of the Illinois Registration and Disciplinary Commission rejected Denison’s First Amendment arguments .
Denison had contended her blog posts were true, but the review board cited findings that she had failed to present an objective factual basis to support her allegations . Denison’s posts had impugned the integrity of judges and lawyers involved in a particular probate proceeding, the review board said. 
Denison’s blog had alleged a guardian was appointed for an elderly woman though she did not need one, and that the guardian had stolen from the woman and did not take proper care of her . The blog posts referenced a “feeding frenzy” of lawyers, a “classic case of corruption” and a court “being spoonfed BS law by atty miscreants.”
Circuit courts in Cook County aren’t computerized, Denison alleged in her posts, because “politically connected judges and their puppet attorneys … would be exposed for what they are: money grubbing, family strife churning leeches that create nothing but pain and misery in a family while swiping free parking money out of a well funded estate.” 
 It should be noted that the Review Panel in its decision misrepresent the holding of United States vs. Alvarez 132 SC 2537. They adopted an argument specifically rejected by the SCOTUS. Journalism integrity would have required the author of the Article to note such a grossly Ethical lapse by the conscience of the Illinois Legal authority. It is normally grossly unethical for a lawyer to misrepresent the law – but when the Lawyer Disciplinary Commission does so it all eyes turn toward Mecca.
 Interestingly this is the very same charges that the United States of America made (sans the computerization) in the Greylord cases in which several score of jurists and lawyers went to jail. It is fortunate that the United States Attorney was not subject to the disciplinary process of Jerome Larkin and the IARDC. The AG would have been disbarred and the more than a score of corrupt jurists would still be preying on the public.
I agree, in the US it is the height of tyranny and treason to attack a blog that is critical of the government. Judges and the government have no special privilege. Our country was founded on those rights and now Jerome Larkin assaults them.
I see no difference between this and Judge Flannell in Moultrie County jailing Pastor Roger Harrison because he and his brothers would not withdraw counterclaims against banks where he holds an interest in the banks and is a shareholder, PLUS he was of counsel to one bank for years. It was bad enough they jailed Lyle Harrison for 7 months and Andrew Harrison for 2 months for failing to withdraw counterclaims against US Bank and Hardware State Bank, but to jail a well known and well loved pastor from the Milwaukee area with over 1,000 church members was even too much for the jailers to tolerate, and he was eventually released. Both Lyle and Andrew have degrees in theology. Lyle is also a graduate from Kettering (the old GMI) or one of the top 10 engineering schools in the county. He holds a bachelor’s in engineering and an MBA, and yet he rotted in jail for 7 months because he could not find an attorney because Flannell would threaten them and act insulting toward them, and then Flannell would “provide” attorneys–yeah, right attorneys that would fail to serve discovery and let the case go into default.
I am currently working on a book for the Harrisons to pass out. Don’t worry, I’ll be sure to spell the names of Judge Broch and Flannell correctly.
You see, the suspension of my law license is a blessing in disguise. Now I don’t have to waste my time running to court and I can write all sorts of books now on all the dirty, filthy tricks of corruption by attorneys and judges acting badly.
I will assume that’s what Larkin and Opryszek want–I will write books and publish on how the ARDC rountinely ignores valid citizen complaints and that is the backbone of Illinois, and in particular, Cook County being always in the top 5 most corrupt states according to all surveys of corruption.
The amazing thing is, we have the most suits filed and won in corruption. This is despite the fact that L. Madigan, Alvarez and Saltoun all have publicly stated and have sent me letters they “don’t do” corruption.
Well, if the states attorneys “don’t do” corruption, then who does? The feds are not supposed to intervene unless and until all state remedies are exhausted. People get tired of begging for a clean up and it takes years to exhaust state remedies. By then, witnesses are dead or lost.
It’s a great system we have here in Chicago.
We prosecute attorneys AND pastors for just telling the truth.
from Ken Ditkowsky:
Lawyer gets suspension for blog posts about ‘feeding frenzy’ of connected lawyers
Will dropping bar passage rates create too few lawyers for available jobs? Experts assess the stats
You might also like:
- Commission urges more standardized discipline rules and penalties for New York lawyers
- Florida bar says no to for-profit referral services not owned by bar members
- A day after making evidence-bag claim, lawyer for hockey star’s accuser abruptly quits
- Ex-prosecutor accused of ‘disruptive conduct’ at adult store agrees to suspension
- Judge vacates sanction against BigLaw partner, notes ‘steps for rehabilitation’
October 28, 2013
from M W
As you will all recall, the last time the ABA published that I was suspended because I was highly critical of the Sykes case and predicted everything would be liquidated and then some to pay only attorneys fees and she would be dumped in a tied in nursing home and more excessive fees would accrue THIS BLOG’S PREDICTIONS WERE ABSOLUTELY SPOT ON.
In its complaint, the ARDC published mostly mine and Ken Ditkowsky’s complaints to the authorties wherein we said there was fraud, theft and embezzlement of nearly $1 million in gold coins and the probate court was constantly quashing discovery. There was no service on poor Mary Sykes, according to the records of Sheriff Dart. (The court said it was enough she came to a couple of court proceedings). There was no service of the date, time and place of hearing 14 days in advance upon 2 elderly sisters (Yolanda and Josephine–see their declarations), and then the $1 million in gold coins disappeared and the GAL’s Stern, Farenga said they did not exist, even though the entire Sykes family knew Charles Sykes and another relative, a Mr. Biddy constantly went to coin auction and events and bought them up over decades. Mary had these coins. They were moved to a safe deposit box. After TWO years of subpoenas issued and quashed, issued and quashed (some by the ARDC itself), we received records at my trial the safe deposit box was drilled out soon after the Guardian was appointed (even though both Mary’s and Gloria’s name was on the box) emptied and never inventoried. At my trial (transcript published on my blog) Judge Stuart lied about chaining poor Gloria Sykes (the younger, honest daughter) and threatening her 2 dogs with euthanization. The transcript was changed to something else. Judge Stuart would leave the bench (quick retirement) six weeks later.
The case is a travesty, and poor Mary, on May 23, 2015, was narcotized to death. Gloria was called at 3 pm to come to her bedside, she was heavily drugged. Of all things, she was put in hospice when the money ran out—without a diagnosis. The Guardian claimed “dementia” but 4 of us saw her in June, 2014 at Sunrise of Park Ridge and she was as sharp as ever, asking about if Carolyn (the Guardian) sold her home and how she didn’t have access to the money, only Carolyn did. She told Gloria it would be okay, as soon as Gloria got her out of the nursing home “they could start over.” Unlike the 20 or so drugged floor roommates propped up in front of a TV in a wheelchair, she was walking and talking. Said she did her exercise consisting of one hour of walking per day. She said she was still eating healthy–mostly fruits and vegetables (she was a vegetarian). She was clearly competent and engaging in higher cognitive level thinking.
She clearly did NOT have dementia in June of 2014.
She was a staunch Roman Catholic and wrote on her last Power of Attorney she wanted to live in her own home and be cared for by her two daughters until she passed. Her POA said she wanted her life prolonged. Mary would NEVER have consented to hospice as a loyal Roman Catholic.
I am told that the Guardian, upon her death, went straight to the funeral home and had poor Mary embalmed on the spot while she waited. The Guardian told the funeral director no notices, no obituaries, no funeral, just entomb her as fast as possible, which the funeral director did.
You need to write to the Illinois Supreme Court to stop this tragedy. This blog reports truthfully on the Sykes story and many, many other similar stories.
May Mary rest in peace. May truth and justice be done for myself, Kenneith Ditkowsky (also falsely accused of writing lies about the Sykes case when in fact all he issued were warnings and calls to the authorities for a COMPLETE, HONEST and THOROUGH investigation–an investigation which neither the FBI, the states attorneys—Madigan, Alvarez and Saltoun denied they were able or wanted to do—and the ARDC who covered everything up for the attorneys involved–Farenga, Stern, Schmeidel, Waller, Debra J. Soehlig).
All this blog publishes is the truth. If the truth means I have no law license that is assuredly a better situation than 1) doing nothing when a senior will be fleeced of her estate and put in a nursing home against her will, her estate drained, she will be put to her death; and 2) lying and covering up the whole thing as the authorities have done.
Pray for truth and justice for us all. I pray for Mary every day.
PS More details: Mary was isolated by Carolyn, the guardian, of 20+ former friends and relatives, even her younger daughter whom she only saw a handful of times in 5 years.
The GAL’s and court appointed probate attorneys billed the estate and collected $160,000, but at my trial it was brought out that these attorneys all saw Mary combined less than 2 hours in 5 years.
Her home was appraised in Jan. of 2012 for $750,000. It was probably worth nearly $1,000,000 being in a favorable neighborhood right next to a large condo development (why do you think they wanted to guardianize her). It was sold 2 months later for $213,000 to a real estate investment company.
See the Table of Torts published else where on this blog. It lists all the heinous, underhanded and filthy tactics the GAL’s and probate attorneys took to fleece Mary of her assets and get them into the hands of their friends. Quicky and quietly.
This is an interesting decision, because an ADA plaintiff requested special accommodations for her condition (some one to speak for her when she could not speak properly– a note taker, podium, additional recesses, an interpreter to speak on her behalf, etc.) Apparently, the plaintiff had some sort of speech disability which was quite severe by the time of trial. Some requests were granted and other were not.
Obviously this Plaintiff did not exhaust her appeals in state court. The plaintiff’s counsel argued this was catch 22, but this does not seem so. She argued it in a post trial motion rather than filing a new case in federal court. She did not file an appeal in state court on those issues. Rather, she filed in federal court. This court was worried that state court litigants could just skip state court when they had a beef about the ADA and come right to federal court. Is that really such a bad idea? Also, the Plaintiff has the right to choose the forum for presenting a claim. This would mean that all disputes over reasonable accommodation would always stay in state court where one litigant’s case already exists, even though the ADA likely has nothing to do with the underlying state court claim.
The trial court judge said that he thought the jury liked her and did not have a problem understanding her and her case.
I want to thank Gloria for sending this along. The argument is very intersting and I think it’s good that the oral argument was considered.
The judge asked if he had a problem with her complicated medical issues, but this federal court judge thought the trial court judge should have appointed a medical advisor. The federal court Justice said that not to do so was “incredibly naive”. She thought it was not and should not be the purview of trial court judges to determine medical issues and conditions and decide alone what “reasonable accommodations” should be made.
Some of the litigant’s problems included: involuntary movements, guttural sounds, moving the head involuntarily from side to side, strange involuntary sounds, convulsions, etc.
One attorney said that the judge should have argued that her medical conditions should not be held against her.and he should have given an explanation. Defense counsel responded that she thought the jury was warned several times that plaintiff’s condition should not be held against her.
The federal court judge should have engaged an experienced medical advisor. Defense Counsel argued in response that Pltff didn’t ast for that and so she should not have received that.
The federal judge argued that the judge is not given the task of psychological or medical diagnoses.
She asked for counsel to be appointed, and counsel was not appointed. Defense counsel argued this would set a bad precedent because then disabled litigants that could not speak would always ask for counsel.
Also, the court wanted to see the transcripts and neither party ordered them. Defendant’s counsel said they cost $1 per page or she didn’t know. (She’s dreaming. They often cost a $150 sitting fee (that’s the fee they charge to travel somewhere and sit in a chair plus $4 per page incase you’re not keeping up on these prices).
See how this woman is treated shamefully by a local cop. The henchman for the OPG (Office of Public Guardian, I mean Greed) is standing in the backgroud.
Gayle Robinson fought off these two for over two hours! Then they took her away to a 9 day psych hold. Only problem is they did not have the paperwork so they held her in a cheap motel for 2 days and drugged her because she tried to escape.
Apparently she still suffers nightmares from the entire ordeal.
Please pray for this family, for truth and justice and peace and blessings
From Ken Ditkowsky:
4:49 pm ET
Sep 21, 2015
He was dirty and unkempt. The family had to do his laundry and had to clean his room. He looked after a dirty old man. Then he went wandering the facility on night. George drank a chemical container he found and was severely injured. He was in horrific pain and after a painful period, he died. He suffered a horrific death the entire family saw. For the lack of care, the Facility (Emeritus Corp), was fined $601 for creating a horrific death.
But Ermitus took in $1.6 billion in revenue in 2014. A for profit corporation traded on Wall Street.
Sorry, I got through only half of the video. I had to stop. It was just too digusting and deplorable that our elderly are treated insuch a manner.
The epidemic of felonies associated with ‘elder cleansing’ seems to be growing, or maybe more victims and their families are coming forth and making their situations known. Certainly, the Larkin gang of 18 USCA 371 co-conspirators have made herculean efforts to silence the flow of information. The unsuccessful attempt to shut down your blog, and browbeat others into silence certainly cannot go unnoticed and certainly must be addressed by law enforcement.
In reading the cases involving 18 USCA 242 it appears that when a death occurs as the result of a deprivation of civil rights the situation i.e. conspiracy escalates to a felony. Thus when Mary Sykes, like so many other victims was subjected to an INVOLUNTARY assisted suicide all the conspirators (18 USCA 242) were complicit in her death. I concur with the statement in your blog, to wit:
“The ARDC is responsible for that–Larkin, Opryszek, Guiterrez Black and Steven Splitt–THEY ALL COULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING, opened an honest investigation and permitted the necessary discovery. Instead, they turned their backs on poor Mary and Gloria Sykes”
The fact that public is still paying their salaries and they are still in official positions to assault the First Amendment is tragic and an affront to every honest citizen of the State of Illinois. I’ve suggested that the concerted efforts in protecting the miscreants who did the actual deed (breach of fiduciary relationship) should result in all the co-conspirators also enjoying the opportunity to pay the Federal and State income taxes due as the result of the conspiracy. I stand by that suggestion and I also want to make it clear that each of the governments (IARDC) co-conspirators should not be rewarded with compensation for protecting the criminals who are preying on the public – they ought to pay back every dime of salary that they received during their tenure in participating in the conspiracy to silence dissent and lawyer rule 8.3 (18 USCA 4) and shelter the elder cleansers.
What makes the Sykes case so significant is the fact that the guardianship statute is so careful to protect the civil rights of persons who might need a guardian and Larkin and his co-conspirators (including the elder cleansers) systematically obviated each of the protections.
1. 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10 requires a particular form summons be served prior to a hearing on the alleged disabled person. Nowhere in the record in case 09 P 4585 does it appear that such a form summons was ever served, any summons was served, or the Statute complied with.
2. 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10 requires that close or near relatives of the alleged disabled person be given 14 days prior notice. It is not even denied that such notice was never given. A panel of the co-conspirators (co –conspirators themselves) solved this problem – without a scintilla of testimony or other evidence they determined that the relatives “knew” of the hearing.
3. The guardianship statute requires a hearing so that the Americans with Disabilities Act and the constitutional constrains are complied with. The record in 09 P 4585 reveals that there was no hearing. (This is a fact admitted by the attorney for the guardian and GAL Adam Stern in a letter to Gloria Sykes). The active nature of the actions of the Larkin gang is clearly demonstrated by the statement of the kangaroo panel who are caught in a written falsehood.
4. As the guardian is a fiduciary, the guardian has the highest duty possible to Mary Sykes. It is respectfully submitted that breaking into Mary and Gloria’s safety deposit box and making off with a million dollars in gold coins is a breach of fiduciary relationship. (See Gloria Sykes affidavit) It is my understanding that the guardian to date has not denied the averment. Only Cynthia Farenga, who was not present and who has no knowledge of what was in the box, has made a specific denial. Ms. Farenga is the attorney who was so upset by the call for an HONEST investigation reiterated in Probate Sharks.
Because of the serious nature of the allegations and Rule 8.3 I’ve reported the foregoing to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, the States Attorney, and law enforcement. All that has been accomplished is that my complaints have been ignored. A snail mail copy of the complaint has been refused by the Office of the IARDC several times. (On the first occasion it was opened and then returned to sender – it was re-sent and refused outright. Yesterday, having waited a modest amount of time, I resent it).
The net is the fact that the criminal activity of the Larkin group continues to this day. The public is not safe and public money is being taken under false pretenses. I would like you to join with me in petitioning Governor Rauner and the Illinois Legislature to stop the waste of valuable resources of the State of Illinois and to institute a commission to do an HONEST investigation and to put an end to the felonies being generated by Jerome Larkin and his co-conspirators.
NB: The group of visible conspirators differs in each case of elder cleansing, but the result is the same. Senior citizens are being herded into isolation, abusive situations, exploitative episodes and their Civil and Human Rights forfeit. In many of the situations it is believed and therefore alleged upon reliable information and belief that wealthy nursing home chains (and individuals) are providing generous rewards to the conspiracy.
Apparently the ARDC does NOT read the Wall Street Journal and attorneys who try to protect the elderly and disabled are personna non grata (myself and KKD). I have been suspended for 3 years for merely telling the truth about Mary G Sykes and now she is dead, having been narcotized to death. The ARDC is responsible for that–Larkin, Opryszek, Guiterrez Black and Steven Splitt–THEY ALL COULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING, opened an honest investigation and permitted the necessary discovery. Instad, they turned their backs on poor Mary and Gloria Sykes
From: kenneth ditkowsky <email@example.com>
Sent: Sep 17, 2015 1:14 PM
To: Probate Sharks <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “JoAnne M. Denison” <email@example.com>, Tim NASGA
Subject: Anatomy of a ‘cover up’This morning the Wall Street Journal had another editorial decrying the fact that certain criminals under the mantel of their political offices were assaulting the First Amendment and the democratic process. I cried that this is what is going on in Illinois and elsewhere in the Elder Cleansing scandal and the War that the miscreants are carrying on against the Elderly and the Disabled.I do not know if my cry will exhort any action, but, I have it on very relative information that in California the “reform” was set up to provide another layer of protection for the guardians for profit – such as Melody Scott. The amazing secrecy and lack of co=operation and information provided by the regulators makes it highly suspect that another ‘cover-up’ is under way.It may not be politically correct, but I abhor the new judicial MO of listen to what we say, not what we do. I think that the guardian for profit is criminal per se and that fiduciary criterion are not only necessary but mandated by the Constitution and ADA legislation. According to the current crop of Constitutional Experts employed by the Illinois public to protect itself from dishonest lawyers this e-mail is absolutely and positive unethical and they cite the Alvarez case as authority. 132 US 252 However, pursuant to lawyer rule 8.3 and 18 USCA 4 I am respectfully requesting that everyone within the sound of my voice or e-mail demand that the elderly and the disabled persons who might be affected by the guardianship be in fact protected. What this means is that a full and complete hearing actually occur and all those who have complaints concerning her administration be actually notified and given the opportunity to testify. It further means that the trier of fact not enter the hearing with a closed mind or directions to re-issue the license.NB. It should be noted that many of the victims and their families are terrified and totally intimidated. Thus, evidence depositions should be taken at the location that they victim has fled.It should be remembered that when a guardian is appointed every power that the guardian is provided is a power that is removed from a citizen.
—– Forwarded Message —–We have to do something about this. She (Melodie Scott) kills her wards.ad nauseum…..
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 20:36:53 +0000
To: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
Subject: Re: Melodie ScottIn most of these cases there is a settlement conference. It looks very much like the case was settled and she will get her license back.It is quite clear that Ms. Scott has quite a bit of clout. It appears that she has a significant number of complaints filed against her, and she has been overt in her misconduct toward you; however the license bureau was so heavily wired that they would not even disclose to you the number of complaints that she received.What I wonder is how much and in what format she gave consideration for the settlement. It is for certain that it did not come FREE!
Admissions in pleadings filed shows that in the Sophie Recihert estate, the OPG (Office of Public Guardian) of Cook County is not paying the mortgage for a very valuable piece of income property (bar and 5 apartments), despite receiving rents. This is a clear violation of the mortgage terms on the property, but instead, the OPG is using rental income to pay their tied in care givers an astounding $8k to $9k per month, when DIL Barbara Monaghan did the same job AND managed the Clark Street Wrigleyville property for $2400 per month. DIL Barbara always paid the mortgage on time.
Apparently Nevada has similar problems, but their guardianship problems are hitting the major media and then seniors are getting help from some of the court corruption.
Please view these short videos on two similar cases:
Thanks to NASGA for sending this along to me.
The attached article is consistent with the most recent SCOTUS decisions which lay the ground work for the proposition that ALL SPEECH that is content related or political is free from a limitation or censorship. I’ve cited each of these cases in my Petition for Cert that I filed before SCOTUS; however, the Rule of Law does not exist in Illinois and many of the other sovereign States when applied in derogation of corrupt political figure or the corrupt jurist or judicial official satisfying their avarice.
Take a look a JoAnn Denision’s disciplinary case. The Rule of Law is not only aborted, but the core values of America are sold to the highest bidder. Statutes reiterating the Rule of law are rendered impotent – not by corrupt judicial decree, but by fraud on the part of judicial officials charged with protecting the public. The Administrator of the IARDC, Jerome Larkin has the temerity to assert in writing that the Alvarez case supports his position. Nothing can be further from the truth – however – the American Bar Association is silent. The ACLU is silent. AARP is silent. The civil Rights organizations are silent. Political figures running for office are silent. Who is defending the constitution and our liberty?
The Volokh ConspiracyOpinion
‘You are also ordered not to post any further information about the [plaintiff]’
By Eugene Volokh August 24
As many readers of this blog know, I’ve long been interested in how criminal harassment laws and restraining order laws have been morphing from restricting unwanted speech to people into restricting speech about people.
Such laws have traditionally covered unwanted phone calls, unwanted letters, unwanted attempts at face-to-face conversation and the like: again, speech to a particular person. Courts have generally upheld such restrictions on speech, and in many instances, plausibly so. As the Supreme Court held in 1970 in upholding a statute that let people block continued unwanted mailings into their homes, “no one has a right to press even ‘good’ ideas on an unwilling recipient.”
**** In recent years, Courts have issued orders barring speakers from saying anything about a person and ordering speakers to take down existing posts about that person. I wrote a law journal article about this two years ago, “One-To-One Speech vs. One-To-Many Speech, Criminal Harassment Laws, and “Cyberstalking,” 107 Nw. U. L. Rev. 731 (2013); I’ve also filed friend-of-the-court briefs on the subject in six different cases (in Georgia,Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Washington, and Wisconsin) and last year had the pleasure of arguing on behalf of amici in one such case, Chan v. Ellis — this March, the Georgia Supreme Court reversed the speech-restrictive order in that case.
Friday, I filed a friend-of-the-court brief in another such case, Van Valkerburg v. Gjoni, now pending in Massachusetts appellate court. The brief is on behalf of Prof. Aaron Caplan (author of “Free Speech and Civil Harassment Orders,” 64 Hastings L.J. 781 (2013), and one of the amici inChan v. Ellis) and me; Daniel Lyne and Ted Folkman of Murphy & King (and, in Ted’s case, of Letters Blogatory: The Blog of International Judicial Assistance) ****
In Van Valkerburg, a Massachusetts trial court issued an order providing that Gjoni is
That order, we argue, is a clear violation of the First Amendment, for reasons we explain in the brief, which I’m also quoting below. A court can’t order someone to just stop saying anything about a person. Certain narrow categories of speech about people are constitutionally unprotected (such as true threats of violence, speech that is intended to and likely to incite people to imminent criminal conduct, and possibly certain kinds of speech that reveals highly private information). But this order goes vastly beyond any such narrow First Amendment exceptions.
****** Eron Gjoni was briefly romantically involved with Chelsea Van Valkenburg, a computer game developer who used the pen name Zoe Quinn, and who I am told has recently changed her name legally to Zoe Quinn. **** After they broke up, Gjoni wrote a series of blog posts about Van Valkenburg, in which he accused her — whether or not accurately — of mistreating him in various ways during his relationship. This post in turn led to various accusations about supposed misdeeds in the video gaming industry, and various threats of violence against Van Valkenburg by people who have apparently taken Gjoni’s side.
Naturally, there are many possible legal actions that might be contemplated here. If Gjoni made false factual assertions about Van Valkenburg, she could sue him for libel or under the “false light” tort. If he said things about her that were highly personal and not viewed by courts as of legitimate public concern, she could sue him under the “disclosure of private facts” tort, though that doctrine is quite narrow and complex (for many reasons, including some you can see from Part II of the brief).
Certainly, people who send death threats could be prosecuted for that, though of course it’s often hard to track them down, or even to get the police and prosecutors interested in the matter. In principle, if it can be shown that some statement was intended to and likely to incite people to imminent criminal conduct — i.e., conduct within the next few hours or maybe days, rather than at some unspecified time in the future — that could be punished as well, though that’s an extremely narrow First Amendment exception. (The Supreme Court has struggled since the 1910s with the question of when speech can be restricted because it may lead some of its readers to commit crimes; this ultimately led to the development of the incitement exception, which I just paraphrased, and which the Court set forth and elaborated inBrandenburg v. Ohio (1969), Hess v. Indiana (1973), and NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. (1982).) Such criminal and civil liability might be constitutional, under the right circumstances, since there are indeed some narrow exceptions to First Amendment protection into which this liability could fit.
But, as the brief below argues, the court’s particular order is certainly not constitutional. You can read the full brief here, but I include all the meat, minus some footnotes with citations, below.
Note that two weeks ago Van Valkenburg filed a document stating that she is asking the trial court that issued the restraining order to vacate it, because she believes the order has become counterproductive. But right now the order remains in place, and the appeal remains in progress. And it’s possible that a withdrawal of the order won’t stop the appeal in any event, since even the scheduled expiration of such orders doesn’t necessarily moot appeals, if the person who had been the target of the order wants to continue the appeal.
* * *
Broad injunctions, such as the one in this case, violate the First Amendment
The injunction in this case, barring the posting of all “information” about Ms. Van Valkerburg, is an unconstitutional prior restraint. “An injunction that forbids speech activities is a classic example of a prior restraint.” Care & Protection of Edith, 421 Mass. 703, 705 (1996); see also Organization for Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415 (1971) (striking down an injunction barring leafletting critical of a real estate agent); NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 893, 924 n.67 (1982) (striking down an injunction barring “demeaning and obscene” speech about people who refused to participate in a boycott); Aaron H. Caplan, Free Speech and Civil Harassment Orders, 64 Hastings L.J. 781, 817-26 (2013).
Indeed, even criminal punishment of supposedly “harass[ing]” speech about a person is permissible only if the speech fits within a First Amendment exception. Commonwealth v. Johnson, 470 Mass. 300, 310, 311 n.12 (2014);O’Brien v. Borowski, 461 Mass. 415, 422-23 (2012); Eugene Volokh, One-To-One Speech vs. One-To-Many Speech, Criminal Harassment Laws, and “Cyberstalking,” 107 Nw. U. L. Rev. 731, 751-62, 773-93 (2013); People v. Bethea, 1 Misc. 3d 909(A), 2004 WL 190054, *1–*2 (N.Y. Crim. Ct. 2004) (rejecting criminal harassment prosecution of woman who had posted leaflets sharply criticizing the allegedly deadbeat father of her child, and relying on the principle that “Americans are, after all, free to criticize one another”). It follows that a prior restraint of speech — “the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights,” Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 559 (1976) — would be unconstitutional, too, at least if (as here) it is not limited to speech that fits within an exception.
Even the narrower restriction on speech that “encourage[s] ‘hate mobs,’” if severed from the rest of the injunction, would be unconstitutional. That restriction is not limited to speech that fits within a First Amendment exception, here speech that is intended to and likely to promote imminent lawless conduct, Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969); Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105, 108-09 (1973). Indeed, the injunction in Claiborne Hardware involved speech that, according to the plaintiffs in that case, had the potential to lead others to retaliate against the target of the speech, 458 U.S. at 904-05; yet the Court nonetheless overturned the injunction.
Likewise, even an injunction banning only communication of information about Van Valkerburg’s “personal life” would likely be unconstitutional. Speech restrictions aimed at protecting privacy, like other restrictions, must comply with the First Amendment. See, e.g., Care & Protection of Edith, 421 Mass. at 705-06.
“Mere intrusion on a person’s alleged privacy interest is not by itself an adequate base on which to predicate a broad prior restraint on another’s free speech.” Nyer v. Munoz-Mendoza, 385 Mass. 184, 189 (1982). “Designating . . . conduct as an invasion of privacy . . . is not sufficient to support an injunction” against speech, at least when a plaintiff “is not attempting to stop the flow of information into his own household, but to the public.” Keefe, 402 U.S. at 419-20.
Indeed, a Georgia appellate case held that, for First Amendment reasons, stalking statutes would not authorize an injunction even against “extremely insensitive” speech “publishing or discussing [an ex-girlfriend’s] private medical condition,” Collins v. Bazan, 568 S.E. 2d 72, 73-74 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). It would follow that a broad ban on speech discussing a person’s “personal life” would be unconstitutional, too. Even if some very narrow injunctions against speech may sometimes be justified on privacy grounds, a ban on all speech about a person’s “personal life” cannot be.
This case is not about whether Mr. Gjoni could be held liable for disclosure of private facts as to some of his statements. It is not about whether some of Mr. Gjoni’s readers could be criminally punished, or held civilly liable, for any threats they made against Ms. Van Valkerburg. It is about whether an American court can issue a prior restraint against a person’s conveying any “information” about another person. And that is the remedy that the First Amendment most clearly forbids.
Restricting speech about an ex-lover’s life unconstitutionally restricts people’s ability to speak about their own lives
Restricting Gjoni’s speech about Van Valkerburg also unconstitutionally restricts Gjoni’s speech about himself and his own life. The injunction, for instance, limits Gjoni’s ability to publicly discuss this litigation or the injunction itself. Gjoni cannot discuss his case without including some “information about” Van Valkerburg, including about her “personal life” — such as her name, their past romantic relationship, and the fact that she sought an injunction against him.
Likewise, when people condemn Gjoni online for allegedly acting badly by writing about Van Valkerburg, the injunction limits Gjoni from explaining why he thought his statements were fair and justified. And if Gjoni wants to tell his friends and acquaintances, in an online journal or on his Facebook page, how he feels about romantic relationships or why he is cautious about a new relationship, he cannot do so if the explanation would mention Van Valkerburg.
Courts have recognized that even imposing tort liability for speech about the speaker’s relationship with someone else would improperly restrict the speaker’s ability to describe his or her own life. For instance, in Bonome v. Kaysen, 17 Mass. L. Rptr. 695, 2004 WL 1194731 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2004), author Susana Kaysen wrote a book about her own life, including her relationship with Joseph Bonome. The book included many details, including intimate sexual details, and though it did not mention Bonome’s name, people who knew about his relationship with Kaysen recognized him.
Bonome sued for disclosure of private facts, but the court rejected that argument. The court found that even a personal life story can be seen as involving “issues of legitimate public concern,” id. at *5, simply because it discusses broader matters such as relationships between the sexes. Likewise, any future posts by Mr. Gjoni that mention Ms. Van Valkerburg in the course of discussing the injunction in this case, Mr. Gjoni’s thoughts about the computer gaming business, or relationships between the sexes would similarly involve issues of legitimate public concern.
And, because “it is often difficult, if not impossible, to separate one’s intimate and personal experiences from the people with whom those experiences are shared,” the court in Bonome held that “the First Amendment protects Kaysen’s ability” to discuss her life, even though “disclosing Bonome’s involvement in those experiences is a necessary incident thereto.” Id. at *6. Other recent cases, such as Anonsen v. Donahue, 857 S.W.2d 700 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003), take the same view. See also Sonja R. West, The Story of Me: The Underprotection of Autobiographical Speech, 84 Wash. U. L. Rev. 905, 907–11 (2006) (explaining how autobiographical speech must often also mention others).
For the reasons mentioned in Part I, imposing a prior restraint on such speech would be improper as well. And that is especially so when the prior restraint covers not just the narrow category of speech that fits within the disclosure of private facts tort, but instead covers any “information about the [plaintiff] or her personal life.”
Nor does it matter that plaintiff may not be a general-purpose public figure for libel law purposes. True statements, and expressions of opinion about people, are fully protected regardless of whether the subjects are private figures. Even in intentional infliction of emotional distress cases, the First Amendment applies to speech related to private figures as much as to speech related to public figures. See Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443, 451, 458 (2011) (applying the reasoning of Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988), which involved a public figure plaintiff, to a case where the plaintiff and the subject of the speech were both private figures).
Likewise, the losing plaintiffs in Bonome and Anonsen were private figures, too. So was the losing plaintiff in Keefe, and the subjects of the speech inClaiborne Hardware. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized a plaintiff’s private figure status as relevant in only one area: whether compensatory damages in libel cases can be based on a showing of mere negligence, rather than “actual malice.” See Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 344-50 (1974). That status is not relevant to attempts to suppress nonlibelous speech about the person, including truthful statements and expressions of opinion.
III. Allowing such broad injunctions would open the door to suppressing a broad range of speech
Any order affirming the trial court decision in this case would also affect many cases beyond this one, and many cases beyond those arising from disputes among ex-lovers.
The trial court decision in this case is an instance of a broader problem. In recent years, some trial courts throughout the country — including in Massachusetts — have entered strikingly broad injunctions that bar a wide range of speech about particular people. These injunctions, like the one in this case, are not limited to unprotected speech, such as proven libel, “fighting words,” threats, or speech intended to and likely to incite imminent illegal conduct. Nor are they limited to unwanted speech to a person. Rather, they restrict a wide range of speech to the public about the person.
Thus, for instance, in Chan v. Ellis, 770 S.E.2d 851 (Ga. 2015), the Georgia Supreme Court reversed an injunction that ordered a web site operator, Matthew Chan, to delete “all posts relating to [Linda] Ellis” from his web site, and likely forbade the posting of future posts as well. The Georgia Supreme Court concluded that the injunction was not authorized by Georgia law, largely because the injunction covered speech about a person and not just speech to her. The court therefore did not need to reach the serious First Amendment objections to the injunction.
Likewise, in Kleem v. Hamrick, a local gadfly and past local candidate, blogged offensive things about the sister of a town’s mayor, who was also a local civic figure. An Ohio Court of Common Pleas judge responded by ordering that the blogger “is prohibited from posting any information/comments/threats/or any other data on any internet site, regarding the petitioner and any member of her immediate or extended family . . . on any site,” including both her own blog and the Cleveland.com news site.
In Kimberlin v. Walker, a Maryland court similarly enjoined a blogger from blogging about a political activist who was also a convicted criminal. That order, too, was later vacated — though not for a month [and] a half, time during which the blogger’s First Amendment rights were suppressed. And inNilan v. Valenti, a Massachusetts court ordered a blogger (and former professional journalist) to remove his blog posts about a woman — as it happens, a local judge’s daughter — who had been accused of criminal negligence and leaving the scene of an accident after hitting a pedestrian with her car. Again, that order was later vacated.
Trial courts in other states have likewise enjoined people from saying anything at all online about ex-lovers or ex-spouses’ lawyers. Courts have enjoined people from criticizing those with whom the people have had business dealings. One court has issued a restraining order based on a defendant’s repeatedly (and accurately) publicizing the fact that the plaintiff had been suspended from practicing law for defrauding a client.
Most of these cases have been trial court orders, which were either unappealed or reversed on appeal. They may have been entered without adequate First Amendment briefing — such inadequate briefing is not uncommon in state trial courts, especially in civil injunction cases, where the defendant speaker may not be represented by counsel. And many trial court judges may generally not be familiar with First Amendment doctrine, which only rarely arises in their courts. This is why it is especially important for appellate courts, such as this Court, to clearly indicate to trial courts that broad injunctions such as the one in this case violate the First Amendment.
For these reasons, amici ask the Court to hold that the restraining order violates the First Amendment.
To: Clifford Law Offices <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ABAJournal.com <email@example.com>; “firstname.lastname@example.org” <email@example.com>
Cc: Matt Senator Kirk <firstname.lastname@example.org>;
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: ABA Annual Meeting Report
A Message from Paula H. Holderman, Illinois State Delegate to the ABA House of Delegates
|Amazing Chicago architecture at Millennium Park|
|The ABA holds its Annual Meeting in August in Chicago — its lovely lakefront from the top of the Hancock Building.|
As the Illinois State Delegate to the American Bar Association House of Delegates, this message represents a report of the 137th Annual Meeting in Chicago, my home town, packed with continuing legal education programs that were most timely and informative with an emphasis on criminal justice reform and recent decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States.
With a real Chicago flavor, the meeting included some very interesting and informative showcase programs, as well as numerous networking opportunities and social events. Hundreds of activities took place over the five days that included nationally and internationally recognized guest speakers. The weather was near perfect except for a quick storm that passed through the city, again forcing the evacuation of nearby Grant Park loaded with thousands of Lollapalooza attendees. Never a dull moment in the Windy City.
News on the Annual Meeting can be found on the ABA website at www.abanow.org
The Opening Assembly began in a different way – with each state delegation proudly carrying in its state flag.
Sarah Gorecki, a Loyola University Chicago School of Law student, sang the National Anthem with a voice that was breathtaking.
|Loyola Law School student sings the National Anthem at the Opening Assembly.|
The Invocation was delivered by the South Carolina minister whose congregation had recently suffered a terrible tragedy with the shooting of several of its parishioners. His moving words and heartfelt sorrow actually was uplifting for the ABA members present. “Let justice roll down like a mighty stream of waters,” he said in prayer. “Faith is stronger than fear, and faith overtakes hate.”
Thurgood Marshall Award
|Tom Sullivan helped countless people in his legal career spanning decades.|
Sponsored by the Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities (whose name was changed at the Annual Meeting to the Section of Civil Rights and Social Justice), the annual Thurgood Marshall Award dinner was held honoring Chicago legendary attorney Thomas Sullivan of Jenner & Block. His eloquent speech had everyone hanging on to his every word. Many attendees repeated the mantra that it is incredible that one man could have accomplished all he did in one lifetime, particularly his indefatigable commitment to civil rights. He is perhaps best known for his investigation into “the famously soiled courts of Chicago,” as Scott Turow put it, that came to be known as the Operation Greylord investigation, leading to the indictment of 92 people, including 17 judges and 48 lawyers. Sullivan also represented 300 death row inmates and is said to have saved many lives in working to eradicate the death penalty in Illinois, and he has been to Guantanamo Bay eight times, putting himself at risk. He said 50 men are still incarcerated there, some being held since 2001. He represents one of them. “They have lost complete faith in the justice of America,” he said, and questioned the destruction of habeas corpus there. He said it’s “not sport for the short-winded.” And at 85 years old, he told the crowd he’s not done yet. Sullivan said, “Inside every elderly person there is a young person who asks, ‘What the hell happened?’ Time does go quickly,” he said to much laughter in the audience.
|Scott Turow reminisces about his days working with Thurgood Marshall honoree Tom Sullivan.|
The keynote address at this dinner, one of the highlights of the Meeting, was author/attorney Scott Turow who worked with Sullivan in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Chicago decades ago. He regaled with stories of his working relationship with Sullivan including a call at 7 a.m. on a Sunday to go to work just weeks after becoming a father for the first time.
from the Wall Street Journal, judges must wear black to be taken seriously.
Alright. I have been to Florida and observed their court room system first hand, and I have to tell you, the attorneys should always wear dark suits and the judges black robes, because other than a uniform, their behavior had no resemblance to justice.
We witnessed exparte conversations, documents obviously missing from the files, collusion and conspiracy–and it all surround the severe abuse and ability to drain the estate of Helen Stone–without any semblance of truth or justice.
You would think they were running a 3 ring circus from what I saw. I could not appear pro hac vice for no real apparent reason other than they didn’t want Barbara Stone to have representation and challenge the system or obtain any justice for her mother–a senior at risk from the Miami Date probate system–already once in the ER for dehydration, malnutrition, sores, contusions, lacerations, fractures–you name it the probate system appointed these people to do it. Three weeks in the hospital, the probate system, and in particular Judge Michael Genden hands Helen Stone right back to her abusers, without a word of caution or any investigation.
As Adam Stern said on the stand at my trial, never get concerned over illnesses with these old people. Old people get sick and die all the time.
What a class A ass and psychopath.
No apologies, no assertion that any claims of abuse must be thoroughly investigated.
Narcissist and psychopath in my book.
Mary had been sick for 2 weeks at Carolyn’s with a fever, sore throat could not swallow and was obviously malnourish and dehydrated. That’s what her doctor said when Gloria finally got ahold of her and got her to the doc where they immediately did IV, proscribed antibiotics and got Mary healthy again.
But Adam Stern defends the guardian and the system with “old people get sick and die all the time.”
Interesting coincidence she is found heavily drugged out of her mind when the money runs out.
We have to reform probate, we have to take the money factor out. Work in probate must be all volunteer and without profit motive.
You want profits as an attorney or caregiver, go elsewhere.
The system has to end. period.
Until it does, the judges must wear black, the attorneys must wear dark suits, not only to just avoid evil and greed getting on your aura, but also because the way they ignore truth and justice you would never know they are attorneys OR judges.
Please have prayers for Randy and Gayle Robinson, Alan Frake and Iwana Lahoody. All of these seniors are at risk of death, being in the hands of court appointed abusers (Frake and Lahoody, Illinois) or may be turned over to abusers (Gayle Robinson). As we all know, and the ARDC has worked hard to cover up and stop this blog and stop me (but I and Ken and Mr. Amu will not be stopped), is the target-medicate-isolate-drain the estate- quietly eliminate and then cremate scheme.
Please explain to me how Mary Sykes, a staunch Roman Catholic, was put in hospice, narcotized to death when the money ran out (as predicted) and the ARDC still helps the courts and court appointed attorneys (Farenga, Stern, Schmeidel) cover up all this blood on their hands? How did Mary end up spending $90k on a nursing home and the rest on attorneys fees when she stipulated in her advanced directives she never wanted that. Did it take TWO gals for over 5 years Stern and Farenga to cover all this up.
Her home was sold for pennies on the dollar–to an Illinois real estate corporation. These people don’t live there and don’t care about Mary or the neighborhood. They just came in to grave dance.
Stern, Schmeidel, Farenga, Soehlig–all excellent examples of the many, many grave dancers in YOUR probate courts. Not to mention the judges that support them–Stuart, Kowamoto, Quinn, MacCarthy–all handing back reports of death and abuse right back to the abusers “to investigate”.
As it started back in 2012 with Farenga’s letter to the ARDC begging them to investigate myself and Ken and never, never investigate her. That’s exactly what they did. They brought in Stern, Farenga and Schmeidel to testify against us, and in my trial, they ignored all the family member who would have testified that Mary was in fact competent in 2009 as show by the numerous videos of her on the internet (banned at trial and in probate), that she played canasta in Dec 2009 and beat the pants off everyone (banned testimony by Scott Evans). The cover up continued with the uninvestigated disappearance of $1 million in valuable coins. Where is the video from that day? Who is holding up discovery on that one? Why does not Jerome Larkin, Sharon Opryszek and Leah Black do their jobs and investigate. How can Steven Splitt call himself an “ethics professor” when he has the absolute worst ethics of all, being a puppet of the ARDC? What does he think he’s doing by all of this? No one believes him. These people live in a fantasy world of power and wealth and lies and deception. Ethics Professor? More like “justifying ethics of murder” professor.
Stern, Farenga, Schmeidel, the judges and the ARDC–all grave dancing. Grave dancing on: Carol Wyman, Dorothy Baker, Dolores Bedin, Lydia Tyler, Rose Drabik, and now poor Mary Sykes.
Who will put an end to all of this and STOP MURDERING SENIORS through the probate system and our court system.
Why the media is disinterested in the judicial corruption that is mated to elder cleansing is a mystery.
Donald Trump, whether you like him or not, is the most famous man in the United States. Even though he has millions (or maybe billions) to spend he gets more publicity than the President. Every word he utters draws headlines no matter how absurd, ridiculous, or just plain stupid. Worse yet it is debated and rehashed by even the intelligent talking heads until every morsel is chewed and digested. Why is this occurring? The public is fed up with being lied to and deceived. We hunger for a straight talking John Wayne character to come to the fore and rout the miscreants who are leading the charge to make America’s core values “up is down” “down is up” “right is wrong” “wrong is right” *****
Trump has demonstrated that even though the mainstream media is mired in the muck of business as usual and ignoring even overt criminal activities on the part of its political favorites and causes, it cannot ignore the notoriety and circus that “sells newspapers.” Avarice is a strong modifier. Advertisers want their message to get out so that they can make money or so that they can extend their influence. The fact that old people are being exploited, abused, isolated and murdered is not exciting or something that the public wants to hear of. We know that ***** (fill in the blank with any political name picked at random) is a crook! We know **** lies thru his/her teeth! By ****’s opponent is slightly less of a crook and his/her lies are fresh.
Sex and violence also sell to the media. The elderly and the disabled are not sexy. However, government collecting the tax money that it is owed by Jerome Larkin and his 18 USCA 371 elder cleanser co-conspirators has a certain sex appeal. Grabbing the theme of let’s make a new religion out of the corrupt political and judicial predators and strike a blow for the elderly and the disabled we do have a message that can sell newspapers.
The Woe is me crowd and the throw the baby out with the bathwater crowd that are the allies of the elderly and the disabled who have been targeted by the corrupt jurists, corrupt judicial officials, and corrupt political thugs need a new makeover. How that is done I have absolutely no idea, but we are in a war and we are losing. Every day the criminal miscreants of the 18 USCA 371 Jerome Larkin conspiracy are winning. The Illinois Supreme Court determined that the First Amendment, the Rule of Law, and the core values of America aside, JoAnne Denison calling for an HONEST investigation (of elder cleansing) was a danger to the public. If such an event had occurred in North Korea the ACLU, AARP, and every civil liberties group would have been hysterical with outrage. Here in America it got zero major media coverage, no outrage, and the poison pill was swallowed as if it were an antibiotic. The criminals responsible for this outrage received pecuniary rewards! JoAnne had her livihood taken from her. (These are the same criminals who denied a lawyer of color his civil rights for speaking out against corruption, and a civil rights leader a seat as a spectator at a kangaroo hearing involving Ms. Denison).
It seems to me that with all the brains that the families, friends, and victims of ‘elder cleansings’ possess we ought to be able to ‘trump’ the Donald and the miscreants and get an HONEST investigation of the 18 USCA 371 conspiracy to violate 18 USCA 241, 18 USCA 242, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Bill of Rights, ****. An election is coming up!
NB: Jerome Larkin’s false averments as part of his cover=up of the holocaust like judicially sanitized Mary Sykes, Alice Gore **** cases are fertile examples of very serious judicial corruption. The breaches of fiduciary relationship that Larkin’s 18 USCA 371 conspiracy seeks to ‘cover up’ is corruption of biblical proportions. The arrogance of power exhibited in the Gore case and the disregard for due process and civil rights in the Sykes case are intolerable and as both ladies died as part of the criminal activity clear 18 USCA 242 felonies. In my opinion Larkin’s indictment and prosecution for his personal actions would send a chill through the establishment that protects the ‘health care frauds’ and *****.
Below is a format I received from another attorney on how to put together a Motion for Reconsideration:
the Format for a Motion for Reconsideration is as follows:
Pleading title “Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granted X date doing Y”
Text–be sure to number all paragraphs in your Motion. You may wish to file a separate Brief on just the Facts and Case Law if your Motion is over 8 to 10 pages.
Now comes your Movant, name, and respectfully moves this court to reconsider the Order that was entered on X date granting Y to Z. Your Movant desires to Vacate this Order on the following grounds (list 3 best reasons).
Next is Background of Facts OR Procedure. Put either one first. You can sometimes skip the procedural history, but always remind the court of the facts, that is, YOUR facts.
Background of Procedure. List all significant motions, pleadings filed and procedure taking place in court since the inception of the case leading up to the Order X granted by the court. Don’t list more than 2 pages of synopsis. Just the Cliff notes, please
Background of Facts. List all facts in your case that are in your favor that form the basis for why the court was wrong.
Argument. Argues your 3 best points based upon facts.
Case Law. Add in all cases you can find that support your premise the court was wrong. Illinios appellate case law is best to cite. You can use Westlaw and Lexis at the law library at the Daley Center to find cases or go through the books. The librarian can show you or hire a law student that has finished their legal research and writing class and already knows how to do all of this. They may be able to pull cases for you too or show you how to do it yourself. Do not cite trial court decisions except in very limited situations and then apologize for doing this because there was limited case law at the appellate law level. The ARDC does this all the time. They also lie about cases. NEVER lie to the court about a case.
Conclusion. Give a brief one paragraph conclusion
Relief Sought. Be specific what you want the court to do. Reverse it’s decision, allow more discovery on certain issues, etc. Be very specific. In general, if you don’t ask you are not going to get.
Don’t forget to verify. State at the end that all statements made in your pleading were true to the best of your recollection and information. Where based upon information and belief, were believed to be true at the time the statements were made.
Certificate of Service. Send a copy to everyone that has filed an appearance in the case since it began. You may serve by fax or email to save on postage and paper. Simply state that you served A, B and C at their post office address and/or emails as shown on Z date.
Signature. A signature or esignature is required on every pleading filed.
IMPORTANT: length of pleadings. In general, try to make the Motion under 5 to 6 pages. The Brief should always be under 15 pages. Check the court website or with the clerk for the proper page length.
Funny story. A lawyer had a complicated case he lost at the trial court level and took up on appeal. He just needed a few extra pages in his brief, so he filed a Motion to Increase Brief Size Instanter (on the spot). He waited while the Appellate Clerk took the Motion to one of the Justices. The Order came back DENIED. Enraged, the lawyer went through the copies and tore out 5 pages at random. True story, Ken swears.
This is the general format for pleadings.
I really need to run a list of the 10 worst judges in probate and probate related proceedings for the year.
So far we have had ridiculous gag orders in the Randy Robinson case, I have had ridiculous incarcerations by Judges Broch and Flannel in central Illinois at the top of the list.
These two frick and fracks even imprisoned a PASTOR, for crying out loud, Pastor Harrison from Milwaukee for 2 weeks until even the locals could not stand that one, and he was released.
But not poor Andrew Harrison and Lyle Harrison (a Kettering graduate with an MBA). These two insist on, of all things–Illinois and US constitutional rights. And right in front of Judge Flannel and Judge Broch.
So now two transcripts (which have been altered and that will be reported to the FBI with an affidavit), are published below.
Again, these are on the top of amazing Corruption and Abuse of Power. Note, they say I will NEVER get my license to practice law back and they’ve got another thing coming. CORRUPTION IN ILLINOIS WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. And if the ARDC, the states attorneys and even to too great an extent the FBI, will do nothing about it, I WILL. I will not be shut up about the abuse and MURDER of our elderly seniors at the hand of psycopathic judges and attorneys.
Here is the link to the first one:
And here is the link to the second
THE COURT: I had this Mr. Harrison, as well as
13 Andrew Lux Harrison, brought over from the jail earlier
14 in the week to explain to them — for at least Roger
15 Harrison at least the second or third time, I think the
16 second time for Andrew — how ehey can get themselves
17 out of jail. The Order of Adjudication of Indirect
:8 Civil Contempt contains a purge order and all that’s
19 required — as I did explain to them and I think they
20 understood — to effectuate their release from jail is
21 to ask the Court for leave to withdraw their
22 counterclaims in the other litigation matters both in
the Moultrie and Piatt County Circuit Courts. That’s
the only thing that is continuing their — requiring
their continued incarceration, and I explained that
will not effect my order of contempt in this case and
they will remain incarcerated, and I’d explained to them
3 they will remain incarcerated forever until such time as
4 they purge the contempt by withdrawing those
5 counterclaims and they refrain from any other filings in
6 violation of the Court’s order. They’ll be here
MR. STEIN: (what was the cour’ts order?)
They could not file without leave of
11 Court, without seeking leave from me before they could
12 file any pleadings in the Sixth Circuit, six counties,
Champaign, Macon, Piatt, Douglas, Dewitt, Moultrie, not
one pleading, and they directly violated that order by
filing in both of those cases counterclaims without
16 submitting them first to the Court and subject the other
17 side to defending or addressing those, and that was the
18 purpose of my order to stop that because of the various
19 and sundry, frivolous — and that’s almost fair, to
20 frivolous pleadings. Frivolous pleadings that these
21 people have filed, and I want them — since they were
22 here without a lawyer, I want to be sure that a lawyer
23 that understands the law on civil contempt can talk to
24 these gentlemen and hopefully make them understand that
25 this is doing nothing for them but continuing their
This judge still has not explained exactly how incarcerating someone for civil proceedings is not an Abuse of Power. Or a psychopathic action.
What I don’t get is are people in Moultrie and Paitt such uneducated hicks they do not know or understand this guy is out of control, a pscyopath who incarcerates civil litigants.
Why not just take him out and shoot him, as they do in N. Korea for filing counterclaims against local cronies for stealing his family’s 1400 acres in the Harry Harrison estate and never inventorying it, never properly closing the estate with a sign off from all the heirs, legatees and Trust beneficiaries?
The case is ridiculous. Too ridiculous for even a Grishman novel.
You can’t even make this stuff up.
They can change these transcripts all they want, but there’s still no excuse for jailing a civil litigant for filing counterclaims.
Illinois may be currently the most corrupt state and I have to put certain operatives at the OPG and the ARDC at the time of the list, but Ken, myself and Mr. Amu are certainly hell bent at turning that around, and there are dozens of court corruption victims out there who support us and assist us in bringing these inconvenient truths to light.
If anyone thinks were are no ones making no money going no where and we cannot possibly make a difference, they they obviously have never spent a night in a room with a mosquito. (Old African proverb).
* To GUARD “incompetent”* people against harming themselves or others;
* To CONSERVE their assets and property (by means of prudent investment); and
* To PROTECT the taxpaying public from those individuals becoming “public charges.”
Unlawful and abusive guardianships and conservatorships can ensnare the most vulnerable people in a larger and larger trawling net, now including those merely physically “incapacitated”! Adult guardianship has become a feeding trough for unethical lawyers and other “fiduciaries” appointed by the courts to protect, but many of whom become nothing more than predators.
Wards in these circumstances, instead of being protected by the system, are victimized by it. Strangers are often given total and absolute control of life, liberty, and property of their wards, including:
• the right to contract, including the right to choose a lawyer;
• the right to control their assets and make financial decisions;
• the right to remain in their own home and protect it from sale;
• the right to protect and enjoy their personal property;
• the right to choose where to live;
• the right to accept or refuse medical treatment, including psychotropic drugs;
• the right to decide their social environments and contacts;
• the right to assure prompt payment of taxes and liabilities;
• the right to vote;
• the right to drive;
• the right to marry; and
• the right to complain.
Wards are left defenseless and subject to exploitation by the very people chosen to protect them; they become invisible and voiceless.
An uncaring/callous/overworked/dishonest system often misuses the law and engages in blatant due process, civil/human rights violations. Victims aren’t always given notice of hearings at which their competence will be adjudicated, aren’t always allowed to attend, and often don’t have lawyers. If the court does appoint lawyers, often they are too closely affiliated with other professionals who make their living in this special area; and do not properly represent the victims’ interests. In these situations, judges do not apply the required evidentiary standards in making adjudications of incompetency, and frequently fail to obey the protective statutes, or include specific findings of fact.
Homes are sold to insiders at below market! Contents – family heirlooms, jewelry, photographs, etc. – disappear, either stolen outright or sold at auction. Estate assets are rapidly paid out to the fiduciaries in exorbitant “fees” and “commissions” until there is nothing left!
“Fiduciaries” are given power of life and death, burying their wards in nursing homes where they are kept chemically restrained with unnecessary and dangerous drugs; family members are denied any say in their care, and sometimes denied visitation, except under guard at their own expense!
It has become an accepted, yet appalling, practice for guardianships and conservatorships (and their cronies) to devour the entire estates the proceedings are (by law) supposed to be protecting (Sykes, Wyman, LMV, etc.). In a shocking twist, the American Taxpayers whom these statutes are supposed to protect, are then forced to PAY THE MEDICAID TAB FOR CONTINUED LIFELONG CARE OF WARDS OF THE STATE “PROTECTED” INTO INDIGENCE while their court-appointed “protectors” enjoy their unjust enrichment. Instead of protecting the public interest, guardianship has indeed become a taxpayer burden… an extremely ironic, costly, and appalling consequence of a good law gone bad! Some dishonest fiduciaries claim that what they’re doing (while filling their pockets) is to “spending down” the assets specifically to qualify the ward for Medicaid! That’s not what the law intended!
On Sept 2, 2015, a loving caring son wrote to the judge noting abuse of his mother in a guardianship. She said she could not read the letter and had copies made, but nothing got done. The abuse is continuing.
Major lawyer players in this case: (not surprised) lawyer threatening Adam Stern, Peter Schmeidel, Paul Franciscowicz, Joe Monaghan, M. Martin.
See the letter below. It’s disgusing.
And I would like everyone to know that I predicted exactly what this group of ***** would do. They allowed pipes to burst in the house (predicted SNAFU), then they are selling it for a deep discount (see similar stories in Wyman and on internet).
There is a large joint account that after several years has STILL not been partitioned, but that is coming.
The good son has none of it and it has been frozen.
Sept. 2, 2015
The Honorable Carolyn Quinn
50 W. Washington
Chicago, IL. 60602
Dear Judge Quinn,
I am writing in regards to my mother; Iwanna Lahody (2012-P002742). I believe you are not hearing the truth about Iwanna’s health and living conditions. She is deathly thin, having lost 30 pounds since her placement at the Carlton. For clothing, she is wearing hand me downs, with holes and stains. Three months ago mom lost her front tooth (partial) and it has not been replaced. Iwanna wears a strong eyeglass prescription and cannot see without them. Four pairs of glasses have disappeared and Rehab Assest replaces them with $10.00 generics. I have spent my own funds to give mom the proper glasses and they were gone in 2 weeks. My mom was always a private person, but at the Carlton she shares a room with at least 2 other people.
I feel guilty every time I visit mom, because I am forced to lie to her why she is at the Carlton. My mom had a hard life. Her entire family escaped communism in the 1930’s and spent WW 2 in a German camp. Her dream was to come to America and now when I visit, she states that she hates America for keeping her at the Carlton. My mom thought she did everything to protect herself by doing a trust, POA –etc. Her second husband had Alzheimer and mom placed him in a nursing home for the last 3 years of his life. She went every day to feed and change him.
Iwanna’s wishes were to die in her own home. She witnessed what happened to her husband and thought she could afford her true wishes.
I just want to make you aware that Amy McCarty had a huge conflict of interest by not
notifying the court that her husband, Dr. Timothy Mikesell was partners with my mom’s physician, Dr. Robert Moss, who signed the CCP 0211A.
The polar vortex did not cause the boiler to break, Mike Singler did. My attorney notified
FMS Law in October, that the heat had to be turned on, which they neglected to do, so the radiators burst not the boiler.
Very truly yours,
This is one of the most complete lists I have seen.
Affirmative defenses are generally listed at the time an Answer or Counter claim is filed, and an Answer to A complaint or counter claim may be made at any time prior to trial and may be done freely where “justice so requires.”
List of Affirmative Defenses (Partial): Colorado
– failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted (almost always use)
– statutory defenses prerequisites (these will vary depending on the claims)
– preemption by federal or other law
– accord and satisfaction
– arbitration and award
– assumption of risk
– economic loss rule
– contributory or comparative negligence
– intervening cause
– supervening cause
– claimants own conduct, or by the conduct of its agents, representatives, and consultants
– discharge in bankruptcy
– cardinal change
– set off
– failure of consideration
– fraud (generally, as an equitable defense, as opposed to fraud in the inducement, below)
– fraud in the inducement
– injury by fellow servant
– borrowed servant
– res judicata
– statute of frauds
– statute of limitations
– unclean hands
– no adequate remedy at law
– failure to mitigate damages (or, in some circumstances, successful mitigation of damages)
– rejection of goods
– revocation of acceptance of goods
– conditions precedent
– failing to plead fraud with particularity
– no reliance
– attorneys’ fees award not permissible
– punitive damages not permissible
– lack of standing
– sole negligence of co-defendant
– collateral source rule (common law) or as codified in statute (see, e.g., C.R.S. Section 13-21-111.6)
– improper service
– failure to serve
– lack of consent
– undue influence
– contrary to public policy
– restraint of trade
– alteration of product
– misuse of product
– charitable immunity
– misnomer of parties
– failure to exhaust administrative remedies
– frustration of purpose
– prior pending action
– improper venue
– failure to join an indispensable party
– no private right of action
– execution of public duty
– breach by plaintiff
– failure of condition precedent
– anticipatory repudiation
– improper notice of breach
– breach of express warranty
– breach of implied warranty
– parol evidence rule
– unjust enrichment
– prevention of performance
– lack of privity
– merger doctrine
– learned intermediary or sophisticated user doctrine
– adequate warning
– no evidence that modified warning would have been followed or would have prevented injury
– manufacturing/labeling/marketing in conformity with the state of the art at the time
– res judicata
– assumption of the risk
– product was unavoidably unsafe
– product provides net benefits for a class of patients
– damages were the result of unrelated, pre-existing, or subsequent conditions unrelated to defendant’s conduct
– lack of causal relationship
– act of god (or peril of the sea in admiralty cases)
– force majeure
– failure to act in a commercially reasonable manner
– doctrine of primary or exclusive jurisdiction
– failure to preserve confidentiality (in a privacy action)
– filed rate doctrine
– good faith
– prior pending action
– sovereign immunity
– truth (in defamation actions)
– suicide (in accident or some benefits actions)
– adverse possession (in trespass action)
– mutual acquiescence in boundary (in trespass action)
– statutory immunity (under applicable state or federal law)
– unconstitutional (relating to statute allegedly violated)
– insanity (normally in criminal context, but may have some application in civil suits linked to criminal acts)
– self-defense (in assault, battery, trespass actions)
– permission/invitation (in assault, battery, trespass actions)
– Section 2-607 UCC acceptance of goods, notification of defect in time or quality within reasonable time
– at-will employment
– breach of contract
– hindrance of contract
– cancellation of contract/resignation
– circuitry of action
– discharge (other than bankruptcy)
– election of parties
– election of remedies
– joint venture
– lack of authority
– mutual mistake
– no government action
– reasonable accommodation
– safety of employee (ADA)
– statutory compliance
– no damages (where required element of pleading)
– termination of employment
– undue burden (ADA)
– wrong party
This morning up with the thought that the Supreme Court of Illinois has been reported to not having ruled on the outrageous and unconstitutional charges that Larkin and his co-conspirators brought against Attorney JoAnne Denison. That was outrageous, but so typical of the modern criminal political elite.
Today, we no longer have young people intolerant of their elders. No longer does a young defense lawyer in a wrongful death lawsuit think: “my client did him a favor by putting him out of his misery.” (I know that such thoughts were made – in 1960 something an insurance defense lawyer actually said that to me when I made my demand for compensation for the wrongful death of my client’s husband – and the father of her grown children.)
To many of the youth of today (and too many of our political and judicial leaders) we – the elderly – are prey! We serve no purpose and are a burden on society. Our savings is being wasted on such luxuries as food, clothing, keeping warm in winter and cool in the summer ***. Corrupt judges, corrupt administrators, corrupt public figures, corrupt judicial officials all feel that our saving are better off in their hands than *****.
The disgraceful conduct of the judicial officials and public figures recounted on Probate Sharks, NASGa, MaryGSykes **** blogs is the tip of the iceberg even though the examples curl your hair. The assault on our First Amendment rights and Federal and State legislation cannot be tolerated.
Some of the victims and their families are timid and say nothing, however, there is growing body of people who legitimately want action even if they have to toss the baby out with the bathwater and/or resort to various forms of ‘self help!’ The frustration is not a secret, nor is it a secret that some of the victims and their families have little, if any, desire to wait one second longer before they act.
For half a decade I for one have been pleading for an HONEST investigation and Justice. The family of Alice Gore has been also pleading for Honest justice and restoration of basic core values of America. ***** (the list is endless). Even the Government Accounting office has been demanding a remedy – HOWEVER, we have come up empty.
We need that HONEST investigation and vigorous prosecution of the miscreants now! We need the conspiracy stopped in its tracks.
So arrogant are the guardians for profit and the crooked judges who pave the way so that they can rob the elderly and their families that in the AW case (Florida) when the Appellate Court of Florida ruled that the guardian had no right to touch the personal assets of AW, the judge assessed attorney fees against AW for complaining of the guardians action. He then awarded the guardian the stolen funds. When AW appealed the guardian just drew down her funds and stole her money. (She called me – as I am suspended from the practice of law and was never licensed in Florida I can do nothing for her; however, I recommended that she talk to law enforcement and in particular Federal law enforcement as elder cleansing is an interstate crime and the violation of her civil rights is a serious matter.
This morning I wrote:
Elder lives Matter
If a man from Mars were to visit North Korea and then visit Illinois what differences would he see?
1) Corruption: If our Man from Mars visited the 18th Floor of the Daley Center and if he stumbled upon one of the hearings held in relation to the guardianship cases the level of corruption in North Korea and in Illinois would tip toward Illinois. Historically the Communist countries are careful to observe all the non-essential procedural procedures. In the Sykes case 09 P 4585 the miscreants were careful to observe virtually none. In Korea there would have been ‘show trial’ and the drugged Mary Sykes would have been displayed. In Illinois not only were the notices ignored by so was the hearing. Attorney Peter Schmiedel when asked specifically if there was a competency hearing he told the truth. There was a hearing on some care plan – no competency hearing was every held. In North Korea only a few party members are involved; however, in Illinois everyone and his brother is involved. Even the IARDC (administered by Larkin) is involved.
2) Free Speech. Once again the edge goes to Illinois. Our restriction on speech is much more draconian. When I tried to do a preliminary investigation the two guardian ad litem, the attorney for the guardian, and the corrupt presiding judge tried to intimidate me not to do so. The fact that they did not have jurisdiction did not bother them. When they were called on the issue and I wrote the Attorney General of the United States, and requested an Honest Investigation, Jerome Larkin and his co-conspirators stepped up and the Illinois Supreme Court took suspended my law license for four years. No pretense – pure unadulterated assault on the First Amendment and Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution.
(In North Korea there would have been some diversion – after someone looked at the Sykes file and discovered the lack of jurisdiction was obvious, an obvious fiction was invented. The fiction – the people who were entitled to prior notice had knowledge. NB – not prior knowledge, but knowledge. Unfortunately, unlike the North Korean propaganda machine the fiction was obviously outlandish. No hearing was held. Thus, Free Speech does not exist in Illinois.
In Illinois the deprivation of Civil Rights is not an isolated situation. Larne Amu echoed an expose of Crain’s Chicago Business’ someone who pulls Larkin’s puppet strings objected and Amu was charged with lying about the integrity of a judge. The fact that the judge could not and did not deny the averment was irrelevant. Mr. Amu has a black skin so that his complaint allegedly created a clear and present danger and he received an interim suspension.
JoAnne Denison as a private citizen and as a lawyer operates a blog. In that blog she reprints the call for an HONEST investigation and embarrassing facts. Amongst the facts she has reported on is
· Each of the miscreants has a very discouraging and embarrassing biography.
· Mary Sykes was competent at the time that she was seized, isolated, stripped of her liberty and property. The blog even displayed videos in which Mary demonstrated her competency.
· Calls for an HONEST investigation. (Strongly objected to as unethical by the two guardian ad litem and Mr. Larkin)
· Facts of similar indiscretions by the miscreants
· Fact of atrocity and other assaults by persons acting in conspiracy with the Sykes miscreants and/or acting on their own to commit other heinous crimes. In particular the exploration and the harvesting of gold from the mouth of victim Alice Gore.
· Cover=up by Larkin and his co-conspirators and participation in criminal activities by said 18 USCA 371 conspirators.
· Making public 18 USCA 4 and Rule 8.3 reports to law enforcement and the IARDC.
3) Lack of Due Process. Using the Sykes case 09 P4585 the two elements of due process – i.e. Notice and hearing are both missing. In Gore and other cases there appear to be some notice and a sham hearing. Declare a person to be incompetent – with or without perjured testimony of a medical expert – and there is a total loss of all civil rights. The fact that Americans with Disabilities Act and 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3b prohibits this scenario elder lives and rights are forfeit. Taking property without due compensation and/or due process are par for the course. These are the very elements of the elder cleansing and guardian for profit scheme.
4) Special privileges for special people. If you look at the Sykes case, Cynthia Farenga was obviously upset when she read in Probate Sharks that Ms. Denison and I were calling for an honest investigation. She wrote a letter to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (IARDC) claiming the call for an Honest investigation was unethical and even sent to the IARDC a copy of the page of the blog. Almost immediately disciplinary proceedings were commenced against me. Shortly thereafter they were commenced against Attorney Denison.
Like proceedings in North Korea no action was taken by the IARDC to investigate, court rules that apply to every lawyer were ignored, and intentionally false pleadings were filed by Mr. Larkin and by his co-conspirators. All safeguards – such as the requirement to present competent evidence – were ignored. In fact when Judge Stuart was caught perjuring herself no problem existed – the transcript was altered to delete the admission of perjury. Serious crimes = including crimes against Nature and against humanity that occurred in many of the guardianship cases and in particular in the Gore were ignored by authorities. When a favored guardian ad litem, who was responsible for horrible crimes against Alice Gore and others, filed in a Florida courtroom a totally perjured claim and such was reported the Mr. Larkin and the IARDC the reporting citizen was told that such was not unethical in Illinois. On a blog quite frequently the perfidy of the favored lawyer guardian is referred to and reported for another criminal act – the IARDC (and apparently law enforcement can care less)
5) Predetermined determinations and sentencing. Again Illinois has an edge. It is my understanding that even though the Supreme Court of Illinois has not affirmed the ethically and morally offensive proceedings orchestrated by Jerome Larkin against JoAnne Denison, JoAnn Denison has been suspended from the Practice of Law in Illinois on an interim basis. This summary suspension occurs only when there is an imminent danger to the public. Amu was suspended on this basis as he has the wrong color skin! I was not granted an interim suspension as my skin is lily white and I live in a Chicagoland community in which may political heavyweight reside. I had also been cycling with a former special agent of the Department of the Treasury and our wives were friends.
The interim suspension is a harsh and procrustean punishment intended only to be used in the emergency situation when a real hazard to the public exists. Larkin’s stooges and co-conspirators alleged that Attorney Denison authored a blog. (Protected by 47 USCA 230). In this blog she informed law enforcement of Americans With Disabilities violations, civil rights violations, human rights violations and other felonies 18 USCA 4, Rule 8.3, 340 ILCS 20/4, 735 ILCS 3, 755 ILCS 5/11a 0 1 et seq, 18 USCA 241, 18 USCA 242, 42 USCA 1983, 18 USCA 1341 etc). Larkin claimed that this act of complying with the aforesaid statutes constituted something similar to crying fire in a theater. Larkin then patently lied claiming that recent Supreme Court cases provided him with authority to silence citizen (if the citizen was a lawyer) exposure of criminal acts by judges, lawyers, judicial officials et al. He cited the Alvarez case improperly failing to note that his argument had been specifically rejected by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court of Illinois rubberstamped the interim suspension. HOWEVER, it has come to my attention that the Supreme Court now having all the phony, perjured, and wired proceedings that Larkin dreamed up before it, it has not affirmed Larkin’s gang rape of America’s justice system. This action by the Supreme Court in not doing its job as disreputable and disingenuous. They thus would fit right in in North Korea or a radical Islamic state (ISIS).
The leader of North Korea could set up shop in Illinois and most of us would notice the difference. In many ways even though he is ‘insane’ and badly in need of a Illinois guardian for profit, his benign and intolerant leadership would be consistent with Illinois moral and fiscal bankruptcy exhibited almost daily on the 18th Floor of the Daley Center here in Illinois.
Genocide as a public policy has a certain ring to it. Now that we have people of color being cleansed in certain communities, immigrants no longer welcome on our shores, law enforcement people available for target practice in other communities and **** maybe the elimination of the elderly (whose bodies and riches have some interest to the corrupt judges, lawyers, judicial officials et al) is consistent with the Illinois sovereignty. Kim ***** (the leader of North Korea) endorses genocide and certainly the lawyer disciplinary commissions of Illinois agrees – BUT, I have a problem with the concept and the operation of the program. It is this problem that caused Mr. Amu, Ms. Denison and yours truly to be suspended from the practice of law – WE EXERCISED OUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO PROTEST! The political elite, the judicial elite and the savior of North Korea all objected to the protest. Except in the case of JoAnne Denison the Illinois Supreme Court rubber stamped – they have Denison in limbo in an effort to dishearten and intimidate her. All for her saying the words: “Elderly lives matter!”