From the Wall Street Journal–$700,000 in fees in 30 months–what a Guardianship is all about!

More mainstream media coverage!  Yes.  The title?  ABUSE PLAGUES SYSTEM OF LEGAL GUARDIANS.  And they act like it’s something new.

From the Wall Street Journal, an article on the g-ship of Linda McDowell, 71 years old.

But guardianship systems across the country are plagued by allegations of financial exploitation and abuse, despite waves of overhaul efforts. As a result, critics say, many elderly people with significant assets become ensnared in a system that seems mainly to succeed at generating billings. “These laws which were designed to protect the vulnerable are being used against them to exploit them,” says Dr. Sam Sugar, founder of Americans Against Abusive Probate Guardianship, an advocacy group.


But the roughly 1.5 million adult guardianships in the U.S. involve an estimated $273 billion in assets, according to Anthony Palmieri, auditor for the guardianship fraud program in Palm Beach County, Fla.


“My savings are gone,” says Ms. McDowell, now living in a motor home near Sequim, Wash., with her dog, Sam. “They took everything.”

How the nursing homes are becoming far more dangerous than ever imagined–now they call in SWAT teams!

from the following article:

After first describing how a SWAT team descended upon an animal shelter for housing for one night a fawn abandoned by its mother, came the note:

Eleven days later and less than 100 miles away, staff at a nursing home in the Chicago suburb of Park Forest called paramedics after 95-year-old World War II veteran John Wrana, suffering from a delusional episode, refused medical treatment. The paramedics in turn called the police, which further agitated Wrana, who threatened them with his cane and a knife. The police responded by shooting Wrana with stun guns and bean bags fired from a shotgun. Wrana died from internal bleeding shortly thereafter.

Jerome Larkin head Aministrator of the ARDC has joined forces with attorneys and judges to make sure that YOUR parents and grandparents are routinely housed in nursing homes against their will and without their or YOUR consent.  It’s called a guardianship and it occurs everyday on the 18th floor of the Daley Center in the Illinois Court System and throughout the nation.  Helen Stone does not want to be in a nursing home, and she has been crying every day for her daughter, but when her daughter comes and advocates for her care, Barbara Stone, herself a lawyer, is arrested and charged with “interferring with the care of a disabled person”.  Mary G. Sykes did not want to ever go to a nursing home, she wanted to die at home, and the court system ignored all of that and let her Guardian, Carolyn Toerpe, put her there against her will when Mary wanted to live with her younger daughter at home until she died.  On May 23, 2015, Mary Sykes was narcotized to death, the younger daughter rushed to the nursing home and found her heavily drugged and in a near complete stupor.  Mary Sykes NEVER took drugs. She was a staunch Roman Catholic organic vegetarian and would NEVER consent to hospice.   In July of 2014, myself and a concerned group of 3 other citizens found Mary in a nursing home and went to visit. She was walking and talking as usual and engaging in higher cognitive level thinking.  She clearly knew her daughter Gloria who came and her friends Scott and Delores.  A video was taken for 45 minutes.  The Naperville police would later destroy it upon orders from a court appointed attorney and the Guardian (of death) under threat of arrest.  Mary exhibited no signs of dementia in July of 2014, and death by dementia does not happen in less than one year’s time, but the ARDC, the Illinois Supreme Court and the probate court were all begged to investigate this case, and instead, the case was covered up by the ARDC.  Mary Sykes was listed on blogs like this one and others that her life was “at risk” but no one lifted a finger to save her.  Two attorneys, myself and Ken Ditkowsky, were suspened for 3 and 4 years respectfully for reporting this to the authorities and on the Probate blogs.  The ARDC clearly engaged in a cover up operation with the help of the Illinois Supreme Court.  Recently the ND of Illinois joined forces in the conspiracy of death for Mary G Sykes by suspending myself.  They had already suspended Ken Ditkowsky a year prior.

Seniors currently at risk the ARDC, Illinois Supreme Court and the ND Illinois courts do nothing about after abuse has been reported are:

Alan Frake:  contusions and undiagnosed hip pain, drugging with psychotropic drugs for no diagnosed psychiatric condition other than he is  (or was) a feisty old man.  The use of chemical restraints on seniors is illegal under FDA and AMA guidelines and is considered an act of Torture under the Geneva Convention.

MP: selling her home and valuables falling off inventory.  When the money is gone they will narcotize her to death too.

IL;  Son illegally evicted, items fallen off inventory, son without property or money.  Mother in nursing home where she does not want to be.  Home emptied.  She too will be narcotized to death when money runs out.  Please pray for them all.

Pray for the ARDC to see Truth and Justice


Please join with us in calling these actions what they are–clear cases of severe abuse of our elderly and disabled.

No senior should be forced in a dangerous nursing home against their will, but they are every day.

A SWAT team should not be responding to an incident at a nursing home–a staff of trained orderlys and a psychiatrist should.  The death of even one 95 year old man at a Park Forest nursing home is a great tragedy for the State of Illinois that should not be put in the same category as your average banana republic that has no hope and no rights for its residents.

Dirty Attorney pleads to Misprison of Felony for covering up cop’s crimes

Apparently the DA attorney a Ms. Worrell had a “close relationship” with a dirty cop who handcuffed a suspect, beat him up and shoved a gun down the victim’s throat.

Instead of helping the victim file charges against the officer, the DA helped the police officer file false charges against the victim, adding insult to injury.

It is believed Ms. Worrell will face only 18 months probation for her crime.

If Larkin is involved he would just give her a reprimand.

For reporting on dirty attorneys and such in Illinois honest attorneys get suspended for 3 to 4 years.

From Ken Ditkowsky — The Cover up by US Govt officials continues….

To: Illinois ARDC <>
Cc: Probate Sharks <>, “JoAnne M. Denison” <>
Subject: Complaint against all the Jerome Larkin co-conspirators
Date: Oct 29, 2015 1:51 PM
The cover-up of the Elder Cleansing scandal has grabbed my attention and marvels me.     It is absolutely amazing that public officials have the temerity to act with criminal intent and actually get away with it.  Every day it puzzles me that here in America so many senior citizens and disabled people are literally kidnapped, and robbed of their dignity and few are even concerned.    Indeed, when a rapist is loose in a neighborhood everyone starts locking doors and windows, walking in pairs, and a hue and cry is raised.     However, when an elderly and/or disabled person is seized, packaged into one of the hell hole nursing homes to lie in his/her own urine pursuant to an ultra vires court order not even a mouse stirs!     The media goes mute, law enforcement goes blind, and the public goes deaf.     Worse yet people who will be targeted as future victims walk with vigor and determination right into the makeshift gas chambers of the American holocaust.
Watching the debate last night reminded me of just how far we have allowed ourselves to be diverted from the core values of America.     One of the guiding principles of America is the concept of ‘fair play’ and ‘honesty.’      The candidates for public office were protesting the obvious attempts by some people referred to a moderators trying to divert them into chaos and fighting amongst themselves for fun and profit.    Questions of the type – do you still beat your wife – were beyond the intellectual capacity of the moderators, but they have gotten out of style in the 21st Century.     The disclosure mechanism of a debate was absent as the moderators reduced the serious business to a sporting event.   Who won became more important than who, if anyone, is best suited to be the President of the United States.
The seriousness of exposing the character, intelligence, ability, and personality of the person who become the next President of the United States was (and is) on the back burner.     Billions of dollars are going to be wasted (and are wasted) in the packaging of a product that will exemplify the skill of PR people rather than the competence of the candidate.       This perversion is designed with great skill.    Unfortunately, it undermines America’s core values and leads to a general disregard of our humanity and our freedom.   It also trickles down as ‘elder cleansing,’ ‘racial cleansing’ and ‘ethnic cleansing.’
The Lanre Amu case of the Illinois Lawyer Disciplinary Commission (IARDC) is an example of racial and ethnic cleansing of the Jim Crow variety.     Amu, a citizen who immigrated to America from modern Africa, who possesses a darkest hue to his skin literally echoed a complaint made by the respected publication Crain’s Chicago Business when he encountered a law case in which the Judge was on the Board of the defendant, and the Judge’s brother was the attorney for the defendant [1].    Amu made a fatal error – he complained to the IARDC.     Before he could turn his head he was labelled a liar and was suspended from the practice of law by the Illinois Supreme Court.       Ms. Diane Nash (an Icon of the Civil Rights movement and a leader in the Selma march) sought to observe the kangaroo hearing that the IARDC was conducting against JoAnne Denison [2].    She was barred from the hearing room.    In Spite of there being empty seats the IARDC told her (Ms. Nash) there were none and barred her from the hearing room.
How did the Illinois Lawyer Disciplinary Commission get away with this outrage?     The political class has determined that they are ‘special’ and entitled to evade the laws that the rest of us are required to observe.    The Wall Street Journal noted how a presidential candidate tried to evade disclosure laws and got caught.     Here in Illinois public employees have to provide an ethics statement disclosing their financial information.     A search of the ethics filings reveals that the Illinois Lawyers Disciplinary Commission administrator (Jerome Larkin) and a number of other public employees on the staff of the IARDC just ignore the law.      Thus, the editorial from the Wall street Journal is applicable locally to demonstrate just how the elite public employees hold us = the ordinary citizens – in contempt and disrespect us, to wit:
Clinton’s Accidental Transparency
Let down by her overconfidence that the homebrew server would remain secret.

Oct. 25, 2015 4:46 p.m. ET
No wonder  Hillary Clinton  feels aggrieved by her congressional grilling on Benghazi. She had the hard luck to be secretary of state in the Internet era, when digital secrets escape despite the best efforts to keep them hidden. Unintended transparency is better than none.
In an earlier era, the American public would never have learned Mrs. Clinton knew during the attack that it was a planned operation by terrorists and not a spontaneous protest as the administration insisted.
Mrs. Clinton kept her more than 60,000 emails off the State Department’s server. They came to light only because the House Select Committee on Benghazi discovered her secret email system. Those emails—not Mrs. Clinton—were the star witness at last week’s hearing, disclosing with precision who knew what when. ****

Free and support the Unity 5 Journalists in Myanmar Jailed for Free Speech

One of the things Myanmar is severely lacking is free speech.

In this article we have Muslims being banned from political office:

Next, we have Amnesty International complaining about the Unity 5 or 5 banned imprisoned journalists for merely speaking the truth:

On World Press Freedom Day we remind the government of their promises to foster a free press and demand freedom for the ‘Unity Five’.

“What I want is more media freedom.” These are the words of Tint San, Chief Executive Officer at the Unity newspaper in Myanmar during his trial. His crime? Doing his job.

In January 2014, weekly newspaper Unity published an article about an alleged secret chemical weapons factory in Magwe Region, central Myanmar. Reporting that the factory was built in 2009 on land that was confiscated from farmers.

The government was quick to deny the story and responded by seizing copies of the newspaper. But worse was to come. Within days, Tint San and four journalists Lu Maw Naing, Yarzar Oo, Paing Thet Kyaw and Sithu Soe, were arrested…..

Jerome Larkin would be proud. Citizens arrested in a banana republic for telling state secrets on how their government poisons the populace with deadly chemicals .  While the Myanmar government refuses to fund food, clothing, medical care or education for the populace, it wastes money on the military and on containing deadly chemicals.  The release of waste of vast amounts of “military” money always seems to fall under “state secrets.”  The production of vast amounts of deadly chemicals–for whatever reason–also seems to fall under “state secrets.”

Likewise, somehow the publication of vast amounts of attys and judges acting badly in court and not following the law falls under the Jerome Larkin umbrella of “code of silence”–a secret society that must be protected at all costs.

The Unity 5 were just doing their job when they were jailed, and likewise, when Ken Ditkowsky, I and Mr. Amu pointed out to the court there were obvious conflicts of interest, we were suspended for the necessary and evil “code of silence”–a code of silence that made it possible for Dorothy Brown to function for years screwing up the Cook County Court system with her brand of corruption.


From Ken Ditkowsky–Time to Dismiss the Labryinth of Lies

To: “” <>, Illinois ARDC <>, ISBA Main Discussion Group <>, “” <>, ABA Commission On Racial and Ethnic Diversity In the Profession <>, AARP Inc <>, The Disability Discussion Docket – Official E-mail List of the Commission On Disability Right <>, DOEA INFO <>
Cc: Probate Sharks <>, Tim NASGA <>, “JoAnne M. Denison” <>, Nasga Us <>, Eric Holder <>, “FBI- ( (” <>, Chicago FBI <>, “J. Ditkowsky” <>, Bev Cooper <>, Janet Phelan <>, Matt Senator Kirk <>, Chicago Tribune <>, FOX News Network LLC <>, SUNTIMES <>, Fiduciary Watch <>, “” <>, Diane Nash <>, Ginny Johnson <>, Candice Schwager <>, “Y. ACLU” <>, Cook County States Attorney <>, Scott Evans <>, Edward Carter <>, Glenda Martinez <>, RosANNa Miller <>, Alyece Russell <>, Rabbi Moshe Soloveitchik <>, Tom Fields <>, Jay Goldman <>, Barbara Stone <>, “” <>, Nancy Vallone <>, Eric Blair <>, Cook Sheriff <>, Len Holland <>, Elaine Renoire <>, Robert Sarhan <>, John Howard Wyman <>, Kathie Bakken <>, “Jim (” <>, Martin Kozak <>, Janet Phelan <>, KRISTI HOOD <>, Mary Richards <>, Doug Franks <>, 60m Cbs News <>, Martha Jantho <>, ACLU of Illinois <>, “Truthbetoldradio (” <>, Dow Jones <>, “” <>, Harry Heckert <>, Teresa Lyles <>, Pam Zuckman NBC <>, Beverly Newman <>, “JoAnne M. Denison” <>, Angela Woodhull <>, Andy Ostrowski <>, “Esq. Dr. Richard Cordero” <>, Douglas Kinan <>, “Dr. Rich Swier” <>, AARP <>
Date: Oct 27, 2015 6:32 AM
What is amazing is the effort that has been made to keep politics out of the Elder Cleansing scandal.    There has been almost no attempt to brand the American Holocaust a consequence of this or that Republican or Democratic program, even though so many horrendous criminal ventures are fostered and sponsored by political operatives.     Indeed, the assaults on the First Amendment promulgated by Jerome Larkin could not be sustained in a State in which the political machinery does not benefit from the corruption.   Indeed, we are all aware that by a wave of his hand the political leader of the dominant political party can quash any HONEST investigation and quash the collection of billions of dollars in tax money due from the conspirators.      It is no secret that the corruption is widespread and very profitable.
Behind the scenes the 18 USCA 242 and 18 USCA 371 criminals are laughing at us.      Interestingly in spite of very slow tangible progress and up to now an almost total media blackout the ‘fighters’ who stand at the barricades fighting off the elder cleansers do not give up.    Indeed, each of us is convinced that ultimately we will see the Jerome Larkin 18 USCA 242/18 USCA 371 elder cleansers in orange jumpsuits in the custody of the United States Department of Justice.       Like it or not, we believe in America and her democracy.
Why is there no hue and cry for us?     Why don’t we pick on some political soul and make a whole new religion out of him/her?    We would love to do exactly that, however, each of us realizes that there is no quick fix to the problem of elder cleansing.      Abuse of the elderly and the disabled is as old as human race.     Exploitation of the weak is not a new state of affairs either.     Assisted involuntary suicide is prohibited by the Ten Commandments.    We by hook or crook are going to make any of the Jerome Larkin co-conspirators into saints.      We cannot get them to remediate even the grosses of their crimes.     I wrote Larkin asking him to apologize for his racial discrimination that he openly and notorious committed when he barred a civil rights icon from the kangaroo hearing he conducted in the JoAnne Denison case.     He did not respond!     Instead, he continued to violate citizen civil rights.   In a similar manner, the Guardian ad Litem in the Gore case is not going to stop authoring fictitious claims for her own benefit.   (Heirship in a Florida estate, oral promissory notes, imaginary thefts ***)     The Guardian ad Litems in the Sykes case are not going to cease their opposition to HONEST investigations of criminal conduct ******.         However, hope and justice is eternal but clout trumps both in Illinois and in too many State of the American union.
There is hope however on the horizon.      For instance, in the political specter we are actually seeing career political characters being pilloried for their same old, same old.      Last week we saw a former Secretary of State without shame disclose the bureaucracy of the Department of State was so bogged down in itself that not only could  it not act to protect is own personnel but it was impotent in just about every way possible.      The former Secretary further disclosed that instead of admitting to the America public that she and the Department had underestimated the playing field’s condition they just literally made up a lie and disseminated it.      She showed no remorse!      Lying to the American public was Standard Operating Procedure.      Of course the usual knee jerk apologists for this political operative tried to divert attention from the serious admissions of wrongdoing and incompetence; but like Larkin’s cover up it appears a large segment of America was not fooled.      Up is not down, Down in not up, Right is not wrong, Wrong is not right.     The old strategies of the political class are not working and political favorites are not this election cycle getting away with the  BIG LIE!.      The message is clear – Americans want HONESTY and integrity from their government.      America wants to be rid of the corrupt lawyers, corrupt judges, corrupt judicial officials as well as the corrupt political figures who figure that if they can buy elections and we are not smart enough to distinguish between Ivory Soap and Joe/Mary Candidate for public office.
Ironically not one political operative has openly and notoriously joined the fight to protect the elderly and the disabled from the predators who are raping our health care system and our safety valves that were represented to prevent hordes of elderly and disabled people from becoming homeless and destitute.   It was not the intention of the Good Deal, the New Deal, the Fair Deal, the War on Poverty to be unjust enrichment programs for ‘sheltered care facilities’ such as nursing homes, hospice ****.     Overcharges in services, pharmaceuticals etc was similarly not contemplated.    The 700% fraud surcharge was a bit of a surprise.    The usual 25% medium government fraud quotient was expected even though it also was a scandal.       To reiterate it was the good intention to actually benefit a strong segment of the population that motivated the ADA, guardianship legislation, health care legislation etc.
All good deeds are properly punished and this situation was no exception.    Intelligent criminals realized opportunities that were virtually unlimited and with the assistance of criminals in tailored suits and black robes did the deed – and are still doing the deed.    So why do we laud our restraint!       Many of us are realizing that we have an ally!        Everyone gets old and everyone become vulnerable.    The predators are no exception.      The jurist who has traded his white sheet and hood for a black robe is not only no exception, but, he/she is a prime target of his 18 USCA 242 friends.       The guardian ad litem who conjured up a scheme to silence a dissenter will ultimately find herself in her cousin’s nursing home getting the physical therapy (at government expense) consisting of being wheeled from her bedroom into the hallway so doped up that memories will be vague recollections of fantasy.     Her predator has no loyalty to her.      Interestingly, as government moves closer to closer to bankruptcy the taxman will make an appearance.     Here in Illinois the billions of dollars in income taxes, interest and penalties due by the Jerome Larkin 18 USCA 242, 18 USCA 371 co-conspirators will not be overlooked as the anticipated and obvious tax rebellion comes to the fore.
Note to the bad guys!     We do not need to be vocal, aggressive or nasty.      Note to the political types!    We do not need you – you are prime victims and if you do not exercise self-interest and protect the elderly and the disabled there is a bed waiting for you at the **** Nursing home where you will enjoy laying in your own urine as the life blood is sucked out of you and your family by the Jerome Larkin 18 USCA 371 and 18 USCA 242 co-conspirators.
Note to the rest of us!     We are not alone!      The issue of elder cleansing is not a partisan issue – it is a human issue and too many of our self-designated political leaders do not see their self interest in effectively addressing the problem.    More meaningless laws that are unenforced is not the answer and everyone knows it – especially the political types.     Being rich and famous do not give immunity from elder cleansing!    Mickey Rooney is an example that come immediately to mind.       We need HONEST investigations and Honest prosecutions of the Jerome Larkin 18 USCA 371, and 18 USCA 242 elder cleansing co-conspirators.    Honest proper criminal prosecution and tax collection will not only take the profit out of isolation, abuse, exploitation and deprivation of human rights.
The Labryinth of Lies has to end right here and now.     It is now time for an HONEST investigation and prosecution of the Jerome Larkin 18 USCA 242/18 USCA 371 co-conspirators and the protection of the elderly and the disabled.

FBI used to investigate political conservatives and suppress First Amendment speech

from the Wall Street Journal:

Our readers know that Democratic prosecutors in Wisconsin tried to criminalize the political speech of Governor Scott Walker’s allies, but it turns out their ambitions didn’t stop at the state line. New evidence shows that John Doe investigators were trawling the files they collected via subpoenas and search warrants for information on national conservatives.

The documents are under seal in a state court case, Eric O’Keefe and Wisconsin Club for Growth v. Wisconsin Government Accountability Board (GAB), but two sources have read them to us. The lawsuit is a complaint against the GAB, the state agency that worked with Milwaukee prosecutors on the John Doe that used campaign-finance laws to trample the First Amendment.


This is all entirely interesting that Wisconsin is a hot bed of supressing the First Amendment, because union complained they could not protest at the capital when Wisconsin became an “open union” state where workers could take a job but turn down membership in the union.

Many of these protestors were arrested and denied their right to protest in an open public forum.

However, it is apparent that they did not engage in the tactics of a fishing expedition to take out their opponents by having the authorities “look for” criminal activity where there was clearly no “reasonable suspicion” or “probable cause” that any crime had been committed.

In mine and Ken Ditkowsky’s ARDC cases, we were both told by clients that the ARDC contacted them and wanted them to testify against us, which is clear prosecutorial misconduct. Apparently those words mean nothing to the ARDC or the Illinois Supreme Court, but Wisconsin is getting heat for supression of First Amendment rights.


Spiegelman’s Cease and Desist letter to this blog regarding the Helen and Barbara Stone Case

As many of you are aware, an attorney from Florida wrote a Cease and Desist letter to me regarding removing all content for “any and all cases in Miami Date County, Floorida relative to Barbara Stone, Helen Stone and/or the Guardinship of Helen Stone, and any and all parties participants counsel who have appeared, including Roy R. Lustig and Judge Michael A. Genden…..”

I would like to know why this guy is covering up corruption in the Florida court system?  What is the point of that? Who is he actually working for and why is he doing this?

In any case, I have emailed him and I am waiting to hear from him regarding why he is attempting to suppress my (and your) first amendment rights to publish what Barbara Stone has told us.

It must be an important case, because it’s expensive and risky to send out these letters.

I am actually honored to know that someone thinks my work in uncovering corruption is so important it warrants an attorney letter clearly supressing my first amendment rights.

I will let you know how this attorney responds, if at all.


email to Atty Spiegelman re:  Barbara and Helen Stone cases.

Dear Mr. Spiegelman;

I would like to interview your offices for my blogs, and esp. as it relates to the Stone case.

Or you can start by answering the following questions:

  1. how did you come to write the cease and desist letter, what prompted you?  What attorneys were involved in drafting up this letter or requesting that it be drafted?
  2. are there any court orders requiring that you do this?  can you provide copies?
  3. Barbara insisted that her mother was in danger and that the State was trying to kill her mother.  Has she dropped this assertion?
  4. Is Barbara able to see her mother now?
  5. Has the Guardian filed a Citation to Recover for the $600,000 in allegedly forged checks that brother wrote from Helen’s funds?
  6. Do you believe that a cease and desist letter to a blog directed at uncovering court corruption is appropriate?  Do you have any caselaw to support your letter?
  7. Do you generally draft letters that supress and/or violate the First Amendment to the US constitution?
  8. How often have you drafted First Amendment Supression letters?  Is this a form on your computer?
  9. Are you aware that 18 USC sec 4 may make you liable for the felonies that others commit when you write to me regarding violations of law rather than the authorities?

Your answers and a telephone interview would be greatly appreciated for the readers of my blog and other probate blogs.

please email me with a time that is convenient for you



Apparently the Feds are closing in on massive nursing home profits vs. deaths and injuries in nursing homes

California’s largest nursing home owner is facing a new round of government scrutiny as the FBI served search warrants last week at his Riverside facility, and two more of his former top administrators have been charged criminally by the state attorney general’s office.

FBI spokeswoman Laura Eimiller confirmed Saturday that FBI agents executed search warrants “seeking evidence in relation to alleged criminal activity” at a 99-bed facility in Riverside owned by nursing home magnate Shlomo Rechnitz.

His stable of nursing homes in California has expanded rapidly in the last decade, giving him control of about 1 in every 14 skilled nursing beds in the state, according to a Bee investigation. With an estimated 80 homes under his control, Rechnitz has widespread influence on the quality of care being delivered in skilled nursing facilities, which serve some of the state’s most vulnerable residents.

The Bee found that homes he owned for all of last year were tagged with nearly triple as many serious deficiencies per 1,000 beds as the statewide average in 2014, according to the latest figures from the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

It would be amazing to see the financials on these nursing homes and the ties to the courts and clouted lawyers.

New Law to be Promoted–the Uniform Veterans Guardianship Act–Nevada Law

For those of you fortunate to live in a state that has this Uniform Guardianship Act which protects Veterans, you can see all the wonderful benefits.

At least someone thought to give Veterans some wonderful rights. They need to keep on going, tho and I have, many, many suggestions for them.

It is attached here:

Uniform Act for Nevada:

Some highlights of the act:

AN ACT concerning the guardianship of incompetent veterans, orphans of deceased veterans and other incompetent and minor beneficiaries of the veterans administration; to provide penalties for the violation of the provisions of this act; to declare the effect of this act; and to repeal all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with the provisions of this act.

Sec. 3. Administrator of veterans affairs, party in interest. The administrator of veterans affairs, or his successor, is and shall be a party in interest in any proceedings brought under any law of this state for the appointment of a guardian of a veteran of any war or other beneficiary on whose account benefits of compensation, adjusted compensation, pension or insurance or other benefits are payable by the veterans administration, and the said administrator or his successor is and shall be an interested party in the administration of the estate of any such ward on whose account such benefits are payable or whose estate includes assets derived from benefits paid by the veterans administration, its predecessor or successor, and written notice shall be given by (registered) mail unless waived in writing to the office of the veterans administration having jurisdiction over the area in which the court is located, of the time and place for hearing on any petition or pleading or in connection with any proceeding pertaining to or affecting in any manner theadministration of the estate of any beneficiary of the veterans administration. Said notice shall be deposited in the mails not less than 14 days or such other period as the court may order prior to the date of such hearings or other proceedings: Provided, That in case of any proceeding or hearing notice of which is not required by the statutes in such case made and provided to be given to the interested parties thereto, either by personal service, mailing or advertisement, notice thereof need not be given to said office of the veterans administration.

Limitation on number of wards. Except as hereinafter provided, it shall be unlawful for any person to accept appointment as guardian of any ward if such proposed guardian shall at that time be acting as guardian for 10 wards. In any case, upon presentation of a petition by an attorney of the veterans administration under this section alleging that a guardian is acting in a fiduciary capacity for more than 10 wards and requesting his discharge for that reason, the court, if it determines that such guardian is acting in a fiduciary capacity for more than 10 wards, shall require a final accounting forthwith from such guardian and shall discharge such guardian in said case.
The limitations of this section shall not apply where the guardian is a bank or trust company. An individual may be guardian of more than 10 wards if they are all members of the same immediate family. For the purposes of this section, such appointments in the same immediate family shall be counted as 1 appointment only.

Sec. 4. Administrator of veterans affairs, party in interest. The administrator of veterans affairs, or his successor, is and shall be a party in interest in any proceedings brought under any law of this state for the appointment of a guardian of a veteran of any war or other beneficiary on whose account benefits of compensation, adjusted compensation, pension or insurance or other benefits are payable by the veterans administration, and the said administrator or his successor is and shall be an interested party in the administration of the estate of any such ward on whose account such benefits are payable or whose estate includes assets derived from benefits paid by the veterans administration, its predecessor or successor, and written notice shall be given by (registered) mail unless waived in writing to the office of the veterans administration having jurisdiction over the area in which the court is located, of the time and place for hearing on any petition or pleading or in connection with any proceeding pertaining to or affecting in any manner the
administration of the estate of any beneficiary of the veterans administration. Said notice shall be deposited in the mails not less than 14 days or such other period as the court may order prior to the date of such hearings or other proceedings: Provided, That in case of any proceeding or hearing notice of which is not required by the statutes in such case made and provided to be given to the interested parties thereto, either by personal
service, mailing or advertisement, notice thereof need not be given to said office of the veterans administration.

Limitation on number of wards. Except as hereinafter provided, it shall be unlawful for any person to accept appointment as guardian of any ward if such proposed guardian shall at that time be acting as guardian for 10 wards. In any case, upon presentation of a petition by an attorney of the veterans administration under this section alleging that a guardian is acting in a fiduciary capacity for more than 10 wards and requesting his discharge for that reason, the court, if it determines that such guardian is acting in a fiduciary capacity for more than 10 wards, shall require a final accounting forthwith from such guardian and shall discharge such guardian in said case.
The limitations of this section shall not apply where the guardian is a bank or trust company. An individual may be guardian of more than 10 wards if they are all members of the same immediate family. For the purposes of this section, such appointments in the same immediate family shall be counted as 1 appointment only.

Guardian for incompetent; prima facie evidence of necessity.
Sec. 6. Prima facie evidence of necessity for guardian—incompetent.
Where a petition is filed for the appointment of a guardian of a mentally incompetent ward a certificate of the administrator, or his duly authorized representative, setting forth the fact that such person has been rated incompetent by the veterans administration on examination in accordance with the laws and regulations governing such veterans administration; and that the appointment of a guardian is a condition precedent to the
payment of any moneys due such person by the veterans administration, shall be prima facie evidence of the necessity for such appointment.

Guardians; notice of filing petition for appointment.
Sec. 7. Notice. Upon the filing of a petition for the appointment of a guardian, under the provisions of this act, the court shall cause such notice to be given as is provided by law. If demanded, jury trial shall not be denied.

Sec. 10. Penalty for failure to account.
If any guardian shall fail to file, with the court or the veterans administration as required by this act, any account of the benefits received by him from the veterans administration on account of his ward within 30 days after such account is due, or shall fail to furnish the veterans administration a true copy of any account or of any petition as required by this act, such failure shall be ground for removal.

Sec. 11. Compensation payable to guardians shall not exceed 5% of the income of the ward during any year. If such compensation appears inadequate, the court may upon petition and after notice to the veterans administration and hearing thereon, authorize such other or additional compensation payable from the estate of the ward as shall be deemed just and reasonable. Notice of such petition and hearing shall be given the proper office of the veterans administration in the manner provided in section 9 of this act.

Insane veteran; commitment, procedure.
Sec. 16. Commitment of insane veteran. Whenever it appears that any veteran is eligible for treatment in a United States veterans’ facility and commitment is necessary for the proper care and treatment of such  veteran, the court of the county in which the veteran is found, may, upon receipt of a certificate of eligibility from the veterans administration, and if the veteran be adjudged insane in accordance with law, direct such veteran’s commitment to the veterans administration for hospitalization in a United States veterans’ facility.
Thereafter such veteran upon admission to any such facility shall be subject to the rules and regulations of the veterans administration and the chief officer of such facility shall be vested with the same powers exercised by superintendents of state hospitals for mental diseases within this state with reference to the retention, transfer or parole of the veteran so committed. Notice of such pending commitment proceedings shall be furnished the person to be committed and his right to appear and defend shall not be denied. The commitment of a veteran to a veterans’ facility within this state by a court of another state under a similar provision of law, shall have the same force and effect as if such commitment were made by a court of this state.

Construction of act.
Sec. 17. Liberal construction. This act shall be construed liberally to secure the beneficial intents and purposes thereof and shall apply only to beneficiaries of the veterans administration.

from Joanne:

This Uniform Act should be passed in all the states and not just a few.  Since the Catherine Falk Organization is passing legislation for the disabled, I call upon them.



From Ken Ditkowsky–Inciting hatred and fomenting citizen unrest by the ARDC

Date: Oct 26, 2015 10:55 AM
Jerome Larkin and his 18 USCA 371, 18 USCA 242 co-conspirators are probably the most dangerous but ignorant miscreants in America.   Their smugness and arrogance endangers not only you and me, but ever other citizen in America.    What have they accomplished except create incredible Federal and State Income tax liability for themselves and join in the theft of several billion dollars in case as they dehumanized a finite number of senior citizens and disabled people?
Larkin is dangerous because he in addition to his criminal conspiratorial felonies has undermined our (yours and mine) sense of security.    Before Larkin demonstrated the venality that he and his co-conspirators represented I believed that I (and my wife) were completely safe from elder cleansing.   Then I read about Bev Cooper’s bout with the ethically challenged criminals who represented themselves to be lawyers, guardians at litem, judicial officials, judges etc.     Her million mother, who had a support network, was taken from that support network to be ravaged, abuse, exploited, dehumanized and finally terminated.
How did this happen?    A totally venal and corrupt judge united with totally and corrupt lawyers in their mutual quest for the life savings and other benefits that could be obtained from Alice Gore.    These felons were protect not only by a code of silence, but by a full fledge 18 USCA 242 and 18 USCA 371 conspiracy.    The facade created rivals the Nazi and Communist show trials.    By conjuring up fabrications that had no basis in fact so as to isolate Alice Gore from her support network the miscreant felons could at leisure pick at the bones of their victim.    (False allegations of misconduct against Mrs. Cooper telegraphed exactly what was going to be in store for Mrs. Gore – 1.5 million dollars disappeared into the pockets of the designated corrupt lawyers, judges, judicial officials and other co-conspirators – the Court was used to attempt to intimidate Mrs. Cooper into silence).
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights is our cornerstone of American Democracy.   Our support base is the lynch pin of our survival within the democracy.   Larkin and his criminal co-conspirators threaten both.   Personally, my equilibrium is maintained because every day I am able to retire into the arms of my spouse.  Therein I am safe!  My environment including all the trials and troubles are out of sight and out of mind.     
What happens if she is no longer available to me.   I have children and grandchildren.  Each is support for me; however, Alice Gore had children!   How was the GAL in the Gore case able to thwart that support base?    Misrepresentation and deceit readily accepted by a wired and corrupt judge wore a web of deceit and isolated Gore from her support base.    The false and totally untrue claims of theft brought against Ms. Cooper did not have to be proved.   The corrupt judge allied with the venal and amoral GAL appointed a ‘adjudicated mentally ill relative’ as plenary guardian so that the facts and the circumstances could be maneuvered.    Alice was isolated!    Once isolated there was no longer any support network.
Larkin has demonstrated just how easy it is to in the 21st Century to wire a case and how the walls close so that no one hears the cries for help.   The totally foreign and amoral assaults on Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution and the Bill of Rights of the American Constitution by Larkin is striking.   The fact that he has gotten away with such terrorism and criminal behavior is amazing – AND A WARNING.
America is unique.   The cornerstone of our Democracy is Freedom of Speech.   Our credo is = I may not agree with you and I may think your statement to be repugnant, but I will fight to the death to protect you right to utter your statement!

Today’s Wall Street Journal has an article on the subject, to wit:

French Far-Right Leader Marine Le Pen Goes on Trial on Charge of Inciting Hatred

National Front president compared Muslim street prayers with the Nazi occupation of France

National Front leader Marine Le Pen arrived at a Lyon court with her lawyer Tuesday to face a charge of inciting racial hatred.

Breaking News–Democrats finally drop support for Dorothy Brown

In light of numerous investigations, scandals and now a grand jury, the Dems have finally dropped Dorothy Brown

My only beef with her is she stood by and did NOTHING for computerization of the courts.  I was told by a Pacer sales rep years ago she COULD have signed up with Pacer, they would have set up a system for the Cook County Courts in a few months and the public would only have to pay 8 cents per page.  This was the year 2000.

Maybe now she is  a lame duck, she will computerize the system and make it cheap and free for all–despite the unconsitutional Illinois law that says the public has to pay for copies $1 for the first page, $.50 for the next 20……

Ridiculous rip off.

These documents belong to the public.  They do not belong to anyone else, including the county and the rip off state legislature.

Someone needs to sue.  The public needs and deserves public access to ALL court records.  The public deserves free or cheap access to their own documents.

I am sorry that Dorothy Brown is going down, but she has to learn that Illinois is not a “pay to play” political system.  Dorothy B. is an attorney sworn to uphold the Illinois and US constitution.  I know there have been many valid citizen complaints lodged against her.  I know that the ARDC and JL knew for years what she was doing and did NOTHING to protect the public from her.  I further know this because in the ARDC complaint against me, the ARDC “squeaked” about my calling DB on the carpet for 1) saying she charges the public too much for copies and 2) she refuses to get computerized because it’s likely she’s hiding somthing or protecting clouted attorneys who play with court records.  The ARDC went nuts.  DB is an elected official and no one to get all squeaked about when you throw criticism at her.  But now it turns out there is a long line of “pay to play” that they authorities were told of and they did nothing until the uproar was so much that even the FBI had to take action.  On the trib and ST websites they mention the “pay to play” in hiring and other nefarious scandals for a dirty pol.

I want to know when the FBI is going to do SOMETHING about the fact that the ARDC, and in particular Jerome Larkin has known about all this dirt and sh** for years and has DONE NOTHING.  Ms. Brown is still listed on the ARDC website as a stellar atty whom you can trust.  Atty Seth Gillman is still listed on the ARDC website as a stellar atty whom you can trust–despite being indicted by the Feds for $100 million in medicare fraud, JL says he is one great guy.  Yeah right.  Why doesn’t the FBI investigate THAT crapola and do something about it.

I have honestly come to the conclusion that in 2002 Mary Robinson, a good and faithful atty was removed from the ARDC to make way for the likes of JL and his mob style of fashioning that department and protecting the likes of Ms. Brown and Mr Gillman, two of the worst leeches on society until they actually and finally wear orange jumpsuits.  They put in place JL so the public has no right to know about nefarious conduct and activities of attorneys.  Why doesn’t the ARDC link Gillman’s record to the FBI record?  Why doesn’t the ARDC link Ms. Brown to those trib articles?  They don’t even suggest that the public Google these two nefarious characters for valid, negative media content so the public is warned.

The purpose of the ARDC is to protect the public from the dark, negative and nefarious attorney.

Instead, the ARDC gets rid of the likes of myself, Ken Ditkowsky and Lanre Amu by misciting precedent, engaging in clearly clouted activities of protecting nefarious attorneys until they finally go down.

The Rosemond v. Markham case ( makes it clear the ARDC has no jurisidiction to regulate my column or blog, they have clearly engaged in First Amendment violations, and yet they persist.  Not only do they persist, their entire trial of me was a series of felonies, spoliation of evidence and suppression of due process as witnesses changed testimony on the stand (Stuart) and transcripts were changed.  Why the FBI took out Stuart and not the miscreants who changed/alter/spoilated transcripts is beyond me.  As far as I am concerned, they can just go in and boot out the likes of Jerome Larkin, Sharon Opryszek, Leah Black Guiterrez and all others complicit in violating mine and Ken’s First Amendment rights and put Mary Robinson back in place until the Illinois Supreme Court finds some attorneys that actually follow the US constitution and Illinois Constitution and files their Ethics reports as mandated by the Illinos Ethics Reporting Act of 2009, does not have a string of “mortgage payoffs” on their public records that are uninvestigated and does not on a regular basis dismiss valid citizen complaints.

What committe audits Jerome Larkin and his ARDC counsel Grogin?  How are the taxpayers assured that these two are not complicit with the mob and don’t have players like the court system does, with the likes of Dorothy Brown, two Tim Evans daughters making $100k each with high school diplomas for “court scheduling” (which is supposed to be random), together with Rosemary Roti, daughter of a known gangster Frank Roti.  And what about Marilyn Fishburn who directs court reporters to make court transcripts more favorable to the clouted attys and judges?

You heard it all first here. And for that, the (corrupt and crooked) ARDC suspended myself and Ken Ditkowsky for 3+ years.



First Amendment Quote of the day

from Wikipedia:

In 1776, the second year of the American Revolutionary War, the Virginia colonial legislature passed a Declaration of Rights that included the sentence “The freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic Governments.” Eight of the other thirteen states made similar pledges.

Tip from a reader–NY is using SDMC for end of life decisions–to be investigated further

Effective June 1, 2014, the SDMC Program was moved to the Justice Center’s Schenectady office.  All correspondence and case information should now be sent to:

SDMC Program
NYS Justice Center for the Protection of People with Special Needs
401 State Street
Schenectady, NY  12305

SDMC Program staff and fax numbers remain the same.

The Surrogate Decision Making Committee Program is an alternative approach to the court system for obtaining an informed decision regarding non-emergency major medical treatment on behalf of people with intellectual, developmental, mental health, alcohol or substance abuse disabilities unable to make their own decisions or who do not have a relative or legally authorized surrogate willing to make the determination on their behalf. Eligible individuals are or have been in a residential program or received services from a program operated, licensed or funded by the Office for People With Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD), the Office of Mental Health (OMH), or Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services (OASAS). Individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities may also be eligible for end of life care decisions.

When a true medical emergency exists, New York State law allows physicians to provide these individuals with emergency treatment without waiting for consent. If the proposed major medical procedure is not of an emergency nature, and there is no one authorized and willing to provide informed consent or refusal of treatment on behalf of the individual, one option is obtaining a court order for treatment. That process is sometimes expensive, impersonal and time consuming, and often results in a delay in obtaining needed medical services for the person.

Surrogate Decision-Making Committees (SDMC) are intended to provide a quicker, more easily accessible, cost-free and personalized decision on behalf of individuals with disabilities.

  • Average time from receipt of case in SDMC to hearing and decision – 14 days
  • Expedited hearings also available
  • Second opinions are NOT required
  • Patient attends the hearing
  • No fees to either the patient or their provider agency

The SDMC Program has a small professional staff at the Justice Center and contracts with non-profit agencies in different parts of the state to process cases in their regions. The hearing committee decision makers are trained volunteers appointed by the Justice Center who function through panels comprised of four members.

If you are interested in learning more about the SDMC Program or becoming an SDMC volunteer, or receiving training, please call 518-549-0328 or 800-624-4143. TTY Dial 7-11 for the NYS Relay and give the operator 518-549-0328 or 800-624-4143. You can also email

From Ken Ditkowsky — A Just Cause questions the IRP6, a railroaded case of injustice

The Jerome Larkin 18 USCA 242 conspiracy along with the Illinois Supreme Court rubber stamping of his assaults on the First Amendment raise sever questions concerning the integrity of the justice system.   I’ve forwarded this e-mail because it is necessary for the legal profession and the law enforcement authorities to root out the corrupt judges, corrupt lawyers, corrupt judicial officials and the corrupt public officials who are polluting our justice system and subverting our Bill of Rights.

From: A Just Cause <>
To: ‘kenneth ditkowsky’ <>
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 8:40 AM
Subject: Part II: A Just Cause Continues To Question the Integrity of Justice and Due Process of the Appellate Court of the Tenth Circuit in the IRP6 Case

Source: A Just Cause
October 22, 2015 09:40 ET

Part II: A Just Cause Continues To Question the Integrity of Justice and Due Process of the Appellate Court of the Tenth Circuit in the IRP6 Case

A Just Cause Contends That Appellate Court Conspired With the Lower Court to Violate Due Process and Civil Rights of Wrongly Convicted IRP6

DENVER, CO –(Marketwired – October 22, 2015) – A Just Cause (AJC) continues to explore the injustices and inequities that occurred in the IRP6 case, particularly with respect to the Appellate Court decision, which side stepped multiple critical issues in their decision against the IRP6, irresponsibly upholding the decision of the lower court. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeal for the IRP6 case consisted of a three-judge panel that included Senior Judge Bobby R. Baldock, Judge Harris L. Hartz, and Judge Jerome A. Holmes (Judge Holmes wrote the opinion) (D.C. No. 1:09-CR-00266-CMA, Appellate Case 11-1492).
The IRP6 are six executives that worked at IRP Solutions Corporation, which was raided in February 2005. After the raid, false charges of mail and wire fraud were brought against the six executives known as the IRP6 — David A. Banks, Kendrick Barnes, Demetrius K. Harper, Clinton A. Stewart, Gary L. Walker, and David A. Zirpolo — who were all tried and wrongly convicted in 2011 for failure to pay debts to staffing companies related to completing software development work for sales to law enforcement agencies, specifically the Department of Homeland Security and the New York City Police Department (D. Ct. No. 1:09-CR-00266-CMA).
A Just Cause released a press release that focused specifically on the transcript and highlighted what the Honorable Judge H. Lee Sarokin, a well-respected, retired federal judge with many years of sitting on the appellate court, said about the case. He authored a five-part article series, ‘The Case of the Missing Transcript,’ on the Huffington Post, where he argues strongly in favor of the IRP6 and acknowledges the injustices in the case put forth by the government. Excerpts of Judge Sarokin’s conclusion declare, “…I still cannot shake my belief that an injustice has occurred in respect to their guilt…The government’s contention that their business was nothing but a scam defies reality…Now, although all of the legal arguments have been neatly sewn up and put aside, I cannot help but believe that the fabric of justice has been frayed in the process.”
“There are many unanswered question in the wake of the IRP6 Appellate decision. The missing transcripts that would substantiate a violation of their Fifth Amendments rights is just one of many questionable things that occurred in the case. There were also violations of the Speedy Trial Act, denial of bond pending appeal with conflicting accounts as to whether the appellate panel ever saw it, and expert witnesses who were denied the right to testify on behalf of the IRP6,” says Lamont Banks, Executive Director of A Just Cause. “The Tenth Circuit appellate judges, Baldock, Hartz and Holmes failed to do their due diligence in this case and simply rubber-stamped the decision of the lower court. There is little evidence that supports them looking at this case with fresh eyes or digging any deeper into the issues raised on appeal. The fact that they ruled against previous Tenth Circuit precedent is also of tremendous concern,” remarks Banks.
“We encourage everyone to look into the facts in the IRP6 case with an open mind and consider the deception of the courts. A Just Cause is certain that people will arrive at the same conclusion — many things went terribly wrong in the IRP6 case and multiple parties, working on behalf of the government as well as the court, have acted unlawfully and dealt treacherously with the IRP6. A grave injustice occurred for these men, all law abiding citizens with no prior criminal records, and it must be rectified,” concludes Banks.
“The calculations are clear regarding the Speedy Trial violation in this case,” argues Gwendolyn Lawson, IRP6 Appellate Attorney. “There are 48 days that were unaccounted for that neither the defense nor the prosecution requested. A review of the calculations will show that this is an egregious violation of the Speedy Trial Act,” adds Lawson (IRP 6 Case – Appellate Case: 11-1492, Document: 01019289332, 8/4/14).
“A Just Cause made an interesting finding when reviewing the Tenth Circuit’s decision. The case law cited was nearly a verbatim copy and paste from the Larson case (IRP 6 Case – Appellate Case: 11-1492, Document: 01019289332, 8/4/14 and United States v. Paul Andrew Larson, No. 09-4172, 627 F.3d 1198 (10th Cir. 2010)). But, the outcomes diverged with the court granting Larson’s appeal while rejecting that of the IRP6,” exclaims Lisa Stewart of A Just Cause.
Regarding the IRP6 Speedy Trial violation assertion, the opinion by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals states, “At best, Defendants [IRP6] have demonstrated only one factor, the first, that weighs in favor of finding a violation of their constitutional right to a speedy trial. All other factors weigh against them. Accordingly, the balancing of the four factors establishes that Defendants’ Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was not violated,” (IRP 6 Case – Appellate Case: 11-1492, Document: 01019289332, 8/4/14).
Court records show that in the appellate case of United States v. Paul Andrew Larson, the opinion by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals states, “In summary, Barker’s first factor weighs in favor of Mr. Larson’s claim of a Sixth Amendment violation, while the remaining factors weigh against Mr. Larson. Absent extraordinary circumstances, Barker counsels us not to find a violation of the right to a speedy trial when the defendant’s actions indicate he had no desire for a speedy trial. Moreover, while prejudice is not essential to a violation, this court is reluctan[t] to find a speedy trial deprivation where there is no prejudice. Accordingly, upon balancing the four Barker factors, we conclude that Mr. Larson’s Sixth Amendment speedy trial right was not violated,” (United States v. Paul Andrew Larson, No. 09-4172, 627 F.3d 1198 (10th Cir. 2010)).
The opinion in the Larson case further states, “…[a]n indictment must be dismissed if the Speedy Trial Act is violated, but this dismissal may be with or without prejudice. A violation of the speedy trial requirement, by itself, is not a sufficient basis for dismissal with prejudice. Dismissals with prejudice should be reserved for more egregious violations of the Speedy Trial Act. For the reasons set forth above, we REVERSE the district court’s denial of Mr. Larson’s motion to dismiss for violating the Speedy Trial Act, AFFIRM the district court’s denial of Mr. Larson’s Sixth Amendment speedy trial right claim, and REMAND this action for the district court to determine whether the indictment should be dismissed with or without prejudice. Because we reverse and remand for a violation of the Speedy Trial Act, we need not and do not address Mr. Larson’s remaining claims,” (United States v. Paul Andrew Larson, No. 09-4172, 627 F.3d 1198 (10th Cir. 2010)).
“How does the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals review the Larson case in 2010 and Reverse and Remand it back to the lower court, but four years later cite Larson in the IRP6 opinion, but rule against precedent, upholding the lower court’s decision?” questions Stewart (IRP 6 Case – Appellate Case: 11-1492, Document: 01019289332, 8/4/14 and United States v. Paul Andrew Larson, No. 09-4172, 627 F.3d 1198 (10th Cir. 2010)). “This case is full of contradictions and irregularities. The Tenth Circuit needs to consistently apply the law in all cases; such inconsistent rulings lead one to believe that other factors, beyond justice, balance and fairness are at play,” declares Banks.
A Just Cause also inquired why the court documents in the IRP6 case had not included a signature block for the judges. “No judge’s signature or signature block was on the replies from the court and this raises questions,” says Appellate Attorney Lawson. “I question why Clerk of the Court Elisabeth Shumaker’s signature block appears on all of the documents instead of the panel of judges,” questions Lawson (D. Ct. No. 1:09-CR-00266-CMA).
“I inquired with one of Judge Holmes’ assistants after the bond pending appeal document was not being signed by a judge, I was told that all judges on the panel had to review and sign off on those types of motions,” states a representative of A Just Cause, a strong supporter of the IRP6 and volunteer with A Just Cause. “Judge Holmes shows as the writing Judge, but there is no signature and that is a concern,” a representative of A Just Cause continues. “In reviewing the IRP6 case, it’s ironic that you can put two cases next to each other, both citing a Speedy Trial violation and get two different rulings, yet both opinions were by the same judge, Judge Holmes,” concludes a representative of A Just Cause (IRP 6 Case – Appellate Case: 11-1492, Document: 01019289332, 8/4/14 and United States v. Paul Andrew Larson, No. 09-4172, 627 F.3d 1198 (10th Cir. 2010)).
The A Just Cause representative was also given the run around when attempting to find out the status of both, the appeal and the bond pending appeal. A representative of A Just Cause called one appellate judge’s chambers, and spoke to several appellate judges’ assistants. She also spoke with Doug Cressler, the Chief Clerk for the Denver Appellate Court at the time. “On February 25, 2014, Claudette, Judge Hartz’s judicial assistant at the time, told me ‘cases were sent back to Colorado when they were done. They don’t keep any of the information in their office,’ when I inquired about the status and delay of the IRP6 appeal decision. She gave me the phone number to call the Appellate Court office in Denver for help,” states a representative of A Just Cause.
“A few weeks later on March 11, 2014, I called Doug Cressler, Chief Clerk in Denver Appellate Court. I told him I was given his name and number by Judge Hartz’s Judicial Assistant in New Mexico, who said he could help me. I asked him for the status of the IRP6 case. He asked for the case number and I provided it to him. He said, ‘The case was returned to this office in May 2013.’ I repeated, ‘May 2013.’ He said, ‘Yes, but it is still pending an Opinion.’ I asked, ‘Is an Opinion the same as a Decision?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ I asked how it is still pending when Appellate Judge Hartz’s judicial assistant said it was returned to your office. Cressler stated ‘they still have to make a final decision.’ In a follow up discussion later that day, however, Claudette stated, ‘It does not come back to this office,'” recalls a representative of A Just Cause. “It was just a confusing mess and despite multiple calls over several months to many different offices, A Just Cause was no closer to receiving answers about the IRP6 case,” concludes a representative of A Just Cause.
“Inquiries to the various offices regarding bond pending appeal was no different. Mary, Judge Holmes’ judicial assistant at the time, told me on July 1, 2014 that her office hadn’t received the bond pending appeal application filed on June 28, 2014. She asked where was it filed and I told her the Denver Office. She said, ‘Denver should have emailed it to us.’ Then I explained to her about the previous bond pending appeal motions and asked if they had received either of them. She said, ‘No, I check the computer every ten minutes or so to see if we have received any motions for review.’ I asked Mary what the process was for the Motions to get to their office and she explained that after filing in Denver; Denver logs them in and immediately emails them to the Appellate Judges. I asked if all the judges have to review and sign them and she said, ‘Yes, especially in cases of Bond Motions.’ Claudette from Judge Hartz’s office confirmed the same, that the bond pending appeal motion was not received,” states a representative of A Just Cause.
“A Just Cause representatives struggled to get answers from the courts and to date, we’re still unsure if the bond pending appeal motions were ever sent to the appellate judges by the Denver office, per the standard process. The IRP attorneys received decisions, signed by only clerks and inquiries on the status contrasted sharply and we didn’t know who to believe or where the documents were at any given time. Sadly, we may never uncover if the Denver office sent them to the appropriate judges for review,” remarks Banks.
“The sad part is that the men known as the IRP6 are away from their families and locked up for 87 to 135 months. They never got justice or the equal justice the United States espouses. A Just Cause will continue to pursue every avenue to bring them home to their families where they belong,” concludes Stewart.
For more information about the story of the IRP6 or for copies of the legal filings go to

Contact Information

A Just Cause
(855) 529-4252 extension 710
Additional Links and Tags

      Technorati Keywords:

IRP6A Just CauseSpeedy Trial ActTenth CircuitJudge Bobby BaldockJudge Harris HartzJudge Jerome HolmesHonorable H Lee SarokinCase of Missing TranscriptBond Pending Appeal

From Ken Ditkowsky — when will the Bar associations do what is right and fix the Probate situation?

Subject: Re: THE SHAME OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION – Justice Served with Andy Ostrowski
Date: Oct 22, 2015 1:14 PM
The use of disciplinary rules to silence disclosure of guardianship abuse, exploitation violations of ADA, corrupt judicial practices etc has been an is not only illegal but a violation of Rule of Law.     The criminals and Jerome larkin 18 UsCA 242 The
The co-conspirators involved have always known that their actions constituted Felonies.  This was and is true whether the conspiracy had a locus in Illinois, Florida, Texas, California, etc.    The case of Rosemond v Markham is consistent with the SCOTUS cases of Alvarez, Citzens United, and the entire line of recent First Amendment case and thus it was no surprise to any of the disciplinary panels that they and their 18 UsCA 242 co-conspirators that they were committing serious felonies.    In a similar manner the Courts affirming in or acting in concert with the terrorists who were assaulting America’s core values also knew or should have know that their actions were in violation of 18 UsCA 371 and 242.
This scenario is driven home by their enactment of Rule 8.3 which requires the very disclosures that lawyers have been punished for making.    It is however, conceivable that the Justices might not be familiar with the rules that they promulgate, but as lawyers they are deemed to know the law and 18 USCA 4 pops up as requiring the very same disclosures.
But for the element of corruption and the fact that so much money is involved and available for the criminal engaged in ‘elder cleansing’ (isolation, abuse, exploitation, deprivation of civil and human rights of senior citizens) there is no logical rationale for the Legal profession not to be leaders in the struggle to protect the elderly and the disabled (pursuant to ADA).     The American Bar Association, the State Bar Associations, and the Local Bar associations appear to be complicit inasmuch as numerous valid consumer complaints have been lodged with the professional associations (ABA, ISBA, CBA and others) only to be ignored at best or, at worst, valid complaint letters are even rebuked when a response is sent back wherein a representative of the bar association affirmatively aserts that they see nothing wrong with the Illinois and nationwide probate courts.      
All that said – let’s get started on whatever program you guys choose to remedy and punish this assault on America’s core values.     Some of us have attempted to ‘shame’ the 2nd oldest profession into acting with integrity and honor, however, it appears that the judiciary, and the lawyers who could re-mediate this situation are afraid to stand up and be counted.    The ABA is a great disappointment and certainly has not covered itself with glory.     The ABA should have been the first entity to demand an HONEST INVESTIGATION.

Every day that Jerome Larkin occupies the position as Administrator of the IARDC = or any office that has as its criterion a “public trust” the legal profession deserves the disrespect and shame that the public holds it.        

It is no wonder that the public believes that a bus loaded with lawyers falling into the river and every single lawyer perishing “a good start!”     If lawyers cannot or will not stand up for the American Constitution they do not deserve respect!

Ken Ditkowsky
From Joanne;
I just wanted to point out today that I just received another report of a person who clearly knows the time, date and place and president, and engages in very sophisticated conversation, yet was guardianized.  Shortly thereafter, in utter disgust, with all the person’s bank accounts wiped out, trust accounts wiped out and investment accounts wiped out, all credit and debit cards canceled, the person moved out of state and had no trouble obtaining a new state driver’s license!  In fact, the person passed with flying colors.  Let’s call this person “Grandpa George”. He is furious at what happened to him. George was not allowed to talk in court, so he got an attorney and then the attorney told him not to talk in court.  A tied in doctor hacked up a report.  He found out later that this attorney always tells the client they can get them out of the guardianship and files no papers to do so and lets the guardianship go thru and is good “friends” with the professional guardian.  The “guardian” has all his money so he is forced to live with friends while he attempts to wrest back control of some bank accounts they didn’t find and his social security. (Those are overseas accounts not subject to US court order). The guardian, as usual, refused to give him a dime to live on for nearly a year now, but insists he comes back to her state.  Gag orders have issued.
In court they guardianize, at the Driver’s License facility this person was commended for passing with flying colors–nearly every question right.  He found a few untouched bank accounts and got out of his home state.  The home has been emptied and put up for sale.   So far the attorneys fees have been huge but grandpa left after one month of g-ship abuse.  How can they justify that?

From Ken Ditkowsky–how miscreants and scallywags can control the situation to optimize their profitability

Now that we know Dorothy Brown is a “pay to play” princess of the court system (note I said “a princess” not “the pricess” I think, I have more than a few cases I would like to open up because I was told behind the scenes that the “random judge assignment system” is nothing more than a myth in the minds of the clouted.  Attorneys that really practice at the Daley Center find insurmountable odds in presenting their cases up against clouted law firms.  So far, 5 to 0, clout wins every time.

So from Ken Ditkowsky:

To: Janet Phelan <>, “” <>, JoAnne Denison <>, “” <>
Date: Oct 18, 2015 8:00 AM
The Answer is found in the Sykes case.
The attempt by Farenga to control Gloria Sykes should have given me the answer to the question.   Gloria had (has) a bunch of vulnerabilities.   Each of us is vulnerable and most of us are particularly vulnerable when it comes to family members.  Catholic Guilt/Jewish Guilt is our nomenclature.
The reason that Gloria could not be controlled was fortuitous.
The facts are simple.   After a long legal battle Gloria obtained a settlement of the mold claim on her home.   The judgment was substantial.    A quick check of the title revealed to the miscreants that:
1) the title to the dwelling was in Joint tenacy
2) the property was adjacent to Mary’s home and
3) that Gloria’s parents had most probably given the joint tenancy property to Gloria (actually, Gloria, acting pro se should have used a TODI or Transfer on Death Instrument, take note)
Thus, I suggest that the miscreants et al reasoned that Gloria would have guilt in not sharing the settlement with her mother.   Yes, she was using the funds to rehabilitate the house, but certainly some of the funds were being personally used.    Thus, the allegations of ‘conflict of interest’ and that that Gloria ******.
It did not work because the supposition was terribly wrong, and sibling rivalry and indignation was at a peak.   JoAnne Denison was also in the picture and JoAnne was aware that naked averments were not only false but lacked any basis in fact.   In fact, Mary was not even an insured on the hazard policy of insurance as her joint tenancy issue was Gloria’s way of estate planning –  she only had her mother to be concerned about as she had no husband, no children *****.
Now lets translate this situation to Carolyn.   (I am speculating)
Carolyn, the oldest child in the Sykes family had a husband and a daughter.   The husband was unemployed – the industry he choose was subject to chronic unemployment and he was always in the right place at the wrong time and the odd man out.   They lived in Naperville and well beyond their means.   Family members report that Carolyn was unhappy in her job and had few friends and little success.   She was the odd man out also in her family.
In desperation to say out of Bankruptcy, Carolyn helped herself to a couple of dollars from her mother’s bank account and got caught.   Mary reacted and a family altercation occurred that led Mary to over-react with a very public Petition for a Protective order.
When Carolyn sought assistance from one of the few friends she had, she was drawn to one of the families’ corrupt political “friends”   “Judge ****”    The Judge recommended a lawyer (who had a shady reputation) and the political wheels moved.
When Carolyn objected to what she knew was wrong and dishonest the rivalry between her and her sister was used to stir the waters and keep Carolyn on track.   In the beginning I am sure that Carolyn really believed that she was doing something good for her mother; however, the million dollars in gold coins, large sums of cash squirreled away by Mary, a generous pension, and life savings were great temptations.  This was especially true as the miscreants trained her to pay invoices that they gave her without thought.   They of course kept telling her how terrible Gloria was and how she was saving Mary from her ‘evil’ sister.
It was not long before Mary’s money paid for the remodeling of the home that Carolyn could only dream of before this occurred as well as the lavish wedding of the daughter.   Carolyn had not make application to the Court to use the money, nor did she have anything to distinguish her “theft” from that of any ordinary thief.   Worse yet, Gloria and other family members were quite knowledgeable as to what was occurring and complaining bitterly.    In anger Carolyn had struck her elderly aunt and lied to the police concerning the incident!
These facts were not lost on the miscreants.   They reminded Carolyn of her fiduciary relationship and made certain that she knew if she did not co-operate fully she personally would be put to the torch!    As Gloria sought justice and Mary’s friends screamed for an Honest investigation Carolyn became deeper and deeper involved and more and more a pawn of the miscreants.   She was constantly threatened – stay with the program or we are out of here.  Carolyn complied.
There are facts that give credibility to the theory.   The most striking is the fact that Carolyn never denied that she wrongfully entered the safety deposit box and removed a million dollars in gold coins.   The only denials have come from the miscreants and their co-conspirators at the IARDC–entities that have consistently blocked requests to depose and question her, filing one motion to Quash after another.  Just what did they need to Quash is my question.
Carolyn is too far into the quagmire to come clean at this point in time.   She will follow the lead of the miscreants even if it leads to rack and ruin.  She has violated every principle that she ever had or was taught.   There is no forgiveness or no redemption.
The miscreants are not dependent upon finding vulnerable siblings and no rule or act of humanity ever stands in the way of them accomplishing their nefarious goal.
Carolyn is not the usual pawn.   Most of us have a bit of larceny in is, but only a bit.   In most instances it is innocent and insignificant.  It does not override our personality and dreams, driving us and motivating us.  In several of the cases in which people have confided in me, to gain control the miscreants have encouraged breaches of fiduciary relationship by the child.    Remember, a fiduciary is held to the highest level of fidelity and honesty.    Thus, a fiduciary who does something as innocent as purchasing a suit of clothes with the ward’s money is guilty of a breach.
Please let me illustrate.   In the 1960’s a union officer went one evening to purchase a vehicle.   He picked out his car, and when it came to pay for it he found he did not have his checkbook, but he had the union checkbook.    Unthinkingly he wrote the check for the car out of the union checkbook.  This was a breach of fiduciary relationship even though the very next morning he reimbursed the union.    He also created an income tax liability and the IRS prosecuted him for not paying the taxes.   (This case was on the Bar examine – it is Kaiser v US)
Thus, a breach of fiduciary relationship occurred quite innocently.   Of course the GAL is obligated to report this breach to the Judge.   The judge interesting in getting a guardian for profit appointed so that he/she can get on the gravy train uses the event to sanction and surcharge the family member who needs controlling and  – you all know the rest.
Thus, if YOU become too co=operative with the United States Attorney, the Department of the Treasury, etc you can expect that quite innocently your bonding company will be writing you a letter demanding umpteen dollars, etc etc.
The miscreants will innocently point out –  Carolyn has **********>

From Ken Ditkowsky–Still not repentant for writing about the demise of Mary G Sykes and asking for an HONEST, competent investigation

Cc: “JoAnne M. Denison” <>, “Mr. Lanre Amu — Honest Atty Unfairly Persecuted By ARDC” <>
Subject: Fw: THE SHAME OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION – Justice Served with Andy Ostrowski
Date: Oct 17, 2015 3:13 PM
I think the Lanre Amu case is particularly interesting in that it has a racial card to play.   As I understand it Crain’s Chicago Business made the same averment that Amu made.   Larkin (IARDC Administrator) knowing that Amu’s statements were true, nevertheless made verified statements that they were untrue and directed his kangaroo panels to not only suspend Amu’s license but to ask for an interim suspension.   The suggestion of racism arises because Amu is a naturalized America who happens to be ‘black’ and from Africa. The subsequent barring of Diane Nash (a famous activist) from an open hearing by Larkin ( and his lack of apology confirms the racist nexus).  

JoAnne Denison’s situation is just as compelling in that she has a blog that discloses elder cleansing and other felonies.   47 USCA 230 protects bloggers from such an assault on First Amendment Rights, but Larkin (IARDC) not only flaunts Federal Law, but by his stooge Melisa Smart represented that disclosing felonies committed by corrupt lawyers (and jurists) is akin to crying fire in a crowded theater (an outdated legal standard from the turn of the 1900’s.    The reporting of criminal activity perpetrated against the elderly or the disabled under Illinois law is protected also by 320 ILCS 20/4.   The protection specifically runs to disciplinary proceedings.    Of course, Larkin and the Illinois Supreme Court ignored the immunity.

What this points out is that even though there was no need for the legislature (or the Congress) to provide parallel protections to the First Amendment and Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution because in their wisdom the legislative branch had no confidence that members of the judiciary or the executive branches of government would read the Constitution (Federal and/or State) they enacted redundant legislation that also would not be read or enforced.    

Indeed, neither the Constitution or the legislation has been observed and we wind up in this situation wherein lawyers who comply with Rule. 8.3 and/or 18 USCA 4 can be (and will be) suspended from the practice of law for years.    To the miscreants the Rule of Law as promulgated by the SCOTUS is just a technicality!  

My own situation is almost humorous.   I wrote a letter to the Attorney General of the United States asking for an HONEST investigation of the elder cleansing frauds.    I did this after I started making my FRCP 11 investigation and was not intimidated by threatening telephone calls from the guardian ad litem and the attorney for the wrongful plenary guardian in the Sykes case.   Even a sans jurisdiction ‘sanction order of almost $5,000.00 wrongfully assessed against me had no effect on me.   I appealed to the Appellate Court of Illinois and they were forced to reverse and nullify the sanction order.   Larkin (IARDC), upon the request of the other Guardian ad Litem in the Sykes case, instituted disciplinary proceedings against me when I continued to demand an HONEST investigation and the blog Probate Sharks published my demand.   (You cannot make this stuff up!    At my “hearing” before the IARDC another of Larkin’s stooges asked me if I was repentant for writing to the Attorney General of the United States requesting an HONEST investigation.   He literally drew a laugh as he held my letter to the AG in his right hand and waived it at me as if it was child pornography!   If it were, I probably would have gotten a commendation; however as I was never repentant (for reporting felonious activities of clouted lawyers and judges) I got a four year suspension of my law license.

As the entire situation is so absurd, I write every day to law enforcement demanding an HONEST investigation and the enforcement of the RULE OF LAW.    I also demand that as breach of fiduciary relationship is a taxable event that the miscreants and those who act in concert with them in violation of 18 USCA 242, and 18 USCA 371 pay all the Federal and State Income taxes (including Interest and Penalties) that are due proximate to the exploitation and confiscation of elderly and disabled person’s estates. 

Dorothy Brown, Clerk of Cook County–in the scandal news again

Dear Readers;

Since the ARDC was so obviously upset that I published questions regarding why isn’t the Cook County Court system computerized like the Northern District of Illinois Federal System since 2000 when Pacer or Public Access to Court Electronic Records was introduced (we have a very limited version of access to court filings outside of 50 W.Washington, and it’s for certain not public), no reason not to publish an update.

From what I’ve learned if the ARDC sqeaks when you mention certain topics, you know there’s a scab to be picked and it’s generally a scab of corruption that the public would like to remedy, preferrably with indictments and prision time.

Apparently, according to this new source:

Dorothy Brown is in trouble again, this time for taking a piece of land worth $100,000 and selling it.

I don’t know if any of you out there get $100,000 parcels of land out of the blue.

I also understand that DB has a lot more troubles ahead which will be coming out soon.

I still want to know why Cook County Courts don’t have Pacer or Public Access to Electronic Court Records or a version thereof.  And it should be reasonably priced at 8 cents per page too.

Oh, you can go to the Daley center and if you want court document images, you can get on a hard to use, antiquated data system, perform a nonintuitive user search, and then hope to find your case and the records and you then print them out document by document (and half are blank pages you may be required to pay for), and hope the printer doesn’t break down or screw up because then you will never get your records.  I have gone to print out just 15 or 20 pleadings, and I was there from 3 pm to 6 pm and I still haven’t gotten all the documents, but I for sure did pay for them.  I asked the supervisor to email them to me to save a trip downtown and that never happened.

The ARDC says we can’t tell the truth about the Cook County Clerk of Court.  I want to know why. So far we have learned she gets $100,000 parcels of land for no reason (hey, I want one of those, really?), she has questionable hiring and promotion results–some are promoted and some are never promoted according to one of my sources, she drags her heels at Public Access to Court Records and makes them as difficult and time wasting as possible to print out.

I don’t think I’m suspicious, I think I’m realistic, and you heard it from this blog first there is a deeper, darker side to all of this, and I know there is because the ARDC squeaks every time I mention the name Dorothy Brown and there’s something wrong going on becuase of the lack of computerization, the constant complaints about hiring and promotions, but now we have the $100,000 “gift” and conveniently the grantor is now dead.

We also know that the case schedulers (judge assignors) are two daughters of Tim Evans, the presiding judge who get $100k salaries each.  Why so much money?  We also know that Romary Roti, daughter of Frank Roti, a known mobster works there.  Really?  for that kind of money for a high school level job,  SHE has to be “helping out”?  What exactly is she helping out on.

And Judge Flannery files some bogus complaint about me, but I’m not the one with dozens of “lost” case files hanging out on a shelf in my ante room, the parties (Gloria Sykes) not getting any justice for years, which meant no justice at all.

All I have is questions and dark suspicions.

Primarily, this blog has predicted problems in dozens of areas that turned up with problems in the end, but the ARDC prosecuted ME for being the liar with a kangaroo hearing board and review board.

The show isn’t over until the fat lady sings, however.


A Most popular article on Probate from Ken Ditkowsky and footnote updates

read my essay and note that it needed to be updated.     The Rosemond v Markham case makes it very clear that Jerome Larkin’s assault on the First Amendment (and the Attornment by the Illinois Supreme Court) are not only ultra vires but serious violations of 18 USCA 241 and 18 USCA 242.  (they are serious because they relate to the death of a victim of elder cleansing).
I updated the article by footnotes in red, to wit:

Labels:  Yanan Wang
Friday, November 30, 2012

Editor’s note: Congratulations to Ken Ditkowsky! This essay is now in the all-time top 10 of the highest volume posts on the blog  Let’s hear it for K.D.   Lucius Verenus, Schoolmaster,

Seen on a T shirt for the holidays “I read the Constitution, it has great articles!”
Comment:  this shirt if worn by Jerome Larkin or his 18 USCA 242 comrades would be a prevarication.   
From Ken:
Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: Fw: [NASGAmembers] [New post] From Lisa Belanger in Mass. Her struggle to protect her father
In the Sykes case, Ms. Farenga, Mr. Stern, and the plenary guardian have not put in for any fees [1]. It is now three years! Adam Stern ‘for free’ spend dozens of hours prosecuting a Rule 137 motion against me knowing that the Probate Court had no jurisdiction and that any order that he could hoodwink a judge into entering would be reversed on Appeal. Cynthia Farenga has spent hundreds of hours examining the “probate shark, Nasga, and your ( blogs so that she could supply  Ms. Black with writings that depict the fact that you and I have been calling for an investigation of the terrible violations of civil and human rights that Mary Sykes has suffered. Indeed, even Peter Schmiedel has contributed to fiasco. Each of the aforesaid attorneys have spend hundreds of uncompensated hours so keep the ‘ball in the air’ so that a Probate Court Judge was not directly confronted with either having to refer the 42 USCA 1983 violation to the United States Attorney and/or the States Attorney of Cook County or over-rule the Appellate Court decision in Sodini. [2]  [3]These attorneys have not presented any substantial fee petitions for all their services to the Estate in protecting it from having to address the fact that Gloria Sykes protestations have merit and that a million dollars in gold coins was never inventoried!* Thus, if we use precedent the attorney acting for $5 dollars an hour my be getting too much! Farenga/Stern/Schmiedel are doing it for nearly free! [4]
I sent you by a separate cover a short essay
What happened to the Bill of Rights?
Title XI a of the Probate Court is a comprehensive legislative plan for the protection of the liberty, property, civil rights, and human rights of a person who is allegedly disabled. The First Ten Amendments of the Constitution are the ‘core’ of Americana. The Illinois Constitution of 1970 is a State reiteration of commitment of the State of Illinois to the Bill of Rights and 735 ILCS 110 et seq. is a more recent affirmation.
The Probate Court is a Court of limited jurisdiction.  It is not intended to be a ‘super court!’Thus, 755 ILCS 5/11a – 1 et seq. grants the jurisdiction to the Probate Court to address limited issues, and the legislature by using the word “shall” mandates the maximum protection for the alleged incompetent. Section 11a -3 mandates venue. Section 8 determines what must be in the petition. Section 10,11 (Jurisdiction) mandates jurisdictional criterion. Section 17,18 mandate the procedure and limitations on the guardians and their activities. The protection of the liberty rights of the alleged incompetent is the clear focus of the Legislation.
Unlike the mortgage foreclosure situation and the appointment of a receiver, the Rules are strict and unbending. Discretion that affects the Liberty right of an alleged incompetent is severely limited by due process requirement (proper notice and hearing). The hearing process is intended to be procrustean so that a ‘ward’ is not ‘willy/nilly deprived of the valuable liberty right. Thus, after the petitioner seeking to declare a person disabled or incompetent proves the fact by clear and convincing evidence the incompetency and the degree thereof, the guardian is limited to performing only the actions that the disabled person would have performed, and if there is question or something usual the guardian must seek a hearing on necessity (section 18). The generous use of the word “shall” is antagonist to what has been reported to have occurred in the Sykes, Gore, Wyman, Tyler and many other cases.
The Evidence Deposition of Justice M. Connors taken in my Illinois ARDC proceeding demonstrates the paradox that is creating a scandal that rivals Greylord and the fact that currently two Illinois Governors are tenants of the United States Department of Prisons. The Illinois Appellate Court and the Illinois Supreme Court have both acknowledged that 755 ILCS 5/11a -3 et seq. Is intended to protect the Liberty, Property, Civil and Human Rights. The protection is to place a simple ‘due process’ criterion upon the imposition of a guardianship on an alleged incompetent. Section 10 and Section 11 make it clear that Notice must be served on the close (near) relatives of the alleged incompetent. (See In re: Sodini 172 ILLApp3d 1055) [5]
The GAO report to Congress (Sept 2010) discloses that Illinois is not alone in what appears to be a systemic effort to deny seniors their liberty, property, civil and human rights. That fact many of the political community have been successful in perverting the aforesaid liberty, property, civil and human rights of the Mary Sykes of this world is not an excuse for what appears to be wholesale deprivation of liberty, property, human and civil rights of seniors. It does not exculpate law enforcement and the media for turning their heads to avoid observing the deterioration of the Rule of Law. It certainly does not obviate the duty of the Judges to understand and honor the decisions of the Appellate Courts, and not act where jurisdiction is not obtained. Indeed, as a lay citizen does not have the excuse of not knowing the law, certainly a Judge (who is paid over a $100,000 a year) has even less excuse in not knowing and/or following the law. (Compare the Sodini case with Judge Connor’s evidence deposition!).
Now to the prime question  – what happened to the Bill of Rights! The question is answered when you read Judge Connor’s deposition testimony. The question is answered when you read the Sykes transcripts for August 2009 and August 2010. The question is answered when you read sanction motion written by Adam Stern seeking to sanction me and is further answered in his and Cynthia Farenga’s ARDC complaints concerning my seeking to investigate the Sykes case and/or the ARDC complaints against me and Attorney Denison making appeals to law enforcement to investigate the Sykes case and in particular:
1) the failure of Carolyn Toerpe (as petitioner) to name Mary Sykes’ siblings in the petition to declare Mary Sykes incompetent
2) the failure of Carolyn Toerpe to disclose in her petition her ‘power of attorney’ granting her dominion over Mary Sykes assets.
3) The failure of the Court to hold a hearing on the sworn petition of Mary Sykes for a protective order barring Carolyn Toerpe’s alleged misconduct toward her.
4) The failure of the Court to require Carolyn Toerpe to comply with the Section 10 (Sodini) notice requirements. And in particular, the failure of Stern, Farenga et al (and the Court) to recognize that the Appellate Court and the Supreme Court of Illinois have both pointed out that without the compliance with the Sodini notices the Court lacked jurisdiction [6].
5) The Court acting without jurisdiction. And in particular, the Court freezing Gloria Sykes’ assets, allowing the Isolation of Mary Sykes, the seizure and non-inventory of about a million dollars of gold coins etc.
6) The refusal of the Court to address the lack of jurisdiction. Etc.
The Bill of Rights and in particular the First Amendment is absolutely clear in prohibiting any government censorship of citizens including lawyers . The Alvarez case is the Supreme Court of the United States’ statement on the subject. The foregoing not withstanding the freezing of Gloria Sykes’ assets by an Illinois Court in Indiana and the prosecution of objecting lawyers (including JoAnn Denison and yours truly) are oxymoronic.
Now back to the question! We are losing our Bill of Rights because each of us is sitting back and allowing the political elite, law enforcement and the press to allow the guardians in the Sykes case deny Mary Sykes due process and equal protection of the law. We – you and me – allowed a State Judge to ignore the notice requirements necessary to vest her with jurisdiction and enter orders that she knew or should have known were unauthorized.
Yes, we objected and wrote letters, e-mails, and protested. The Judge however was retained in the last election – so we failed! Indeed, by our ineffectiveness and by our failure to raise a ‘hue and cry’ we are allowing Mary Sykes and those persons similarly situated to be denied their First Amendment Rights and in particular their liberty, property, human and civil rights. Every day that Mary Sykes and those persons similarly situated are in bondage or our help hostage is a day that you and I are losing our First Amendment Rights and hundreds (if not thousands) of Mary Sykes’ are ‘second class citizens’ who have been and are being denied their ‘liberty, their property, their civil rights, and their human rights.’
Mary Sykes and those who are similarly situated are entitled as citizens of the United States of America to an honest, complete and comprehensive investigation of the deprivation of their liberty, their property, civil and human rights that they are subjected to right now! As citizens they are entitled to law enforcement doing its job and prosecuting those persons who act under color of law to deprive Mary Sykes and those persons similarly situated of their LIBERTY, PROPERTY, CIVIL, RIGHTS & HUMAN RIGHTS. The State of Illinois and the United States of America in addition to doing the right thing has a pecuniary interest – it only stands to reason that if the guardian has not filed an inventory disclosing the almost a million dollars in Gold coins, she has not paid her Federal Income Tax on the coins. [7]
Ken Ditkowsky
jmdenison  | November 30, 2012 at 6:11 pm | Categories:  Uncategorized | URL:

[1] Today after Mary died and her million home was sold, the Probate Court awarded substantial funds to the GAL and the attorney for the guardian appointed without jurisdiction for fees.   Mary’s home was sold at a bargain price to a person that we believe to be a nominee.   The home will now go through a bunch of mesne sales and the proceeds that Mary’s Estate is rightly entitled will be paid to miscreants (some known and some unknown).   The taxes paid will be fraudulently claimed to be Capital gains and the State of Illinois and USA will lose out on thousands of dollars of tax money.    Everyone knows that this will happen, but no one will lift a finger to protect the rightful interests of the public and in particular the State of Illinois.
[2] The attorneys are no more than ‘well’ compensated.    We understand that one or more of them might have an interest in the nursing home that Mary was warehoused in.    No investigation has been made by Law Enforcement to ascertain whether any kickbacks were paid to any of the attorneys (or the judge) in the case.     The ‘cover up’ promulgated by the IARDC (at public expense) so far has been very successful.
[3] Sodini  required prior notice to relatives including children and siblings as to a hearing on Mary’s competency.   No hearing was held as required by 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10 et seq, and no findings required by 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3b were ever made.    In fact the Sheriff of Cook County has no record (according to his letter) of service ever being had on Mary Sykes.   The Court file 09 P 4585 which has been suppressed in all disciplinary hearings related to the Sykes case has no summons in it ever being provided the Sheriff (or anyone else) that complied with the Statutory requirements of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10.    Of course, as testified to by Judge Connors on page 90 et seq.  the result of the hearing was predetermined.   Her words were – we would have reached the same result!    As no hearing was every held – we have to believe the learned Judge!
[4] Fraud on the court and the judicial system pays well.    All you have to do is last out the objecting family members (and wait until the victim dies)  and a handsome payout occurs.    The only objector at this point in time (Gloria Sykes) *****.   (Gloria is sensitive so I’m not saying anything about her – I want her to speak for herself.    She has not been treated very well.   She was beaten, robbed of her very valuable intellectual property, and literally had her personal assets stolen from her.    One morning she work up and found a strange man wandering in her home.   She called the police and he fled.   He claimed to be from the Mortgage company!    I had a mortgage with the same entity and my mortgage company never came to my home invited or invited and they certainly never invaded my privacy.    She also had her personal property literally toss out the window and was evicted!   The States Attorney prosecution of the miscreants was a scene from Alice in Wonderland)   
[5] The guardian is a fiduciary and as such owes the highest level of fidelity and honesty to the ward.   Honesty and honor are the watchwords.     This means that formal compliance and protection of the wards civil rights and human rights is not sufficient.    The theft of dime from the ward is a serious offense and a taxable event.    Pursuant to 18 USCA 371 the coverup of the tax evasion and the theft are serious matters.   The theft in a proper proceeding results in the removal of the guardian and a sur charge; however, in these elder cleansing cases the law in its most strict form applies to family members but not the guardians for profit.   A family member who accepts the advice of his/her attorney – who is engaged in the elder cleansing conspiracy – cannot claim ignorance of the law or that his/her attorney lied to him/her.   That family member is assumed to be a Law professor at Harvard and the law is strictly construed against the family member; however, as to each member of the 18 USCA 242 conspiracy they are given the greatest leeway and indulgence.     In fact such minor offenses as 1.5 million dollars not accounted for, the prospecting for gold in the mouth of an elderly victim, the theft of a million dollars in gold coins, a lack of jurisdiction, a few lies ***** are all ignored.    In fact, even admissions such as that of titling of the wards property in the fiduciaries name and attempting to sell it (Nash) are over looked.   An attorney who raises such trivial concerns is severely disciplined with Suspensions of law licenses.    
[6] Notice and Hearing are the essentials of Due process.    The record in Sykes makes it clear that prior NOTICE was ignored.    This issue has been raised over and over again.    Larkin and his 18 USCA 242 conspirators have tried to get around it with inventive lies.    For instance,  the Rule 711 ILCS 5/11a – 10 summons was not printed by the Clerk of the Circuit Court, ergo, to comply with the requirement (jurisdictional) of the Statute any attorney seeking to obtain a guardianship had to prepare and type (or print) his own summons.    No such summons appears in the file 09 P 4585.   For this reason the file had to be suppressed not only in the disciplinary proceedings but in Gloria Sykes’ appeals.    One look at the record of case 09 P 4585 informed all the judges of the Appellate Court of Illinois, and the Supreme Court of the Illinois that a major fraud had been perpetrated in the Circuit Court of Cook County and pursuant to Rule 8.3 and 18 USCA 4 law enforcement had to be informed.   Indeed, the Honest Investigation had to occur.
Just to finish the thought and demonstrate the lengths that were gone to to obviate and obfuscate the facts, without a scintilla of evidence one of Larkin’s Kangaroo panels invented the idea that Mary’s sisters had knowledge of the incompetency hearing.    The fact that there was no evidence of such information was a minor inconvenience.   What they did not count on was the fact that Adam Stern wrote an e-mail to Gloria Sykes pointing out that no hearing was ever held – he, and others met determined that no hearing was necessary and presented a order to Judge Connors.  Connors rubberstamped the order and a guardian was appointed to forfeit all Mary Sykes civil and human rights.    Judge Connors in her deposition stated that if she had been informed of this situation she would have caused it to be rectified, however, she would have thereafter reached the same result.    Thus, when a case is wired – it stays wire.   This includes the cover up disciplinary proceedings.   
[7]   omitted.
I hope that this e-mail clarifies just how serious the dirty little secret of elder cleansing is and why the United  States of America has to be pro-active in first doing an HOnest investigation and then prosecuting all the miscreants.  (especially those who aid and abet the criminal enterprise and who have not paid the Federal and State Taxes on their booty!) 

 Ken Ditkowsky

From Ken Ditkowski–the Demise of Mary G Sykes in the Illinois Probate System

From: kenneth ditkowsky <>
To: ginny johnson <>;
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 9:17 AM
Guardianship was not intended to be a predatory operation.    Pursuant to statute it was intended to create the reasonable Americans With Disabilities Act accommodation further limited by reasonable necessity so that the Core values of America were not infringed on the Constitutional, and Civil Rights of all citizens was respected.     What it has evolved into, thanks to corrupt jurists, corrupt lawyers, corrupt public figures, and a onus and venal campaign by 18 USCA 371, 18 USCA 242 coconspirators and the benign public and immunity is a cottage industry of elder cleansing, i.e. railroading a disabled person (usually a senior with a few dollars to be stolen) into a guardianship that isolates her from family, friends, and prior life so that she can be abused, exploited, and ultimately killed.
The guardianship is created by navigating a statute that is intended to provide a vehicle for a good person to provide aid to a disabled person only the extent that such aid is needed and does not infringe on Civil and human rights.     It is a Buck vs. Bell situation gone wild.    An individual having a family that harbors avarice is a suitable environment for elder cleansing.      One member of the family can get the ball rolling and before he/she knows what is happening the corrupt lawyers, corrupt judges, corrupt judicial officials and their co-conspirators are in the picture.
In the Mary Sykes case the oldest daughter needed money.   Mother’s $4000.00 was in sight, so she took it without permission.    Mary made a fatal mistake.   She went to the Cook County court system for help and sought an Order of Protection.    
The Cook County Illinois court system is not known for its jurisprudence, but is known for it’s literally scores of judges who populate prisons, enjoy remunerations for favorable decisions to clouted individuals, and cover-up’s.   In Greylord we had more than a score of judges who were jailed, several score lawyers, and a host of others.   Recently we had two sitting governors in Federal custody.    Thus, it was not a surprise that Mary’s Petition for an Order of Protection got transferred to the Probate Division where it disappeared as a corrupt jurist abdicated her responsibility and oath.    The judge ignored all the Constitutional protections, the jurisdictional protections of the Statute, and every covenant of decency and honesty.    She appointed two Guardian ad Litem who carefully guided the oldest daughter through the maze of probate court.
Mary was hustled out of her home, so that she could be segregated and deprived of access to her funds and legal representation.   A facade of compliance with the Statute was undertaken.     As Mary’s doctor refused to certify her as incompetent, one of the GALs recommended a compliant doctor.  This doctor could be counted on to certify that the Pope is in need of a plenary guardian.     A one act play of compliance with the service of process was instituted.    Knowing Mary was held in DuPage County, the Sheriff of Cook County was directed to serve Mary in Cook County.    As Mary was no longer in Cook County she could not be served.    Thus, the miscreants asked for a special process server to be appointed.   He also could not find Mary in Cook County.   The corrupt jurist and the corrupt Probate authorities could care less!
To protect against such activities 14 days prior notice of hearing is required to be given to close (near) relatives.    Of course this was not done, and more importantly there never was a hearing so as to protect against Mary Sykes’ loss of civil and human rights.
Thus, Mary was railroaded into a guardianship even though she was probably more competent than the judge appointing the plenary guardian [1].    With the appointment the miscreants were free to ravage the estate and steal anything that was not nailed down.    In addition they and non-visible co-conspirators were able to drug her so that she could be warehoused and maximum health care benefits could be obtained for co-conspiring health care providers, i.e. nursing homes, hospice facilities etc.     When Mary’s usefulness ended she was disposed of.     Millions of dollars were garnered by the miscreants and it was all legal – Judges signed Court orders!
The ‘game’ does not end with the death of the victim.    It is my understanding that the health care providers continue to collect for up to x months after death for their services, and the government pays y% of the bill that cannot be collected from the Estate or under the Family expense acts.     In addition the earned income from the theft is ignored by the tax authorities.      Even outright tax fraud is ignored.
As an example:   Mary Sykes’ home was prime development property.    A bogus claim that money was needed to pay for Mary’s health care was made to the corrupt judge.   The judge ordered the property sold and approved an appraisal that was far less than the value.    Of course there were no purchasers and thus the judge approved a purchase that was approximately 20% of the fair value of the property.    This 20% was awarded to the miscreants (Guardian ad Litems, attorney for the co-operating guardian) as attorney fees.     The purchase was made by a nominee for the orchestrator of this elder cleansing program.     After a series of mesne sales this theft will be reported to the Department of the Treasury as a capital gain.    9 will get you 900 that there will not even be an audit!     The State of Illinois that is so broke that it cannot pay its bills will look the other way also.   As  Larkin put it to the Supreme Court – informing on this criminal activity is like yelling fire in a crowded theater!

[1] Important in the scheme is intimidating family members who are not compliant with the ‘elder cleansing.’    A pattern has emerged.    In the Alice Gore case as an example, it appears that a daughter who objected to her mother’s elder cleansing was appointed plenary guardian with a surety bond.     The miscreants = as co-conspirators= using their guile and expertise guided the daughter into some minor indiscretions, such as failing to file accountings on time and then hopped upon her and her bond.     With a massive but totally inappropriate sanction a more favorable plenary guardian was appointed and 1.5 million dollars and 29 teeth disappeared not to be even mentioned.     The fraudulent preliminary preparations usually were sufficient to discourage even the most loyal family member to back off.     In another case a sister was advised that she could purchase food for her brother and eat some of it – as the sister had no other source of income.    An irate judge thought this a breach of fiduciary relationship, removed the sister as plenary guardian.    Once removed the estate vanished and the sister’s complaints to law enforcement thwarted.     The Helen Stone case stands as an illustration on just how venal these judicial criminals have become.


Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Understanding what is psychologically happening when the guardianship (or other court proceeding) turns abusive and not justice–the psychopatic courtroom and judge

I strongly recommend that if you are a probate victim or family member you understand what a psychopath/narcissist/sociopath is and how they think.

The above link will take you to a National Geographic documentary on psychopathy and how they think and operate and why you are more likely today to find them in a modern corporation or boardroom or even the court room.  They are drawn only to riches, wealth, the need to control and deceive others. They have depressed emotions in the area of sympathy, empathy, understanding and compassion.  They will never love, and will make excuses for love.  They are calmest when they are told of violence, cruelty, torture and pain. Then they can focus and plot and plan their next move to win, to control to conquer and most of all, attain riches and prestiege.  This is the modus operandi of the psychopath/narcissist/sociopath (“PNS”).

One of the big problems I have with my probate victims is 1) they don’t think like the attorney and judge psychopaths they may encounter in the courtroom and 2) they don’t prepare themselves to confront insidious evil.  I’m not saying all judges and attorneys are insidious evil, what I am saying is that courtroom victims of bullying and abuse have to understand the nature and thinking of the psychopaths they may encounter there.  That is the hardest part.  (Note that judges and attorneys that are not of the PSN mindset genuinely care about you, read all pleadings, follow the law, make careful and reasoned decisions supported well by the statutes, rules and caselaw.  Beware of the judge that ignores all of that because you may have a judge with PNS.  The courts have been supplied with many, many good judges that will  care about you and your case, it’s just that some do have PNS problems and when that happens, watch out. They also will attract and surround themselves with court appointed attorneys and agencies of the same character.)

When you have been raised with some source of goodness, kindness, love and compassion, and are a good person to the core, you will never understand the PNS mindset–unless well trained and warned.  A great deal of time is wasted on trying to understand or analyze it or even fix it.  It’s not fixable.  Don’t go there.  Your only job is to recognize it and contain it, keep yourself away from it.  Not in your inbox or in your life.  You don’t have to be mean or cruel, just limit the involvement to what is absolutely necessary.

Once you are done with the National Geographic video, move on to the following:

and then next this video

If it takes you awhile to get thru these videos because you have to take breaks, don’t worry, I did too.  It’s hard for me to think that there are such evil predators out there and listen to the horrid things that PNS predators say.

The psychD’s (same people that guardianize people) claim that CEO’s are no. 1 in being psychopaths and I think they named lawyers as no. 2.  I think it’s time to challeng the ABA and all state bar associations to test their colleges and boot out the PNS ones.

After seeing the above and seeing how psychopaths work and all their traits, please view the above and compare with YOUR judge.  Once you do that, you will no longer wonder why your judge is 1) ignoring the law and case law; 2) talks a good story, pretends well, but really has no interest in you, truth or justice; and 3) is just handling the courtroom as an administrator of the worst sort–sticking to deadlines, reading the rules and construing them carefully against YOU and never doing any sort of substantial justice, just garnering favors, frienemies and power and prestiege.


Please note that one commentator said he thought that psychopaths are not a problem and are to be lauded for their “modern thinking”.  For sure, he needs to look in the mirror because he is his own worst enemy

PS–Jerome Larkin has never responded to anyone’s call that he and his sometimes “state agency” file Ethics Reports under the Illinois Ethics Reporting Act.  I guess that makes him a great CEO of the ARDC, but in the end, his ideas fail miserably because he is harming the public which the ARDC should be protecting.

Something that may help Probate victims–accurately tracking deaths in the US

From the Washington Post comes an article regarding the recent postings of cell phone video on the internet where police officers have beaten, pepper sprayed and even tazered ordinary, unarmed citizens that actually came to them for help.  In one case, a 4 year old girl was shot after a police officer came to help her, but then decided to shoot a barking dog (yes, police officers are allowed to shoot barking dogs, and they do so at an outstanding rate that the animal right’s activists are openly up in arms against), but insted shot the 4 year old girl and shattered her leg with a bullet.  In other stories (see, the police apparently are shooting all kinds of unarmed and non threatening ordinary US citizens that just are in the wrong place at the wrong time, are just complaining to the police, are trying to film them, have filed grievances–nothing violent, nothing that would reasonably create fear in anyone, and nothing that isn’t just tacky or uncouth behavior by the general public.

The worst is when an innocent unarmed citizen comes to the officer and asks for help with a police matter, and ends up shot or beaten or raped.  Some 1300 rapes each year mostly against women and girls are caused by on duty and off duty police officers.  That has to end.  The police have already killed some 750+ citizens this year, and apparently a good chunk were unarmed, and those deaths have not been independently investigated for the most part.

The article:

The best part of the story is that Bureau of Justice Statistics (didn’t even know this existed) is going to start requiring police departments to report on all shootings and give detailed information on unarmed shoots.

As expected, with only 3% of police districts reporting, because reporting isn’t mandatory (why?), it appears that blacks and minoritys are killed at a much higher rate than whites while unarmed–a most important statistic.

As the article quipped, it’s amazing that we can get statistics on who and where people sat at sporting and theater and music events involving thousands of patrons each and every day, but the police department can’t keep track of who they shot, where, when and why.

This is very important becaue perhaps we can also petition the Bureau of Justice Statistics to also look into the disableds and seniors that die in and out of nursing homes with evidence of abuse that is not reported to the authorities, and even more important, where there is an advance abuse report, but nothing is done and the person dies quickly as a result.  (Jaycox, Sykes, Gore, etc.)  The Bureau of Justice should be requiring autopsies after reports of abuse and use of chemical restraints and these reports should be turned over to the authorities for a tox screen and autopsy to look at murder (Gore, Richards, Sykes, Jaycox, etc.)  Because there are so few statistics, the Bureau of Justice should be combing independent records of death–hospital and nursing home records, funeral director reports, abuse reports from all scources, etc. rather than just rely upon police reports

As noted in the article:it is important to gleen information from other sources when the data simply isn’t there.  And when data isn’t there, this situation should be deemed “embarrasing” and “ridiculous”.

Now GAL Adam Stern would like to cover this all up by quipping to the ARDC during his testimony “no reason to worry when an old person gets sick, because they get sick and die all the time”, but sickness coupled with reports of abuse should ALWAYS be investigated.


Sign the Petition–Judicial Immunity for criminal actions (theft, fraud, embezzlement, supression of free speech in probate) is a Lemon

Article III Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states: The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour (emphasis added), and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

In only two circumstances is a judge not immune from liability:

(1) for nonjudicial actions; and

(2) for actions, though judicial in nature, taken in complete absence of all jurisdiction.

Id. at 11-12; Schucker, 846 F. 2d at 1204.

Prosecutorial Immunity applies to the decision to prosecute a particular case; “This immunity covers the knowing use of false testimony at trial, the suppression of exculpatory evidence, and malicious prosecution.”

Milstein v. Cooley, 257 F. 3d 1004, 1008-09 (9th Cir. 2001).

An act done in complete absence of all jurisdiction cannot be a judicial act.

Piper v. Pearson, id., 2 Gray 120.

“It is no more than the act of a private citizen, pretending to have judicial power which does not exist at all. In such circumstances, to grant absolute judicial immunity is contrary to the public policy expectation that there shall be a Rule of Law.”

Application of immunity to judges who admitted under oath to engaging in a criminal scheme that lasted for years would indeed be “monstrous.” [Quoting Judge Learned Hand in Gregorie v. Biddle, 177 F.2d 579 (2d Cir. 1949)] To find immunity would denigrate the respect of the public for the judiciary, which is dependent upon judges making decisions based on the law and the facts, rather than personal, corrupt motives.

Whereby; the Tenth Amendment states:  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

We The People, hereby ask Congress to create a subcommittee to investigate and address the flagrant abuses of Judicial Immunity and Bad Behavior rampantly exerted by the Judicial Branch under the Color of Law.

From Joanne:

Judicial immunity for the strings of felonies occuring in Probate against disableds must end.  There is absolutely no reason for these felons to continue their cottage of industry of target-medicate-isolate-drain the estate-quietly eliminate-cremate without swift and secure prosecution of all involved that currently enjoy “judicial immunity”–from the judges to the court appointed counsel to the GAL’s to their assistants of torture and death in nursing homes. See my prior post on the illegal and toturous use of chemical restraints to restrain and kill off all the seniors and disableds.

Why curbing the use of psychotropic drugs and antibiotics is important to the health of everyone

From Ken Ditkowsky:

Indeed – it is a good day for reflection – but with Jerome Larkin and his co-conspirators out there unpunished and still assaulting the First Amendment Rights of citizens (including lawyers) I have to continue my campaign to get him some housing in a Federal correctional facility so others may enjoy America.
I did notice in the Wall Street Journal that the government is starting to notice that pharmaceuticals are being used indiscriminately.   A couple of cc’s of a chemical can eliminate – at either insurance company or government expense – many hours of nursing.   A few drops of a chemical and a vibrant (or obnoxious) patient is docile and co-cooperative.     PT can be simplified to moving the patient to a wheel chair and in front of TV screen.   The poor zombie does not know if he/she is watching the Bears or test pattern.    The costs go down dramatically and the $8000 a month base charge yields a profit of $6500.00 and each of the doses administered can yield 700 to 1000% pure profit.    The legal drug business is more profitable than the illegal – cocaine has less profit!  

In recent years, Medicaid has spent more money on antipsychotic drugs for Americans than on any other class of pharmaceuticals — including antibiotics, AIDS drugs or medicine to treat high-blood pressure.

One reason: Nursing homes across the U.S. are giving these drugs to elderly patients to quiet symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of dementia.

Nearly 30% of the total nursing-home population is receiving antipsychotic drugs, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, known as CMS. In a practice known as “off label” use of prescription drugs, patients can get these powerful medicines whether they are psychotic or not. CMS says nearly 21% of nursing-home patients who don’t have a psychosis diagnosis are on antipsychotic drugs.


That is what happened to a woman listed in New York state health department inspection records as Resident #18. The 84-year-old Alzheimer’s patient, who lives at the Orchard Manor nursing home in Medina, N.Y., likes to wander and roll her wheelchair around her unit, according to a report filed earlier this year, and sometimes she nervously taps her foot.

To address her behavior, which was considered disruptive, Resident #18 was given a powerful antipsychotic drug called Seroquel, a drug approved for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Resident #18 is not psychotic and Seroquel — like other atypical antipsychotics — carries a “black box” warning that elderly dementia patients using it face a higher risk of death.

“She is a handful,” says Thomas Morien, administrator of Orchard Manor. “Other residents complain about her because often at night, she will get up and go to their rooms.” The patient has since been taken off the drugs.

“You walk into facilities where you see residents slumped over in their wheelchairs, their heads are hanging, and they’re out of it, and that is unacceptable,” says Christie Teigland, director of informatics research for the New York Association of Homes and Services for the Aging, a not-for-profit industry group. Her research, which she believes reflects national trends, shows that about one-third of dementia patients in New York’s nursing homes are on antipsychotics; some facilities have rates as high as 60% to 70%. “These drugs are being given way too much to this frail elderly population,” Dr. Teigland says.

And that is exactly what you see when you go see Alan Frake and Judge Quinn doesn’t care and hands back reports of abuse right back to the abusers–Ted Rhodes, Cary Peck, Tom Kleinhenz and Rehab Assist.
 And the on the use of antibiotics in nursing home:

New Push to Stop Overuse of Antibiotics in Nursing Homes

Up to 75% of prescriptions are incorrect as heath officials open a new front in war on overuse

A nurse cares for an elderly woman in a nursing home.ENLARGE
Health officials and health-care executives, concerned by a rise in dangerous drug-resistant infections, are turning more attention to nursing homes, where antibiotics are some of the most frequently prescribed medications. They have concentrated over the past several years on curbing misuse of antibiotics in hospitals.
Up to 70% of nursing home residents receive one or more courses of antibiotics every year for urinary tract infections, pneumonia, cellulitis and other suspected conditions, according to researchers. Yet up to 75% of those prescriptions are given incorrectly—either unnecessarily or the prescription is for the wrong drug, dose or duration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says.
One of the biggest culprits, researchers say: misdiagnosed urinary tract infections. Only a quarter to a third of people in nursing homes who are diagnosed have actual symptoms, according to several studies. Most have only vague symptoms like confusion or bacteria in their urine that aren’t actually causing an infection, says David Nace, director of long-term care and flu programs at the University of Pittsburgh. UTIs are “the poster child of inappropriate antibiotic use,” he says.
Such practices spawn the spread of drug-resistant bacteria that can be particularly harmful to the elderly and are very difficult if not impossible to treat, researchers say.
Ken Ditkowsky
From JoAnne;
If you know anything about MRSA or anti biotic resistant infections, they are nearly 100% deadly. This is what nursing homes are incubating and spreading to the general population.
from Google:
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus is a bacterium responsible for several difficult-to-treat infections in humans. It is also called oxacillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Wikipedia

From Ken Ditkowsky–another Chicago pol in jail, another day in Chicago

But for crying out loud, this woman blames everything on casinos and tuition. Is she kidding?  Did her attorneys tell her no one wants to know her excuses.  We all have tuition, and therefore most of us skip the casinos or do so in moderation, once per year and then just a small amount, maybe $50.

Subject: Another day, another political figure from Illinois (Cook County) going to jail! Ho Hum!
Date: Oct 9, 2015 10:14 AM
Why does the Illinois Supreme Court justices and Jerome Larkin want to silence attorney compliance with 18 USCA 4?   The answer is simple.   There will be more cases such as the attached e-mail from the Chicago Sun-times!   
In the Sykes case all the protections of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10 (including the jurisdictional) were ignored.   In SYKES, Gore, Tyler, **** estates were looted while corrupt judges looked on an signed orders that protected the miscreants.   Avarice prevailed over common decency.   Gore represents the absolutely the most disgusting set of facts that one could imagine as a judge literally supervised a gold rush and harvesting of the gold from the teeth of a innocent senior citizen.   Not only was there no remorse, but as late as today there has been no HONEST investigation much less punishment of the culprits.   Indeed, the attorney who orchestrated the felonies walks about the 18th Floor of the Daley Center like the ‘cat who swallowed the canary’ flush with the knowledge that Jerome Larkin, the administrator of the lawyer disciplinary commission is protecting her.
The Suntimes article brings to mind another article.   It seems a crazy out West was aggrieved because his prayers were not answered.  Ergo – he sued God.    A judge dismissed his suit as he could not get summons on God and thus the judge ruled that he lacked jurisdiction.   Such would never occur in Cook County, Illinois.
In the Sykes case 09 P 4585, Judge Connors – now Justice Connors of the Illinois Appellate Court- ignored the fact that all the protections of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10 were ignored and therefore she lacked jurisdiction as she appointed two guardian ad litem, a plenary guardian and stripped Mary of all of her assets and humanity.    Connors had no problem making certain that Gloria Sykes and Mary Sykes could not receive honest representation and in her evidence deposition (approximate page 90 – 94) pointed out that if someone really objected and called this jurisdictional problem to her attention she would have the error corrected.   However, the judge admitted that the same result would have been reached anyway.\
Why is Jerome Larkin and his 18 USCA 242 co=conspirators including but not limited to the Illinois Supreme Court justices protecting this criminal activity and why does it not even rate a scintilla of remorse? 
Read the Sun-times Article!    Bribery is no longer the passage of a white envelope filled with cash.   It is much more subtle.    It is the offer of a job at some future time for either the person of interest or a member of his/her family.   It is the offer of an opportunity for someone near or dear.   It is a bargain purchase of real estate.  It is a campaign contribution.   It is a benefit of some kind or other that directly or indirectly affects the public official in the position to do a favor.   (It might even be the appointment of a lawyers as a GAL)\
Not only have the miscreants gotten away with their criminal activities but there are no tax consequences assessed.   Larkin owes based upon his overt acts in pursuance of protecting the miscreants engaging in elder cleansing well over a billion dollars of State and Federal Taxes.  (NB.  each of his co-conspirators have joint and several liability).   What efficacious collection activities are being carried out by our Bankrupt State of Illinois and are heavy in debt Federal government?
But for a fortuitous circumstance most of the bribed public officials get away with their crimes.   Even when the public shakes it head and rises up in disgust the public memory is short.   A high ranking official of the Clinton Administration (Rubin) got called before congress as the result of a scandal involving Citicorp.   He was it CEO and under oath he gave testimony that was so outrageous that most members of the public wanted to tar and feather him – But he got away with nary a scratch.   (He testified that he was not aware of the product that Citi was marketing that created the problem)   Yesterday the VW CEO tried to blame a couple of engineers for the decision to cheat on emissions tests – of course he and board were shocked to learn of the action.
Democracy is the only form of government that requires citizens to actively participate in their government and to weed out the corrupt public officials, corrupt political figures, corrupt jurists, corrupt *****.    It defines corrupt as a public official who will not do his/her job.    These people are taking money under false pretenses.    They are fiduciaries to the public trust.
It may sound old hat, but, Lawyers of all the members of society have the greatest obligation to work for the protection of the core values of America.   This does not mean hearing nothing, seeing nothing and doing nothing it means the full compliance with lawyer rule 8.3 even it means exposing the icons of the profession as criminals or saying things that are not politically correct.   It means that lawyers have to defend the rights of bad people to advance causes that are contrary to humanity.   The ACLU defends the right of Nazis to advocate hate and destruction of Jews.   Jewish lawyers are recruited to advance the Free Speech rights of these perfidious individuals.    All lawyers owe society such an obligation even if they are personally offended.  Such is the nature of the law.    Similarly lawyers including Jewish lawyers have an obligation to stand up and protect the rights of the targeted citizens (including Jews) to exercise their Constitutional Rights to voice opposition to the Nazis.    The unimpeded discourse is our American tradition.
The act of the Illinois Supreme Court, Jerome Larkin, and their 18 USCA 242 co-conspirators in their efforts to silence lawyers and stop them from exposing Justice Connors etc. Is wrongful and criminal.   They were placed in their positions of public trust not to enrich themselves, curry favor, or even enhance their reputations — they assumed a public trust – and the obligation to protect the public from their friends the two guardian at litem in the Sykes case, the guardian ad litem in the Gore case, the corrupt judges *****.    Their failure to honor their trust is the reason that we have to address the situation that appears in the Suntimes article.   We are getting the government we deserve! 

From: Chicago Sun-Times <>
To: “” <>
Sent: Friday, October 9, 2015 6:49 AM
Subject: Feds: Byrd-Bennett said ‘tuition to pay and casinos to visit’ led to kickbacks

…and more top headlines from Sun-Times.   |    View online   |    Add to your address book
News and Politics - Chicago Sun-Times
Even before she was hired to run Chicago Public Schools, Barbara Byrd-Bennett set up a scheme to get a 10 percent kickback on all the CPS contracts she could steer to a former employer, in part to set up a college fund for her twin grandsons, authorities said Thursday. The feds found damning, detailed emails […]

Rosemont v. Kentucky–Fax to the ARDC to drop all charges

From this decision, it is clear the ARDC has no jurisdiction to regulate my blog. All I have done is blog.  There are no client complaints and this blog does not lie.

ARDC Attys:
Jerome Larkin, Sharon Opryszek, Melissa Smart, Leah Black Guiterrez, Steven Splitt

Fax 312-565-2320    From:                      Admitted Ill*., N.  Carolina and Patent Bars
JoAnne M. Denison,      Pat.  Agent.  Reg.  No.  34,150
DENISON & ASSOCS., PC    FAX 312-553-1307
5940 W Touhy Ave, #120
Niles, IL 60714    PHONE 312-553-1300  or
Federal Patents, Trademarks & Copyrights
Important Notice
This facsimilie message contains attorney privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone, collect, and return the original message to the above address.  You will be reimbursed.  Your cooperation is immensely appreciated.
For transmission problems, please call 312-335-1300
A confirmation copy       WILL   ✔   will NOT be sent.
Pages in fax, including this coversheet – ( see header  )
October 8, 2015

RE:   ARDC v. JMD 13 PR 001 – Rosemont v. Kentucky

note my comments are in blue, the rest are case quotes
Dear Counsel;

Please read the attached decision which was recently render by a Federal District Court Judge in Kentucky.  Read below excerpts:

For nearly forty years, John Rosemond has written a newspaper column on parenting. No other newspaper column written by a single author has run longer.
Now, in an exercise of regulatory zeal, the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology seeks to prohibit Rosemond from publishing his column in Kentucky while referring to himself as a “family psychologist.” In an effort to avoid the State’s enforcement of K.R.S. § 319.005, the State’s statute regulating the practice of psychology, Rosemond protectively filed this action in which he asks that the Board be permanently enjoined from interfering with the publication of his column. Resolution of the case requires balancing the State’s interest in regulating the practice of psychology with constitutional protections of speech. As Rosemond’s speech deserves the highest level of constitutional protection, and because the State has failed to articulate compelling reasons for regulating that speech, the Board will be enjoined from further interfering with the publication of Rosemond’s column.

On May 7, 2013, the Board and Kentucky’s Attorney General jointly issued a “Cease and Desist Affidavit and Assurance of Voluntary Compliance” to Rosemond, hoping that he would agree to cease publishing his advice column in Kentucky as they alleged that he was engaged in the unlawful practice of psychology. [R. 1-4.] Rosemond refused to sign.

Rosemond does not challenge whether Kentucky may regulate the practice of psychology. Furthermore, the Board does not deny that its cease and desist order would have the effect of restricting Rosemond’s speech. What the parties disagree about is the nature of the restriction. Rosemond argues that the Board’s regulation of his column is a content-based restriction on his speech. The Board argues that its regulation is not content-based, but rather is a professional regulation barring conduct (i.e. practicing psychology without a Kentucky license) and that any stifling of speech that results from the enforcement of K.R.S. § 319.005 is merely incidental to the state’s legitimate aim of regulating the profession. [R. 30 at 6-8.] The Board argues that because Rosemond’s speech is either commercial or professional, its regulation of that speech should only be subject to intermediate scrutiny. Despite the aforementioned differences of opinion as to what framework applies, the parties agree that this dispute is governed by the First Amendment. [R. 47 at 2 (Hrg. Tr.)]

There is no question that what drew the Board’s attention in this case was Rosemond’s communicating of a message. The letter of complaint which spurred the Board’s action specifically criticizes his advice, and the cease and desist letter addresses the Board’s concern that he was responding to a specific, individualized question. [R. 1-4; R. 25-2 at 4.]

Commercial speech does “no more than propose a commercial transaction,” Virginia State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 762 (1976) or is an “expression related solely to the economic interests of the speaker and its audience.” Cent. Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of New York, 447 U.S. 557, 561 (1980).

It is not surprising that the Board has difficulty citing
to a case that lays the theory out in a coherent way, because cases addressing the intersection between professional speech and the first amendment are few and far between. See Daniel Halberstam, Commercial Speech, Professional Speech, and the Constitutional Status of Social Institutions, 147 U. Pa. L. Rev. 771, 834 (1999) (Courts have “rarely addressed the First Amendment contours of a professional’s freedom to speak to a client.”)

It has long been held that “[s]tates have a compelling interest in the practice of professions within their boundaries, and that as part of their power to
protect the public health, safety, and other valid interests they have broad power to establish standards for licensing practitioners and regulating the practice of professions.” Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U.S. 773, 792 (1975). This principle is unassailable.

But, also undeniable is the fact that, “[a]t some point, a measure is no longer a regulation of a profession but a regulation of speech or of the press; beyond that point, the statute must survive the level of scrutiny demanded by the First Amendment.” Lowe, 472 U.S. at 229-30.

Pursuant to this doctrine, the government is permitted to regulate speech in limited circumstances so as to protect the individual receiving advice— the client. As articulated by Justice White, without this professional-client relationship, the doctrine’s vices outweigh its virtues.

Comment: and what client exactly has the ARDC protected in its decision?  Gloria Sykes and Mary’s niece Kathy Bakken and her elderly sister Yolanda all testified they thought there were things wrong with the guardianization of Mary, a person appearing to be competent but possessing considerable wealth in her advanced age–a home worth more than $1 million which was to be sold for $213k to a real estate corporation, the disappearance of up to $1 million in valuable coins where both the probate court and the ARDC repeatedly quash subpoenas to find out where the coins went–who stole them or embezzled them.

Just how did the ARDC protect the “client” and what “client” testified against me?  Absolutely none.

Nobody knows if the teenager’s parents read the article or took the advice, much less if anyone was harmed. For all the Board knows, the “wake-up call” worked and, instead of harming the teenager, it served its purpose.

The relationship that is necessary between a professional and a client to trigger application of the professional speech doctrine just did not exist.

Two cases that the Board cites actually support Rosemond’s position by endorsing Justice White’s concurring opinion in Lowe that there must be a nexus between a professional and a client to legitimate professional regulations with such an impact on speech. See Accountant’s Soc’y of Virginia v. Bowman, 860 F.2d 602 (4th Cir. 1988) (Regulations affecting accountants are constitutional as they “restrict[] only accountants’
communications with and on behalf of their clients.”); Locke v. Shore, 634 F.3d 1185 (11th Cir. 2011) (“There is a difference, for First Amendment purposes, between regulating professionals’ speech to the public at large versus their direct, personalized speech with clients.”)

Even if, as the Board claims, Rosemond is potentially misleading readers by holding himself out as a psychologist, he retains the First Amendment right to make those statements in a non-commercial setting. K.R.S. § 319.005 bans individuals from using the term “psychologist” in a way that is deceptive.

In United States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 2537 (2012), Xavier Alvarez lied when he announced at a public meeting that he held the Congressional Medal of Honor, an act which the Court referred to as a “pathetic attempt to gain respect that eluded him.” Id. at 2542. In holding that The Stolen Valor Act, which criminalized making false claims about the receipt of military medals, was an unconstitutional content-based restriction, the Court reaffirmed its conviction that even false statements deserve First Amendment protection: The Nation well knows that one of the costs of the First Amendment is that it protects the speech we detest as well as the speech we embrace. Though few might find respondent’s statements anything but contemptible, his right to make those statements is protected by the Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of speech and expression.
Id. at 2551. The Board’s restrictions imposed on his tagline, like the content of his column, must also survive strict scrutiny if they are to be permitted.

As the Board has imposed “content-based restrictions on speech, those provisions can stand only if they survive strict scrutiny, which requires the Government to prove that the restriction furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.” Reed, 135 S. Ct. at 2231 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Greater New Orleans Broad. Association, Inc. v. United States, 527 U.S. 173, 183 (1999) (When considering restrictions on “commercial” speech, “the Government bears the burden of identifying a substantial interest and justifying the challenged restriction.”); see also Ohio Citizen Action v. City of Englewood, 671 F.3d 564, 571 (6th Cir. 2012) (“The governmental entity that enacts the regulation bears the burden of establishing each element of the analysis, and ‘the Court ordinarily does not supply reasons the legislative body has not given.’ ”).

This interest does not fall into one of the few categories where the law allows content-based regulation of speech. See Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. at 2544. Furthermore, while protecting the public is an enviable goal, the Board cannot demonstrate that its restrictions achieve the goal.

As explained in Edenfield v. Fane, “[t]his burden is not satisfied by mere speculation or conjecture; rather, a governmental body seeking to sustain a restriction on [ ] speech must demonstrate that the harms it recites are real and that its restriction will in fact alleviate them to a material degree.” 507 U.S. 761, 770-71 (1993); Pagan v. Fruchey, 492 F.3d 766, 771 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing Edenfield, 507 U.S. at 770–72) (“[T]he government must come forward with some quantum of evidence, beyond its own belief in the necessity for regulation, that the harms it seeks to remedy are concrete and that its regulatory regime advances the stated goals.”); Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Gov’t PAC, 528 U.S. 377, 392

(2000) (The Supreme Court has “never accepted mere conjecture as adequate to carry a First Amendment burden.”).
In the case at hand, the Board has not demonstrated that any actual harm has occurred

The Board’s argument that no proof of actual harm is necessary, and that speculative harm is enough is unpersuasive. [R. 33 at 4.] Citing Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. F.C.C., 512 U.S. 622, 664 (1994), the Board argues that the state can act to regulate “anticipated harms.” [R. 33 at 4, Footnote 16.] A more complete reading of Turner Broadcasting reveals, however, that the Government must still do “more than simply ‘posit the existence of the disease sought to be cured.’ ” Turner Broad. Sys., 512 U.S. at 664 (1994) (quotation omitted). The Government “must demonstrate that the recited harms are real, not merely conjectural, and that the regulation will in fact alleviate these harms in a direct and material way.” Id.

Laws that are underinclusive cannot be narrowly tailored “[b]ecause a law cannot be regarded as protecting an interest of the highest order, and thus as justifying a restriction on truthful speech, when it leaves appreciable damage to that supposedly vital interest unprohibited.” Reed, 135 S.

Ct. 2232 (quoting Republican Party of Minn. v. White, 536 U.S. 765, 780 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted).

[T]here is no legitimate neutral justification for the fact that Kentucky prohibits Plaintiff Rosemond’s parenting advice while leaving vast amounts of materially identical speech—in the form of newspapers, books, television shows, and Internet discussion forums— totally unregulated. Kentucky’s newspapers and airwaves—not to mention the Internet—are filled with advice personalities answering questions on every facet of interpersonal relationships, most of which seemingly fall within the broad scope of Kentucky’s definition of the “practice of psychology.”

Comment: Likewise the internet is rift wtih perhaps hundreds of thousands of “legal advice columns and blogs providing law advice to the general public.  Why this blog and why now is the real question to ask?

it is difficult to understand how Dr. Phil, Dr. Oz, and countless other self-help gurus would not also be in the Government’s crosshairs. …

Comment: And likewise, dozens of blogs and youtube shows purport to provide advise on all types of legal based affairs from selling one’s home to making one’s own will or trust document and funding a trust, preparing and filing income tax forms and taking proper tax deductions, there are also dozens of nonlawyer probate blogs allowing posts, articles and commentary on legal issues from the general public.  There are websites for pro se litigants and Legal Zoom and other websites prepare and advise on legal forms–without ever talking to a licensed lawyer and the client pays the robo-online-not licensed-computer lawyer.

If the “protections afforded commercial speech are to retain their force,” Zauderer, 471 U.S., at 648–649, 105 S.Ct., at 2280–2281, we cannot allow rote invocation of the words “potentially misleading” to supplant the Board’s burden to “demonstrate that the harms it recites are real and that its restriction will in fact alleviate them to a material degree.” Edenfield, 507 U.S., at 771, 113 S.Ct., at 1800.

In the Denison case 13 PR 001, no harm to the public or any of her paying clients was ever alleged.  The harm to blogging clients was purely speculative.  The harm to other attorneys was completely vacuous, and the testimony of these attorneys accused of being clouted and taking advantage of the Sykes family was akin to sour grapes and the typical losing attorney trying to make his client feel better.  Judge Stuart changed her testimony on the stand and the transcript was changed–fraud on the court.  She proved the point of the entire proceeding, a concept which somehow escaped a conveniently  “ignorant” Tribunal.  

Rosemond is entitled to express his views and the fact that he is not a Kentucky-licensed psychologist does not change that fact. If the facts were different, had Rosemond represented himself to be a Kentucky-licensed psychologist or had he actually entered into a client-patient relationship in Kentucky, the outcome might be different. In the case at hand, he did not. All he did was write a column providing parenting advice to an audience of newspaper subscribers. To permit the state to halt this lawful expression would result in a harm far more concrete and
damaging to society than the speculative harm which the State purportedly seeks to avoid,

Kentucky’s Psychology Practice Act, Ky. Rev. Stat. §§ 319.005 et seq., and its Associated regulations were UNCONSTITUTIONALY APPLIED to Rosemond’s advice column and also as to Rosemond’s description of himself as a family psychologist;
(4) The Board is PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from enforcing these laws in an unconstitutional manner against Rosemond or others similarly situated.
And it goes without saying, that while Melissa Smart started her opening with the blog is “like yelling fire in a crowded theater”, it’s a ridiculous statement no one believes and it’s not even the law. In fact, it never even was the law, it was only “dicta” or an offhand statement the judge makes that is relevant to, but not part of the actual decision.
From dozens of articles on the internet regarding the quote:
From the Atlantic and the ACLU:
Ninety-three years ago, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote what is perhaps the most well-known — yet misquoted and misused — phrase in Supreme Court history: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”

But those who quote Holmes might want to actually read the case where the phrase originated before using it as their main defense. If they did, they’d realize it was never binding law, and the underlying case, U.S. v. Schenck, is not only one of the most odious free speech decisions in the Court’s history, but was overturned over 40 years ago.

First, it’s important to note U.S. v. Schenck had nothing to do with fires or theaters or false statements. Instead, the Court was deciding whether Charles Schenck, the Secretary of the Socialist Party of America, could be convicted under the Espionage Act for writing and distributing a pamphlet that expressed his opposition to the draft during World War I. As the ACLU’s Gabe Rottman explains, “It did not call for violence. It did not even call for civil disobedience.”

The crowded theater remark that everyone remembers was an analogy Holmes made before issuing the court’s holding. He was explaining that the First Amendment is not absolute. It is what lawyers call dictum, a justice’s ancillary opinion that doesn’t directly involve the facts of the case and has no binding authority. The actual ruling, that the pamphlet posed a “clear and present danger” to a nation at war, landed Schenk in prison and continued to haunt the court for years to come.

In 1969, the Supreme Court’s decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck and any authority the case still carried. There, the Court held that inflammatory speech–and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan–is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech “is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action”.

As Rottman wrote, for this reason, it’s “worse than useless in defining the boundaries of constitutional speech. When used metaphorically, it can be deployed against any unpopular speech.” Worse, its advocates are tacitly endorsing one of the broadest censorship decisions ever brought down by the Court. It is quite simply, as Ken White calls it, “the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech.”

I think the ACLU and the Atlantic just called what Melissa Smart said and the ARDC approved of for an opening argument, a really bad and inaccurate “lazy cheat.”

I am herewith instructing you to file a Motion to Dismiss all charges against me with the Illinois Supreme Court (since you created this mess and it’s your karma) and to immediately reinstate my license to practice law and publicly apologize to myself and all my clients and I want that put on YOUR blog–right where you defamed my blogs and my probate victims and their cases.

Very Truly Yours,


/joanne m denison/esignature/

Joanne M. Denison

cc: blog

Kids for Cash updates from Prison Legal News

First the article:

Remember it took 6 years and 2 dedicated reporters to bring 2 judges, one bankster who knew about the bribes and did nothing and did nothing, reported nothing (18 USC sec 4, misprison of felony, plus numerous banking reporting laws) to justice.

Now the aftermath:

on March 3, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of one of the former judges who challenged his conviction and federal prison sentence. The refusal leaves intact a Third Circuit Court of Appeals decision upholding the conviction and 28-year sentence imposed on former Luzerne County judge Mark A. Ciavarella, Jr., 63. See: United States v. Ciavarella, 716 F.3d 705 (3d Cir. 2013), cert. denied. Fellow former Luzerne County judge Michael T. Conahan is serving a 17½ year sentence after pleading guilty to racketeering conspiracy. [See: PLN, Nov. 2011, p.14].

And the Treasury Dept went after the bankster involved:

Additionally, in March 2015 the First National Community Bank in Dunmore, Pennsylvania, used by Conahan to channel the bribes into secret accounts, was fined $1.5 million in civil penalties for failing to file reports of suspicious activity, despite what regulators said were numerous “red flags” during the five-year bribery scheme, according to the U.S. Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FCEN). Conahan was a member of the bank’s board.

“The bank was harmed by this activity and strongly condemns the conduct of those individuals whose actions are described therein,” said Andrew Sandler, counsel to First National. The $1.5 million fine, Sandler said, “is preferable to enduring the many additional years of contested litigation that would result from challenging the allegations described in the order.”

A special master appointed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court after the so-called “Kids for Cash” scandal first broke in 2008 found that “a very substantial number” of the thousands of juveniles who passed through Ciavarella’s court did not knowingly or intelligently waive their right to counsel. The investigation found “that there was routine deprivation of children’s constitutional rights to appear before an impartial tribunal and to have an opportunity to be heard.” [See: PLN, June 2010, p.26; Nov. 2009, p.42; May 2009, p.20].

The class-action suit, consisting of nine consolidated cases, was filed against Robert J. Powell, who co-owned the two detention centers – PA Child Care and Western PA Child Care. Powell pleaded guilty and was sentenced in November 2011 to 18 months in federal prison for failing to report a felony and being an accessory to a crime for paying $770,000 in bribes to Ciavarella and Conahan. [See: PLN, May 2012, p.28]. Powell, 55, a former Luzerne County attorney, along with his former business partner, Gregory R. Zappala, owned the private juvenile detention facilities, one in Pittston, in northeastern Pennsylvania, and the other in Butler, in the western part of the state. Powell has since been disbarred.

Note that in Penn they disbarred the attorney involved who masterminded the juvenile detention facility.  In Illinois, we suspend for years the attorneys reporting the Seniors for Cash programs in Illinois courts.  We ignore the banksters reaping in the profits.

Former judge Ciavarella was convicted by a federal jury of racketeering conspiracy, four counts of honest services mail fraud, conspiracy to defraud the United States and four counts of subscribing to a materially false tax return. In addition to his 28-year prison sentence he received four years of supervised release and was ordered to pay restitution of $1,173,791.94, forfeit $997,600 and pay a $1,200 special assessment.

You would note that with the forfeit of nearly $1 million, that the feds would be interested in the Sykes case–$1 million missing, Alice Gore $1.5 million missing, Tyler–$8 million, Drabik $1 million, Stone – $600,000 (I have to mention this case because I was told specificially not to, which means the miscreants are getting investigated and shaking in their shoes, otherwise why would they care about a simple blog?)

Assuming the pending $4.75 million settlement with Powell is approved, the settlements in the class-action suit will total $25 million. Powell’s portion may be more, depending on the income he receives from other outstanding legal cases by December 2016. The class members include all juveniles who appeared before Ciavarella’s court between January 1, 2003 and May 28, 2008, who were adjudicated delinquent or placed in the for-profit detention facilities.

Here’s a fun exercise.  Let’s imagine the above article when “Seniors for Cash” stuff hits the fan.  What judges would YOU name, my probate victims? What banksters would you name who looked the other way?  How many authorities was this reported to and they did nothing?  Would the families of Wyman, Gore, Sykes, Tyler, Drabik, Richards, Baker get a $25 million class action settlement?

Breaking News–Blog under attack by Treasonist to US Constitution!

Once again, my blog is under attack from the Miscreants  and Treasonists of the US.
But I stand Firm. We have learned from 9.11. The woman clearly was trained by ISIS (and no, I know that ISIS isn’t real so don’t write me that one)
first the Anti-First Amendment, treasonous letter:
To: Viviana Banos <>, Atty Ken Ditkowsky <>, Atty Candice Schwager <>, “Mr. Lanre Amu — honest atty unfairly persecuted by ARDC” <>
Cc: Lucius Verenus Probate Sharks <>, Bev Cooper Probate Sharks <>
Subject: Re: Barbara Stone response from THE MOST DANGEROUS BLOGGER
Date: Oct 8, 2015 4:07 PM
With all due respect, what you are asking me to do is to supress my First Amendment rights as a lawyer (still admitted in Federal Court and appeals courts) and a reporter, and you are asking me to hide corruption and a string of felonies from the internet–which is the public’s right to know.  we do not remove posts.  Your communication has been reported to the authorities as a supression of my First Amendment rights and I consider what you have done to be an act of Treason against the citizens of the US.

Futhermore, you are asking me to compromise the integrity of my blog which I will never do.  You will have to fly to Chicago, shoot me in the head, hack my passwords and remove it yourself.

We operate in accordance with the First Amendment to the US Constitution.  Please read the Wiki SCOTUS cases on the First Amendment to the US constitutuion.  Start with New York Times v. Sullivan and take this up and through Citizens United. Go look at the Hillary movie before you first comment.  What I have said is true about Barbara and her mother and the public has a right to know.

Further, every post from Barbara was done with her permission.

It makes no difference what you or I do anyway because there are literally hundreds of “way back” or historical sites around the globe, crawling and publishing, crawling and publishing what is put there each and every day.

Why not go after them and “cleanse them first”.

What happened to Barbara and Helen Stone was a national tragedy.  Her mother is highly at risk in her current situation.  I have dozens of lawyers and court corruption victims ask about Barbara all the time and how she is doing and will the courts save her mother from certain death.  Why not focus on that instead.

I want to know why you have no sympathy, empathy or compassion for either Barbara (who is wholly innocent in my view) and her mother who is nothing more than a product of target-medicate-isolate and eliminate scheme flooding our probate courts.  Have you been tested for being a psychopath, narcissist or sociopath?  Because it doesn’t look good from what you have written me.

I want to know what no one has gone after the brother for $600,000 in forged checks on his mother’s account. I want to know why Helen Stone had a feeding tube implanted in her against her will and that she could eat just fine, but no one at the nursing home wants to take the time to feed her.  I want to know why Barbara has not seen her mother in over a year. All of that belongs on a blog. Answer that first and we will talk some more.

If you have a problem with what I have published, I invite you to comment thereupon.  If you don’t like what I have published, as the US Supreme Court has said over and over again, “avert thy eyes”.

But this is not North Korea, my blog is run out of England where they don’t care about US court orders, and if they did, I would move it to another jurisdiction in a second.

You sound like you need to move to North Korea along with anyone else that is pushing for this Treasonous act against a free, open and democratic society.

I am sure Kim Jong Un will welcome you with open arms.

Until that, I assume after reading this you will be withdrawing your demand to remove content from a blog in a free, open and democratic society.

There is a warning at the top of the blog that I AM THE MOST DANGEROUS BLOGGER.

Tell you what, I will stop publishing when YOU clean up the mess in probate, when YOU work for all my court corruption victims–Sykes, Wyman, Spera, Drabik, Harrison, etc. for FREE and get justice for them.

You think you can send out such a horrid demand letter and you don’t affect other people, well your words and phrases do.  What you are asking me to do is to turn my back on court corruption victims everywhere, to simply give up when I get a demand letter. This I will not do.

Do you know how much these people have suffered. Do you even care?  Do you know how much the evil in the world wants this all covered up so they can steal and kill freely?

Who writes letter like you do?  You should be ashamed of yourself, resign your job and come work with me on court corruption victims.

Resign while you still have time before the devil completely takes your soul and spirit from you.

Mestopheles is at your door.  Don’t invite him in.

JoAnne Denison,
Executive Director,
Justice 4 Every blog and 9 other blogs–most out of the country where you can’t do anything about it.
Probate Sharks–you are instructed to publish this attack on US democracy and freedom in defense of all the probate victims out there, including Mrs Gore who was isolated for 10 months from 20+ family and friends and then they saw her for less than an hour and found out she too, like Mrs. Stone, had a feeding tube at one end laced with drugs and a diaper at the other.  The true horror?  They had pulled her 29 gold teeth and never inventoried them.  At the time, Mrs. Gore wanted to eat, she loved to eat.  She love steak, lobster, shrimp and fine food.  But the court appointed cronies took this all away from her.  Is this what you want?  6 weeks after I published this on my blog (which the FBI reads, if you did not know), Judge Kowamoto “suddenly retired” and fled to Texas and she has not been heard of since.  Good riddance.  $1.5 million in coins disappeared in that case.

Suspended attorneys allowed to represent parties in court–a Due Process Challenge

And from Andy Ostrowski, a fellow attorney suspended for blogging about corruption in Pennsylvania, the land of “Kids for Cash” comes this article:

Some great arguments are made in this article as to why suspended lawyers should be able to represent members of the public, especially when the client is 1) informed of the nature of the suspension 2) does not agree with it (corruption, First Amendment, whatever) and 3) wants to hire the attorney regardless.

The article presents many interesting concepts such as can a client waive the suspension, can a judge over rule it and let the attorney appear, does it matter if the client cannot find representation otherwise due to lack of funds, that other attorneys won’t go up against a corrupt system and all types of nuances in the right to representation and to contract guaranteed by the US Constitution and state constitutions such as…

View original post 395 more words