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:

http://attorneyindependence.blogspot.com/2015/10/the-lame-first-step-towards.html

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 difference between just running into court and asking to represent a client and what happened in the Ostrowski representation case is that both suspended lawyers wanted to appear to represent someone in an administrative proceeding that for some reason, did not require a lawyer (it was determined that another person could appear on behalf of the client, which is actual BS meaning the authorities are only recognizing that no lawyers want to do these types of hearings, they’re too penny ante).  However, there was a question as to whether they could appear because their suspension rules say they can’t represent anyone at a hearing, which means their rights would be diminished to less than that of an ordinary citizen.  The court ruled they could based on due process, but I think there’s an argument for due process, right to counsel of choice under the Bill of Rights and equal protection (weakest argument, that people who are victims of corruption can have lawyers who are experts in corruption who speak out against it and have been suspended as a result of the “code of silence” rule currently in force and effect.

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 Illinois.

Since my case was all fraud on the court, I really do not take much of this seriously, and as a personal aside, neither do my kids or any of my clients.  My kids actually tell me, “mom when are they going to realize you’re just goofing off and aren’t doing any real work any longer, and they’re going to make you go back to (slave labor) work again.”  Okay, that’s actually funny.  I AM on vacation, doing what I want, sleeping in, writing books and blogging.  Fun, fun, fun for me.  But I still get to say that Jerome Larkin is corrupt and has $1.2 million in unexplained loans on his property and told a reporter “no comment” and refused to reply when she called him on the carpet for it.  I still get to accuse Leah Black Guiterrez of how her $220k+ mortgage got paid off within a year or two.  I get to blog and I get to write books on the corruption in cook county (which everyone knows about) and I still get to investigate all this and call for the removal of these PNS–psychopaths, narcissists and sociopaths.

I get to tell you about tests for PNS and why isn’t the ARDC requiring that for their staff and most of all Jerome Larkin?  I want to know why.  And I want to know why they don’t file Ethics Reports.  I want to know who is paying off all these mortgages.

You see, I haven’t gone away, and their “supsending” me is absolutely ludicrious. Everyone knows I haven’t done anything wrong.  The fact that the ABA twice, not one time, but twice had to pull comments totally in favor of me under the First Amendment is equally laughable.

The ARDC, in light of Rosemond v. Kentucky should just admit defeat and cancel my suspension.  It’s a joke.  It has no effect on what I am going to do with my life and how I am going to help people and how I am sworn to uphold the US and Illinois constitution and out these suppressors of corruption, death and evil for disableds and seniors and I’m not going away.

Why don’t they just steal money from the banks and other corporations?  Why do they steal from seniors and the disableds?  Go steal from the big boys and stop rolling drunks.

JoAnne

Lisa Nadig radio shows–Corruption in Family Court of Cook County

A summary of Lisa’s case:

Lisa was married to Reza for over one decade and the marriage produced one child, A.M. who is now over 16 years old.  Lisa is a professional singer who has sung with many Opera companies and the CSO.  She has a Master’s in Music from DePaul University.

Sometime after she married R.M. and was pregnant with her only son, R.M. became extremely abusive and violent and embarked on a string of affairs, spending little time with his child.  Lisa filed for divorce and in the initial petition, her ex wanted nothing to do with A.M., however he had been poisoning the child for years with a string of abusive comments regarding the mother, including the age old “your mother is crazy”.

Sometime into the divorce, Reza started up with the “mom is crazy”, the family goes into therapy and Parental Alienation raises it’s ugly head with the constant stream of false accusations from Reza.  Professionals hired by the court only make it worse and stir up the litigation, making it a win win for the attorneys and the Child Rep, Natalie Koga (if you know of other cases she has troubled, please contact Lisa directly or email me).

Lisa raised the child by herself, (who is a special needs child, being premature and in need of additional parenting), with Reza absent for long hours per day.

After a particularly difficult time of parenting A.M. which ended in a police phone call after he hit and punched his mother, the Oak Park police came to the scene and wanted to arrest the child for battery of his mother (this was over use of the computer at 3 am–a typical parent problem).  Judge Alfred Levinson ruled that 1) Mother violated a court order because she was ordered not to call the police on the child; and 2) the father produced doctored, improper evidence that Mother had scratched Child when in fact while there were three tiny 1/2 inch scars that Child never claimed came from mother.

Accordingly, Father was granted a “no contact” order against Mother when 1) Mother had a right to call police because Child had pushed her and punched her several times and refused to turn off his computer at 3 am and go to bed; 2) 3 tiny scratches that Child never came from Mother (the family has a dog) and 3) doctored photos and claims in court the “scratches” were “large gashes” by an attorney–William Kelly, who was not on the Dissolution of Marriage case and had never filed an appearance, who claimed he would “produce photos” and in fact never did.

The ex husband has mercilessly pummeled the Mother with paper after paper until he could wrest away custody.  The 604(b) was not favorable in any respect to him and professional have indicated he is a “parental alienator”.

So please listen to Lisa Nadig on the following radio shows and pray she be reunited with her son.  She is a very good mother.  And this is a reminder to all fathers 1) do not lie in court; 2) do not wrest away custody from the mother–both mother AND your child sufferes.

Joint parenting time should be the rule that both parties strive for UNLESS one parent is violently abusive or has a string of felony arrests/convictions.

Even convicted felons have more rights to see their children than a whole lot of mothers.

If you haven’t read it, read the Michael Volpe Book on Chris Mackney “Bullied to Death” over an abusive divorce case and loss of custody and his immersion into poverty from an abuse ex that controlled a court case to the detriment of the family.  That court clearly did not do its job.  What is interesting about the Chris Mackeny case is that when bullies stalk and harass on social media such as Twitter and Facebook, and someone commits suicide or tries to, there is public outrage and people want a prosecutor to convict of murder for harassment and bullying.  Hazing in school is also a crime and often treated as actionable.  But harass, lie, cheat and bully your ex in the court system, nothing is done and everyone just says “oh, well, that’s how divorce is,” when in fact no one followed the law, granted and kept joint custody and split assets 50/50.  How is that?

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/thecapt/2015/09/24/the-captains-very-special-guest-lisa-nadig

Ostrowski and Bailey Discipline Expose a Critical Problem with the System of Justice – the Suppression of Lawyers’ Free Speech Rights

From Andy Ostrowsky:

My self-imposed task on this site, from its very inception, was to make the esoteric intricacies of the way the courts operate, and the way practice of law is conducted, understandable to those who have never even stepped foot in a courtroom.

I’ve written upwards of 100,000 words on this site, and linked documents to that many, and many more, words providing the contextual background for all the conclusions that I have made; yet still have had an abiding feeling that not enough has been said to make it clear and simple to understand, though I am sure that if anyone was able to take the time away from our busy lives to study what has been said here, the dynamics are pretty well laid out.

Hubert Gilroy, the disciplinary counsel appointed by United States District Judge Yvette Kane to oppose my reinstatement in the federal court, as outlined in my recent updates, did more to assist my effort here than I had done in all the prior things I had written – he opposed my reinstatement on what I have discussed on, and linked to, this site.  See PCRLN/Ostrowski videos and this site generally.

I have engaged in political speech, i.e., words critical of the third branch of our government, and, as the briefs below clearly reveal, Mr, Gilroy will only be able to oppose my reinstatement on the mere fact alone that I have written and spoken these words.  Every word I have written and uttered has been done so in good faith, and believing them all to be true.  Further, I submit that every statement of fact I have made is demonstrably true, and that every inference is eminently reasonable.

My First Amendment rights are being trampled because I am (or was or will be) a lawyer who is being critical of the courts.  The implications of that are grave for every person seeking access to a court expecting it to be fair and honest.

Ostrowski Hearing Brief (author – Ostrowski)     Ostrowski Hearing Brief (author – Bailey)

Don Bailey has been suspended by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for 5 years, a total travesty that was only made possible through catastrophic deprivations of his due process rights, and the coverage of his disciplinary proceedings through this site should be studied and understood by anyone seriously interested in real judicial reform.  See the Bailey due process violations/PCRLN coverage article.  Don has been victimized because he did as a lawyer what I have done as a non-lawyer.  Don is a hero, and his commitment and accomplishments should be celebrated, and will be someday, and we will continue to cover the progress of his case, as there surely is much more to be heard from Don.

In the brief that Don wrote on my behalf, and with my immense gratitude, he cited the words of our own United States Supreme Court in a landmark case called New York Times v. Sullivan, words that are very clear and simple for any American to understand:

The general proposition that freedom of expression upon public questions is secured by the First Amendment has long been settled by our decisions. The constitutional safeguard, we have said, was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.  The maintenance of the opportunity for free political discussion to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes may be obtained by lawful means, an opportunity essential to the security of the Republic, is a fundamental principle of our constitutional system.  *  *  *   Those who won our independence believed . . . that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law—the argument of force in its worst form. 

Don succinctly summarized the grave problems that these disciplinary proceedings have revealed as follows:

There is no greater threat to the security, stability, and political health of the United States of America and of our courts than the oppressive effect of judicial control of attorney licensure and discipline which is focused on suppressing, punishing, and deterring criticism from lawyers.   …….  If Ostrowski had criticized the mob, he would never be challenged on those grounds. If he rudely and discourteously attacked the government of China he would be okay . If he engaged in criticisms of the legislature and of the President, not a word would be said to him. But while he is not even practicing law, if he expresses a critical opinion about public officials who happen to be judges, then he is denied the right to practice in our courts. The courts of the United States of America do not belong to our judges, they belong to the people. Judges have no more individual rights than other American citizens and should not be privileged such that an attorney is at risk for his right and opportunity to earn a living because according to the opinion of a jurist he has cast critical light upon the judiciary. The ultimate irony is that the very institution charged with the protection of individual rights in our country is clearly the most destructive of those ends. An oppressed attorney class does not serve the “public interest”. This court should assume the role of constructively confronting these deficiencies and free Mr. Ostrowski from the restraints he is suffering.

Retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor recently pointed out that Judges are fair game and must be open to criticism.  The complement to criticism, of course, is to acknowledge and act on the criticisms in some open and honest form or fashion.  All of this began with honest criticisms of members of the judiciary, mostly in the Middle District, and none of it was ever addressed.  When Petitioner made these criticisms as a lawyer, they were not addressed, when he directed correspondence to the court as a non-lawyer, they were not addressed, and the failure and refusal to address honest and good faith criticism naturally only leaves one to assume that those criticisms are accurate and true.  This is why they continued to be made, and even had taken on a more aggressive, and less objectively respectful, character, but none of it changes the fact that the Petitioner reasonably believed and believes the truthfulness of every word he has ever uttered, and all were made in good faith.  For these reasons, there is no proper basis upon which to deny Petitioner reinstatement to the roll of attorneys in this Court. Petitioner concludes, however, by expressly and sincerely apologizing for any feelings of animosity and disrespect his comments engendered.  There is not one word that Petitioner has uttered about any judge or practitioner that will create any lasting problems respecting the authority of even those as to whom the comments have been directed, and there is now, and never has been, any agenda of the Petitioner to do anything other than to appear before the Courts of the United States of America and to represent persons who have been hurt and harmed, and are in need of representation by competent legal counsel, and to practice his profession, and make his living in doing so. This Court pointed out during the August 27, 2013 hearing, it was up to Petitioner to persuade the Court that he was fit to return to the active roll of attorneys in the Middle District.  Petitioner submits that has been done.

I hope people have the time and opportunity to read and understand the things that are discussed here and throughout this site – there are implications to all of it on your personal lives that may not be understood until it is too late for you to not be victimized by them.

Thank you.

Let’s thank Andy Ostrowsky for the work he has done in uncovering and publishing corruption.

Of all places, Andy comes from the notorious “Kids for Cash” state.  You would wonder why they are simply enhancing the public view these people are all corrupt instead of letting Andy reveal the corruption so the state can heal itself.

From Janet Phelan, the authorities are still stiffling dissent in the US for those that try to protect the elderly

from New Eastern Outlook:

http://journal-neo.org/2015/10/04/free-speech-watch-prior-restraint-makes-a-comeback-as-us-courts-seek-to-squelch-dissent/

Barbara Stone was only able to get out of jail when she agreed to stop blogging. Patty Reid is on the lam. Cary-Andrew Crittenden may be facing further jail time for his efforts to inform others about problems in the Santa Clara County legal system. And Ginny Johnson is under a gag order which nearly eventuated in a close encounter with a jail cell.

Upon visiting her mother in the home in which the guardian had placed Helen Stone, Barbara was shocked to find her mother emaciated and on a feeding tube. Barbara then allegedly took her mother to lunch.

She was subsequently arrested and charged with “custody interference,” and up until recently was confined to house arrest, an electronic tracking bracelet ensuring her compliance.

The problem was that Barbara would not shut up. She filed a number of lawsuits against guardianship court Judge Michael Genden and also against guardian Jacqueline Hertz and her attorney, Roy Lustig, as well as criminal court judge Victoria Brennan and Governor Rick Scott. She also launched a blog with the purpose of exposing the parties involved in what she termed the continuing abuse of her mother. Tiring of her complaints, Judge Genden charged her with criminal contempt for failing to show up at a court hearing and Barbara went into lock-up.

This past week, Stone, who is licensed to practice law in the state of New York, secured her release from jail at a significant price. She has agreed to stop blogging and also, significantly, to not file further papers in her mother’s case without a lawyer. In other words, the price of her freedom was prior restraint.

Unfortunately, this is the norm for probate victims.  When Ken and I published notices to the GAL’s in the Sykes case to come clean and stop the railroading and victimization of Mary, Farenga wrote a letter to the ARDC in which she asked them to investigate myself  and Ken, but not her.   But the ARDC did not investigate myself or Ken, instead, they started to harass us, deny us any defense in our cases, quash crucial subpoenas to the Bank for find Mary’s missing $1 million and in general engage in a cover up operation that was so blantant and open it’s had to understand why the FBI did not get involved immediately and purge the ARDC of it’s corruption.

Gag orders, restraint orders, the changing of transcripts, spoilation of evidence, and the quashing of subpoenas are all the norm when you operate in the are of corruption and corrupt courts and state agencies.

When I visited Florida, I was utterly amazed at the open and rampant corruption of state’s attorneys obviously scurring to meet with the judge privately on Barbara’s case.  This was reported to the FBI and we are still waiting to hear if they will do anything about these corrupt judges.

Barbara may have signed a bunch of utter nonsense to get out of her sitatuion, but believe me, it likely hasn’t stopped her, and I’m sure now she will file more pleadings about this corruption.  We all know these orders are void abinitio, or void from the beginning. So does Barbara.  These corrupted authorities waste their time trying to intimidate her is all that is going on.  Plus, usch agreements are idiotic.  Everyone knows you can’t make an agreement to murder someone or commit a crime.  Those agreements are void abinitio.  Likewise are these agreements on crushing dissent and restraining Free Speech.  The miscreants all now have a problem.  It’s 37 USC sec 371 and suppressing Free Speech, which is a crime.  Everyone who drafted, presented and signed the motion, including the judge, is now liable for Barbara’s restraints on her human and civil rights.  How stupid can these miscreants get?

JoAnne

Can columnists operate in the face of occupational licensing laws? YES

And, here we have a court correctly answering what columnists can and can’t do under free speech (of course if the licensing boards tracked down every blog and column in the US, and charged them with UPL or unlicensed Practice of Law their jobs would be never ending and they would only get a tip of the ice berg regardless.

From Ken Ditkowsky:

Judge Scolds Kentucky for Trying to Censor Parenting Columnist


Associated Press
A federal judge spanked the state of Kentucky for trying to censor a prominent parenting columnist in a First Amendment ruling handed down this week.
The Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology engaged in an unconstitutional “exercise of regulatory zeal” when it ordered syndicated advice columnist John Rosemond to stop referring to himself as a psychologist in the state, ruled U.S. District Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove.
As Law Blog reported earlier, Kentucky officials accused Mr. Rosemond of giving parenting advice without a proper license. In 2013, at the behest of the state psychology board, the Kentucky attorney general’s office issued a cease-and-desist affidavit to Mr. Rosemond in response to a Feb. 2013 column he wrote.
The article, which ran in the Lexington Herald-Leader and dozens of other papers, concerned a couple who sought his advice on dealing with their “highly spoiled” underachieving teenage son. Mr. Rosemond wrote that the kid was in “dire need of a major wake-up call” and urged the parents to take away his cell phone and and driving privileges.
The state objected to Mr. Rosemond identifying himself as a family psychologist and giving individualized parenting advice, citing a law that makes it a crime to present oneself as a psychologist in Kentucky without a board-issued license. Mr. Rosemond is a licensed “psychological associate” in his home state of North Carolina. But because he’s not licensed in Kentucky, the state claimed he was engaging in “unlawful practice of psychology.”
In response, Mr. Rosemond sued, alleging that the state was violating his First Amendment rights to free speech. “It’s an outrageous attempt to limit a citizen’s right to seek advice on issues of living from whomever they choose,” he told Law Blog in an earlier interview. “I refuse to cooperate with their absurd demand.”
In Wednesday’s opinion, Judge Van Tatenhove said the speech at issue in the case deserves “the highest level of constitutional protection,” concluding that the psychology board had failed to articulate a compelling reason for curbing it.
[H]ad 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, and perhaps that is the “wake up” call best drawn from the facts of this case.
The Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology declined to comment on the ruling.
“This case raised one of the most important unanswered questions in First Amendment law,” said Paul Sherman, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, a public-interest law firm that represented Mr. Rosemond. “That question is: Do occupational licensing laws trump free speech? The district court correctly held that they do not.”
This means all of you out there are still free to write your “legal advice”, “medical advice”, and “counseling advice” on your blogs and to your friends without some licensing board charging you with violating licensing laws.  You don’t have to be licensed to have “Free Speech”–it still is an inalienable right under the US Constitution.  The federal judge was absolutely correct on this one.
Of course, I’m not even sure this was any sophisticated therapy, but more or less common sense.  It’s no secret if you teen acts out, take away whatever privilege they cherish most–driving, cell phone, internet.  It’s not hard today to discipline a teen, they rely on so much junk they think they need to be happy.  And you don’t even need to have a fight with them to do it.  The cell phone and internet companies are happy to not charge or charge very little to just shut the darned thing off during certain hours of day or night.  No fights involved.  No pulling the circuit breaker or anything.  I know certain parents to have thrown the X box out a 2nd story window when the grades came out.  The thing was lying on the front lawn when “Johnny” got home.  Amazingly, the darned thing survived (it’s solid state, no hard drive).  So this parental advisor’s advice wasn’t even particularly controversial.

From Ken Ditkowsky–Nursing home deaths that hide dirty little secrets

JoAnne,
This morning on the MaryGSykes blog you exposed a dirty little secret, to wit: assisted INVOLUNTARY SUICIDE  is not gentile and the word involuntary is not the equivalent of voluntary.    In fact the word involuntary suggests that the people who assist a senior to kill himself/herself are not nice people and in fact are murders.

Your point out the following in your blog, to wit:
He died in January 2007 at age 76. On Shepter’s death certificate, Dr. Hoshang Pormir, the nursing home’s chief medical officer, explained that the cause was heart failure brought on by clogged arteries.   Shepter’s family had no reason to doubt it. The local coroner never looked into the death. Shepter’s body was interred in a local cemetery.
But a tip from a nursing-home staffer would later prompt state officials to re-examine the case and reach a very different conclusion.
When investigators reviewed Shepter’s medical records,  they determined that he had actually died of a combination of ailments often related to poor care, including an infected ulcer, pneumonia, dehydration and sepsis.
Investigators also concluded that Shepter’s demise was hastened by the inappropriate administration of powerful antipsychotic drugs, which can have potentially lethal side effects for seniors.
Prosecutors in 2009 charged Pormir and two former colleagues with killing Shepter and two other elderly residents. They’ve pleaded not guilty. The criminal case is ongoing.   

In the Jaycox matter, a similar situation occurred right here in Chicago.   A quick cremation eliminated any consequences and the nursing home operator was able to trot happily to the Bank with his booty.   In the case you cite, charges were brought in 2009.   It is now 2015 (almost 2016).   
Angelia Woodhull informed today that the money that the Guardian outright stole from her (with the appropriate court orders) still has not been returned.   Glenda still has not received the money stolen by the guardian from her husband ****.    What good is a remedy in which the bad guys never are required to make restitution even if a court orders it.
It may sound old hat and tired, but, as long as those public officials – such as Jerome Larkin –  who engage in the 18 USCA 371 conspiracies are immune from the justice system, paying the taxes due etc Justice will not only be delayed but will be farce.    Corrupt public officials such as Jerome Larkin and his 18 USCA 242 conspirators have to be vigorously prosecuted and every dime of taxes, interest and penalties due based upon their overt actions pursuant to the felonies of elder cleansing must be extracted.   Only by vigorous enforcement of the Rule of Law to eliminate Larkin and his co-conspirators from the equation will senior citizens and disabled people be safe!    (In other states the same approach has to be implemented)   Larkin et al teaching legal ethics is an affront to every intelligent citizen of America.
The outrage created by the silence of the legal community to your suspension for exposing the fraud of elder cleansing and the cover-up is outrageous and illustrative of the decline of American citizenship.    There must be people out there who still treasure America’s core values!
Dear Ken;
And to add to that, I have a string of nurses who have told me that abuse is not reported by nurses under threats they will be fired.  Some nurses have tried it, and were then fired AND blackballed.
One current client told me he was a nursing home orderly in college and soon as either the government did not pay or the family didn’t, a quick death was conveniently arranged from management.
If this is the way we treat our seniors, then the US still is a 3rd world country.  There is evidence we belong more in the 3rd world status, to wit:  1) we do not have free health care for the middle class and poor; 2) our minimum wage is not a living wage, as most industrialized countries; 3) the disparity between what a CEO makes and management continues to rise to 300 to one, whereas it used to be 15 to one (that is, it used to be a worker making $15,000 per year had a CEO making $225,000 per year); 4) we still have the death penalty in some states; 5) vacation time in the US is not mandated by law and falls into the 2 to 3 week category, while Europe has 4 weeks for the average worker; 6) we still do not have an Equal Rights Amendment, and most European countries have passed that and eliminated pink collar discrepancies; 7) survey after survey, our workers are in general more dissatisfied with their pay and benefits than the same workers in Europe; 8) college is low cost or free (many US students study abroad now to save money); etc.
Of course, the retort to that is that we have more minorities and are not as homogenized as Europe, but that’s not really true either.
So, I guess unreported deaths and cover ups are just one more indicator.
But they need not be.  We know who the culprits are–Jerome Larkin and staff and they can and should be replaced by the Supreme Court of Illinois.  SCOI created them and if they turn into a bad apple, SCOI should take them out.
Lawyers should be honest, ethical and trustworthy.  They should speak up and out for every injustice–especially in the US where so many, many immigrants come from 3rd world and unjust countries.  England at one time was a horribly unjust monarchy and many of our first immigrants were from there.  King George was a tyrrant upon us, and the US Constitution was established to remedy that.
Now we find the mobs and their family members infiltrating our court system and states attorneys offices and nothing is done (Madigan–daughter of drug lord lawyer Joel Murray, NY, Marilyn F in the Official Court reporters directs reporters to alter transcripts, the ARDC hires Morgan and Messina to change my transcript, Presiding Judge Timothy Evans has 2 daughters in the court scheduling department for $100k each, plus Rosemary Roti, daughter of a mob member Frank Roti from New York.  We have to stop all of that.  Pennsylvania has shut down its Kids for Cash program and Illinois must do the same.
To wit:
1) the Illinois ARDC must file ethics reports as mandated by the Illinois Legislature (can’t believe they stand for the fact that the ARDC is essentially flipping the Legislature the bird on this one and the Legislature takes it);
2) all lawyers and judges have to be tested with brain scans for psychopathy, narcissism and sociopathic brain responses;
3) same for the Judicial Inquiry Board.  It should either be directed by SCOI to do it’s job or it should be wiped out.
JoAnne
JoAnne

From the Pro Publicia Website – Senior deaths rarely investigated

Making the cover up of crimes especially easy for public official hired to “look the other way” such as Jerome Larkin.

Read On:

A retired U.S. government scientist, Shepter spent his final two years dwelling in a nursing home in Mountain Mesa, Calif., a small town northeast of Bakersfield. A stroke had paralyzed much of his body, while dementia had eroded his ability to communicate.

He died in January 2007 at age 76. On Shepter’s death certificate, Dr. Hoshang Pormir, the nursing home’s chief medical officer, explained that the cause was heart failure brought on by clogged arteries.

Shepter’s family had no reason to doubt it. The local coroner never looked into the death. Shepter’s body was interred in a local cemetery.

But a tip from a nursing-home staffer would later prompt state officials to re-examine the case and reach a very different conclusion.

When investigators reviewed Shepter’s medical records, they determined that he had actually died of a combination of ailments often related to poor care, including an infected ulcer, pneumonia, dehydration and sepsis.

Investigators also concluded that Shepter’s demise was hastened by the inappropriate administration of powerful antipsychotic drugs, which can have potentially lethal side effects for seniors.

Prosecutors in 2009 charged Pormir and two former colleagues with killing Shepter and two other elderly residents. They’ve pleaded not guilty. The criminal case is ongoing.

Note this article is from a journalist associated with NPR (National Public Radio) and Frontline

How much longer will the ARDC cover up deaths such as Sykes, Drabik, Nash, Richards, etc.–so that connected attorneys in probate can continue to run their cottage industry of death and greed?

Files need to be pulled and audited, statements need to be taken, discovery issued and attorneys and their tied in service providers (that often provide no services at all) need to be called in and deposed.  All staff and managers and attorneys at the ARDC and in our court system need to be tested for psycopathy and narcissism before they continue on their jobs.

The public and other lawyers are paying huge, huge sums of money when milllions fall of the inventories of probate wards, caring family members are granted bogus protective orders when they stand up in court for their loved ones, they are maligned, slandered, libeled, false lighted  and told they are crazy when they insist on no psychopathic drugs (these are illegal and not FDA approved to give to seniors), and due process for their seniors.

The articles are getting worse and worse Mr. Larkin.  They do not support your position of covering up the suspicious death of hundreds of seniors every year.

Join with us and start investigating these deaths.  Call in attorneys such as Farenga, Stern and Schmeidel who falsely claimed $200,000 of Gloria’s money and sold Mary’s home for 25% of it’s true value and $1 million loss in coins was never investigated and discovery was quashed repeatedly, even by the ARDC.

Your complaince, and the aid and assistance of Ms. Opryszek, Ms. Leah Black Guiterrez and Steven Splitt–an (no) ethics attorney is about the worst behavior I have seen of a group of attorneys whose sole purpose is to PROTECT the public and not cover up for clouted attorneys.

Join with me and Ken and start to clean up this mess.

There is no way that any of the miscreants deserved a dime of the $160k in fees that they took from poor Mary–narcotized to death when the money ran out.

The above story is worse that that of Mr. Shepter because we know ATTORNEYS and JUDGES covered up some serious deviations from the law to take $160k in fees.

Someone will eventually investigate and correct the severe derrogation of the human and civil rights of Mary G Sykes with sooooo many attorneys outraged by the mis-behavior of the miscreants.  It should have been you and your staff in connjunction with Ms. Madigan, but nothing happened.  18 USC section 4 applies to you and your staff.  18 USC section 371 says that you and your staff are jointly and severally liable–fees, fines, penalties and punitive damages.

Time to step for ward and do your job.  Investigate poor Mary, who now lies in a crypt at a local cemetary.

JoAnne