ABC California in depth series. Maricopa county, California

Brad Lund is in the middle of a probate court battle.  Brad is the grandson of walt disney.  Several atty. Were hired.  One atty, Joel Sanis refused to answer questions claiming attorney client privilege and found himself locked up.

The sheriff’s deputy handcuffed them and took to a holding cell.  He said this had never happened to him before.

brad has spent about $1 million in attorneys fees.

Attorney Laura Kanapanek has stated the following: “[probate] Court is a rubber stamp.  No one is held accountable. There is rampant financial exploitation and abuse of vulnerable adults. .  Accounts are drained and then the state has to take care of the individuals. Probate court not doing its job.”

ABC reports changes in law are coming to probate court with new legislation in the works.

+Courts will be required to follow the family’s wishes. (That often does not happen.)

+Not charge excessive fees.

+Budget for future expenses.

+Provide an estimate of expenses to the estate up front.

One professional Guardian spent $1 million of the ward’s money in 3 years leaving her destitute, one spent thousands on stuff animals, etc.

Joel Sanis says it is “A system that is deeply flawed.”  Regarding his incarceration, he says, “I was put into a holding cell.  I had to give my belt shoelaces, tie, etc. and it was embarrassing.”  He had never been treated like that before.

Brad has been finally ruled not incapacitated.

This Response was directed to Judge St Eve, who is apparently the new judge in charge of the Executive Committee.

Fax cover sheet:
FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET
To:
Judge St. Eve and
The Executive Committee
ND Illinois
c/o Ms. Panter
Fax No: 312-554-8512
From:  Admitted Ill (suspended), NC (inactive)  and Patent Bars
JoAnne M. Denison,     Pat. Atty.  Reg.  No.  34,150
Justice 4 Every 1, NFP    FAX 312-553-1307
5940 W Touhy Ave, #120    CELL PH 773-255-7608
NILES, IL 60714    PHONE 312-553-1300
JoAnne@justice4every1.com or http://www.Justice4Every1.com
Federal Patents, Trademarks & Copyrights
Now–suspended by the ARDC for blogging about corruption in the courts for three years.  Join the Lawyer Activist Innocence Project.

For transmission problems, please call 312-553-1300
A confirmation copy       WILL   ✔   will NOT be sent.
Pages in fax, including this coversheet – (  )
November 20, 2015

Re:    Unconstitutional Suspension of Joanne Denison
Case No. 2013 PR 1 – ARDC

Dear Ms. Panter;

Attached is a further response to the Recent Order of the Northern District Court in light of new case law (Waddington, Rosemond and a Harvard Law Review Article).

I really don’t understand how difficult the First Amendment is for attorneys to understand.  It’s really quite simple, has no real limitations–especially when it comes to political speech, and it seems as though it was designed exactly to fit my exact situation, i.e., corruption in the courts, and the stripping of seniors of their human and civil rights, all their assets which are commonly handed over only to attorneys that rarely, if ever see them and who aren’t really protecting them, and then they are subject to forced drugging (at a rate of 20 to 80% in nursing homes where they do not want to be), finally after the estate is drained mostly by attorneys fees, the senior is narcotized to death (Sykes, Gore, Drabik, Baker, etc.) and then often cremated to destroy evidence (Rector) or the body hidden (Tyler) or the probate court patently refuses exhumation and tox screens (Sykes). I believe that the ARDC/Executive Committee have no jurisdiction over media/blogs under the First Amendment to regulate my blogs, and in such a corrupt, retaliatory manner.  Lawyers Kenneth Karl Ditkowsky, Lanre Amu and I are Activist Attorneys working under the umbrella of a Not for Profit to benefit the citizens of Illinois and throughout the nation. Our work is blessed and must not be interfered with.

We need to stop all of this and I and Kenneth Ditkowsky are working assiduously on all of this.  Other attorneys are helping us too, who wish to remain anonymous due to risk to their licenses, nas well as scores of citizen probate victims, but we also need the assistance of the court system.

I trust you understand.  Please deliver the attached to Judge St. Eve and the Executive Committe and I pray they change their decision in my case and the cases of Lawyers Lanre Amu and Kenneth K Ditkowsky.

Your prompt assistance is greatly appreciated.

Very Truly Yours,

DENISON & ASSOCS, PC

JoAnne Denison

JoAnne M. Denison

cc: http://www.marygsykes.com, http://www.justice4every1.com

US DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
In re: Joanne Marie Denison

Attorney-Respondent

No. 6192441

by the Illinois ARDC,

Petitioner
MR 27193

Response to Petition for Interrim
Suspension under Rule 774

Case No. 2013 PR 1

NOTICE OF FILING
RESPONSE TO CITATION TO SHOW CAUSE

To:
Atty Sharon Opryszek
Counsel for Administrator
One Prudential Plaza
130 E Randolph Dr, Suite 1500
Chicago, IL 60601

Please take notice that on November 19, 2015 the undersigned Ms. Denison hereiwth filed her Response to the Citation to Show Cause.

By: _____/esign/joannemdenison/____
Pro se

Prepared by
JoAnne M Denison
Justice 4 Every 1, NFP
5940 W. Touhy Ave, #120
Niles, IL 60714
312-553-1300
joanne@denisonlaw.com

US DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
In re: Joanne Marie Denison

Attorney-Respondent

No. 6192441

by the Illinois ARDC,

Petitioner
MR 27193

Response to Petition for Interrim
Suspension under Rule 774

Case No. 2013 PR 1

UPDATED RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF FILING
RESPONSE TO CITATION TO SHOW CAUSE

The following is an updated response to the Rule to Show Cause to Remove the above Respondent from the roles of attorneys for the ND of Illinois.
The ARDC review board found two violations of the Illinois Rules of Ethics as follows:
The Hearing Board found that the Administrator proved Respondent’s statements outlined in the Complaint were false and that Respondent made the statements knowing they were false or with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity. The Hearing Board concluded that Respondent violated Rules 8.2(a), 8.4(c) and 8.4(d). The Hearing Board recommended that Respondent be suspended for three years and until further order of the Court.
Upon review, Respondent challenged the findings of the Hearing Board and argued that the First Amendment protected her statements. The Review Board concluded that the Hearing Board’s findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The Review Board concluded that the First Amendment did not afford any protection for Respondent. The Review Board affirmed the findings of misconduct of the Hearing Board and recommended that Respondent be suspended for three years and until further order of the Court.  Decision, p. 1.

It is still patently untrue that “the First Amendment does not afford any protection for Respondent.”  The ARDC continually miscites the Sawyer case wherein SCOTUS made it clear that a lawyer can criticize a court, a statute or a decision.  Emphasis added.  In Re Sawyer, 360 US 622 (1959).  The ARDC, Tribunal and Review Board consistently mis-cited cases to suit its own purposes.  Since 1959, the First Amendment clearly protects the political speech of attorneys, and it does so in an unfettered manner.  The ARDC rejects this notion, but it does so on unethical, immoral and intellectually dishonest bases.
Respondent continues to request that she and Lawyer Kenneth Ditkowsky receive Whistle blower protection from the ND Illinois Court system for their work in protecting innocent victims of court corruption, particular in the Illinois Probate Courts where no other lawyers are willing to help victims.
The mantra in the probate courts is still “target, quickly guardianize, isolate, medicate, drain the estate, eliminate and cremate.”
The ND of Illinois must take steps to eliminate the corruption in the Illinois court system and restore Truth and Justice and the Rule of Law.
As an update to my Prior Response, since the decisions of the ARDC and your issue of an Order to Remove, important case decisions have issued (Rosemond v. Markham, ED Ken., 9/30/15) and In re Weddington (Ill. App. 4th Dist. 2015) as well as a Harvard Law Review Article making it clear that the judicial system has no jurisdiction whatsoever to regulate the media.  These cases are based upon a long line of SCOTUS decisions cited in my prior briefs to the ARDC and Tribunal and Review Board which make it clear the ARDC does not have jurisdiction over my blog.
47 USC § 230 (Internet Decency Act) and 320 ILCS § 20/4 (Elder Abuse reporting immunity) make it clear that bloggers have immunity from prosecution for what is published on blogs.
In your Respondent’s case, numerous posts were made on the blog http://www.marygsykes.com and a mirror blog http://www.justice4ever1.com that reported on the activities of certain nefarious judges and attorneys acting in conjunction therewith to deprive seniors of their basic human and civil rights.  Most notably was disabled person Mary G. Sykes in case no. 09 P 4585, the subject matter of most of the ARDC dispute wherein the ARDC attempted to cover up a string of highly unethical and immoral actions by the following attorneys and judges: Judge Jane Louis Stuart (suddenly retired), Attorney Cynthia Farenga, who asked the ARDC not investigate her unethical actions but those of Kenneth K. Ditkowsky, a known human and civil rights activist in the guardianship field of law, as well as those of myself, a blogger and activist in the area of human and civil rights for seniors and disabled adults in the guardianship field of law.  Attorney Farenga wrote to the ARDC and asked them to cover up the following unethical actions:
1) Mary G Sykes was guardianized with GAL-attorneys Cynthia Farenga and Adam Stern and Atty Harvey Waller motioning for her guardianship fully well knowing that Mary had not be served with advance notice of the time, date and place of hearing 14 days in advance of finding her disabled, certain family members–Yolanda Bakken, a sister; Kathie Baken, a niece and Gloria Sykes, the younger daughter all objected to the guardianship and that Mary had no counsel and she also objected to the guardianship and wanted her own attorney;
2) Mary G Sykes requested and never received any independent counsel prior to the hearing;
3) Cynthia Farenga has a husband, Michael J. Crowley who has a sting of property records with numerous transactions for buying and selling homes (likely from probate) which were never investigated;
4) Cynthia Farenga has a $600,000 mortgage recently on her home which was never investigated (bribes are often passed by one person taking out a loan and another one paying it back).
5) Nursing homes frequently pay kick backs to the persons placing them there of $2,000 to $5,000 per month. This has never been investigated, and Mary Sykes was placed in at least two nursing homes–against wishes stated in her advance directives, a POA of that she remain in her home with both daughters to care for her there.  That has never been investigated.
6) The most heinous crimes were: a) Mary G Sykes was narcotized to death “in hospice” on May 23, 2015 when the money ran out, and she was found drugged and in a stupor, when she was not only a staunch Roman Catholic that did not believe in drugs or hospice, but she was also did not believe in drugs as a  dedicated vegetarian on an organic diet; b) her home was located in Norwood Park, a highly desirable area of Chicago, it was appraised in February of 2012 for $750,000 and then sold in probate two months later for $213,000; and c) approximately $200,000 or 90%+ of her estate went to attorneys fees for attorneys Farenga, Stern, Schmeidel and Soehlig.  None of this has been investigated after numerous requests to the ARDC and direct pleas to Jerome Larkin, head Administrator of the ARDC. All of this has been reported on the blog and the Tribunal found it to be “lies” when in fact it was and still is the Truth.  The Truth has not disappeared and the Sykes-Bakken family has been terrorized by these attorneys in probate and they have received no true Justice for Mary Sykes.
Instead during kangaroo court proceedings, Lawyer Kenneth Ditkowsky (a veteran lawyer of 50+ years) and myself were found to be “guilty” of making false statements on my blog resulting in a 3 year suspension when all I did was publish letters to the authorities either requesting or demanding appropriate investigations, relaying information to the public about the facts which were told to both myself and Kenneth by more than a dozen concerned citizens that Mary G Sykes was the victim of fraud and corruption in the court system.
The public has a right to know.  Respondent and others have a right to republish these letters and communications and the comments from family members that are concerned about fraud and corruption in the court system.
The blog is open, free and democratic.  Attorneys Farenga, Stern, Schmeidel and Soehlig had more than ample opportunity to deny allegations of corruption which they refused to do.  In addition, Respondent and Kenneth Ditkowsky have appeared on dozens of cable show programs, and the moderator always invited these attorneys to appear, but they never agreed to accept the invitation, even after dozens of requests.  (Cooper’s Corners, Comcast broadcast weekly, moderator Bev Cooper, herself a probate victim where her own mother, Alice Gore was isolated for 10+ months and then when she was granted one hour visitation, she found 29 gold teeth of her mother had been removed, not inventoried, and then poor 99 year old Alice Gore was narcotized to death when the money ran out).
The ARDC routinely, under the tutelage of Jerome Larkin and his in house counsel James Grogin, dismisses valid citizen complaints about seniors being guardianized without the statutory protections, placed in locked down nursing homes against their will, and then chemically restrained. The isolation and drugging of senior citizens is considered to be a violation of the Geneva Convention by many.  Convicted serial murders have more human and civil rights than a senior citizen in a guardianship in Illinois, currently.  Nursing home reports from 20 to 80% of residents of nursing homes are given some type of chemical restraint, all of which is illegal and such drugs are medially contraindicated with black box warnings by the FDA for those under 20 and over 60 years of age.
Recent Relevant Case Law: Weddington, Rosemond and Harvard Law Review

Since the last submission of information to the ND Illinois court which Respondent provided after receiving a Rule to Show Cause, the number of horrific cases in guardianship has only grown.  She gets on average 2 or 3 new cases per week, and she is dedicated to writing up blog posts and timelines for the probate victims and their families. Her goal is to write a series of books on elder abuse in guardianships until the public is well educated on the subject.  Hundreds, if not thousands of seniors are at risk across the nation of their estates being drained and then narcotized to death in “hospice” and other starvation/dehydration programs set in motion by nefarious guardians (of death and abuse) and their attorneys and tied in GAL’s.  The streaming of cases in her email inbox never ends.
However, the cases of Weddington, Rosemont and a particularly on point article by the Harvard Law Review (Exhibit A, hereto) makes it clear that the ARDC has no jurisdiction to review, monitor and discipline (in an effort to cover up) the publication of a string of felonies occurring in our guardianship court rooms day in and day out.  This is a valid media activity and is well protected by the First Amendment on a historical basis from the New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) case up to and including US v. Alvarez case where Mr. Alvarez publicly proclaimed he was granted a Medal of Valor when in fact this was an utterly false claim.
As explained in In re Sawyer, 360 US 622 (1959), a case involving a lawyer in Hawaii, the US Supreme court made it the law that a lawyer can criticize a case, a statute or a court decision.  Mr. Rosemond asked for protection under the First Amendment for his highly popular column on psychological advice and was granted it.  Likewise, Ms. Denison is asking not only for First Amendment protection for her blog, but also protection as a Whistle blower who protects the civil and human rights of senior citizens and the disabled.
Mr. Rosemond’s column is not a commercial endeavor and therefore deserving of First Amendment protection.  Rosemond at p.12. Likewise, even the ARDC has admitted that Ms. Denison’s blogs are not commercial but composed of political speech, she does not sell any information on them and makes no money from them.  They are simply a safe forum for probate court victims to discuss their cases and strategy.  Political speech should be entitled to 100% First Amendment protection–whether true, false or in between, the blog is the same as a newspaper and the government is not allowed under the First Amendment to regulate news media–period.
The ARDC refused to all Ms. Denison to present testimony from other popular probate blogs and bloggers, including Sylvia Rudek from NASGA or trhe National Association to Stop Guardian Abuse, and Ken and Beverly Cooper from Cooper’s Corner Cable TV show and Probatesharks.com–two of the most popular probate blogs, were not allowed to testify that 1) Ms. Denison’s blog is truthful; 2) her blog is of genuine value and support to probate victims; and 3) the miscreant Judge and attorneys allowed to testify on behalf of the ARDC are not trusted in the legal community and have profound negative feedback from probate court victims.  All of this testimony was disallowed by the Tribunal because they said “they did not need it.”
It is interesting to note that Atty Schmeidel testified that he is well liked by the probate judges and other probate lawyers, but he never said that probate victims liked him as well.
The Rosemond court found that the regulatory board’s regulations for a psychological advice column were unconstitutionally applied, Rosemond at p. 21.
In a recent Harvard Law Review Article, (Vol. 128:183) p. 183 entitled “Occupational Speech and the First Amendment”, the Author, Mr. Paul Sherman  a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, carefully studied a long line of US Supreme Court cases on occupational speech and the First Amendment, including the cases of Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass’n (sale of unlabeled violent video games to minors) , and US v. Alvarez (false public claims to a Medal of Valor), Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (teaching terror groups how to resolve disputes via humanitarian and diplomatic methods), US v. Stevens (videos of animal abuse used for erotic purposes), In re Weddington (court could not control or manage Face book posts by one litigant in a hotly contested divorce) and came to the conclusion that occupational speech can and should be protected by the First Amendment.  Also pertinent to the issue of the government regulating occupation speech are the cases of: Lowe v. SEC- (SEC had no jurisdiction to regulate an investment column run by a former licensee after numerous financial felony convictions), and IRS v. Loving (IRS had no jurisdiction to require tax preparers to become licensed by the IRS because Congress had not granted the IRS such authority).  These are additional SCOTUS authority for protecting occupational-political speech completely under the First Amendment.
In its summary, Mr. Paul Sherman makes the following conclusion with respect to occupational speech and the First Amendment:
CONCLUSION
As I have tried to explain above, granting full First Amendment protection to occupational speech is the only position that is consistent with binding Supreme Court precedent. It is also the only position that is consistent, more broadly, with the general trend of the Supreme Court’s First Amendment jurisprudence over the last 20 years, which has removed political speech from a position of privilege and now recognizes that speech on a wide variety of topics is entitled to robust  constitutional protection. Whether that was,… [as some may] argue, a “radical[] ” shift when it began in the 1990s,124 it is now merely the long-established law.  Harvard Law Review article on “Occupational Speech” at  201.

The author goes on to note that the First Amendment has uncompromising text–it does not distinguish between violent video games, or lies about receiving military honors, or lies in the press or speech about any subject, popular or unpopular.

The ARDC, in its decision, believes that it has the right to control the media, to control attorney speech outside representation of actual clients.  The blogs http://www.marygsykes.com and http://www.justice4every1.com do not speak of anything which has not already been mentioned on the internet or confirmed by family members.  The ARDC Tribunal simply told the family member witnesses (who were already probate victims and one suffered greatly from Court induced PTSD or LAS–Legal Abuse Syndrome, that the family was wrong, the attorneys and judges were right and they suppressed testimony and evidence on theft of $1 million from the estate of Mary G Sykes–a woman who would soon be murdered or narcotized to death on May 23, 2015.

It repudiates the paternalism that rests at the heart of so much regulation of speech, instead viewing Americans as capable of seeking out information on a wide variety of topics and of reaching their own conclusions about the merits of that information. This view is perhaps most eloquently stated in Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in Citizens United v. FEC.  When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control
thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.  Harvard Law Review at 201

It is respectfully submitted that it is wrong for the ND Illinois court to willy nilly follow the lead of the ARDC and suspend either Ms. Denison or Mr. Kenneth Ditkowsky for their activism in representing probate victims and writing for and publishing a blog (Mr. Ditkowsky primarily writes letters to probate victims and the authorities concerning the frequent strings of felonies committed by guardianship abusers in the court room; Ms. Denison publishes these on her blog.
Conclusion:
For all of the reasons cited above, Respondent is entitled to:
1)  First Amendment protection for her blog under the case of In re Sawyer,
2)  she is requesting that the ARDC be directed not to interfere with her blogs or use her license as a weapon to curtail free speech political activity on her blog; 3)  Respondent is further requesting that the ND Illinois declare her to be a Protected Whistle blower under the policy of the State of Illinois, the Illinois Constitution regarding free speech, the policy to allow the free reporting of Elder Abuse under 320 ILCS § 20/4 to the authorities and publish copies of said communications on her blog, and that her blog is further protected under 47 USC § 230 or the Internet Decency Act.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

By: _____/esign/joannemdenison/____
Pro se

Prepared by
JoAnne M Denison
Justice 4 Every 1, NFP
5940 W. Touhy Ave, #120
Niles, IL 60714
312-553-1300 ph
joanne@denisonlaw.comCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I served a copy of the foregoing Response to Rule to Show Cause served by placing same in the US mail, first class postage, prepaid, upon counsel for the IARDC at the address below: this Nov. 19, 2015 at least as early as midnight in Niles, Illinois

and a copy was delivered to the Executive Committee Chair at

219 S. Dearborn St,
Chicago, Illinois 60603

Ms. Sharon Opryszek
Counsel, ARDC
130 E Randolph St
One Prudential Plaza, 15th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60601
312 565 2600 served by USPS mail

______/esign/joannemdenison/

____________________________

cc: http://www.MaryGSykes.com
http://www.Justice4every1.com
Chicago FBI

http://www.tmz.com/2013/10/16/mickey-rooney-settlement-lawsuit-elder-abuse-insurance/

The family admits to the siphoning off of cash from his accounts and physical and mental abuse.

Only one catch, the miscreants don’t have $2.8 million, but say they are insured for that.

The insurance company says the policy does not cover intentional torts such as elder abuse and exploitation.

Now the fight is over whether the insurance company must pay out.

interesting.

http://www.disabilityscoop.com/2015/11/10/marriage-concerns-guardianship/20948/

This is one smart judge.  The family is worried but the judge correctly rules that the disabled person has to be shown to be incapable of making reasonable decisions.

The family wanted to take away his right to marry.

Notes from Dr. Sam Sugar/Andy Ostrowski show.

While I did not listen to the entire show, I did hear the vast majority of it.  All in all, it was an excellent discussion of some of the most insidious problems in our nation’s probate courts.

Dr. Sugar started out with some sort of strange discussion of courts of equity vs. courts of law.  He seemed to blame many of the problems in probate on a strange notion that a probate court is a court of equity and that means it need not necessarily follow the law.  He thought that a court of law had to follow the law, but a court of equity did not in fact have to follow the law.

I have never, ever, heard a probate court ever issue a court decision to that effect.  I have had pro se clients, who have never been to law school tell me they have studied the law, read numerous book and tell me that theory of law and how courts of equity are somehow magically different from all the other courts, but I have never, ever heard a judge or a law professor say that.  Ever.  Nor have I ever heard an attorney appearing in probate say, “your honor, this is a court of equity and there fore you need not necessarily follow the law as written.”  It has never happened.  I have never seen it happen.

In the US, the case law controls and the courts must follow the law.  In Illinois (as in most states) the Probate court is created by law, not by the sovereign.  This makes it a court of law.  It only exist because the law created it by having the state legislature pass a law creating both the court and the law for that court.  In the U.S., courts do not pass laws or legislate anything.  They carry out the laws as they are written.

It is not true that a “court of equity” can do anything or that it is somehow different from other court divisions such as criminal, juvenile, family court (aka break up the family court), law or municipal or small claims. They are now all the same, created by the law and given laws to follow.  If the law is clear, the court must follow the law as written.  If the law is unclear or there are nuances not set forth in the law, then the court follows case law which can address nuances.

However, it is not true at all the Judge can just make stuff up.  If he does that, s/he is corrupt.  A judge follows the law and the case law.  If the judge is not doing that, they s/he needs to be reported and kicked out.

Dr. Sugar did mention that in abusive guardianships where the elderly are abused, if you go to the FBI they will say they cannot get involved because it’s a state issue or a civil issue. The local police (that are often tied in) will also say that it is a state court issue and they cannot get involved.  I think most people know this is a facade and the FBI and the local police are generally tied into powerful people in the court system and they don’t want to get involved because they do not want to step on anyone’s toes, and the probate court system tends to have some especially powerful toes.

Dr. Sugar believes that by passing a law saying that the police may investigate and prosecute crimes by those in a guardianship, things will change.  I think not and this is the reason: the law is already there, and the reason why it is being ignored is because the police are tied into the people making money off of the guardianship–the lawyers and the guardians.  Both guardians and the lawyers contribute to the campaign funds of the judges and prosecutors which keeps them aligned with the lawyers and guardians.  Both the lawyers and the guardians can pass to the judges seen and unseen benefits for allowing them to do as they please with the assets of a disabled person.

Andy Ostrowski believes that the main problem with the probate courts is that have not reigned in these abuses.  I think that is simplistic and ignores the corruption and cronyism of a tied in and tied up system with a whole lot of money and power.  I have alway asserted that 90% of the problems in probate will disappear by simply installing an FBI agent on the same floor as any probate court and making sure they do their job to root out and eliminate probate court corruption.

Dr. Sugar believes that we need to get in place judges and lawyers that do not tolerate the abuse of the elderly in probate.  He believes that the judges are not well experienced and says they are only a step above traffic court judges. I disagree. The judges I have seen are very intelligent, but often feign they don’t see or don’t know.  The vast majority of judges I see are not only very intelligent, but very skilled at manipulation of their courts to favor the crony lawyers and professional guardians and protect them instead of the elderly and the abuse continues–the drugging, the isolation, the draining of massive amounts of attorneys fees, tied in (anti) social workers, case (mis) managers, guardians (of death and injury).  They all protect themselves and they get the judges to help them.  Time after time, I have seen my reports of abuse being handed back to the perpetrators of the abuse, and while the judge pretends not to understand, s/he will do an excellent job talking about intracacies of probate law and cases.  It always baffles me how the judges somehow manage to know the most obscure case quotes and case details, but they get a report of abuse and hand the abuse report right back to the abusers and command them to investigate it–as if every one of their brain cells sudden flew out the window.

Dr. Sugar complains that no one can get statistics on how many guardians and tied in service providers are “servicing” the probate courts.  One could get statistics, but these are hidden from the public under the (false) guise of privacy for the disabled.

No due process, no civil procedure–it turns into an abusive system that is vertically and horizontally integrated.

It is a gigantic industry.  Dr. Sugar claims Utah is supposed to be a good state because the Mormons won’t stand for these abuses.  But Florida, California, etc. have massive problems.  Once a state gets the problem, however; due to massive integrations into many industries–care giving, nursing homes, hospitals, etc., the problem is nearly impossible to get rid of–very much akin to getting a dose of cochroachs or bed bugs in your home.  Once there, they are almost impossible to get rid of.

Www.aaapg.net is very helpful on abuses in guardianships.

It was an excellent program and I am hoping to get a permalink for the show.

Tomorrow (Wednesday, November 18) at 6 p.m. est, Dr. Sam Sugar, founder of the AAAPG will be on my show Justice Served with Andy Ostrowski.  I’m sure it will be a great interview, and can be used as a part of all of our efforts to continue to bring much-needed attention to these issues, with the goal of reform on a national level.

Please tune in here – http://twigscaferadio.com/, for the live broadcast.  You can download the app as well.

The archives of Justice Served are available here – http://twigscaferadio.com/justice-served/.

Thank you.

Andy

717-571-1818

Please not the time is 6 pm EST, which translated to 5 pm for those of you in Chicago.  Both Andy Ostrowsky and Dr. Sam Sugar have done much work toward bringing more justice to families caught up in abusive guardianships.

JoAnne

from the Harvard Law Review:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwTWJ3VTJHSUFRTEU/view?usp=sharing

The conclusion of this article is as follows:

V. CONCLUSION
As I have tried to explain above, granting full First Amendment
protection to occupational speech is the only position that is consistent
with binding Supreme Court precedent. It is also the only position
that is consistent, more broadly, with the general trend of the Supreme
Court’s First Amendment jurisprudence over the last 20 years, which
has removed political speech from a position of privilege and now recognizes that speech on a wide variety of topics is entitled to robust
constitutional protection. Whether that was, as Post and Shanor argue,
a “radical[] ” shift when it began in the 1990s, it is now merely
the long-established law.
To be sure, there are those who wish this shift had never occurred,
but even its most ardent critics recognize that it has occurred.
Thus, whatever merit the democratic self-governance theory of First
Amendment may have in the abstract, it is little help in resolving the
actual First Amendment disputes that have plagued lower courts.
Those courts, unlike academic commentators, are bound by precedent.
In any event, the Supreme Court’s modern approach to the First
Amendment has more to commend it than its status as binding precedent.
In comparison to more instrumental theories, the Court’s modern
approach is unquestionably the more consistent with the First
Amendment’s uncompromising text, which contains no exemptions for commercial speech or occupational speech (or even lower-value speech like depictions of animal cruelty, violent video games, or lies about re-ceiving military honors). More than that, this approach to the First Amendment is rooted in a far more charitable view of the American people. It repudiates the paternalism that rests at the heart of so much regulation of speech, instead viewing Americans as capable of seeking out information on a wide variety of topics and of reaching their own conclusions about the merits of that information. This view is perhaps most eloquently stated in Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in Citizens United v. FEC126:
When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.127
Although Justice Kennedy was writing about political speech, his
words are no less true for the sort of advice and information that
countless Americans earn their living by providing. Speech can be
important to its listeners without being political.

Other important article quotes:

In May 2013, newspaper columnist John Rosemond received a
cease-and-desist letter from the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology informing him that his syndicated column — in which he
answers readers’ questions about parenting — constitutes the unlicensed
and, hence, criminal practice of psychology.1 Although the
Board concedes that Rosemond may publish general advice about parenting, it has taken the position that answering letters from parents
about particular children is the exclusive province of state-licensed
psychologists.

As outrageous as this situation sounds, it is not unique. Rosemond
is just one of the millions of Americans — from tour guides to lawyers
— who earn their living in occupations that consist primarily, if
not entirely, of speech. And, as he discovered, these “speaking occupations” are increasingly subject to occupational-licensing requirements. But this trend seems to be in serious tension with the First Amendment rule that “[g]enerally, speakers need not obtain a license to speak.”

In Lowe, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) brought
an enforcement action against Christopher Lowe, a disgraced former
investment advisor who had lost his registration and been prohibited
from acting as an investment advisor following a conviction on various
felony offenses. Despite his conviction, Lowe continued to publish
newsletters that provided investing advice.10 The SEC believed this tobe a violation of the securities laws and filed a complaint against Lowe
in federal court.
The SEC lost before the district court, but prevailed before the Second
Circuit,12 after which the Supreme Court granted certiorari to
consider “the important constitutional question whether an injunction
against the publication and distribution of petitioners’ newsletters is
prohibited by the First Amendment.” 13 But the Court never reached
this constitutional question. Instead, in an opinion by Justice Stevens,
a majority of the Court concluded on statutory grounds that the registration requirement did not apply to newsletter publishers.14

FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET
To:
US Senate
Special Committee on Aging

Fax: 202-224-8660
From:                      Admitted Ill., N.  Carolina and Patent Bars
JoAnne M. Denison,     Pat. Atty.  Reg.  No.  34,150
DENISON & ASSOCS., PC    FAX 312-553-1307
5940 W Touhy Ave, #120    CELL PH 773-255-7608
Niles, IL 60714    PHONE 312-553-1300
JoAnne@DenisonLaw.com or http://www.DenisonLaw.com
Federal Patents, Trademarks & Copyrights
Now suspended in Illinois 3 years for blogging about
corruption see http://www.marygsykes.com
Important Notice

For transmission problems, please call 312-553-1300
A confirmation copy       WILL   ✔   will NOT be sent.
Pages in fax, including this coversheet – ( 3  )
November 16, 2015

Re: Your referrals to Denison and Ditkowsky
and request for Whistle blower Status
In Abusive Adult Guardianships

Dear Madam/Sir;

Recently I became aware that your Committee was referring clients to myself and Ken Ditkowsky, another Illinois suspended lawyer who helps those who have been abused by the US court system in the area of guardianships.  We both appreciate the referrals; however you should be aware that the address above is correct to send mail to both of us and Ken’s email is “kenditkowsky@yahoo.com”.  Victims and their families may call me at anytime on my cell as shown above or work phone number as shown above.

But you should be made aware that both Ken Ditkowsky and myself have been suspended in Illinois from the practice of law for merely speaking out against abuses in Probate Court by some judges and tied in, crony attorneys across the US.  I run a very popular blog at http://www.marygsykes.com, and http://www.justice4every1.com.  Because Ken has published numerous letters asking for honest and thorough investigations of some highly abusive cases, and because I have published those letters on my blog, we were both suspended from the practice of law.

I will not elaborate on the hundreds, perhaps thousands of horrors in our nation’s guardianship “programs”, but I am sure you are well aware of the mantra “target, isolate, medicate, drain the estate, quietly eliminate, cremate” as being the hallmark of an abusive guardianship.  Many large estates are quickly eaten up by as much as 90% or more of the income and assets of the senior which are paid to attorneys and tied in case (mis)-managers, (anti) social workers, visiting nurses (of death and drugs) with the rubber stamp of a tied in, eternally helpful judge.  When the money runs out, the senior is quickly dispatched in hospice or other programs where the senior is dosed with large quantities of illegal chemical restraints, and food and water are withheld or minimal.  No autopsy or tox screen is ever, and I mean ever, performed on these seniors who died a quick and tragic death when the money ran out (Sykes, Drabik, Tyler, Gore, Baker, Rector, etc.)  and there is no end to this string of crimes and class X felonies when probate courts routinely deny exhumations, autopsies and tox screens to concerned family members.

At this time, in order to continue our work Ken Ditkowsky ask for just a few things if we are indeed recommended (albeit by default because there are no other lawyers in the US willing to do this work, and do it for low cost or free): 1) funding for our law office as an Illinois NFP; 2) declaration of us being Whistle blowers and entitled to protection of the US senate; 3) immediate restoration of our law licenses (you should contact the Illinois Supreme Court and explain to them they cannot terminate our law licenses when we are the only lawyers doing this work which must not be tampered with or interfered with and it is illegal under the Illinois and US Constitutions to interfere with a professional blog or media source–See Rosemond v. Markham, ED Kentucky, 3:13-cv-00042, ).

If you are unable to provide any assistance at this time, we will continue to do our best to assist probate victims and their families and expose and publish the string of felonies that are assaulted on our precious seniors each and every day in courtrooms throughout the US. You are welcome to recommend probate victims and their family members to the two of us and we will always help best we can. I am currently writing books for the probate victims.  Ken continues to write letters to the state and federal authorities asking for help.

I would appreciate it if one or more of the senators would contact Mr. Jerome Larkin, head Administrator of the Illinois Atty Regn. & Disciplinary Commission, as well as the head of the Illinois Supreme Court which licenses us, and make it clear to them that our work is important, that no one else is doing our work and our law licenses should be immediately restored.

In the meantime, we will continue to do whatever we can for these victims, within the bounds of the law. We cannot appear in court for them, we cannot draft pleadings, at this point all we can do is hold their hands and cry along with them, as their precious mothers and fathers and grandparents die horrific deaths, their assets and dignity stripped from them, because no one will do anything about the situation.  Ken will write letters and I will blog about those letters and also document the cases that come our way to the best of our ability.

If you cannot do anything at this time, I will continue to pray for Truth and Justice for the US Senate and for the Illinois ARDC and the Illinois Supreme Court.

Very Truly Yours,

JUSTICE 4 EVERY1.COM, NFP

JoAnne Denison

JoAnne M. Denison

cc: blog http://www.marygsykes.com, http://www.justice4every1.com

THE ELDER CLEANSING PHENOMENON

And Ken, you may note for the record, the mega media does nothing or very little to promote truth and justice.  We just had Veterans Day, a day to celebrate peace and love and stop all the war, hate and violence, and yet there was no commotion over corruption.

We have to stand up and make a difference.  Blogs and FB have to speak out.  My FB grows every day with more and more instances of political corruption because I am garnering on my own the activists out there that want to save the world, make it a better place.

I call upon Jerome Larkin, head and Administrator of the ARDC, his side counsel James Grogin, Sharon Opryszek, Melissa Smart and Leah Black Guiterriez. The conduct of Steven Splitt, supposedly an ethics professor at John Marshall was particularly shameful.  All of these attorneys know or should know the law.  Ms. Smart started out my ARDC trial lying about the law was the “blog was like crying fire in a crowded theatre” which was not only not the law, but just dicta from the turn of the century.  The standard now is that the speech must incite immediate lawlessness.  This blog does none of that, her conduct and the other attorneys that did not speak up and shut her up that were present was shameful conduct.  The ARDC should be filing a motion to withdraw my suspension and investigate why Melissa Smart blatantly lied about the law to a Tribunal to silence this blog–a blog which is doing great good in the justice system.

The Sawyer case made it clear the US Supreme Court said that an attorney can criticize a judge, a court and a decision.

The Virginia Bar case of Hunter Hogan made it clear that a lawyer can run a blog without interference from the bar association.

The recent case of Rosemont v. Weil makes it clear that a professional organization cannot regulate speech in the news, the media and on blogs.  It’s simply unconstitutional.

I am still waiting for my apology from the ARDC and my lost income.  Today every day I write and study for the blog.  I write books and help out court corruption victims.  I am busier than ever.  But it’s good work (not paying) and highly worthwhile.

I want to know who among the attorneys mentioned above would ever do this?  How do they walk by someone in need and do nothing?

Oh, I know, they need to take the psychopath/narcissist/sociopath test and then go find a job where society will be safe from PNS people.

thanks

joanne

What kind of a psychopath does this?

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/BreastCancerCenter/north-carolina-mom-breast-cancer-loses-custody/story?id=13546870

Mother Elena loses custody because the children needed their father because the mother has decaying health.

The real question is whether or not the shrink will pay for all the therapy that will be needed after her kids learn the truth why they could not see their mom in her last dying months.

Shame of the day for sure.  More judges acting badly.  More shrink acting horribly.

Two new sociopaths to the Hall of Justice Shame.

I guess this is just as about as corrupt and out of control as it gets.

http://wreg.com/2015/11/09/mother-jailed-after-not-paying-guardian-ad-litem/

Judge have plenty of options rather than jailing a mother or any civil litigant.  Themother said she had no money.  In the Montoya Lane case–$50,000 in GAL fees in 6 months and the litigants said the GAL caused more problems than the GAL solved.  In this case, 4 months and $16,000.  Mother Gilmore was to pay $3,300 only but she had no money.

The judge could have seized her car, she could have seized her bank account. The judge probably didn’t have the right to garnish wages or child support or maintenance, but she did have other options.

I know many of you out there have problems with massive fees churned by court appointed attorneys (and this includes attorneys for the Guardian which is an indirect appointment because the court chooses the Guardian and the Guardian generally has to have an attorney for a funded estate and generally the Guardian gets an attorney that is liked and known by the judge.)

In guardianship these court appointed attorneys hardly see or care about the ward at all, they generally bill massive amounts of fees.

(Sykes–$200,000 and the attorneys only saw the ward a total of about an hour or so over 5 years).  No one cared at all about her wishes).

I understand that the artist’s beloved fiancee of 67 years was held in a horriffic guardianship.

This is his talented response

Reposted with permission of the artist, Daniel P Ryan.  Please contact the author to repost or copy.

Apparently yes.  The Canadian government was all set to raid a local, organic raw milk cooperative (milk was not pasteurized until well into the 20th century when mega agra insisted dairy farms pasteurize milk. The reality is, whole raw milk is a health food considered so valuable it is still dispensed in vending machines 24/7 in
Europe).  But mega corps have to make mega profits, so they don’t give consumers a choice to purchase raw milk for its health food benefits, and many consumers are unhappy about that.  Raw milk, like human breast milk is a living breathing substance with anti bodies in it and has the ability to still captue and eliminate bad bacteria because it is living.  Once it is pasteurized, it loses those abilities and bad bacteria quickly grows if left at room temperature.  Pasturizing equipment makes milk much more expensive.  Fortunately, human breast milk, if pasteurized,will eventually kill your baby, otherwise mega corps would likely force that on mothers too.

http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/11/activists-respond-to-sos-call-on-facebook-shut-down-armed-raid-on-organic-farm/

Citizens everywhere are tired of mega farms and mega agra picking on the local small farmer everywhere and raids have  increased with lawlessness gone amuk.

Jerome Larkin and James Grogin are but one example at the ARDC.  Dozens of valid citizen complains are tossed away like so much garbage.  Lyle Harrison and his family have had vast amount of farmland taken from them, and yet the ARDC does nothing.  The IRS investigates and liens Hardware State Bank and US Bank $21 million, still Lyle goes to the ARDC and they send him a paralegal and Jerome Larkin and James Grogin refuse to meet.

Lyle Harrison shows proof that Bob Elder was given nearly $200,000 to pay inheritance taxes, but the county treasurer’s records only show $3,000 paid.  Lyle wants compensation from the Client Protection Fund for attorney theft of client assets.  For some reason, that’s a complicated process and they dismiss his claim.

While Canadian official pick on small farmers and are beaten off with a handful of farm coop members that show up after a FB post, we in Chicago struggle with an ARDC that takes away mine and Ken’s law license for publishing the Truth about the Mary Sykes 09 P 4585 case and her MURDER, and they still refuse to investigate.  The FBI does not investigate, nor do the states attorneys we pay the big bucks–Lisa (Murray)  Madigan, Anita Alvarez and Diane Saltoun.  Obviously these women were put in place for a reason and “don’t do” corruption, leaving this area as one of the most corrupt in the nation.

But you my reader, and I can change all that.  We don’t need any more Mary Sykes cases, or Robert Jaycocx, Dorothy Baker (murdered in probate), Alice Gore (same), Lydia Tyler (same), Rose Drabik (same) when the money runs out.

We can and should change all of this.  Ask Jerome Larkin and James Grogin what happened to Patrick Murphy after the fire that killed 6 people at the OPG. What happened.  What did they cover up?  What information do they owe the families of these victims?

Ask JL and JG why Diane Nash is summarily booted from my hearing.  Is it because she’s from African ancestry, was a famous civil rights worker, featured in the movie Selma,  and she has been honored by Ophra Winfrey who might lambast them for what they do to honest and ethical attorneys?

Why did Judge Aicha MacCarthy have to leave her courtroom screaming because a service dog barked and wanted to jail a probate victim, Gloria Sykes, who already suffers from Litigation Abuse Syndrome (similar to PTSD), after Gloria has just been crying in the hallway, the series of abuse and horrors too much for her.  Not for Aicha, who has a great video here

she says she is compassionate and just, but I don’t see that ever happened in the 09 P 4585 case.  JMHO

If she were, she would have asked the GAL’s why Mary hadn’t seen Gloria but a handful of times in 5 years. She would have asked them why Mary could not go home with Gloria.  When I and 3 other close friends went to see Mary in June of 2014, she was walking and talking just fine at age 94.  There was nothing wrong with her. She wanted her beloved Gloria to come and get her out of the nursing home–a place where she never wanted to be and they “could start over again”.  That would never happen. The 40 minute video was destroyed after a Naperville Police Officer talked with GAL Stern who clearly had a need for it to be destroyed.

So why does JL block all discovery in the Mary Sykes case?  Why did he block it in my ARDC trial. Why does he not allow it now?  Mary is dead, clearly narcotized to death and still he has no compassion for her or the familiy members that cared for her and not just for her Money.

I think most people would be appalled, would not call this a First Amendment right, and would call it exactly what it was–buying judges for inflated prices.

Race for Pennsylvania Supreme Court Breaks Spending Record

FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET
To:
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
JoAnne@DenisonLaw.com  or http://www.DenisonLaw.com
Federal Patents, Trademarks & Copyrights
NOW SUSPENDED IN ILLINOIS FOR OPERATING A BLOG ON COURT CORRUPTION–ILLINOIS’ MOST DANGEROUS BLOG
WWW.MARYGSYKES.COM AND WWW.JUSTICE4EVERY1.COM
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  )
November 4, 2015

RE:   ARDC v. JMD 13 PR 001 – In re Weddigen 4-15-2015

Dear Counsel;

Please read the attached decision which was recently rendered by the 4th Dist. Appellate Court in Illinois.  In this case decision, once again, yet another court recognizes Brandenburg as the law and not the “lazy cheat” that Attorney Smart used at the opening of my trial that a blog or social media is akin to “yelling fire in a crowded theater” when it clearly is not.  Who died?  Who almost died from my blog?

You can read the excerpts of the case on my blog, which you are well aware of.  This case makes it clear a court cannot and should not regulate Face Book postings. These are clearly covered under the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

The case of Rosemont made that clear.  Now Weddigen makes it clear.

How many cases must issue with the courts saying we will not (and likely cannot) regulate social media because social media is clearly protected under the First Amendment.

You might not like the criticisms of the Courts and the ARDC which I publish, but I challenge you to make the public statement that you will defend the rights of Illinois citizens, myself and Ken Ditkowsky and Lanre Amu included, to criticize a court, a decision, a law or a statute (In re Sawyer) and you will and must uphold the US Constitution and the Illinois Constitution’s declarations that US citizens have completely free speech.

I challenge you to do this and uphold your sworn oaths as attorneys in Illinois.

None of you at the ARDC or the judges or attorneys in the probate courts of Cook County fall into the category of “delicate snowflakes” described by this court at ¶ 66, nor can you claim to be running a Stalinist show trial or a Vietnam “re-education camp” circa 1976 (para 64), so what exactly is the ARDC doing to eliminate attorney corruption and uphold the First Amendment and Free Speech?

Please explain or I expect you to send a Motion to the Illinois Supreme Court you are withdrawing all charges and are reinstating my license in accordance with recent court decisions and you have decided to uphold the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

Very Truly Yours,

DENISON & ASSOCS, PC

/joanne m denison/esignature/

Joanne M. Denison

cc: http://www.marygsykes.com blog

Another great decision from the Illinois Court of Appeals – In re Weddigen 4-15-44

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwNmJMYlZLMlRzVXc/view?usp=sharing

Respondent, James Weddigen, was found in indirect civil contempt of court for
comments he posted on the online social networking site, Facebook. The trial court’s purge order required respondent to post further comments on Facebook apologizing, recanting, and correcting his previous comments. Respondent appeals the order of contempt, the purge order, and the order requiring respondent to pay petitioner’s attorney fees associated with the contempt proceedings.

And I find para 9 to be esp. repugnant to the First Amendment:

Nonetheless, the court finds that his statements on Facebook stating that he had recorded incourt family proceedings and encouraging others to record family court proceedings constitute contempt of court as the statements tend to encourage disruption in this court and other courts. [Respondent] has shown himself to be a sophisticated person with regard to family court proceedings.

Now, if Respondent really is sophisticated, then, unlike the trial court, he has read and understands the Wikipedia page on the “First Amendment”

Note this is THE 4th district appellate court, famous for letting Lyle Harrison linger in jail when HIS constitutional rights were denied by a tied in court with summary indirect civil contempt–withhout any procedural safeguards.  These three justices knew the safeguards and enumerated them at para 27 of the decision:

(and this paragraph is dedicated to Lyle, Andrew and Roger Harrison for their stints at the Moultrie county lockup for lack of due process and US and Illinois Constitutional protections at the hands of the Judges Flannel and Broch):

A person charged with indirect criminal contempt is entitled to all of the
constitutional protections and procedural rights afforded to other criminal defendants. Betts, 200 Ill. App. 3d at 58. These include the rights to (1) be charged by a written complaint, petition or information; (2) know the nature of those charges; (3) personal service; (4) file an answer; (5) be heard; (6) present evidence; (7) confront and cross-examine witnesses; (8) be personally present at trial; (9) subpoena witnesses; (10) a public hearing; (11) the privilege against self incrimination; (12) counsel; (13) the presumption of innocence; and (14) be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Budzynski, 333 Ill. App. 3d 433, 439 (2002); Betts, 200 Ill. App. 3d at 58; Goleash, 311 Ill. App. 3d at 956-57.

The brothers Harrison were afforded none of these protections and when I challenged Broch/Flannel for these unconsitutional and illegal jailings I was told increduously “we don’t do that down here” — refering to the US and Illinois constitutions and case and statutory law! I believe I cited the Budzynski case in my pleadings.

But Justice Steigmann comes to the rescue like the US calvary of the legal world with a stunning concurence and did not just overturn on the fact that indirect civil contempt procedures were clearly not followed one iota (just the like Harrisons’ jailing for refusal to withdraw counterclaims–claims that would bring out rampant corruption in Moultrie and Paitt if discovery were allowed, but it was not–it was quashed by these errant judges).

para 46–admonnishing the judge and the attorney involved in these illegal and unconstitutional actions:

Although fully agreeing with the majority, I write separately to express my dismay regarding the contempt proceedings that occurred in this case. Respondent’s postings on social media were clearly entitled to first-amendment protection, and the contempt proceedings in this case violated his first-amendment rights. That the attorney who brought those contempt proceedings is one of the most respected members of the Sangamon County divorce bar and the judge who entered the contempt findings is one of the most experienced and well-regarded trial judges in central Illinois compels me to write this special concurrence. If a lawyer and judge of their deserved repute do not realize the first-amendment implications of their actions in this case, then further guidance is obviously needed.

The modern, seminal decision from the United States Supreme Court on the first
amendment is Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969), where the Court wrote the following: “[T]he constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” More recently, in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234, 253 (2002), the Court reiterated and expanded upon these themes, as follows:
“The mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a sufficient reason for banning it. *** First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end. The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought. To preserve these freedoms, and to protect speech for its own sake, the Court’s First Amendment cases draw vital distinctions between words and deeds, between ideas and conduct (citations omitted).

Note, the Brandenburg case is the one that Melissa Smart just could not figure out overturned a case where a Judge said certain words and phrases are illegal if they are like “yelling fire in a crowded theater”. The statement was and is dicta. That case and subsequent cases were an embarasment to SCOTUS and were overturned with Brandenberg–something Melissa (not so) Smart didn’t read on the Wiki page about First Amendment rights in the US.

One more intersting paragraph from the decision–why are judges so darned sensitive to criticism from the public and from attorneys?

Regarding what may be the sensitive feelings of judges to criticism, whether fair
or unfair, the Court also added the following:
“The assumption that respect for the judiciary can be won by shielding judges from published criticism wrongly appraises the character of American public opinion. For it is a prized American privilege to speak one’s mind, although not always with perfect good taste, on all public institutions. And an enforced silence, however limited, solely in the name of preserving the digni[t]y of the bench, would probably engender resentment, suspicion, and contempt much more than it would enhance respect.” Id. at 270- 71.” (para 54)

and the court adds a quote from Thomas Jefferson at para 55:

To emphasize this point, the Court provided an interesting excerpt from a letter
written by Thomas Jefferson: ” ‘I deplore *** the putrid state into which our newspapers have passed, and the malignity, the vulgarity, and mendacious spirit of those who write them. *** These ordures are rapidly depraving the public taste. It is however an evil for which there is no remedy, our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.’ ” Id. at 270 n.16. Apparently, dissatisfaction with the press is not a modern phenomenon.
¶ 56 Bridges precedes Brandenburg by 28 years, and legal scholars agree that the
Brandenburg standard provides greater protection for controversial speech..

Obviously all the scholars agree that Brandenburg is the standard for speech under the First Amendment–except Melissa Smart.

In People v. Goss, 10 Ill. 2d 533 (1957), the supreme court reversed that finding, albeit based upon the trial court’s error in refusing to grant the defendant’s motion for change of venue. The supreme court discussed Bridges at length and wrote the following:
“Comment on pending cases, even if it is unfair and inaccurate, is not to be adjudged contemptuous unless it constitutes an ‘imminent peril’ to the administration of justice. [Citation.] The social interest in the integrity and competence of the judicial process requires that courts and judges should not be shielded from wholesome exposure to public view, and if this interest is to be well served, then some latitude must be allowed for inaccurate and intemperate comment.” Id. at 544.

To that end, the United States
– 26 –
Supreme Court has declared that freedom of speech and freedom of the press should not be impaired through the exercise of a court’s contempt power unless there is ‘ “no doubt that the utterances in question are a serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice.” ‘ People v. Hathaway, 27 Ill. 2d 615, 618, 190 N.E.2d 332, 334 (1963), quoting Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 373 *** (1947). Thus, ‘the first amendment forbids the punishment by contempt for comment on pending cases in the absence of a showing that the utterances created a “clear and present danger” to the administration of justice.’ Hathaway, 27 Ill. 2d at 618, 190 N.E.2d at 334.”

The cases are obviously not going the way the ARDC wants them. The ARDC wants power to cover up. Today, Lyle Harrison went to the ARDC with no less than 2 tax levies for $21 million against Hardware State Bank and US Bank for their roles in stealing Harrison property and crop proceeds in the Harry and Pete Harrison estates and demanded to know why the IRS opened an investigation and found that money had be stolen, was entitled to be taxed at the criminal gains rate of 50% plus 2% interest per month up to 100% of the stolen funds, but the ARDC had refused to open an investigation.  How is that?  3 attorneys were involved–Dwight O’Keefe III, Bob Elder and Frances Purvis (deceased) but the ARDC does nothing. Is this an 18 USC sec 4 cover up and misprison of felony? Is it an 18 USC sec 371 conspiracy violation?  The IRS opened an investigation and then issued tax levies against 2 major banks–US Bank and Hardware State Bank.  He told the ARDC (Jerome Larkin, the head Administrator and his good friend in these deeds, the ARDC counsel James Grogran refused to meet with Lyle Harrison) but sent in a paralegal. A paralegal?  Are they kidding?  For a $43 million theft of crop proceeds and farmland and a $21 million tax levy 3 Illinois attorneys created?  You could never even make this stuff up. Why didn’t he send in the receptionist or the mail room guy.  Unbelievable.  It’s like hiding under the skirts of your mom after you killed someone’s cat, but I digress.

The upshot and amazing conclusion of this brilliant justice is:

As bad as the original contempt finding may have been, the so-called “purge
order” was manifestly worse. It constitutes an example of “compelled speech” reminiscent of Stalinist show trials or Vietnam “Re-education Camps,” circa 1976. The trial court was completely without any legal justification to impose such an order.

We in the judiciary are part of the government and just as subject to fair—and
unfair—criticism as those in the executive and legislative branches. We can no more be “delicate snowflakes” in the face of such criticism than can any other government official. The orders entered in this case finding respondent in contempt and directing him to purge his contempt were unnecessary, unwarranted, unwise, and violative of the first amendment.

The only question remaining is why are Jerome Larkin and James Larkin such snowflakes?

The phenomenon of Guardianship

Who is a disabled person:

How is it determined that a guardianship is necessary:

What does a guardianship mean?

Observations:

Facts to consider:

thanks to Dr. Sam Sugar on the AAAPG.org (Americans Against Abusive Probate Guardianship) website

http://aaapg.net/video-photo-gallery/

On this page you will find no less than 10 mega media reports from around the country decrying the treatment of the elderly in abusive guardianships.

5 minute video is excellent on the case of Mrs. London, an 87 year old woman–says the Newsreporter–the system is in “Desperate need of change”

Julie London’s 87 year old mother is caught in a abusive guardianship after one thieving  daughter started to charge a credit card without her permission.

Contacting Lutheran Services resulted in a guardianship where she was stripped of all rights, the mother and daughter Julie (the good daughter reporting the abuse) were not served.  LS was granted complete access to all mom’s bank accounts and home.  LS services admits that guardianship was a course of last resort.  LS services not cheap–$85 per hour for Julie to make any type of phone call to them.

Julie went to State Stenator Nancy Dieter.  Dieter noted about a 800% increase in fraud.  In Florida, gship is 24 hrs notice!  She asked for an office to regulate both private and professional guardians.

Julie is still fighting for the life of her mother.  Julie just wants to keep her mother happy.

Please pray for them

http://www.macombdaily.com/general-news/20151030/retired-chiropractor-at-center-of-legal-battle-dies

Same old story.  Step mom bars children and father is over-medicated despite the fact he believed in all natural cures and healing.

His health became a public issue beginning in December 2011 when three of his five adult children accused their father’s wife of 27 years at the time, Karen Chism, not their mother, of orchestrating efforts to accelerate his health problems and blocking their efforts to see him. He was diagnosed with dementia, taking prescription drugs and admitted to a mental hospital

The children — Steve Chism, Susan Lucier and Laurie Meagher — protested publicly by picketing in front of the Mount Clemens facility and protesting on Facebook, creating the page, “Saving the life of Army vet James F. Chism,” which has 1,526 members. They all resided out of state….

A judge shortly thereafter stripped her of the guardianship and transferred it to an attorney, who was removed nine months later when the judge determined Chism could function on his own.

Steve Chism said this week that he remains “disgusted” with the state probate system that prevented them from having more involvement with their father.

He said since September 2012 when James Chism’s guardianship was removed, he and his siblings’ contact with their father continued to dissipate due to Karen Chism blocking their efforts. He said they barely had contact with him the past couple of years despite attempts to do so.

****

Steve Chism said he would like to see a law passed that mandates that adult children can visit their biological parent even if the parent’s spouse opposes it. A battle between the wife of the late Casey Kasem and his biological child brought national attention to the issue.

But Michele Fuller, a Sterling Heights elder-law attorney, said existing “laws and processes” with the probate court system in Michigan provide avenues for adult children to pursue visitation. She said children can petition a judge for a guardian to allow visitation or can seek to have a guardian replaced by a child or another attorney. If the parent does not have a guardian, the children can petition to be one or have one named.

from another article:

Karen Chism last June filed for personal protection orders against the three children, but Judge John Foster in July denied them following a hearing in Macomb County Circuit Court in Mount Clemens.

Karen Chism claimed the children made false accusations, disparaging remarks and threatened to take James Chism and the couple’s assets, in written and video Internet postings.

She said Steve Chism accused her of trying to murder her husband, and that she was interviewed by a Clinton Township police detective.

She said the children are trying to call their father and making the comments to him about her has created stress and damaged her and his health.

The children say she has turned their father against them.

You will notice the out of control spouse, the isolation from one’s children, and the attempt by the step mother to gag the children from presenting their side of the story on FB.

It’s sad that there’s no one to make sure that children always get to see their parent without $50,000+ in legal fees and nearly a year to make a decision.  It’s also a shame that a senior dedicated to “naural healing and simple cures” all his life falls claims to “over-medicating.”

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/10/19/449957318/suing-a-nursing-home-could-get-easier-under-proposed-federal-rules

This might make it more costly for the nursing homes to understaff and abuse patients–problems we know are rampant with  beatings and sexual abuse, dehydration and bed sores.

The comments are interesting too.  One commentator said that there is no reason to increase the cost of keeping an elder because the elder is going to die anyway in the nursing home and lack of quality care will not change the outcome. (Comment of a psychopath)

Interesting that they don’t consider the cost in terms of litigation when there is rampant abuse and neglect into that factor, and the other factor of people are there to do a job correctly, and also there is the factor that parents and grandparents deserve kindness and compassion at end of live and not squalor and abuse.