Updated Response to the ND District Court of Illinois

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

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s