IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS
JOANNE MARIE DENISON Attorney-Respondent-Appellant
Reg. No. 6192441
Petitioner – Appellee
Commission No. 2013 PR 0001
Motion to Reconsider Order of 2/4/16
NOTICE OF FILING
Attys Steven R. Splitt, Sharon Opryszek, Melissa Smart and Jerome Larkin
ARDC, One Prudential Plaza, 12th Floor, Chicago, Illinois 60601 via USPS, postage prepaid
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on February 22, 2016, I have electronically filed my Motion to Reconsider Order of 2/4/16, a copy of which is attached and served upon you, by filing an original document and twelve copies with the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Illinois in Springfile via USPS first class mail postage prepaid from Niles, IL 60714 and mailing a copy to your offices at the address above.
JoAnne Denison, Pro Se
Denison & Assocs, PC
5940 W Touhy Ave, #120
Niles, IL 60714
Ph 312 553 1300, Fax 312 553 1307
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS
JOANNE MARIE DENISON
Reg. No. 6192441
Complainant-Appellee Commission No. 2013 PR 0001
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
Motion to Reconsider Order of 2/4/16
MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER OF 2/4/16
Prefatory Statement – the Illinois ARDC has begun a war on Honest Attorneys and innocent victim Citizens demanding judicial accountability in the Illinois and US Probate courts.
Now comes Respondent, Joanne M Denison, and respectfully moves this honorable court to reconsider its Order of 2/4/16 denying reconsideration of its 9/21/16 Order for running a blog which discloses in detail numerous frauds and criminal schemes perpetrated upon innocent Illinois citizens and their families in the Illinois Probate court system, and nationwide which are unethical and immoral and illegal, and how the ARDC dismisses valid citizen complaints regarding lawyers and courtroom vendors in Probate. The Respondent has not neglected any clients, has not stolen anything or engaged in any ethical or immoral misconduct, the basis for filing an action against her was primarily a “go after” proceeding that discussed in detail problems and issues in Probate Court and presented the positions of scores of families in Probate who had experienced horrendous injustices and allowed them to freely discuss their complaints and grievances in an open, free and democratic manner.
The grounds for this motion are:
1) Respondent never received a copy of certain important petitions from the ARDC (respondent is not supposed to mention the name of this petition according to the clerk, but was field on (2×5, 3×3, 10^3.304) regarding the amount of $10^4.2443 –the ARDC routinely and conveniently forgets to serve copies of all of its pleadings;
3) On or about January 11, 2015 Respondent did in fact file a Motion for Reconsideration of the 9/15/16 order suspending her which was based upon new case law and a Harvard Law Review article on Occupation speech, all of which confirmed that her blog which contained political speech should be fully protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution and Article 1, § 10 of the Illinois constitution, which effectively contested the ARDC’s position that it is somehow owed (a particular amount of renumerations) from a charity, Justice4Every1.com which runs the Subject Blog in question. Stealing from a charity is definitively the nadir of the legal system.
4) The present Motion effectively asks in substance that this award of “costs” is improper, that the Subject Blog, http://www.marygsykes.com is protected under numerous state laws respecting protection of the media from assault by the government, and the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
Respondent does not believe that her blog is subject to attack via the ARDC’s “go after” proceedings, under both US and Illinois constitutions. At her trial, numerous family and friends of Mary Sykes, appeared and either testified or attempted to testify, that all statements made on the Subject Blog at http://www.marygsykes.com were in fact true, and that:
1) Mary Sykes was competent at the time she was guardianized (https://vimeo.com/38694743) and
2) she never received a Summons or Complaint as required under the Illinois Probate Act, her elderly sisters were never informed of the time, date and place of guardianization (Exhibit A at ARDC trial),
3) Mary Sykes repeatedly requested an attorney, and she was never given one;
4) the case was filed in the wrong venue–she lived at the time in Naperville and had to be served there;
5) her $1 million home was appraised in Feb. Of 2012 for $750,000 and was sold two months later for $213,000 to a real estate investment company;
6) she stated in her POA for Health Care that her younger daughter Gloria Sykes was to be her guardian, if one were to be appointed, and this directive was repeatedly ignored by the court;
7) she stated in her POA for Health Care that she wanted to live in her own home and have her two daughters care for her there and this directive was ignored repeatedly by the probate court and the two GAL’s Stern and Farenga and the Guardian and her attorneys;
8) Videos on Vimeo.com consistently show that in Dec. of 2009 was competent, had clear and lucid thinking and was engaged in higher level cognitive thinking and reasoning (https://vimeo.com/38694743). This Video was not allowed to be played at trial.
9) Scott Evans would have testified at trial that in Dec. Of 2009 Mary played cards with her Norwood Park Card club and “beat the pants” off of everyone else. The card game? Canasta.
9) in July of 2014, the Respondent and 3 other citizen witnesses, who were also close friends and family of Mary Sykes found her at a nursing home in Naperville–Sunrise of Naperville and took 40 minutes of video showing her to be competent, clear thinking and lucid and able to engage in higher cognitive reasoning and decision making. Mary was walking and talking and engaged in her environment and the persons around her. She was a strict vegan and a devout Roman Catholic and did not believe in hospice or psychotropic drugs. Approximately 20 other senior citizens sat nearby, propped up in wheelchairs in front of a TV which droned on. It is believed that these seniors citizens were drugged with illegal chemical restraints and that Mary had been place in a facility were the use of chemical restraints were common and accepted. The attorneys involved, each of Stern, Farenga, Schmeidel, Soehlig knew or should have known of the use of illegal chemical restrains before placing Mary there.
9) Sometime after leaving the facility, Respondent learned that Naperville police had had a conversation with an Officer Krakow who demanded that she destroy her video of Mary (Mary had given permission to video tape her, the staff said nothing during the 40 minute time period) and most importantly, this running down Respondent in a parking lot and threatening her with arrest only occurred after a conversation had taken place with Attorney Stern. At the ARDC trial, Officer Krakow’s testimony was he remembered nothing about any incidents which transpired at the nursing home. (Cite).
10) on May 22, 2015, Mary was narcotized to death. Gloria Sykes, the younger daughter was called at 3 pm and told she had to be at the nursing home by 5 pm or she “would not be able to see her mother”. When Gloria arrived, her mother was drugged so heavily her mother could not move and could not speak, although she desperately tried to speak to Gloria. The next day, the Guardian took Mary’s body to Suerth Funeral home in Chicago and demanded she be embalmed on the spot (to reduce or eliminate any traces of toxins and psychotropic drugs in her body, that no death announcements be made and that Mary’s body be entombed as soon as possible. Upon information and belief, the Funeral Director found this extremely odd but complied. Mary G. Sykes had no wake, no funeral, no death announcements were placed in any publication or online, save those by the younger Daughter Gloria Sykes. The death certificate lists “natural causes and dementia” as the cause of death, but less than one year prior, Mary G. Sykes showed no evidence of dementia, when 4 close friends/family of hers saw her at a nursing home in July of 2014, she was clear thinking, lucid and able to engage in higher cognitive level reasoning. This death needs to be investigated and the ARDC must be directed to investigate this death and the attorneys involved in the case–Stern, Farenga, Schmeidel and Soehlig who stood by and watched Mary Sykes’ constitutional rights be continually denied her, and then knew or should have known she was drugged to death, and failed to arrange for an autopsy and tox screen.
The ARDC also fails to inform this honorable Court that during Respondent’s Review Board hearing, Gloria Sykes stood up and announced before all witnesses there that the blog was in fact true, that she could confirm all the statements made and that the ARDC’s proceeding was only a sham to protect clouted attorneys.
It is not the policy or stated mission of the Illinois ARDC State Agency to institute and then manipulate and handle “go after” proceedings in a war against honest attorneys Denison, Ditkowsky and Lanre Amu (who was convicted of practicing law and helping poor immigrant Africans “while black”). It is the stated policy of the Illinois ARDC to protect the integrity of the legal profession and to protect the public against unscrupulous attorneys. This the ARDC refuses to do in a steadfast manner, leading to hundreds of blog posts based upon actual client interviews of their experiences in the Illinois and US Probate Court system.
C. New Case Law and Law Review Articles require the Reconsideration of the Order of 2/4/16
1. In particular, the following case law has been issued since the original filings in June, 2015: Weddigen, Ill. 4th Dist, 4-15-44 and Rosemond v. Markham, 13-CV-42, E.D. Kentucky doct #48 and a new Harvard Law Review Article, Occupational Speech and the First Amendment by Paul Sherman and the Institute for Justice, Vol. 128:183 based upon the Rosemond case.
Respondent herewith incorporates by reference her entire ¶ C (herein ¶ D) from her prior Motion to reconsider filed on or about January 11, 2015, which was decided before her Reply and Motion to File a Reply was considered by the Illinois Supreme Court which issued a Denial on or about February 4, 2016. In this Reply, the Respondent pointed out the cases the ARDC cited which were all blatant misrepresentations of on point Appellate case law and Supreme Court law. This argument is incorporated herewith below.
D. Continued Case Misrepresentations by the Administrator:
1) In re Sarelas, 50 Ill.2d 87, 277 N.E.2d 303 (1972). Not at all apposite to a First Amendment Blogging case. In this case, Sarelas “Exhibited a continuous course of conduct…by instituting groundless lawsuits against members of the bar, the bench and laymen… by those who crossed him. In re Sarelas, 50 Ill. 2d 87, 98-99, 277 N.E.2d 313, 219 (1971). This case is not an appellate decision and cannot be cited as precedent. (Stanford and Harvard Rules of Citation). The undersigned’s discipline involved a blog and blogging about corruption to warn the public and is a First Amendment question, not a frivolous lawsuit question. No statements were made in court, and no judges were insulted or denigrated on a face to face basis. More important, all statements made were in accord with other Probate blogs (elderabuse.com, NASGA, Probatesharks.com, etc.) and they all decried the mantra in probate of “target, isolate, medicate, drain the estate, eliminate and cremate” – a most grave problem that the ARDC does not acknowledge and refuses to remedy.
Correct and non misleading quotes from the 7th circuit case in Sarelas: “Some judges are dishonest; their identification and removal is a matter of high priority in order to promote a justified public confidence in the judicial system.” and “[i]f Palmisano had furnished some factual basis for his assertions, then we would need to determine whether either the Constitution or principles of sound judicial administration permit a sanction–for an attorney is not absolutely liable for every statement that turns out to be incorrect. It would unduly quell investigation and exposure of corruption to disbar an attorney who publicized suspicious conduct, just because the suspicions were dispelled. Palmisano, lacked support for his slurs. Id.
2) In re Palmisano, 92 CH 109, 70 F.3d 483 (7th cir. 1995) involved an attorney who made false and misleading statement by calling Judge Siracusa “Frank the Fixer”, Judge Lewis a “crook”, further stating that “most cases in Illinois, in my experience are fixed, not with the passing of money, but on personal relations, social status and judicial preference”, “Chief Justice Peccarelli (sic), your response…[is corrupt] in the 18th judicial circuit”, etc. Each statement appears to be made in a case, not on a blog, and therefore is inapposite. Mr. Palmisano did not furnish any factual basis for his assertions.
3) In re Hoffman, Review board:
a) Judge Patrick T Murphy:
In February 2008, after receiving unfavorable rulings from a Circuit Court Judge, the Respondent participated in a conference call with the judge and another attorney. During the conference call the Respondent stated to the judge “you are a narcissistic, maniacal, mental case” and “you should not be on the bench.” A few days later, the Respondent sent the judge a letter, in which the Respondent said “I must bluntly state that you appear to have serious mental issues involving extreme narcissism and illusions of grandiosity which effectively interferes with your ability to act as a judge.”p.1
b) Judge Heineken
The Respondent described the administrative hearing as a “kangaroo court” and a joke.” (Adm. Ex. 29 at 206, 230). He further stated “this is no more a fair hearing than they had in Russia when they were operating under the Soviet system” and “I don’t pretend that this can be a fair hearing.’ (Adm. Ex. 29 at 230-31)
In this case, if the Respondent believed he had grounds for a grievance against Judge Murphy, he could present his claims to a proper authority. However, by choosing to make insulting and offensive comments to the judge, his conduct was clearly unnecessary, inappropriate, and exceeded acceptable bounds of professional conduct. P.26
The Respondent further asserted that “after Judge Murphy became so upset during that [February 8, 2008] conversation he entered what he called a possible Rule 137 sanctions order against my client,” and “I believe that was done in retaliation and as a result of his narcissistic personality disorder.” p.32
Response to Hoffman citation: All of Mr. Hoffman’s statements were made during court proceedings, none were made in the news or on a blog. Mr. Hoffman appeared in these cases, and in some he made offensive and insulting statements directly to the court, to other attorneys and litigants. It is these insulting statements that impugned the integrity of the judges involved. Respondent Denison never spoke personally to any of the judges involved, nor did she insult or denigrate them to their face. Instead, the Subject Blogs presented only the facts and evidence in the cases. One judge would be forced to retire approximately six weeks after trial because she changed her testimony on the stand, and a changed transcript would later appear and the Tribunal ignored the obvious tampering in the case. That is what happened. The blog reported on the facts. The Hearing Board and Tribunal just denied the facts, struck witnesses left and right who would confirm the facts and only allowed attorney and judge witnesses who are part of the problem of “target, isolate, medicate, drain the estate, eliminate and cremate”. The treatment of Ms. Kathie Bakken and Ms. Yolanda Bakken was particularly shameful. Eliminating the testimony of Ms. Gloria Sykes would would say the blog was truthful was a horrendous problem. Eliminating the testimony of Mr. Scott Evans, a former military intelligence staff member with formerly top secret clearance rating was equally as problematic in the proceeding. He would have testified that in Dec. 2009 when Mary Sykes was guardianized, that she was competent, lucid and clear thinking and that when she played canasta, a complicated card game, with her card club, she beat the pants off everyone. Further, refusing to look at a Vimeo video showing Mary G Sykes to be lucid, clear thinking and with higher cognitive functioning in December 2009 when she was guardianized is extremely troubling.
Respondent Denison has done none of what Sarelas, Hoffman or Palmisano did–insult and denigrate judges to their face in open court rooms and public areas. All statements made were on her Blog together with pleadings, evidence and transcripts, and the Tribunal and Board did not differentiate between her opinions and whether she was presenting the opinions of others. No judges were insulted or denigrated to their faces. Nor were any litigants. Nor were any of the attorneys involved: Schmeidel, Farenga, Stern or Soehlig. Moreover, dozens of witnesses supported her and the blog is very popular with approximately 100 views per day, and is now over 100,000 views total. The Tribunal refused to look at any documents and evidence, transcripts and affidavits on the Blog which supported the comments made. Most of the comments, were not in fact those of Respondent, but came from family members and members of the public who were in fact probate victims themselves. The Tribunal did not differentiate between any blog posts that emanated from Respondent versus those emanating from the public and court room corruption victims.
In the present case, more than adequate exhibits, documents and testimony were proffered by Sykes family members to show support for all blog posts. The Mary G. Sykes case 09 P 4585 lacked jurisdiction, a safe deposit box was drilled without authorization, all discovery was quashed to find assets and by the own admissions of the attorneys involved, her $750,000 home was sold for $213,000 to a “real estate investment corporation.” Further, on May 22, 2015, Mary Sykes was narcotized to death and there was no tox screen and no autopsy. Her body was quickly entombed without death announcements, a funeral or wake. GALs Stern and Farenga, appointed to protect Mary from harm, grossly negated their fiduciary duties.
E. The Administrator fails to acknowledge Appellate case law on the First Amendment as follows:
Administrator asserts that running a blog about corruption is akin to shouting “fire” in a crowded theater. This is an incorrect standard. Schenk v. US was decided in 1919 and overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio. Constitutional Law 101 teaches all law students these principals. The government cannot regulate the media. New York Times v. Sullivan.
New York Times v. Sullivan correctly states:
“Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.” Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U. S. 58, 372 U. S. 70 (1963); see also Near v. Minnesota, 283 U. S. 697 (1931). The Government “thus carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint.” Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U. S. 415, 402 U. S. 419 (1971).
“The greater the importance of safeguarding the community from incitements to the overthrow of our institutions by force and violence, the more imperative is the need to preserve inviolate the constitutional rights of free speech, free press and free assembly in order to maintain the opportunity for free political discussion, to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes, if desired, may be obtained by peaceful means. Therein lies the security of the Republic, the very foundation of constitutional government. [Footnote 6] Id. At 719-720.
As we stated only the other day in Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U. S. 415, 402 U. S. 419, “[a]ny prior restraint on expression comes to this Court with a “heavy presumption” against its constitutional validity.”
These are but a few examples of the actual holding the ARDC wants to ignore.
Alvarez correctly states:
(a) The Constitution “demands that content-based restrictions on speech be presumed invalid . . . and that the Government bear the burden of showing their constitutionality.” Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 542 U. S. 656, 660.
Content-based restrictions on speech have been permitted only for a few historic categories of speech, including incitement, obscenity, defamation, speech integral to criminal conduct, so-called “fighting words,” child pornography, fraud, true threats, and speech presenting some grave and imminent threat the Government has the power to prevent.
The Government’s three examples of false-speech regulation that courts generally have found permissible do not establish a principle that all proscriptions of false statements are exempt from rigorous First Amendment scrutiny.
The ARDC misrepresents the law when it says the First Amendment does not apply to attorney speech, and especially when that speech is on a blog and not made in a courtroom or other proceeding. The ARDC admits the speech is political in nature, yet it does not protect the political speech.
Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 130 S. Ct. 876, 175 L. Ed. 2d 753, 558 U.S. 310, 78 USLW 4078 (2010) states:
Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy—it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people—political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence. Laws burdening such speech are subject to strict scrutiny, which requires the Government to prove that the restriction “furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.” WRTL, 551 U. S., at 464,127 S.Ct. 2652. This language provides a sufficient framework for protecting the interests in this case. Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints or to distinguish among different speakers, which may be a means to control content. The Government may also commit a constitutional wrong when by law it identifies certain preferred speakers. There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the Government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers. Both history and logic lead to this conclusion. Pp. 896 – 899.
The Administrator has been well made aware of these cases, but does not read the US Constitution and refuses to give it force and effect.
In the Direct TV v. Imgburgia, 577 U. S. ____ (2015) case it was stated:
No one denies that lower courts must follow this Court’s holding in Concepcion. The fact that Concepcion was a closely divided case, resulting in a decision from which four Justices dissented, has no bearing on that undisputed obligation. Lower court judges are certainly free to note their disagreement with a decision of this Court. But the “Supremacy Clause forbids state courts to dissociate themselves from federal law because of disagreement with its content or a refusal to recognize the superior authority of its source.”
The Federal Arbitration Act is a law of the United States, and Concepcion is an authoritative interpretation of that Act. Consequently, the judges of every State must follow it. U. S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2 (“[T]he Judges in every State shall be bound” by“the Laws of the United States”). Id. at p. 7.
And In Re Sawyer, 360 U.S. 622, 79 S.Ct. 1376, 3 L.Ed.2d 1473 (1959), is in accord, but is always mis-cited by the ARDC:
We start with the proposition that lawyers are free to criticize the state of the law. Many lawyers say that the rules of evidence relative to the admission of statements by those alleged to be co-conspirators are overbroad or otherwise unfair and unwise; that there are dangers to defendants, of a sort against which trial judges cannot protect them, in the trial of numerous persons jointly for conspiracy; and that a Smith Act trial is apt to become a trial of ideas. Others disagree. But all are free to express their views of these matters, and no one would say that this
sort of criticism constituted an improper attack on the judges who
enforced such rules and who presided at the trials. This is so, even though the existence of questionable rules of law might be said in a sense to produce unfair trials. Such criticism simply cannot be equated with an attack on the motivation or the integrity or the competence of the judges. And surely permissible criticism may as well be made to a lay audience as to a professional; oftentimes the law is modified through popular criticism; Sawyer 19, 20 1959, 360 U.S. 622, 79 S.Ct. 1376, 3 L.Ed.2d 1473 (1959)
To the charges made and found (criticizing Judge Wiig’s decision and the Law in question), it is irrelevant whether the Smith Act case was still pending. Judge Wiig remained equally protected from statements impugning him, and petitioner remained equally free to make critical statements that did not cross that line. We find that hers cannot be said to have done so. Accordingly, the suspension order, based on the charge relating to the speech, cannot stand. Sawyer 19, 20 1959, 360 U.S. 622, 79 S.Ct. 1376, 3 L.Ed.2d 1473 (1959)
Because the Administrator continues to mislead the court in its pleadings, and because the US Supreme court made it clear in the Direct TV case that US Supreme Court rulings are not mere suggestions, but the Illinois Supreme Court and its ARDC Hearing Board and Tribunals are directed to follow them, the Order of Feb. 4, 2016 must be vacated to conform to the rulings of the US Supreme Court in United States v Alvarez, 132 US. Ct 537, Brown v Entm’t Merchants Asss’n 13 S. Ct 2729, Ashcroft v ACLU 124, et al., In re Weddigen, Rosemont v. Markham and other cases which direct that the government cannot regulate private speech on a blog that is simply discussing corruption in the courts and presenting evidence of that corruption. No judges were maligned or insulted to their faces, citizens were shown how to write proper grievances to the authorities and such speech is and should be fully protected by the First Amendment.
A proposed Order is submitted herewith.
JoAnne M. Denison
JoAnne M. Denison, Atty. No. 6192441
Denison Patents, Inc.
5940 W Touhy Ave, #120
cc: Chicago FBI
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned attorney – Respondent herewith certifies that an electronic copy of her Motion to Reconsider Order of 2/4/2016 in the above entitled cause was submitted to the Clerk of the above Court for filing on February 22, 2016 On that same date, the undersigned mailed one copy to the person named below in an envelope deposited in a US mail box in Niles, IL, with proper postage prepaid. An original and twelve (12) copies of the Motion will be sent to the Clerk upon receipt of the electronically submitted file stamped pleading.
Atty Steven Splitt and Clerk of Court
Attn: ARDC, One Prudential Plaza, 130 E. Randolph St, 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
via first class mail, postage prepaid
JoAnne Marie Denison
STATE OF ILLINOIS )
COUNTY OF COOK )
I hereby declare that JoAnne Denison appeared before me, and signed the above Certificate of Service February 22, 2016
a notary public for the State of Illinois
My Commission expires _____________
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
In re: Joanne Marie Denison
by the Illinois ARDC,
Supreme Court No. M. R. 27193
Commission No. 2013 PR 0001
Case No. 2013 PR 1
Motion to Reconsider Order of 2/4/16
Now comes the above Honorable Court and having been advised of the premises of Respondent’s Motion to Reconsider,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
___________ Motion to reconsider GRANTED and order of 2/4/16 is vacated herewith
___________ Motion to Reconsider DENIED
JoAnne M Denison
Justice 4 Every 1, NFP
5940 W. Touhy Ave, #120
Niles, IL 60714