First Amendment Retaliation for running this blog

Dear Readers;

An old friend wrote me lately and asked which statutes were violated in my disciplinary case and I responded as follows (and I want to thank S for the question).

Feel free to use these in your pleadings where you speak out for a loved one, but you are falsely arrested on bogus charges.

You are told to “shut up” in probate or divorce court.

You are told “we don’t do things that way down here” (referring to no due process, no notice, no summons or complaint, no time for discovery and no hearing)

You are told to get your comments off of social media and don’t make any comments on this (corrupt) case.

Dear S;

You asked a good question about why an honest lawyer is being disciplined, and what laws and statutes protect a lawyer who is  whistleblower.  You may wish to review these statutes and cases:

Whistleblower Lawyers

First and foremost, all lawyers are supposed to be whistleblowers on other lawyers and on the judges who are also lawyers. There is no exception and lawyers are not supposed to create a “code of silence” for corruption or look the other way when it is occuring.

Under the Himmel case, an attorney is required to report instances of attorney misconduct to the ARDC and the appropriate authorities.

All my blog did was post information on the Mary G Sykes case.

Mary G Sykes Probate case 09 P 4585 Case Synopsis:

Mary G Sykes noted one day that $4,000 was missing from her bank account. The banker told her that Carolyn Toerpe took the money under a POA and that she should file for a Protective Order.  Mary went downtown to file for a Protective Order.  Carolyn received the Petition, hired a crooked lawyer (Harvey Waller–denounced in Indiana by the Atty General there for fleecing the elderly in a Reverse Mortgage business) and he responded with a Petition for Guardianship.

The US Constitution requires due process or a judgement is void ab initio (from the beginning).  You do not have to file anything or say anything, you can reopen the case at any time and get it dismissed.  Juridiction requires notice, time to prepare, discovery and a hearing.  If any of those are absent, any court order is void abinitio.

Carolyn took Mary to Naperville and would not let her come home. She used the Sheriffs at Cook County to do this.

The Guardianship was filed in Cook County and the sheriff went out on several summons and all were marked “person not served” (First Vol. of Sykes appeal, on my blog).

Mary was also entitled to a hearing.  In a letter from GAL Stern to Harvey Waller it was a done deal that Mary would be deemed incapacitated and that Carolyn would become guardian.

A lawyer has a duty to report all of this to the authorities.  I wrote letters to Lisa Madigan, Illinois state’s attorney, Anita Alvarez Cook County States attorney and Diane Saltoun, Illinois Inspector General whose job is to prevent fraud or theft from Illinois State Agencies.  Mary would be drugged and put in a nursing home when she wanted to stay in her own home, per her power of attorney.  Since the State of Illinois gives significant dollars to nursing home residents together with Medicare, that is fraud.  It is wasted money.  Tax payer dollars.

Each of Madigan, Alvarez and Saltoun wrote back and said it was not their job to go after court corruption and fraud (which is a lie).

I wrote letters (and so did Ken) to the attorneys general, the ARDC complaining of the criminal conduct and the danger Mary was in (“target, isolate, medicate, drain the estate, narcotize and eliminate, cremate), and they all dismissed the letters (In other cases lawyers were disciplined for filing Guardianships without jurisdiction and commandeering a ward’s money to pay their own bills–Sykes is similar–Seniors for Cash)

Ken was told he should be ashamed for writing to the authorities and quoting GAO reports (US govt agency reports), that there was serious fraud and corruption in guardianship. (these are cited elsewhere on this blog)

The statutes involved are:

321 USC sec 20/4 for immunity for report the physical and financial abuse of an elder.

(b) Any person, institution or agency participating in the making of a report, providing information or records related to a report, assessment, or services, or participating in the investigation of a report under this Act in good faith, or taking photographs or x-rays as a result of an authorized assessment, shall have immunity from any civil, criminal or other liability in any civil, criminal or other proceeding brought in consequence of making such report or assessment or on account of submitting or otherwise disclosing such photographs or x-rays to any agency designated to receive reports of alleged or suspected abuse or neglect. Any person, institution or agency authorized by the Department to provide assessment, intervention, or administrative services under this Act shall, in the good faith performance of those services, have immunity from any civil, criminal or other liability in any civil, criminal, or other proceeding brought as a consequence of the performance of those services. For the purposes of any civil, criminal, or other proceeding, the good faith of any person required to report, permitted to report, or participating in an investigation of a report of alleged or suspected abuse, neglect, financial exploitation, or self-neglect shall be presumed.

18 USC sec 4 for Misprison of felony.

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 684; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(G), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

All I did was blog about the case, I did not appear in the Sykes case:

47 USC sec 230 Internet Decency Act

(a) FindingsThe Congress finds the following:
(1) The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens.
(2) These services offer users a great degree of control over the information that they receive, as well as the potential for even greater control in the future as technology develops.
(3) The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.
(4) The Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation.
(5) Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services.
(b) Policy. It is the policy of the United States—
(1) to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media;
(2) to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;
(3) to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services;
(4) to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children’s access to objectionable or inappropriate online material; and
(5) to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer.
(c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

First Amendment, US Constitution

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Illinois Constitution

Article I, Sec. 4

All persons may speak, write and publish freely, being
responsible for the abuse of that liberty. In trials for
libel, both civil and criminal, the truth, when published
with good motives and for justifiable ends, shall be a
sufficient defense.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)

First Amendment retaliation claims are covered under:

1. 42 USC sec 1983.  Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation,
custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia,
subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States
or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of
any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and
laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in
equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any
action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken
in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be
granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief
was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress
applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered
to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

and under

2) Deprivation of rights under color of law–conspiracy

18 USC Sec. 241. Conspiracy against rights


If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or
intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth,
Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any
right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of  the
United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the
premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free
exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured –

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in
violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an
attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit
aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life,
or both, or may be sentenced to death.


18 USC 371 conspiracy to defraud the US govt (Medicare fraud–forcing seniors into nursing homes and billing Medicare)

Sec. 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.

14th Amendment

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

More laws – ADA or Americans with Disabilities

42 USC § 12203 prohibiting retaliation for protecting an Elder under the ADA;

(a) Retaliation

No person shall discriminate against any individual because such individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by this chapter or because such individual made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this chapter.

(b) Interference, coercion, or intimidation

It shall be unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his or her having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of his or her having aided or encouraged any other individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by this chapter.

(c) Remedies and procedures

The remedies and procedures available under sections 12117, 12133, and 12188 of this title shall be available to aggrieved persons for violations of subsections (a) and (b) of this section, with respect to subchapter I, subchapter II and subchapter III, respectively.

75 ILCS § 5/8-901 to 8-909 Illinois Reporter’s Privilege Act to protect bloggers, columnists and other news media:

(735 ILCS 5/8-901) (from Ch. 110, par. 8-901)
Sec. 8-901. Source of information. No court may compel any person to disclose the source of any information obtained by a reporter except as provided in Part 9 of Article VIII of this Act.
(Source: P.A. 84-398.)


    (735 ILCS 5/8-902) (from Ch. 110, par. 8-902)
Sec. 8-902. Definitions. As used in this Act:
(a) “Reporter” means any person regularly engaged in the business of collecting, writing or editing news for publication through a news medium on a full-time or part-time basis; and includes any person who was a reporter at the time the information sought was procured or obtained.
(b) “News medium” means any newspaper or other periodical issued at regular intervals whether in print or electronic format and having a general circulation; a news service whether in print or electronic format; a radio station; a television station; a television network; a community antenna television service; and any person or corporation engaged in the making of news reels or other motion picture news for public showing.
(c) “Source” means the person or means from or through which the news or information was obtained.
(Source: P.A. 92-335, eff. 8-10-01.)

Illinois Citizens Participation Act (Anti SLAPP lawsuits or lawsuits designed to deny citizens their First Amendment rights)

735 ILSC sec 110-1/2

(735 ILCS 110/1)
Sec. 1. Short title. This Act may be cited as the Citizen Participation Act.
(Source: P.A. 95-506, eff. 8-28-07.)


    (735 ILCS 110/5)
Sec. 5. Public policy. Pursuant to the fundamental philosophy of the American constitutional form of government, it is declared to be the public policy of the State of Illinois that the constitutional rights of citizens and organizations to be involved and participate freely in the process of government must be encouraged and safeguarded with great diligence. The information, reports, opinions, claims, arguments, and other expressions provided by citizens are vital to effective law enforcement, the operation of government, the making of public policy and decisions, and the continuation of representative democracy. The laws, courts, and other agencies of this State must provide the utmost protection for the free exercise of these rights of petition, speech, association, and government participation.
 Civil actions for money damages have been filed against citizens and organizations of this State as a result of their valid exercise of their constitutional rights to petition, speak freely, associate freely, and otherwise participate in and communicate with government. There has been a disturbing increase in lawsuits termed “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation” in government or “SLAPPs” as they are popularly called.
    The threat of SLAPPs significantly chills and diminishes citizen participation in government, voluntary public service, and the exercise of these important constitutional rights. This abuse of the judicial process can and has been used as a means of intimidating, harassing, or punishing citizens and organizations for involving themselves in public affairs.
    It is in the public interest and it is the purpose of this Act to strike a balance between the rights of persons to file lawsuits for injury and the constitutional rights of persons to petition, speak freely, associate freely, and otherwise participate in government; to protect and encourage public participation in government to the maximum extent permitted by law; to establish an efficient process for identification and adjudication of SLAPPs; and to provide for attorney’s fees and costs to prevailing movants.
(Source: P.A. 95-506, eff. 8-28-07.)
(735 ILCS 110/15)
    Sec. 15. Applicability. This Act applies to any motion to dispose of a claim in a judicial proceeding on the grounds that the claim is based on, relates to, or is in response to any act or acts of the moving party in furtherance of the moving party’s rights of petition, speech, association, or to otherwise participate in government.
    Acts in furtherance of the constitutional rights to petition, speech, association, and participation in government are immune from liability, regardless of intent or purpose, except when not genuinely aimed at procuring favorable government action, result, or outcome.
(Source: P.A. 95-506, eff. 8-28-07.)


    (735 ILCS 110/20)
    Sec. 20. Motion procedure and standards.
    (a) On the filing of any motion as described in Section 15, a hearing and decision on the motion must occur within 90 days after notice of the motion is given to the respondent. An appellate court shall expedite any appeal or other writ, whether interlocutory or not, from a trial court order denying that motion or from a trial court’s failure to rule on that motion within 90 days after that trial court order or failure to rule.
    (b) Discovery shall be suspended pending a decision on the motion. However, discovery may be taken, upon leave of court for good cause shown, on the issue of whether the movants acts are not immunized from, or are not in furtherance of acts immunized from, liability by this Act.
    (c) The court shall grant the motion and dismiss the judicial claim unless the court finds that the responding party has produced clear and convincing evidence that the acts of the moving party are not immunized from, or are not in furtherance of acts immunized from, liability by this Act.
(Source: P.A. 95-506, eff. 8-28-07.)

Cases to read–US Supreme Court:  1) Citizens United (FEC prohibited any movies from coming out 60 days before an election.  Citizens United made trashy “Hillary” movie which even the US Supremes said was repugnant.  The Court ruled that free speech is subject to “strict scrutiny” and the US govt cannot tell anyone when to speak, what to speak or to refrain from speaking.
“strict scrutiny” means the govt must have a compelling interest, the ends must justify the means, the least restrictive guidelines must be imposed, and the law must actually work to prevent harm.  Strict scrutiny means the govt will never win.  The FEC rule was struck down as being unconstitutional facially under the First Amendment

None of that is present in my case.  I am a blogger about corruption.  People report it to me, I write to the authorities, pursuant to my duties as a lawyer and civilian, and I publish the example so others know how to do this.  The govt cannot and must not regulate the media.  Since this is all under 320 ILCS 20/4, my good faith is presumed.

2) False SpeechAlvarez.  In Alvarez, a man went around with a fake Medal of Valor to entice the ladies to sleep with him.  He also gave speeches on heroism at local VFW’s and got free meals.  Congress had passed a law saying no one could say they had a Medal of Valor when in fact they did not.  The US Supreme Court said that Mr Alvarez’s right to lie about his fake Medal of Valor was covered under free speech.

Federal Appellate case:
Rosemont v. Markham.  Mr. Rosemont was a popular therapist with a masters degree in Psychology.  He was a licensed therapist in NC but not Kentucky.  One day a Kentucky therapist reported his blog and column to the disciplinary authorities for practicing psychology without a license in Kentucky because he wrote a column giving some Kentucky parents some general advice in dealing with a lazy teen son.  The Kentucky Federal Dist  court ruled that the state government had no jurisdiction to regulate a professional column/blog/media under the first amendment.

Illinois Appellate case:
In re Weddigen:  Mr. Weddigen was unhappy with the judge in his divorce.  He went on fb and told everyone how the judge was wrong and how to record court proceedings and which apps to get and how to file complaints about lawyers and judges.
Mrs. Weddigen’s attorney reported this to the court. The court sanctioned Mr. Weddigen thousands of dollars and told him to remove his fb posts about the divorce case.  In a concurring opinion, a 4th district justice said that this was covered by the 1st amendment,
he was shocked that esteemed lawyers and judges did not know this, and that the trial court had no jurisdiction to regulate blog posts regarding court case activities. In the main opinion, the sanction was vacated for failure to comply with rules and procedure.

I am up to nearly 400 “friends” on my facebook.  I only friend people who complain that they were in court and the proceeding was corrupt (and elder or family member was abused, a child rep was bought, a judge made a decision clearly contrary to all evidence).

I do my duty and I must be touching nerves because things are happening:

To wit:

During the last two months:

1) Largest nursing home operator in California indicted and removed on millions in Medicare Fraud;
2)  Largest nursing home operator in Miami Dade county indicted and removed for millions in Medicare Fraud;
3) Seth Gillman of Passages did $1 billion in business with Medicare and the State of Illinois in fake “hospice” work.  The feds indicted him in January for $100 million in fraud.  Last month, he pled guilty to one count of Medicare Faud and one count of govt fraud and his sentence will be 10 years min.

Fraudsters in nursing home business Draiman and Esformes have been taken out.

You did good asking this question.




JoAnne Denison, Executive Director
Justice 4 Every1, NFP
5940 W. Touhy Ave, #120
Niles, IL 60714
Patents, Trademarks & Copyrights
Email me at
Cell Phone 773-255-7608
Work Ph 312-553-1300 or 847-600-3421
efax 312-376-8842
See our website at

Please note that this message may contain confidential or attorney client communications.  If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender and destroy all emails you have received in both your inbox and trash or other folders which may contain same.  Thank you.

1 thought on “First Amendment Retaliation for running this blog

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s