To: “JoAnne M. Denison” <>,
Subject: Re: IPRA routinely obscured how its police investigations played out – just like Jerome larkin and the IARDC – Why is Larkin not in jail?
Date: Jun 17, 2016 6:46 AM
Congress passes laws with great fanfare, and the political elite and judicial elite ignore them.   Cover-up has a new meaning and is more pervasive than ever.   We as citizens cannot do much about open and notorious bribery solicitations of the Clinton Foundation, or the possible cover-up of the Clinton e-mail scandal, but we can address elder cleansing and local issues.   We can make noise!   We can embarrass local miscreants so that they actually do their jobs.   Occasionally we can get a corrupt political or judicial figure free room and board with the Department of Corrections.
Corrupt Judges are a cancer!   Corrupt consumer protection organizations are a cancer!   When the cancer gets to stage 4 it can destroy us!    ////////An honest and independent judiciary are essential for a free democratic society.  The revelations coming out of the probate courts suggest that such is an exception rather than the rule.   Lawyers are routinely being intimidated to SHUT UP and keep quiet.   I personally was asked by an IARDC if I was repentant – I was accused of writing a letter of complaint to the Attorney General of the United States concerning elder cleansing.   Of course I was and am not!   I got a four year suspension of my law license. (As you note – I am still writing!) 
As an example of the continued perfidy, the most recent foray of Jerome Larkin and the IARDC that has been disclosed demonstrates the contempt for the Rule of Law that the Judicial elite exhibi t    Ignoring the fact that a sitting judge on page 91 of her evidence deposition admits to being ‘fixed’ ‘wired’ corrupt is routine malfeasance.   The fact that Larkin had to misrepresent and distort the facts to carry through his portion of the 18 USCA 371 conspiracy to prevent HONEST INVESTIGATIONS of the elder cleansing scandal and its cover-up is garden variety.   The fact that the an assault of the Bill of Rights (First Amendment) was evident did not and does not even raise a eyebrow in either the media or the law enforcement community.   Such distortions and attacks of America’s core values are SOP.   (It should be noted that if a significant voting block were effected – the hue and cry from the political class would be be making noise; however, the only people affected are the elderly and the disabled – they are part of great unwashed).  
 HOWEVER, in the JoAnne Denison attorney disciplinary commission proceedings before the Illinois Supreme Court the prevarications of Larkin and his 18 USCA 371 co-conspirators rubbed raw any perception of disciplinary and were exposed as raw criminal activity.   It appears that the IARDC (Lawyer Disciplinary Commission paid to protect the public) ignored the Legislative protections and engaged unlicensed professional court reporters.   By Statute, the legislature determined that a State license was required before these people could be paid.
Of Course the law does not apply to Larkin – he claims that he paid the illegal payments and to demonstrate that HE IS THE LAW, HIS WORD IS THE LAW, and Ms. Denison in refusing to stop exposing corruption was going to be made an example of!    He appeared without notice before the Supreme Court (ex parte) and demanded and received an order requiring Ms. Denison to reimburse him (and the IARDC) $18000.00 plus or minus for his illegal payments.   
Denison objected to the secret proceedings and the attempted extortion.   Larkin for his part arrogantly admits his perfidy, but continues in his attempted intimidation.   The Silence by the legal profession, the media and law enforcement is deafening.  The ‘cover-up’ continues unabated.   Ms. Denison’s (and my request) request for information on just how much money has been spent on illegal payments and other extortions appears to be ignored.   The IARDC apparently is above the law and nothing shall deter them in their quest to protect the corrupt judges, lawyers, and judicial officials WITH THE APPROPRIATE CLOUT from the public.
Watch the cover-up unfold!   
Academically – with no application in the real world – I read this morning all about a recent SCOTUS decision, to wit:
Date Filed: June 16, 2016
Case #: 15-7
Thomas, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
CIVIL LAW: The implied false certification theory of the False Claims Act can be a basis for liability when a defendant makes representations about the goods or services that it provides, but fails to disclose noncompliance with material legal requirements that make those representations misleading half-truths. Liability does not turn on whether the requirements are expressly designated as conditions of payment.
Respondents’ daughter, a beneficiary of the Massachusetts’ Medicaid program, died after having an adverse reaction to a medication prescribed by a doctor at Arbour. Subsequently, Respondents discovered that many Arbour employees lacked licenses and misrepresented their qualifications to the Federal Government. Respondents filed a suit, alleging that Universal Health (acting through Arbour) violated the False Claims Act under an implied false certification theory of liability. This theory provides that when a defendant submits a payment request to the Government, there is an implied certification of compliance with all conditions of payment. If a claim fails to disclose a violation of a material statutory, regulatory, or contractual requirement, then the defendant has made a misrepresentation that renders the claim false or fraudulent. The District Court held that Respondents failed to state a claim because none of the regulations that Arbour violated were a condition of payment. The First Circuit reversed, holding that a requirement can be a condition of payment either expressly or impliedly. The Supreme Court first established that the implied false certification theory can be a basis for liability when a defendant makes representations about the goods or services that it provides, but fails to disclose noncompliance with material requirements that make those representations misleading. The Court reasoned that such half-truths are actionable misrepresentations. The Court also turned to textual and policy arguments, holding that liability for nondisclosure of legal requirements does not depend on whether the Government expressly designated the requirements as a condition of payment. Additionally, the misrepresentation must be material and the Government’s decision to expressly identify a provision as a condition of payment is relevant, but not definitive of materiality. VACATED and REMANDED.
[Summarized by: Megan Oshiro]
The Chicago Tribune found that law enforcement investigations are not kosher!    Surprise!
June 17, 2016
A Tribune investigation of hundreds of complaints upheld by the Independent Police Review Authority shows the agency often gave victims of police abuse or misconduct a false sense that they had prevailed. IPRA’s already low record of finding allegations credible — 3.8 percent of all cases closed by the end of last year — is even lower than it seems.

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