KKD explains the difference between a “fixed” and “wired” case

To: Janet Phelan <janet_c_phelan@yahoo.com>
Cc: “JoAnne M. Denison” <joanne@justice4every1.com>, B
Subject: Defining terms.
Date: Jun 21, 2016 9:12 PM
Question:  what is the definition of a “fix?”
Because of my background I use the words “fix” and “wired” court in my regular discourses.    Even though everyone knows or should know what these words mean in the context of corruption, we have never defined them and thus have not made certain that we are speaking together.    As I use the word “fix” it does not mean or portray the sour grapes of a party receiving  an adverse ruling because a judge presiding in some court did not agree with you,   Such is true even if in a perfect world you would have been successful and vanquished your opponent.    Fixed or wired is intended to mean that a decision has been made (usually involving a judicial matter) by a trier of fact due to some improper outside influence introduced by some interested party. 
The Sykes case is a wired case.   The recent Tim Lahrman cases were fixed.     Here in Chicago a notable fixed case involved the Mayor of the City of Chicago’s nephew.   He killed another person on the streets of Chicago in a fight.    Normally arrest, prosecution and Jail would be offered to the miscreant for the offense however, a massive cover-up was instituted and for more than year the political establishment kept the hue and cry at bay.    The ‘fix’ was in.    Indeed the jail sentence finally extracted was a disgrace.   The case is an anatomy of a fix.     We have many examples – A Senator from Mass drove his automobile off a bridge, swam to safety himself as she drowned.    The wife of former president used a personal server to distribute State Secrets and to solicit foreign contributions to the personal Foundation.    In short, when the result of fact finding or application of the law is obvious from day one and prior to a presentation of the facts and the playing field is not level – we have the fixed case and the wired judge.    
Just to be clear it is not a fix in the situation wherein a judge, who has no prior relationship to either you or your opponent or any other interested party, rules against you after giving you a full hearing and the opportunity to present your side of the case.     Under that circumstance, if the Judge rules against you, no matter how strong you believe your evidence your loss is not a fix.      There are exceptions such as cafeteria courts wherein as matter of Jurisdictional policy you are guilty without any evidence being presented.    Traffic Court, Building Court, Forcible Entry and Detainer Court are examples.     These courts are an anomaly as well as a disgrace; and merely revenue producing entities or a place to house incompetent judges.   
Institutional bias may or may not constitute a fix.       There are judges who harbor bias against certain ethnic and racial groups.      Most of the time these biases are subtle.     For example, how do we classify the situation in which Judge A just does not like Jews and does not believe them.    One of the Presidential candidates complained that he was getting the short end of the stick because of the personal makeup and demeanor of a particular judge.   (This judge made certain rulings that appeared to be bit more than questionable).     The unlevel playing field creates a fix.    However, if the same judge could not care and does not care about who you are , what ethnic group you belong, or anything personal concerning either you or your opponent even if he/she is a moron and has the intelligence of an idiot the case is neither wired or fixed.    Such a case is a bit more challenging.    It should be noted that not all (in fact not many) of the cases going to the Appellate Courts are the result of fixes or ‘wired court.’
Now that we defined the fix or wiring of the court as the denial of a level playing field, how do we know a fix when it bites us?    
At one point in time judges were less subtle.   The wired judge received something tangible and a cost of living analysis by the Treasury Department would detect the remuneration.     Today it is very difficult to detect as today ‘wiring’ courts and ‘fixing’ judges is much more subtle.    Campaign contributions to the Judge and/or his political action committee mask the remuneration.    As Illinois Judges as an example stand for retention and it is rarer than hens having gold teeth for a judge not to be retained, the political campaign contribution while legal is nothing more than a scam payment to the judge.
  The scams are much more inventive.   A couple of payments on the Judges’ mortgage create a bribe that is virtually untraceable.    A sweetheart purchase of a commodity, real estate, condominiums, vehicles etc. go unnoticed.   Similarly a job for a family member is almost untraceable.    Of course there is other currency other than the US Dollar.    One of the bad guy nursing home operator distributed the proceeds of nursing home beds in addition to finder’s fees to deserving judges and other judicial officials.    The long and short is that whatever the consideration (whether it is corporeal, tangible, or quid pro quo) it is always present in the ‘fixed’ or ‘wired” Court.     Detection is usually fortuitous.
The Alice Gore case as an example was not a case of just bad judgment, or avarice on the part of judicial officials.   1.5 million dollars disappeared and was not accounted for.    In fact, the records kept were so terrible that the attorney who closed the file for the State literally tore his hair out to try to present to the Court something reasonable.    As the fix was in the miscreant parties escaped and laugh all the way to the Bank.  
 Even though we have not run across another situation (such as Gore)  in which the avarice was so openly and notoriously displayed by the prospecting for the gold in her teeth the felonies committed by the miscreants the active parties, i.e. the Judge and the Guardian ad litem were not investigated, not prosecuted, but rewarded for their perfidy.     Jerome Larkin using the IARDC attempted to silence dissent and hide the fact a senior citizen was elder cleansed by ‘wired courts’ and ‘fixed’ judges.    
What is disgusting is the tie-in between the guardian ad litem in the Gore case and the nursing home empire of her health care mogul relative.    Any investigation would have made public the clear disclosure of the relationship and its perfidious effect on the judicial system and the cancerous corruption in the Illinois judicial system.      The 1.5 million dollars in missing and/or misapplied assets is the consideration for the corruption.   
The Guardian ad litem’s relative is not a casual visitor to the fixing of cases and the wiring of courts.   He was exposed in the Chicago newspapers for his relationship with the Public Guardian’s office and the disappearance of homeless people from lower Wacker Drive.    (They wound up – at government expense – in his nursing home facilities.     The ‘wiring’ of the Court was easily paid for by ‘finder’s fees’, referral gratuities, or Court assignments as guardian, guardian ad litem, attorney for guardian *****.    Indeed, the elder cleansing of Alice Gore was part of the pay to play scenario that rocks Illinois.   The cesspool has few limits, except the need to intimidate the family to ‘stay away’ and the realization by the miscreants that the cover-up is quite difficult when family members are not easily intimidated.   Direct assaults and demonization of the family member who object the elder cleansing then follows.   
A case study and anatomy of a fixed or wire case is he Mary Sykes case 09 P 4585.  The MaryGSykes case is the case that is most pregnant with corruption.     Thanks to Judge Connors’ evidence deposition on page 91 we have a judge admitting that the ‘fix was in.’    What was done about it?    Nothing.  
How do we know that Judge Connor’s admission was true?
The file in case 09 P 4585 is just short of incredible.    As I pointed out previously, the Illinois legislative requirements are designed to fully protect the elderly and the disabled from misuse of the guardianship statute and the use of guardianship to separate the elderly from their civil rights.     Section 3b (755 ILCS 5/11a -3b) provides that the guardianship is an accommodation to be used only to prove whatever aid that might be appropriate to the disabled person.     It was not to be used to seize all the assets, liberty, and property of the senior.      
To assure that the limited invasion of the statute be observed the Legislature in section 10 made certain that the proceedings would not be disguised, ignored, or otherwise obviated.     The Legislature then provided that a particular summons be issued and served on the affected person.    The Legislature even directed how the summons was to be served.     The Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County ignored the mandate of the legislature and never provided the required summons during the relevant period of time.      A quick view of the Sykes file points out that the complaint was not appropriately filled out by the miscreant attorney for the petitioner, and even though Mary Sykes had been kidnapped and taken out to DuPage County the summons in the filed were directed to a Chicago Address.    The façade was complete with the petition with a Court order obtained leave to serve Mary by a special process server.  The Sheriff in a letter points out that no service was had by his office of Mary Sykes. [1]
To make certain that an incompetent person is fully protected in section 10 the legislature required (as a jurisdiction condition precedent) that some of the nearest family members be notified i.e. Sisters, children ****.      The file indicates that there were no notices given to anyone 14 days prior a hearing on Mary’s competency.
Of course notice would have been a waste of time as no hearing was ever held.   The two guardians just appeared before the ‘wired’ judge and she made an appointment of a guardian to elder cleanse Mary Sykes.     
Thus, we have irregularities!   The core values of NOTICE AND HEARING (due process) were not afforded to Mary Sykes.    However, do these irregularities ipsofacto provide proof that Judge Connors was wired?     The answer has to be no, even though the evidence is strong.    Do these irregularities prove proof that Judge Connors was ‘fixed?’       Again – not yet.
What is the proof required?     We have to show that Judge Connors got something for it and was induced to come to the same conclusion regardless of the proof presented.     We presume that the Judge is honest, filled with integrity, and a purer that Caesar’s Wife.    
 Gloria Sykes, who happens to be an investigative producer, rummaged through the political files and found some interesting relationships that an HONEST INVESTIGATION would have to follow up upon.   The political ties she appeared to uncover suggest that elder cleansing is a very profitable cottage industry that has many adherents in the political arena.    Of course, no HONEST investigation has been undertaken and every effort to induce such an investigation has been met with opposition from the Illinois ARDC and the Illinois Supreme Court.     It does not take much acumen to suggest exactly why there is such opposition to any investigation of the elder cleansing industry conducted in our court.      
  In our role as Caesar’s wife we are deprived of the ability to RUSH TO JUDMENT.       We do have proof!   
1.     All citizens are presumed to know the law, and Judges in particular in addition to being presumed to know the law are presumed to know whether or not they have jurisdiction.     Judge Connors if she did a scintilla of work in the Sykes case she would have examined the file and discovered that no legitimate attempt had been made to serve Mary Sykes with summons as required by due process, and that the jurisdictional obligation of prior 14 days’ notice of hearing had not been provided, or that a hearing was never held.     Judge Connors could not plead ignorance of the fact that she was never present at the required hearing as to Mary Sykes’ competency.
2.   Judge Connors admitted the fact that she was Fixed/Wired on page 91 of her evidence deposition.
The wiring of Judges does not have to occur in the initial stages of the case.    It may occur at any time.    It can take on many faces.      The key to the ‘wired’ judge is the fact that even though the evidence in favor one side is overwhelming the other side cannot win = the judge has made up his/her mind prior to hearing the evidence.      Judge Connors made it very clear on page 91 of her evidence deposition.     Had she known of the jurisdictional deficiencies she would have stopped the proceedings to correct them.     
A judge has very specific duties.   An unwired judge does not aid either side – she at all times remains neutral.    The judge is the trier of fact and therefore if the plaintiff/petitioner cannot make his/her case that is tough *****.     The unwired judge would protect that alleged incompetent’s rights and dismiss the proceedings – no jurisdiction – no legal proceeding.       In the Sykes case Judge Connors ignored her legal and moral obligations.   In the same case Judge Stuart demonstrated that she was wired, when she was informed of all the irregularities, including the fact that she did not have jurisdiction but continued to rule on the miscreant’s requests.    Ditto for every single judge assigned to the Sykes case who filed to dismiss it.    The epidemic of ‘wired’ judges exists across the Nation in these guardianship cases.    Our governments solution so far has been to ignore the corruption and in the case of [2]States like Illinois – clamp down and silence all who demand HONEST investigations.    In short, they are trampling on America’s liberty and core values [3].    
Either accepting or soliciting or receiving, or paying something of value to a public official or a judge is a felony.    A promise to get my son a favorable hearing in relation to school is just a serous bribe as my paying a public official for the result.  In Summary, the ‘fixed’ judge or ‘wired court’ is a court where the natural equilibrium is changed by something a value.       The judge who abandons his position of trust for illegal personal enhancement of his pecuniary position deserves to be disbarred and jailed.   Those in public service who cover up for the dishonest judge pursuant to 18 USCA 371 ought to be in jail.
We are citizens are helpless, unless we can be heard and can make enough of a hue and cry to require government to consider the 5th and 14th Amendment admonition to the effect that we are all EQUAL IN THE EYES OF THE LAW and the political elite and judicial elite are subjected to the same rules as we – the great unwashed! [4]      

[1] The guardian’s attorney claims a bench service, but does claim that he served the required documents.      The IARDC panel ruled that notice of a hearing had been waived.   Exactly how does an incompetent ‘waive’ anything?  How do you waive attendance at a hearing that never occurred, especially when the party with the burden of proof failed to present any?     The action of “panel” is strong evidence that it (the panel) is fixed.     (When no evidence being presented is evidence of ‘guilt’ it is pretty clear that the trier of fact is wired.    In the Amu case not only was no evidence of his wrongdoing presented by the IARDC, but Crain’s Chicago Business echoed his charges against Judge Egan almost word for word.    Of course the IARDC tribunal found Amu guilty.
[2] This case must be distinguished from the ‘sour grapes’ situation in which the Court erroneously rules that black is white, or the case wherein the plaintiff cannot prove that today is Tuesday.     (Yes, I am aware that the Judge should take judicial knowledge that today is Tuesday).     Judges are entitled to make mistakes and within limited parameters even be stupid.    BUT if one half of one penny has an influence on the Judge’s decision the case is wired.
[3] First amendment and due process
[4] The desperation of the IARDC is so great at this point to protect a source of remuneration that they unwittingly exposed the fact that they used unlicensed court reporters in their kangaroo proceedings.   It is suggested that they did so so that they have leverage to alter transcripts.     The case in point was Judge Stuart admitted facts that indicated that she committed perjury.   By the stroke of pen *****.     By Statute the unlicensed reporters cannot be paid, especially by a public agency.    Ergo, when Jerome Larkin did so, he committed a felony.   When he attempted to obtain reimbursement from JoAnne Denison he compounded the felony.

From Joanne;
Interesting that Larkin commits a felony by dictating, filing with the court a false and fraudulent bill, and the court rubber stamps an order that is nothing but Fraud on the Court and the false and fraudulent bill can be brought up at any time.
Larkin knows of this, so does Sharon Opryszek and neither has apologized or moved to strike the false and fraudulent order.
Right now, my Supplement is pending and “under review” at the Supreme Court.  It has been there for awhile now, not like the usual strike or ignore motion and move along.
Judge Theis said it is pulled and under consideration.  Judge Freeman says it is denied with the original order.
I guess no one knows what to do with this mess, and probably no one wants to touch it or get near it.
Before this no judge at the Illinois Supreme Court was signing any orders, including my order for suspension.  Court Order are nothing but paper towels until the judge signs them.  Oh, some judges might get out a signature stamp on dicey orders, and some just have the clerk sign them as if they do not know what they are doing.
But all of my orders have been unsigned.  It can even be argued that I am not suspended or disciplined because no order has ever been signed by a single justice.
Judges really don’t have a lot of work to do. They are supposed to make sure that everyone has had proper service by viewing an affidavit of service and a copy of the summons and complaint, and then after that, the attorneys do all the work preparing motions and briefs, the judge reads them and makes a decision.  Of course the judge can just read the first and last pages of the 20 page pleadings filed, but at that point he has judicial immunity and can just sit back and relax.
Next, upon making a decision, he issues and signs an order.  No order, no decision.  Some play games with this never performing this part when the case is troubled, but a transcript can be obtained and an aggrieved party may appeal based upon the transcript.
Nonetheless, if there is no signed order, there is really nothing to enforce.
I have no idea why the Illinois Supreme Court has not signed any orders in my case. What? They can’t even dig up a rubber stamp?  The clerk has and sometimes uses it.
unsigned orders:

1 thought on “KKD explains the difference between a “fixed” and “wired” case

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 )

Connecting to %s