Pre sales Galley copies are $25 each and you can text a check to 773-255-7608, or fax a check to 312-553-1300 or email one to joanne@justice4every1.com or use Facebook debit card transfer to my Facebook Account.

All books signed by one of the authors and inscribed with a blessing.

Teresa’s story is about how she tried to lovingly care for her mother while the probate vultures churned the bills and drained her mother’s estate. Her mother wanted to live at home with Teresa in her final years, but the guardianship court in Florida prohibited it, and nasty, evil Guardians took over her life and her mother’s life.

The book contains pictures of her mother bruised and tortured until the end.

If you have relatives that don’t believe you when they say the guardianship court is just in it for the money and professional guardians are nothing but evil, this is the book for you.

The book will soon be out on Lulu, Amazon and Barnes and Noble, but let me order an advance, numbered copy signed by the author for you now.

We need more of these books and not less. Contact me if you would like to have me help you write a book on your corrupt case and let’s get the word out about guardianship and other corrupt areas of the court system which should be open, transparent and democratic.

JoAnne

FBI operation rescues 168 children from sex trafficking, puts nearly 300 pimps behind bars

We know there are building in Chicago that house human trafficked women and the city does nothing about it. Lawyers do nothing about it. The authorities do nothing about it.

These women are not criminals, but they are victims of human trafficking.

If you know of a place in Chicago where this is happening, let me know and I will report it, again and again and again.

Lawyers know of it, but the ARDC does nothing.

This is a terrible human tragedy that must be reported and stopped.

JoAnne

Karen Federighi is a 57 year old woman, she is not incapacitated but was forced into an abusive and fraudulent guardianship by her miscreant sisters. She wants her freedom back that was taken away. Her unscrupulous guardian is in control of Karen’s money and life. Her guardian is also a felon! How can a felon control someone’s life when they couldn’t even control their own life.

here is the facebook link to her recent video showing that she is competent:

Day 275: The magistrate, every judge, the lawyers, and my formerly incarcerated guardian here in Collier County, FL simply ignores the law, the US Constitution, and Bill of Rights. No fact checking whatsoever. Decisions based on heresay alone. For 275 days, I have been illegally stripped of all of my civil rights in a 100% illegal, fraudulent, abusive, neglectful, and exploitative probate guardianship. Praying for pmy total freedom and all of my civil rights to be restored. But how? How am I to get free when everyone I have dealt in the court system has no morals, ethics, or conscience?

A new update:

Day 276: Wards of all ages in abusive probate guardianships are denied a healthy diet and often suffer from malnutrition and significant weight loss. From 01/22/16-03/23/16, I had to pawn my possessions for food. From 03/23/16-present, 2 of every 3 of my meals consist of the hotel’s free breakfast, which is great if one is on a vacation and has no dietary restrictions. So, I treat myself to one healthy meal per day. Today, I made pineapple and sweet potato latkes with avocado for dinner. Today, my abusive guardian refused to give me my own money to buy more food. Have to stretch the $7 I have left. Thankful I get to eat this meal while watching the World Series. Go Cubs!

From Joanne;

The video clearly shows that Karen is the victim of a false and abusive guardianship. The guardian in the photo does not care. She is clearly subject to 18 USC sec 4 for failure to report a felony to the authorities.

Karen will have to keep on contacting the FBI and all state authorities. She has been advised to call each day, every day until these false, fraudulent and abusive guardianships end.

And it’s not like we don’t have those problems in Illinois. Jerome Larkin, Administrator and head of the ARDC in Illinois ignores all complaints about attorneys that abuse and fleece the elderly on a daily basis: 99 year old Alice Gore, 29 gold teeth pulled, $1.5 million missing from her estate and the ARDC dismissed all valid complaints and then she was narcotized to death;  Mary G Sykes, 94 years old, $1 million in gold coins missing from the estate, no accounting on the trust or sale of the home, court held proceedings for 5 years without jurisdiction, complaints filed with the ARDC against attorney and all ignored, EXCEPT the ARDC went after honest attorneys that complained–myself and Ken  Then Mary Sykes was narcotized to death.  No investigation despite demands and clear knowledge of the facts.  All discovery of these corrupt, clouted cases quashed.  Ditkowsky and we both received lengthy suspensions for reporting felonies of 3 and 4 years, Alan Frake, drugged with psychotropic drugs and placed in a nursing home against his will, he is in grave danger and all ARDC complaints dismissed.

Illinois is said to be no. 1 in corruption, and with the 20+ videos of innocent unarmed black gunned down in cold blood for no reason at all on the South Side and these videos suppressed for months by the Mayor and the City Attorneys, you can see where the public stands in Illinois. The JIB or Judicial Inquiry Board dismisses valid complaints. The ARDC/Jermone Larkin dismisses valid complaints and does not care. Where are the investigations? The Discovery?  The depositions of the miscreants?  No where to be found in Illinois. Support cleaning up this mess.  Demand Accountability.  Get rid of the psychopaths they have placed at the heads of these agencies.

Do you see anything of accountability on the ARDC website or the JIB website?

The ARDC does not file its mandatory  Ethics Reports.  Many have questionable property records where one person takes out a loan and the other pays it off.  Judges, lawyers and other politicians all have this problem.  We must have outrage and make demands on our public officials, starting with the JIB and ARDC who license and fester crooked, corrupt lawyers and judges. Time to end all of that.  Time to take action.

JoAnne

Today floating around in the chat groups online seems to be some suggestions we should protest in front of the judge’s homes.

Personally, I think if you want to protest against judges you think are crooked or make the wrong decisions contrary to law, the best place is right outside the courthouse or online under the judge’s names and tag their posts with your specific complaints.

But just so everyone knows, apparently Illinois has decided it’s necessary to tailor and regulate the First Amendment right to protest.

From the ACLU:

http://www.aclu-il.org/aclu-report-when-else-can-government-regulate-the-time-place-and-manner-of-protest/

III. C. Targeted sidewalk protests

Protesters often seek to demonstrate on sidewalks abutting a building that contains an audience that would prefer not to hear the protesters’ message. For example, a labor union might picket a worksite that uses allegedly unfair labor practices, or a citizen group might distribute leaflets critical of an elected official in front of that official’s office. Courts have held that the First Amendment protects sidewalk protests targeted at courts, health care facilities, schools, and churches. While a Chicago ordinance prohibits certain protests targeted at churches, the City in 2011 announced it would not be enforcing the policy.

The First Amendment has been interpreted to not protect sidewalk protests targeted at particular homes. An Illinois statute prohibits such targeted residential picketing. However, the First Amendment does protect marches through residential areas that don’t target a particular home.

Further, an Illinois statute prohibits fighting words within 300 feet and 30 minutes of a funeral. Police have enforced this statute against the inflammatory signs of the Westboro Baptist Church (displaying messages such as “thank God for IEDs”) on sidewalks across the street from military funerals. This is not a proper application of the fighting words doctrine, given the unlikelihood of fisticuffs between people across the street from each other. Police probably would not enforce this statute against less inflammatory funeral protests.

Within 50 feet of the entry of a health care facility, a Chicago ordinance bars protesters from approaching within eight feet of another person for the purpose of passing a leaflet, displaying a sign, or engaging in oral protest, education, or counseling. This ordinance is modeled on a Colorado statute that was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. These laws typically are enacted in response to anti-abortion protesters, but they limit all manner of messages and messengers near health care facilities. These laws make it difficult to distribute leaflets, and are unnecessary in light of other laws that prohibit blockades, harassment, and the like. These laws do not impact the many forms of protest that do not involve approaching other persons, such as signs, speeches, and press conferences.

I’m not sure an outside the home protest would work.  Most people care more about their email friends from 3,000 miles around the globe than their next door neighbors and those on facebook than anything else nowadays, but you never know what people are thinking.

Joanne

Okay, we all know that they are out there, you know the type, the claimed “victim” that comes to you begging for help but is nothing but trouble themselves.

This blog gets rid of trouble makers by requiring they upload numerous pleadings and we confirm our sources.  However, that was not the case for one activist Jill Jones Soderman and a crazed couple that visited her office looking for help.

First the defamatory post:

https://starzz1990.wordpress.com/

Now Ms. Soderman’s response

Christine Sirgent contacted staff of the FCVFC after a brief discussion with me resulted in a denial of engagement of the FCVFC with her BF. The contact took place in April, 2014.

Christine Sirgent’s BF seemed to have been engaged in a long standing, high conflict divorce. I declined taking on the case after a brief phone consultation with him.

Christine Sirgent and her BF called my office, engaged sympathetic staff who persuaded me to provide them with a consultation for the BF. (April, 2014)

I received a carton of court documents related to the divorce of the BF of Christine Sirgent with a check for $1,500. I agreed to review documents, provide a consultation. I did not agree to any further involvement with them beyond that commitment.

I received a fee of $1,500. to provide a consultation based on the papers and one phone consultation with the BF. I agreed to speak with the client individually and jointly by phone to discuss the case status on one occasion. The period of time for phone contact is limited to 1 ½ hours on one occasion.

The office of the FCVFC is in Manhattan at 275 Madison Ave., New York, New York 10016.

The New Jersey Office for the FCVFC is the Child Forensic Safety Center, a private Safe House used for the protection of children and adult victims of Violence. (see attached incorporation documents). The clients dropped off a carton of papers for review at the New Jersey office where they were seen for a few minutes as I opened the box to briefly review the papers.

Services provided by the FCVFC are noted in papers and description attached.

The FCVFC NEVER provides legal representation for clients in high conflict custody cases. Ms. Sirgent was never introduced to an attorney as part of my consultation with her BF.

All of the rambling commentary described by Ms. Sirgent in her web site is thoroughly and completely incomprehensible

No letter was ever prepared or sent to a judge on behalf of for Ms. Sirgent’s BF.

I am aware of a letter having been sent to a judge dealing with Ms. Sirgent’s BF because the judge’s clerk called me to ask if the BF was a client of the FCVFC as she thought he was using the name of the FCVFC falsely and she intended to put him in jail. I dissuaded the court clerk from seeking jail time for the BF.

After the call from the Judge, I contacted Ms. Sirgent and told her that I was terminating all contact with her and her BF and would never agree to any further contact / work with them via the FCVFC.
I kept the BF from being jailed because of false representation of engagement with the FCVFC and intended to have no further dealings with either of them.

Following that interaction I continued to receive an incessant barrage of threatening letters and e mails from Ms. Sirgent and her BF. The e mails were referred to junk mail. Phone calls were never accepted.

I became aware of Ms. Sirgent through her web site when it appeared on Google defaming me.

I sought consultation with numerous attorney and was constantly told that there was nothing that I could with regard to having Ms. Sirgent take down her web site.
As far as I knew, the BF was homeless, had absolutely no funds.

Ms. Sirgent was unemployed, but I had no address for her and she was not the intended client.

I have ignored Ms. Sirgent and her BF, responding to their defamatory, libelous, false communications by publishing about them in the USWhistleblower – the on line press for the FCVFC.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/20/assisted-suicide-law-prompts-insurance-company-den/

The Washington Times reported that the California Assisted-suicide law prompted an insurance company to deny coverage to a terminally ill California woman.

Bradford Richardson, from theWashington Times reported that Stephanie Packer, a wife and mother of four who was diagnosed with a terminal form of scleroderma, said that her insurance company initially indicated it would pay for her to switch to a different chemotherapy drug based on the recommendation of her doctors but shortly after the California assisted suicide law went into effect, her insurance company denied her treatment.

“And when the law was passed, it was a week later I received a letter in the mail saying they were going to deny coverage for the chemotherapy that we were asking for,”

She said she called her insurance company to find out why her coverage had been denied. On the call, she also asked whether suicide pills were covered under her plan.

“And she says, ‘Yes, we do provide that to our patients, and you would only have to pay $1.20 for the medication,’”Mrs. Packer said.

Stephanie Packer believes that legalizing assisted suicide creates an incentive for insurance companies to deny terminally ill people coverage. Packer stated:

“As soon as this law was passed — and you see it everywhere, when these laws are passed — patients fighting for a longer life end up getting denied treatment, because this will always be the cheapest option,”

The attitude also changed in her support group:

After the right-to-die movement began garnering national attention, Mrs. Packer said she noticed a change in tone at her support groups for terminally ill patients. While the meetings were formerly positive and encouraging, she said the specter of suicide now hangs above them like a dark cloud.

“And people, once they became depressed, it became negative, and it started consuming people,” she said in the video. “And then they said, ‘You know what? I wish I could just end it.’ “

Full Article & Source:
Assisted-suicide law prompts insurance company to deny coverage to terminally ill California woman

From Joanne;

And here in Illinois we see Esformes steal $1 billion from health care in Florida, Seth Gillmal steals $100 million from hospice, Obama care premiums are near unaffordable, and the insurance company answer is–here, we’ll send you a suicide pill for $1.20.

People are not dogs, horses and cats to be put down when they become expensive.

Try a GoFund me for a pet and it will often gather many times the vet bill, but Grandma and nursing homes and health care are pretty much ignored.

The solution from the ARDC is to protect clout receiving millions of dollars until clout turns to the feds (Gillman case) and we don’t see the FBI (yet) going after the billions Esformes stole in other states from medicare/medicaid/state health care funds.

The ARDC needs to file their Ethics Reports under the 2009 state law.  The FBI should be pulling their bank records and looking for bribes.

Same with many state court judges with questionable property records, homes all over the US and in foreign countries. These issues need to be exposed and dealt with.

And can anyone explain why you need to give the DNC chair $150k to get on the ballot for a judgeship in Illinois?

All the old people in nursing homes don’t want to be drugged and they want to go home or live with a relative. Which states attorney is brave enough to investigate those cases?

Ken and I sure want to know?

Also,  where are their votes going in a few weeks when most are heavily drugged with illegal prescription drugs and propped up in front  of a TV all day?

Who is profiting from this?  Where is the money trail?

Joanne

Please watch the video:

INDIANAPOLIS, Ind. — One year after FBI agents and state investigators raided a series of homes and a corporate headquarters of a central Indiana healthcare management company, a federal grand jury has returned a 32-count indictment against four men alleging a massive fraud and kickback scheme with illegal profits in excess of $16 million.

Listed on the indictment are the former CEO of American Senior Communities James Burkhart, ex-ASC COO Daniel Benson, contractor Steven Ganote and Joshua Burkhart who is accused of profiting from the fraud allegedly lead by his brother.

The four men appeared in federal court for an initial hearing late Wednesday afternoon. They entered not guilty pleas and were released under supervision, as is common in white-collar crime.

The federal probe uncovered a complex series of billings and agreements stretching back to early 2009 that involved inflated costs and invoices claiming markups typically as high as 40% and kickbacks that enriched the accused conspirators and allowed them to buy vacation property from central Indiana to Marco Island, Florida, and the acquisition of gold bars, Krugerrands, Rolex watches and diamond jewelry.

Money funneled through 20 shell companies included payment for gambling junkets, the use of a private plane and even unspecified political contributions.

Evidence includes the verbatim conversation between one accused conspirator and a contractor being shaken down for a bribe and various emails, payment reports, bank records and statements.

4 Fast Facts

• Former CEO, three others face federal charges
• They’re accused of fraud and other offenses involving millions of dollars
• Federal authorities raided several locations last year
• The company’s CEO was then fired

“It was a member of the public who stepped forward after being approached about some of the arrangements that you read in the indictment and taking a look and saying, ‘You know, this doesn’t sound right,’” said Nick Linder, Assistant U.S. Attorney.

ASC is a privately held company that manages approximately 70 nursing home and senior care facilities in Indiana, many of them owned by the Marion County Health & Hospitals Corporation.

Health & Hospitals, Medicare and Indiana Medicaid are listed as victims of the fraud, as is the federal Medicare system.

American Senior Communities released a statement about the case saying it cooperated with the investigation and will continue to do so until the case reaches its conclusion:

American Senior Communities is grateful to the United States Attorney’s Office and the federal agencies whose hard work and dedication resulted in today’s indictment. ASC has actively cooperated in this investigation and will continue to cooperate until the prosecutions are concluded. ASC was the victim of a betrayal of trust by two of its former officers.

ASC continues its strong tradition of providing excellent care, which has made ASC a valued and respected provider of senior care in Indiana. Nothing in the investigation or this prosecution involves resident care. ASC’s primary focus continues to be exceptional resident care.

ASC appreciates the commitment of its employees and continued support of its families.

ASC has emerged from this process a stronger, more vital organization. ASC has implemented many safeguards, and strengthened the organization with new leadership under the direction of CEO Donna Kelsey. ASC skilled nursing and residential facilities continue to enjoy quality ratings that exceed state and national averages.

Criminal charges include mail fraud, wire fraud, health care fraud, money laundering and conspiracy to circumvent an anti-kickback statute.

The U.S. Attorney claims that virtually any item or service required to run a health care facility, from medical supplies to landscaping to American flags to t-shirts for an Alzheimer’s memory walk, were subject to outrageously inflated prices that led to excessive profits that were ultimately kicked back to the participants of the scheme.

Discounts and rebates that were due to ASC often found their way in the pockets of the four men, according to the indictment.

Joshua Burkhart is accused of creating a company called Heartland Flag LLC which sold American, Indiana and ASC brand flags to ASC at a 150% markup and often replaced the flags several times a year.

“That’s one that certainly stuck in my craw,” said U.S. Attorney Josh Winkler.

Ganote is accused of creating Indiana Uniform Company LLC to sell ASC discharge packages, embroidered uniforms, seasonal door wraps, luggage carts and t-shirts at a 200% markup.

One furniture company CEO told investigators Ganote requested inflated invoices of up to 25% with the overcharge to be paid back to a shell company he owned, advising the furniture maker, “just between you and me…(James Burkhart’s) a part of that LLC. That’s all you need to know.”

Upon conviction, the fraud and conspiracy counts carry 20-year prison sentences plus ten years for money laundering and five years for conspiracy to violate the Anti-Kickback Statute, and the investigation into the roles of other possible ASC employees, including the chief financial officer, continues as the federal authorities promise a second round of indictments.

“These men are alleged to have stolen from the most vulnerable in our society,” said Winkler. “They took advantage of a system entrusted with the care of this state’s elderly, sick and mentally challenged allowing them to live a lifestyle of gratuitous luxury, fraught with unbridled greed.”

ASC fired Benson and James Burkhart within days of the FBI raids more than a year ago.

Federal investigators said they expect a second round of arrests in the probe, as vendors who went along with the kickback scheme will likely face charges.

In fact, authorities filed one count of Conspiracy to Commit Mail, Wire, and Health Care Fraud on Wednesday against David Mazanowski, the owner of Mainscape, Inc, an Indiana-based landscape company, alleging the vendor was in on the scheme.

The Indiana Health Care Association/Indiana Center for Assisted Living released the following statement about the case:

The Indiana Health Care Association/Indiana Center for Assisted Living learned of the charges against Mr. Burkhart and others this morning.  American Senior Communities (ASC) is a valued member of the association, an employer of thousands of people across the state of Indiana, and a caregiver to thousands of Hoosiers.

We understand ASC has made robust leadership changes and these disappointing events have not impacted their abilities to provide excellent care.  Our highest priority continues to be the care of Hoosiers in our more than 350 member centers statewide and the challenges they face that include significant regulatory changes and hiring and retaining quality staff.

Health & Hospital Corporation of Marion County weighed in as well:

Health & Hospital Corporation of Marion County (HHC) is aware of the federal indictments of James G. Burkhart, former CEO of American Senior Communities, as well as former ASC Chief Operating Officer Dan Benson, Josh Burkhart and Steve Ganote.

HHC has cooperated fully with federal authorities in their investigation. The federal authorities consistently advised HHC that it was a victim of the alleged schemes.  At no time has HHC or any of its employees been a target or subject of the investigation.

The health and welfare of residents were never at risk as a result of the alleged schemes. Residents and their welfare are always our top priority, and resident care was never affected.

American Senior Communities is one of the largest nursing home management companies in the state of Indiana. HHC has contracted with ASC to manage nursing home facilities owned by HHC.

from Joanne

Expensive vacation homes, golf junkets, gambling, diamonds, gold bars, Rolex watches, etc. was part of the $16 million taken from medicare/medicaid funds–and the FBI admits these are the most needy of the US population and the most deserving of protection.  The American Community Center involved kickbacks with a number of vendors to generate kickbacks.  4 men received $16 million from fraud and kickbacks to finance a life of luxury. What I don’t understand is that their base pay was $1 million, but they had to have more. Dozens of items were subject to the kick back scheme, including medical supplies, landscaping, pharmacy services, electronics, furniture, tshirts and even American Flags.  Marion County hospital would pay the claims and then were funneled through 20 shell companies.

Vendors will also be likely indicted, says the FBI and on the day of the report, the landscaping CEO had been indicted too.

It should be noted that in the Press Release from the FBI and other agencies, it was noted that the theft, embezzlement and fraud of $16 million from 2009 to 2016 turns out to be more than all the bank robberies combined in Southern Indiana in the last 2 decades!

The investigation came from an anonymous tip from a citizen who said that something was out of place and he just had to report it.  To him something did not add up.

I’m still trying to figure out how 1) $16 million could be missing over 7 years and the government auditors never noticed it in the reports that must have been filed by both ASC and the Hospital (Marion Hospital) paying the claims, 2) why weren’t routine government audits tracking these 16 shell companies used to launder the money;  3) why doesn’t the government require that every corporation it deal with be required to reveal the “true owner” of the company, that is who is taking all or the vast majority the profits either from dividends and/or salary.

I also want to know why 4 individuals who master minded this scheme and walked off with $16 million–more than all the bank robberies in that area in 20 years, got bail to walk.

They took $16 million and have homes all over the world, for sure.  Who doesn’t think they are a flight risk, as Esformes was?  I think the US govt and taxpayers have 16 million reasons to revoke bail until this shameful case is over.  I wonder if the dozens of bank robbers for much less in the area got no bail because of their money they were considered a flight risk?  Were all the pass ports pulled by the FBI, from the 4 in house executives stealing $16 million to each vendor charging medicare/medicaid an inflated price.

In my proceeding, discovery was quashed, my expert witnesses were quashed, and even the court proceeding was unlicensed.  I don’t see how there could have been more lack of due process in my case.

http://www.janeandjohnqpublic.com/blog/october-16th-2016

Award winning journalists have arrived on the scene to expose  issues involving California Judges acting in the state’s family court cases.  An article published on Sunday October 16 2016 in the Eastbay Times by award winning investigative journalists Thomas Peele and Nate Gartrell  may have opened the floodgates as mainstream media exposes the grave injustices found in California’s family court cases.

For decades family courts have faced criticism from  people trapped in divorces  who describe unfair support orders, legal alienation from their children and outright dismissal of property  and First Amendment Rights . Courts dismiss those who complain as disgruntled litigants, but the  complaints show something far more sinister.

Sacramento County was the first to speak up about family court matters – and investigative reporters, bloggers, activists  and social media specialists began to expose the darker side of family court judges and proceedings.

Ultimately, many of the most vocal critics were involved in the production of Divorce Corp, a popular, Netflix documentary. Sadly,  many  parents featured in the film never fully recovered  from the losses the family courts had imposed in what should have been routine and equitable divorce cases.

Most egregious is the blatant use of judicial immunity that has allowed family court judges the power and ability to jail parents for missing support payments, or for posting online comments critical of a former spouse, family courts,  judges or lawyers.

People have lost their children, their property and their freedom for speaking up during family court proceedings and courts appear willing to dismiss  divorce litigant’s First Amendment Rights as a matter of routine.  Additionally  many judges are reported  to be privately  investigating people speaking up against them, and then using the system to retaliate and silence their critics.

Judicial retaliation against those who speak out is outrageous, and the most blatant involves the divorce case of  Joe Sweeney, in Contra Costa County.  After experiencing a rather unfair divorce proceeding, Joe formed Court Reform, LLC. In early 2016 Court Reform LLC  published a report critical of the Commission of Judicial Performance, the state agency that is supposed to address judicial misconduct to protect citizens involved in  legal matters.   Many say  Joe Sweeney’s report was  “singlehandedly” responsible for causing the state legislature to order an audit of the CJP, for the first time in 50 years.

For Joe’s work aimed at protecting  Californians embroiled  in divorces,  Judge  Mills, of Contra Costa County, used blatant bias , retaliation and even violation of the law, to put Joe in jail.  

Judge Mills was able to abuse his power by dressing up a contempt order that blamed Joe for  posting publically available information online during a divorce proceeding. Judge Austin,  Contra Costa  County’s presiding judge had plenty of complaints and warnings against Judge Mills before Joe was jailed, and Judge Austin ignored those complaints, in violation of his own obligation to California’s Judicial Code of Ethics.  Insiders say Judge Austin acted to make sure a “message ” was sent to Joe and other whistleblowers.

The DA in Contra Costa County will now have to decide if he will break with rank and  finally begin to investigate complaints filed against judges arising from family law cases. Media exposure and public outrage may assist him in that decision.

Highly experienced family lawyers have  also  been speaking out over the misconduct of their peers , and judges . Most lawyers and judges believe misconduct  serves to poison the well that is intended to provide citizens with a fair legal system, but few lawyers have felt free  to speak out , or file the complaints necessary to stop the toxic behavior,despite rules and laws that require them to do just that.

Floyd Abrams, one of the country’s foremost First  Amendment experts commented for the article written by Peele and Gartrell.  Abrams clearly recognizes the dangers  that exist when free speech and right to petition are quashed in family law cases, where the most fundamental rights of individuals reside.

The East Bay Times article clearly shows free speech experts and academics, including Martin  Garbus,  understand the  impact on everyday citizens when  family courts restrict the most fundamental of rights.

In Contra Costa County Joe Sweeney went to jail for speaking up . In Santa Clara County Michael Lazarin lost the right to say his own child’s name after he reported legal alienation during his custody case and Susan Bassi was evicted from two homes she had owned for over twenty years, after she reported two highly regarded family law attorneys, Nat Halesand Brad Baugh,  to the State Bar and two judges, Mary Ann Grilli and James Towery , to the  Santa Clara County presiding judge, Rise Pichon, who did nothing about the judges clearly retaliating in a divorce case.   

Many family court cases involving violations of the First Amendment  have worked their way up to the court of appeals, but social media has worked them out to the public’s attention faster. Social media  assisted by public outrage over judge rulings , including the ruling of Judge  Persky, in the Stanford rape case,  has caused the public to take note, and  demand change.

Judges are worried. At the  annual meeting for the Judges’ Association, insiders report that the San Diego late summer meeting filled  corridors and hallways with side meetings where judges expressed  concern that their images are being blasted throughout social media, forcing their judicial rulings to be more widely scrutinized where such scrutiny is outside the control and protection of the court system,

On Monday, October 17, 2016 the biological father of Audrie Pott will address his First Amendment Rights in yet another Santa Clara County Courtroom. The county, still reeling from the attention brought during the Stanford rape case, combined with the issues now being exposed in Contra Costa County, is reported to be ground zero for an investigation on judicial misconduct.

As for rats bailing from the sinking court ship, citizens in Santa Clara  County are well aware that the timing of Court CEO David Yamasaki’s departure from the county’s highest court management positon  , is a bit more suspect , than routine.  Yamasaki may be bailing as rumors related to misappropriation of state funds, and conduct involving the  reporting of  good lawyers to the State Bar, in an effort to protect misconduct of judges,  is about to be exposed.

It looks as though the feds are now finding medicare and medicaid and state funded nursing homes a lucrative source of fraud=indictments means more money returned to the state and federal government.

here is the link to the DOJ annoucement–great job and WHY ISN’T THE CHICAGO MEGA MEDIA FOLLOWING THE THEFT OF $16 MILLION?  WHEN ISN’T $16 MILLION NEWS.

My only question is, what took so long and what about investigating whether not some or all of theses elders can be returned to their family members and these estate draining guardianships be ended?  Also the massive funds spent by medicare/medicaid on psychotropic and other drugs which are non FDA approved for such an usage should be returned to the source of funding and the persons involved–judges, attorneys, guardians and lawyers,, who supported the illegal drugging should be arrested and imprisoned.  The war on street drugs is nothing compared to the war we should be waging on nursing home drugs.  Unless and until the FDA approves these usages, every should be arrested.

Read on:

From Cynthia Stevens

He is what I filed with the OED earlier this week.  It makes it clear the Sykes case was utterly corrupt, the ARDC is hopelessly corrupt and everyone needs to be fired there, and many, many lawyers need to be indicted.  We need not mention names.  Hundreds of you have filed perfectly valid complaints against (clouted) attorneys that were routinely dismissed and went no where.  The JIB is a joke and rarely goes after judges who are even obviously corrupt.

You know I am after them, and apparently the ARDC now wants me to help honest citizens file complaint after complaint to all the authorities–the ARDC and JIB to see how many valid complaints can be dismissed, as well as the states attorneys and the FBI.

As for me, I sit in the catbird seat now just accumulating excuse after excuse to publish, or not to publish.  Let them figure it out.

Both myself and Ken Ditkowsky now sit day after day listening to valid complaints and learning more and more about how they do it, how they get away with it and how far it goes.

The ARDC told us to do that with our forced vacations to reconsider their nefarious behavior, and we complied. Well, I think they thought we would both go away with our tail between our legs and whining, but that’s not us. We have tail feathers and we’re going to keep them, their clout and schemes and ledgerdermain not withstanding.

So here’s yet another response to the clouted authorities telling them the truth and I’m going to keep on telling the truth until we get all these psychopaths out of Illinois Govt.  With the vast majority of our governors going to prison over the last few decades, what is there to lose?

PATENT

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

OFFICE OF ENROLLMENT AND DISCIPLINE

To:  Office of Enrollment and Discipline

Mil Stop OED PO Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450

Dear Madam/Sir:

Attached is:

  Response to  Communication Dated Aug 31, 2106

1.            Return Postcard

Please date stamp the enclosed postcard and place in the return mail.

Your prompt assistance is greatly appreciated.

Respectfully Submitted,

___/esign/joannemdenison/_____

JoAnne M. Denison,

Pat. Reg. No. 34, 150

PATENT

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

RESPONSE TO NOTICE TO NOTICE TO RILE RESPONSE

TO 37 CFR SEC 11.24

• Introduction

This is in Response to your Notice of August 31, 2016 in which it was alleged that a violation of 37 CFR sec 11.24 occured when numerous posts were made on the blog http://www.marygsykes.com (“Subject Blog”) (https://marygsykes.com/) that constituted unethical conduct for an Illinois licensed attorney. However, even a cursory knowledge of the Subject Blog reveals that the content is true, the only witnesses the ARDC used during Respondent’s trial were those who have been accused by many probate corruption victims of engaging in felonious, highly unethical and immoral actions themselves.  Numerous other probate blogs have confirmed the ARDC witness were not honest, ethical attorneys, and in fact, one main witness, Judge Jane Louise Stuart, would change her testimony right on the stand such that she would have a quick (but forced) retirement in 6 weeks.  The other witnesses (Stern Farenga, Schmeidel) would testify that the blog in question, www.marygsykes.com was a lie but could point to no statements.  The ARDC never did identify any blog statements that violated any ethical rules or the law regarding defamation. The Mary G Sykes guardianship case is one that involves the following: 1) lack of jurisdiction, Mary never served; 2) a judge admits she fixed the case and she could do it over and she would come to the same results; 3) a judge admits that if Mary’s doctor will not declare her incompetent, then find a doctor that will 4) a guardian that drills out a jointly held safe deposit without a court order and does not inventory the contents; 5) an appellate judge who is “taking care” of all of one litigants appeals–ie, they are being fixed for dismissal and it’s said in open court; 6) five trust accountings missing; 7) all discovery quashed on the guardian by both the trial court and the ARDC; 8) the younger daughters pleadings routinely stricken when she objects to lack of jurisdiction; 9) a judge changes her testimony and effectively admits she was lying–all deleted from the transcripts; 10) the transcripts of the ARDC trial are altered and the ARDC tribunal covers it up–etc. etc.  Between 2009 and and the end of the ARDC trial, one trial court judge and one appellate court judge would be removed quickly from the bench,it is believed over this case.  And finally, since unlicensed court reporters were used, the judgment against Respondent is not valid under Illinois law.

1.  Example of the protection of how the ARDC treats the Clouted Felonious Attorney in Illinois

For example in January of 2014, a clouted attorney, Seth Gillman stole not only $100 million in Medicare/Medicaid/Ill. Health Funds, but because the ARDC did not discipline him then, he went on to steal employee trust funds for FICA/FUTA, SocSec and Medicare.  Numerous complaints were filed with the ARDC from January of 2014  up until the time of trial in February 2016 when Gillman was indicted. Every complaint filed against him by honest and ethical attorneys was returned with a letter that “he has not been convicted yet”; however, when an attorney is indicted they are almost immediately suspended.   Not in the Gillman case, he was not suspended until he pled a deal with the FBI and turned on “the clout system” in Chicago. As soon as he turned state’s evidence and began to sing like a canary, the corrupt ARDC went after him.  He pled early Feb. 2016 and by the end of February 2016, the ARDC filed a complaint against him (finally).  But his employees lost thousands in health care, had no health care insurance and he took all their FICA and FUTA, social security and unemployment with him.

And, as we all know, Chicago is the city where City Attorneys have refused Federal Court judges and have delayed and defied them to turn over 20 police videos of innocent, unarmed, South Side citizens being gunned down out of spite, activism or racism.  The is no doubt that there are serious problems with minimizing ethics plans by the Mayor, the ARDC and City attorneys, who, as long as they do what they are told, will never be fired or disciplined, no matter how unethical the behavior.  Hence, Chicago and Illinois have a long standing tradition of corruption and the public is fed up.

As far as the undersigned is aware, no citizen has ever complained about her, only lauded her for her efforts to stem corruption in Chicago and Illinois.

1.  Prefatory Statement

Primarily it should be noted that the Subject Blog has nothing whatsoever to do with patent law or even intellectual property law.  It is a blog about corruption in the Illinois court system and more particularly pertains to the probate court.  It does not discuss patent matters at all and it does not focus on any intellectual property matters, except for the fact the Subject Blog is protected by a US copyright registration.  What it focuses on is one of the most serious issues in the court system today–massive thefts of estates by lawyers and court appointed nursing home vendors in guardianship and probate court.  It is not atypical for a $100k estate to be drained in a year; a $500k estate to be drained in a few years, etc.  Even multi million dollar estates can be drained by tied in clouted nursing homes, lawyers and courtroom vendors in under 10 years.  There is no reason why attorneys need to be paid $100k or $200k per year or even more, in simple guardianship and decedent’s estates.

Further, while it costs about $1500 per month to house a senior, but nursing homes typically bill medicare and medicaid $5k to $6k per month.  And if there is an estate, it can be drained at the new MSRP of $15,000/ month for large estates.  Doctor visits are drive bys, physical therapy is drugging an elder with illegal, FDA unapproved psychotropic drugs and propping the elderly up in a wheelchair for the day.  Everyone wants to go home in a nursing home, but there are no investigations as to why the wealthy and elderly are there.  Many family members want to take their loved ones home, but cannot.

1.  The decisions of the ARDC Tribunal and Review Board were politically motivated.

The undersigned vigorously contests the finding that unethical conduct occurred due to blog posts and she asserts that the blog in question, http://www.marygysykes.com is a blog concerning wrongdoing by certain judges and attorneys in Illinois, primarily. The blog is open to the public, and persons may post whatever comments and articles that they desire.  The blog concerns primarily probate court where victims and their families are terrorized in court and the mantra is “target, guardianize, isolate, medicate (with illegal chemical restraints), drain the estate, quietly eliminate and cremate.”  The blog is truthful and in the case of 09 P 4585, Circuit Court of Cook County, In re Mary G Sykes, this is the sad but truthful tale of what happened to Mary G. Sykes, an elderly widow between 90 and 95 years of age who complained that one of her daughters (Toerpe) had taken $4,000 without out authorization from one of her bank accounts. The banker recommended that she file for an Order of Protection, and when she did this, the perpetrator, Carolyn Sykes Toerpe, filed for guardianship against Mary and in December 2009, without serving Mary Sykes with 14 days advance notice of the time, date and place of hearing, as required by Illinois Law.  Carolyn Toerpe, Mary Sykes older miscreant daughter that swiped the $4,000 (and many other funds) was appointed her guardian in one of the most horrific and underhanded fiascoes seen in any courtroom today.  As for the Order of Protection, interestingly enough, it was found on a dusty shelf in Judge Flannery’s courtroom 2005 years later. Respondent was told that’s where files go when they are “taken off the docket”.  I took pictures and the FBI was immediately informed.  This scheme of taking unwanted proceedings off the docket apparently affected dozens of files and not just the 09 P 4585 Sykes case.

Two GAL were appointed by the court in the Probate Proceeding, a Cynthia Farenga and an Adam Stern.  Adam Stern threatened another attorney in 2012, that if he investigated the case (Atty Kenneth Ditkowsky), Stern would have him disbarred.  Atty Kenneth Ditkowsky, while all he did was repeatedly ask the authorities to investigate case 09 P 4585, was subsequently disciplined by the Illinois Atty Regn and Discipline Commission and he was suspended for 4 years from the practice of law–all for trying to protect Mary Sykes from her estate being drained, $1 million is assets disappeared from a safe deposit box, all discovery covered up at both the 09 P 4585 proceeding and at the ARDC 13 PR 001 hearing.  He merely wrote letters to her doctor, her friends, everywhere–to find out what was happening in the Mary Sykes case–an activity which is apparently verbotten in the Cook County Probate Division, though it is required under law by Rule 11 in Federal court and Rule 127 in State Court.

Mary G. Sykes was not incompetent at the time she was guardianized.  Videos posted on Vimeo.com show that she was lucid, clear thinking and had higher cognitive abilties. (https://vimeo.com/38694743)  She knew the objects of her bounty and had made provision for them.  In fact, in or about December of 2009 she attended one of her card club sessions, played the complex card game Canasta, and beat the pants off other persons that attended the game.

The blog, http://www.marygsykes.com did not start until November of 2011.  Ms. Denison, at no time had been counsel for Mary G. Sykes.  She did attempt to represent the younger daughter, Gloria Sykes, back in December of 2009, but was disqualified by the Court.  She also was threatened by the court that if she attempted to represent Gloria Sykes at any time during the process to appoint a guardian, she would be disbarred.  Ms. Denison filed her Appearance and filed Pleadings to represent Ms. Gloria Sykes, and copies of those pleadings can be found in the ROA on the Subject Blog (cite) . The court eventually denied her Motion to represent Ms. Sykes, and Ms. Denison did not in fact represent her during the entire court proceeding.

1. Case Summary–the Sad Tale of the Guardianship of Mary G Sykes:

In the Mary G. Sykes case, a majority of the family members and 20+ close friends of Mary Sykes contended:

1) the probate case 09 P 4585 was without jurisdiction because neither Mary G. Sykes nor her two elderly sisters, Yolanda Bakken and Josephine DiPietro had been served with the necessary time, date and place of hearing 14 days in advance, as required by Illinois law (In re Ralph Sodini, https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2091244/in-re-guardianship-of-sodini/.

An affidavit from the younger daughter Gloria Sykes completely verifies what is said in this pleading and what was said to the ARDC Tribunal regarding the Sykes Case: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwQi1zQlJzZXc3U0k. In addition the complete Record on Appeal for the Sykes case 09 P 4585 may be found here:

https://marygsykes.com/mary-g-sykes-p-4585-transcripts/

The Record on Appeal for the Denison 13 PR 01 case may be found here:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B6FbJzwtHocwMFZtZzFhTDk0UTA

The Decision from the Tribunal may be found here

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwTEt2VHA1X05SQ0E.

The Decision from the Review Board may be found here:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwZ0c1MllKall2VEk

It is interesting to note that on page 1 of the Review Board Decision, they agreed with the Tribunal that Responded “was not afforded” any First Amendment rights for her blogging activity.  On page 28 of the Tribunal decision, they said that a lawyer can criticize a judge or ruling.  But then, they go back and relitigate the Sykes case and say that the judges and lawyers involved were improperly criticized, when in fact it is known that over $160k was taken in attorneys fees,  Mary’s home was in fact sold for pennies on the dollar, hundreds of thousands of dollars in valuable coins are still missing and uninvestigated by the ARDC (and shown from the past actions of the ARDC they will not investigate until the lawyer involved turn state’s evidence), and Mary was never served summons and complaint and her elderly sisters were never notified of the date, time and place for hearing 14 days in advance thereof.  In one fell swoop, the ARDC grants the rights to criticize a lawyer, a judge, a decision and a court, but the very next statement they take it away by saying they have decided in the Sykes case there were “no problems” and therefore no right to criticize.  Which is it?  

If the Sykes case were not troubled, then why were two crucial citizen witnesses barred from testifying (Gloria and Scott), and two others testified there were serious problems in the Sykes case 09 P 4585 (Kathie and Yolanda)?

The ARDC tried to keep the testimony of Gloria, Scott, Kathie and Yolanda from coming into the case as much as they could, yet the following depositions were taken by Respondent and form part of the Record on Appeal:

Deposition of Yolanda Bakken  – p 1980

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwZ0c1MllKall2VEk

Deposition of Kathleen Bakken – p1989, same link

Deposition of Scott Evans: – p 2009 https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B6FbJzwtHocwMFZtZzFhTDk0UTA 

Deposition of Gloria Sykes:p 2037, same link.

2) that a bag containing hundreds of thousands of dollars in valuable gold and silver coins was missing from the estate and never inventoried. All of the court, the GAL’s Stern and Farenga, counsel to Carolyn Toerpe–Peter Schmeidel, Harvey Waller, Deborah Jo Soehlig persisted, even to this day, to tell the court that the coins were imaginary and they quashed every single motion that Gloria Sykes brought to find the coins.  At the ARDC trial of Ms. Denison, it would be found out that in fact a safe deposit box owned by Gloria and Mary Sykes was drilled out by Carolyn Toerpe, the contents emptied and not inventoried.  The  Plenary Guardian Toerpe (“Guardian Toerpe”) had the safe deposit box drilled out soon after she was appointed (April 2010) and never told the court about the drilling of the safe deposit box, and she never filed any Notice and Complaint to Partition the Safe Deposit Box, allowed the matter to be set for Discovery and Hearing on the matter, thereby violating the 5th amendment right to due process, 4th Amendment right of illegal seizure of property of both Mary G. Sykes and Gloria Sykes, the owners of the box.  In addition, they repeatedly quashed discovery on the matter, as well as litigation counsel to the ARDC such that it took until January of 2014 before some of the documents arrived from the bank that the safe deposit box had in fact been drilled out and the contents emptied but never inventoried by the Guardian, as required under Illinois law.  The video from the vault has not been retrieved, and neither the person in the vault area or the banker who talked with Mary have been interviewed or deposed in either the probate proceeding or in the ARDC proceeding.

3) Gloria Sykes held the last valid Power of Attorney for Health Care for her mother.  In this Power of Attorney she was to be appointed a guardian if one was required.  (https://drive.google.com/open?id=1jvLWwBbUZKmnW4m048F-XAfw_cZ7SJUCAikqyuUyp8abUG0EcxIiNQcXK60B). p.783. However, without Notice, Discovery and setting the matter for Hearing, the court summarily issued an order terminating the POA of Gloria Sykes, all in derogation of Illinois Law which requires that a POA be terminated only when the Principal cannot control the POA and that actions have been taken inconsistent with the POA and that damage has or may occur to the person or property of the Principal.  (see, 755 ILCS 45/2-10). None of that ever happened.  All this has been published on the Subject Blog.

4) that assets properly belonging to Gloria Sykes were seized by the court without Notice, Discovery or Hearing, all in violation of the 4th amendment rights of Gloria Sykes.  Gloria owned a home adjacent her mother’s home which had been damaged heavily by mold.  Litigation ensued over the damages owed Gloria Sykes for damage to her person and property from the mold. Gloria developed breast cancer from the mold.  All the contents of her home at 6016 N Avondale in Chicago were hers. The insurance was contracted for by Gloria and she paid the premiums.  The miscreants in the 09 P 4585 case, again, without Notice, Discovery or Hearing on the issue froze the assets, Judge Stuart then chained Gloria to a chair in her ante room, threatened her pets with euthanization at the city pound, and then forced Gloria to disclose the location of those assets, which were, by the way, located out of State in Indiana.  The $200,000 seized was primarily used to pay attorneys fees and never in fact went to provide any care for Mary.

5)  In July of 2014, Mary was located by concerned family and friends in a place she never wanted to go, a nursing home.  Ms. Denison had known Mary and Gloria for years and was a long time family friend and neighbor of both Mary and Gloria Sykes.  Mary knew where she was and implored Gloria to take her home, but she understood that Carolyn had a) sold her home and had control of her money; b) had done so on a deceptive basis; c) knew it was Carolyn who had forced her into the nursing home against her will.  Again, Mary Sykes was lucid, clear thinking and could reason on a higher cognitive level.  (Mary had written numerous letters to the court and to the GAL’s, all of which were ignored. see https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwTzlQMkJ2eVZVUVk.   When the GAL’s contented that Mary was just parroting what Gloria had said, Gloria took a lengthy video of Mary writing these letters, begging for help and to get out of the guardianship–all of which were ignored. see https://vimeo.com/38695647 )

During a meeting with Mary Sykes in July 2014, Ms. Denison, with the permission of everyone present, including Mary, took a 40 minute video of Mary speaking about the case and how she wanted to go home with Gloria and how Gloria was not to worry, “they could just start over”.  After Adam Stern spoke with the Naperville Police officer who was sent over to “investigate”, the Naperville police officer asked Respondent and others to destroy photos and videos of Mary and everyone complied under threat of arrest, despite the fact it is unconstitutional for law enforcement to destroy photos and evidence in general, and this was special evidence needed to show how Mary Sykes was competent even in July of 2014.

6) Mary’s Power of Attorney, supra, granted to Gloria Sykes indicated she wanted to live in her home until she died and have her two daughters care for her there.   Mary lived in Norwood Park in Chicago since the 1950’s.  She was active, even at age 90, in many clubs and social organizations.  Carolyn Toerpe had her removed from Mary’s home in Norwood Park and took her, against her will, to Carolyn’s home in Naperville (about a half hour expressway drive away) where she was isolated against her will.

7) Tragically, on May 23, 2015, Mary was narcotized to death in a nursing home.  Gloria Sykes, a beloved, dedicated daughter, was told at 3 pm to come and see her mother “for about an hour” because she was dying.  When Gloria arrived, her mother was so heavily drugged (illegally chemically restrained), she could not even speak.  When Gloria asked why her mother was in such a condition, she was told her mother was dying “from dementia”.   The very next day, Guardian Toerpe took Mary’s body to a local funeral home, Suerth Funeral Home in Norwood Park, Chicago and told the funeral director to embalm Mary while Carolyn waited, and then she was to be immediately interred.  To date, Mary Sykes has still not been autopsied and no tox screen has be permitted by any court or the ARDC.  The ARDC still refuses to open an honest, thorough and complete investigation of the Mary Sykes 09 P 4585 case.  Instead, it has gone after honest attorneys, myself and Ken Ditkowsky who have related to both the public and the authorities all of the judicial and lawyer wrongdoing in the case. Thus far, there has been no accountability for these nefarious actions.

None of Stuart, Schmeidel, Stern or Farenga told the truth about the Mary G. Sykes case.  Mary G. Sykes never received a hearing, she was not served with a Summons or Petition for Guardianship, she never attended the December 7, 2009 hearing and was not told about it.  Then, her home was sold and liquidated.  Gloria’s insurance monies for her suffering breast cancer and her home being destroyed by black mold after ice damming was improperly repaired, some $200,000 was also added to Mary’s Guardianship estate to pay its legal bills since Mary’s cash funds were very low at the time.  What the ARDC, the Tribunal and the Review Board wanted to keep from becoming public–that all of Mary’s hard earned assets (she worked as a seamstress for years, her husband Charles was a Sergeant in the Chicago Police Department), some $200,000+ would all go to attorneys Schmeidel, Stern and Farenga in a most shameful act.  The ARDC, the Tribunal and the Review Board all claim that what happened to Mary and Gloria Sykes was not illegal, unethical and dishonest–but in fact it was.  

The Blogs of Respondent only tell the truth. Gloria Sykes, a renown and award winning investigative news reporter, also tells the truth.  Scott Evans, a long time family friend and retired military intelligence analyst with the highest security level ratings in the US government, also would have told the truth on the stand, but they were actively prevented from doing so by the ARDC and the Tribunal.  Kathie and Yolanda Bakken, both disabled, came to court and told the truth about Mary Sykes, and her case, and that truth was ignored by the Tribunal.  As a result, Mary’s last directives were never carried out, Gloria was never appointed her Guardian to live with her and care for her as she had done for 10 years prior to 2009, Mary was isolated from 20+ friends and family in Naperville for over 5 years, she never saw her Garden Club or card club again. Instead she was put in adult day care with low functioning adults, then a nursing home– a place she never wanted to be, and then she would be drugged to death without any court order or medical diagnosis of a severe illness requiring she die by narcotics–again, a situation that Mary as a devout Roman Catholic would never consent to, and in fact it was not part of her final directives. (see Power of Attorney, infra) The actions of Carolyn Toerpe in denying Mary a proper funeral, last rites by her Catholic Priest, the refusal for an autopsy and a tox screen–all point to the same result. The Blog in fact told the truth and continues to tell the Truth. The Blog is not frivolous or ancillary, it teaches the Truth about Probate and that “target, guardianize, isolate, medicate, drain the estate then quickly and quietly eliminate” is not the law. It is not part of the Illinois Probate Act.  But people have to appear in probate court pro se all the time. And all they are told is that “target, guardianize, medicate, drain  the estate and then eliminate and cremate” is the the law when it is not, the Illinois Probate Act is the law, which does not permit any of these felonious shenanigans.

The Tribunal and Review Board Decisions consistently ignored the following State and Federal Statutes which protect Respondent’s blogging activities. They treated these laws as if they did not exist:

1. a) 320 ILCS § 20 for reporting elder abuse and providing immunity therefore
2. b) 42 USC § 12203 prohibiting retaliation for protecting an Elder under the ADA or Americans with Disabilities Act;
3. c) 750 ILCS sec. 110-½ or the Illinois Citizens Participation Act which protects Citizens from wrongful First Amendment retaliation was rubber stamped by the Tribunal against Respondent’s First Amendment rights, which again, the Tribunal did not believe existed. see http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/anti-slapp-law-illinois for detais of the CPA in Illinois.
4. c) 75 ILCS 5/8-901 to 8-909 Illinois Reporter’s Privilege Act to protect sources and allow Gloria to testify even if she did not want to turn over 20,000+ emails to the ARDC,
5. d) 47 USC § 230 or the Internet Decency Act which protects bloggers from liability and provides a mechanism to be followed for removing offensive posts–an action neither Stern, Farenga or Schmeidel have taken nor the ARDC. Those provisions were not enacted by the US Congress to be ignored or treated as suggestions, but they are mandates to be followed by our legislators that took care to pass these statutes.

There are also the following legal defenses to any claims of libel, defamation or false light:  Innocent construction,fair reporting privilege, substantial truth, opinion, hyperbole, fair comment privilege.  (See Digital Media Project, Illinois http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/illinois-defamation-law )  The Tribunal from the outset stated that these defenses “may or may not apply.”   The Tribunal from the outset stated the First Amendment is not applicable to attorney discipline, even though landmark cases including, but not limited to Sawyer, Garrison and many others, have clearly state that all attorneys do in fact have First Amendment Rights.

1. Brief Argument that the decisions were wrongful and politically motivated

None of Stuart, Schmeidel, Stern or Farenga told the truth about the Mary G. Sykes case during the Tribunal Hearing.  Mary G. Sykes never received a guardianship hearing, she was not served with a Summons or Petition for Guardianship, she never attended the December 7, 2009 hearing and was not told about it.  Then, her home was sold and liquidated, presumably for pennies on the dollar.  Of course, the final amount is not known because the “special treatment” Plenary Guardian never filed a Trust Accounting with the Probate Court, despite the fact those funds had been commingled since the Guardianship Estate was first opened.  Gloria’s insurance monies for her suffering breast cancer and her home being destroyed by black mold after ice damming was improperly repaired, some $200,000 was also added to the estate.  What the ARDC, the Tribunal and the Review Board wanted to keep from becoming public–that all of Mary’s hard earned assets (she worked as a seamstress for years, her husband Charles was a Sergeant in the Chicago Police Department), some $150,000 would all go to attorneys Schmeidel, Stern and Farenga in a most shameful act.  The ARDC, the Tribunal and the Review Board all claim that what happened to Mary and Gloria Sykes was not illegal, unethical and dishonest–but in fact it was.  

The Blogs of Respondent only tell the truth. Gloria Sykes, a renown and award winning investigative news reporter, also tells the truth.  Scott Evans, a long time family friend and retired military intelligence analyst with the highest security level ratings in the US government, also would have told the truth on the stand, but they were actively prevented from doing so by the ARDC and the Tribunal.  Kathie and Yolanda Bakken, both disabled, came to court and told the truth about Mary Sykes, and her case, and that truth was ignored by the Tribunal.  As a result, Mary’s last directives were never carried out, Gloria was never appointed her Guardian to live with her and care for her as she had done for 10 years prior to 2009, Mary was isolated from 20+ friends and family in Naperville, never to see her Garden Club or card club again, instead she was put in adult day care with a number of very low functioning adults, then a nursing home– a place she never wanted to be, and then she would be drugged to death without any medical diagnosis of a severe illness requiring she die by narcotics–again, a situation that Mary as a practicing Roman Catholic would never consent to, and in fact it was not part of her final directives.  The actions of Guardian Carolyn Toerpe in denying her own Mother Mary a proper funeral, last rites by her Catholic Priest, the refusal for an autopsy and a tox screen–all point to the same result. The Blog in fact told the truth and continues to tell the Truth. The Blog is not frivolous or ancillary, it teaches the Truth about Probate and that “target, guardianize, isolate, medicate, drain the estate then quickly and quietly eliminate” is not the law. It is not part of the Illinois Probate Act.

The Tribunal and Review Board consistently ignored the following State and Federal Statutes which protect Respondent’s blogging activities. They treated these laws as if they did not exist:

1. a)  320 ILCS § 20 for reporting elder abuse and receiving immunity therefore;
2. b) 42 USC § 12203 prohibiting retaliation for protecting an Elder under the Act;
3. c) 75 ILCS § 5/8-901 to 8-909 Illinois Reporter’s Privilege Act to protect sources and allow Gloria to testify even if she did not want to turn over 20,000+ emails to the ARDC, d) 47 USC § 230 or the Internet Decency Act which protects bloggers from liability, and;
4. e) 750 ILCS § 110-1/2 or the Citizen’s Participation Act which provides immunity for suits where citizens have created speech protected by the First Amendment.

Those provisions were not enacted by the US Congress or the Illinois State Legislature to be ignored or treated as suggestions, but they are mandates to be followed by every Illinois and US citizen which were passed by our legislators that took care to implement these laws that protect our freedom and democracy.

In its decisions, the ARDC and Tribunal and Hearing Boards consistently misrepresented case law.  A proper listing of relevant Free Speech cases is attached hereto as Exhibit A, filed in the Writ of Cert by Kenneth Ditkowsky in a companion case.

Alvarez –fails to cite the correct standard of when and how government may regulate speech under the First Amendment (content oriented speech is always protected, even if it is false).  Alvarez won his case, despite the fact he completely lied to a wide range of individuals that he was granted a Medal of Honor.   Garrison v. Louisiana – the Review Board fails to cite the correct standard and attorney Garrison won the case, despite the fact he was the counsel of record at the time the statements were made.   Respondent stands as an independent citizen and blogger to the Sykes case. She never appeared on the case.  She appealed her disqualification and Justice Bernstein denied the appeal.  Only problem, Justice James R. Epstein also denied Gloria’s other four appeals, Attorney Schmeidel bragged about it to the trial court judge (who did nothing about his admission of fixing cases), and Respondent reported it on her blogs and to the FBI and now Justice Epstein no longer sits on any Illinois Court of Appeals..   In addition, numerous recent cases are not cited by the ARDC which more closely resemble the current position of the US Supreme Court–Citizen’s United, Loving v. IRS, Ashcroft v. ACLU, Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, Gentile, In re Karavidas, Peel v. ARDC, Snyder v. Phelps, etc.. and In re Weddington, citations attached hereto.   The Review Board also failed to consider the Articles by Leslie Salzman, Rethinking Guardianship (again): Substituted Decision Making as a Violation of the Integration Mandate of Title II of the ADA, 81 U. Colo. L. Rev (2010) and The truth be Damned: the First Amendment Attorney Speech and Judicial Repudiation by Margaret Tarkington of the Indiana School of Law, Indianapolis, Indiana.

1. Case Law Updates:

A more recent article appeared in the Harvard law review at Vol 128:p 183 by Paul Sherman, a senior attorney at the Institute of Justice wrote “Occupational Speech and the First Amendment” which concluded that attorneys should have full First Amendment protection for their emails and blogs.  This article was based upon the case of Rosemond v. the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology (Rosemond v. Markham, 13 CV 42, doct # 48, Memorandum Opinion and Order wherein this court concluded that the Board of Psychologist Examiners had no jurisdiction to regulate Mr. Rosemont’s blog/newspaper column and it was fully protected by the First Amendment.  http://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Memorandum-Opinion-Order-IJ072926xA6322.pdf for full case decision.

Likewise, in the case of In re Marriage of Weddigen, 2015 IL.App. (4th) 150044 http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2015/4thDistrict/4150044.pdf makes it clear that Mr. Weddigen’s posts on his blog about his court proceedings were in fact protected by the First Amendment, and the trial court judge was wrong to issue gag orders, or request an apology from Mr. Weddigen for speaking out about his divorce case.  The 4th District Illinois Judges made it clear that blogs were to be protected under the First Amendment, and the order of contempt, the purge order and the order requiring respondent to pay petitioner’s attorneys fees were all reversed and remanded with instruction to provide full First Amendment protection to the respondent’s Face book pages. Id. The ARDC, the Tribunal and the Review Board consistently refuse to cite appellate law cases, but instead cling to their own decisions made at the ARDC trial court level – a method not approved of by either the Harvard BlueBook Rules of Citation (http://today.law.harvard.edu/harvard-law-review-launches-online-version-of-the-bluebook/ ) or the Standford Red Book Rules of Citation (http://web.stanford.edu/group/slpr/guides/Old/SLPR_Redbook.pdf ).

The recent Illinois case of In re Marriage of Weddigen, 2015 IL.App. (4th) 150044  http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2015/4thDistrict/4150044.pdf makes it clear that Mr. Weddigen’s posts on his blog about his court proceedings were in fact protected by the First Amendment, and the trial court judge was wrong to issue gag orders, request an apology from Mr. Weddigen for speaking out about his divorce case.  The 4th District Illinois concurring Justice made it clear that blogs were to be protected under the First Amendment, and the order of contempt, the purge order and the order requiring respondent to pay petitioner’s attorneys fees were all reversed and remanded with instruction to provide full First Amendment protection to the respondent’s Face book pages. Id.

F Conclusion of ARDC/Mary Sykes Trials

Mary Sykes is now dead and since 2009, no one had done anything to prevent her death–from the ARDC to the Tribunal to the Review Board to the dozens of times it was reported to the FBI.  Dozens of attorneys in positions of power to order investigations, demand Truth and Justice, and all looked the other way while Mary and Gloria Sykes were fleeced of $300,000, plus nearly $1 million in valuable coins, all discovery quashed, all justice quashed.  Mary was further isolated from her beloved Daughter Gloria and 20+ former friends and family, her Norwood Park Garden Club, her card club–all her former activities. She was placed in adult day care with low functioning adults in Naperville instead when in fact she was very high functioning from Dec. 2009 to when she was last seen by her friends and family in July of 2014 when the police illegally destroyed some 45 mins. of video footage.  Despite the fact she was capable of planning gardens, growing seedlings and planting them in the local community garden, playing cards from Rummy to Canasta and Bridge and beating the others she was railroaded in a guardianship without a hearing.  Numerous blog posts on the internet document her guardianship “by deal” between Carolyn Toerpe and Stern and Farenga–no hearing on her competency was ever allowed.  No discovery prior to guardianship was allowed.  The Illinois Probate Act mandates a hearing and the hearing cannot be waived.  The IPA also mandates the disabled person be served only by the Cook County Sheriff or a duly Licensed Process server, which never happened.

 Attorneys Stern, Farenga and Schmeidel admit on the stand they only saw Mary either for a few minutes or not at all (Schmeidel) in 5 years of guardianship.  In June of 2014, she was visited by Respondent, Gloria Sykes, the younger daughter and two close friends Scott Evans and Dolores Evans who had known her for 50 years + and each witness found her extremely competent with higher cognitive level thinking. Respondent had known Mary and Gloria Sykes since about 2005 and frequently walked dogs together and attended parties thrown by Gloria and Mary for all holidays, summer parties and birthdays.  In Dec of 2009, Mary Sykes was shown as being extremely competent with higher level thinking and reasoning in this Vimeo:  https://vimeo.com/38694743 a Vimeo the Tribunal would refuse to watch, yet numerous probate judges have and have said she is competent.

During Respondent’s ARDC hearing it was brought out that Mary did in fact have a safe deposit box, and the box was drilled out by Carolyn Toerpe, shortly after she was appointed guardian. The box was emptied and the contents never reported.  The ARDC quashed discovery of further information, including video taped evidence of who entered the vault area and what they took out.

The GAL’s say that there were no valuables in the box, but they refuse to allow discovery upon Carolyn or any other third parties who may be witnesses.  Gloria Sykes has numerous receipts for gold coins bought by her father Charles Sykes.  Others in the family have seen the gold coins.  Yet both the ARDC and the GAL’s and Soehlig and Schmeidel crush discovery at every chance possible.

The mantra of “target, isolate, medicate, drain the estate and quickly cremate when the money runs out” cannot continue to be the unofficial slogan of the 18th floor of the Daley center.  The current conditions demand a Federal Monitor at all times, they demand that the Illinois Supreme Court order the ARDC to file its Ethics Reports as mandated by the Illinois Ethics Reporting Act of 2009, as well as the OPG or Office of Public Guardian and allow Denison to serve discovery on all questionable mortgage payments for any Illinois GAL or probate attorney, any OPG attorney, and most of all, the ARDC and Jerome Larkin and Melissa Smart.

Further, the Illinois Supreme Court should have declared Denison a whistleblower and should have protected her. A listing of proper case citations (not the misleading ones cited by the ARDC) is further attached hereto at Exhibit A in support of this Petition..  Copies of the Reports of the Decision of the Tribunal and Hearing Board are also attached hereto.

1. Synopsis of Infirmity of Judgment by ARDC
2. i)  The procedure completely lacked in notice and opportunity to be heard

• Witnesses improperly struck

During the entire ARDC pre trial procedure, a) all of Respondent’s expert witnesses – 5 of them, were stricken by the Tribunal as “not necessary” and the “Tribunal will decide what, if any experts to be used.”  This is absolutely preposterous and is not the standard for a court to strike expert witnesses.  All of the witnesses were carefully chosen, each owned or operated a major probate blog or TV show (NASGA, Probate Sharks, Cooper’s Corner).  No one on the Tribunal knew anything about probate blogs and, it is believed, had not run a blog in their entire lives!  All of the bloggers and probate blogs knew Gloria Sykes and her struggles to protect her own dear mother which ultimately failed.  Other major witnesses were stricken–Gloria Sykes, the younger daughter because “she would not turn over some 20,000 emails since Dec 2009,” yet no other witness on either side had to turn over a single email.  Gloria claimed attorney client privilege and Illinois Reporter’s act privilege. The real unspoken problem is because Gloria was an award winning investigative reporter she might have superior credibility.  Scott Evans was also stricken ostensibly because he knew that “one lawyer was claiming $150,000 in fees”, because earlier witnesses “must have told him this”, yet everyone knew since the beginning of the case that some $150k to $200k was being claimed as attorneys fees in the case by Schmeidel.  The real reason?  Scot Evans took copious accurate notes during almost all the court proceedings and he further had Top Secret Clearance being in Army Intelligence, retired.

1.  The vast majority of Written Discovery is Stricken or not permitted

In addition, all Interrogatories were voluntarily withdrawn because the ARDC Rules do not permit interrogatories to be served. (https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwRjN3dTV0Si1NcUE) p. 52. Only a handful of Requests to Admit were Answered, and most of these were answered in a highly deficient manner (see, requests for admission, p 2248 of

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwdlFqeXl4RWl6Szg. .

Discovery Procedure meant nothing to the Tribunal as they gutted the very essence, spirit and nature of the constitutional rights which Discovery allows every civil litigant.  The ARDC was permitted discovery by Rules, but Respondents are not.  Then, they gutted experts in the area of blogs, and in particular probate blogs, when in fact they appeared to know nothing about the Subject Manner at all. (At one point in the proceedings, one of the Panel Members, who apparently knew nothing about the First Amendment, indeed, he was the public member, asked Respondent if there were not a better way to do what she wanted to do besides run a blog about corruption, as if the First Amendment and news media should be curtailed or directed by the ARDC Court System as long as there was “a better way”).  Whatever that “better way” this panel member was  thinking, while it is facially unconstitutional, no one proffered it any anytime, before or after the ARDC trial.

Five expert witnesses — or all of them to be present by Respondent were stricken by the Panel.  They were all with the major probate blogs (one was a popular local cable TV show) that specialized in probate and corruption and one was a probate law expert.

Respondent was further not allowed to subpoena any witnesses for deposition and was told the Tribunal would let her know who she could depose when the time was proper. (This apparently mean no one at anytime, even though Guardian Toerpe had never been questioned about the safe deposit box, although she had it drilled in April 2010 and emptied the contents and Gloria Sykes would swear or affirm she placed hundreds of thousands of gold and valuable coins in the box)–all of which were missing from all the inventories filed with the court.  In addition, Guardian Carolyn failed to produce any Trust Accounting, although there was a house known to be in Trust, and Estate assets were being used to pay the mortgage and insurance on Mary’s home at 6014 N Avondale Ave in Chicago.  There should have been 5 (five) trust accountings filed, yet no one has been allowed to ask Guardian Carolyn about those assets.

Any lawyer that works for sometime in the area of Guardianship, would realize, even after a cursory reading of the Sykes 09 P 4585 case that there were a number of highly unusual activities in the case that simply ran directly counter to the numerous safeguards of the Illinois Probate Act, namely; Mary was not served, nor were her elderly sisters notified of the time, date and place of hearing for guardianship 14 days in advance; the Guardian, upon being appointed immediately invaded and had drilled out a safe deposit box belonging to Gloria and Mary Sykes allegedly containing hundreds of thousands of dollars in gold coins and no discovery was ever had on this box, nothing was inventoried. Interestingly enough, Judge Stuart would testify as to the correct procedure for invading a safe deposit box held jointly see p. 1315 of https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B6FbJzwtHocwMFZtZzFhTDk0UTA where Judge Stuart talks about the proper way to obtain a court orer to drill a safe deposit box with notice to all purported owners.   Moreover, it is standard court procedure to obtain a court order, with notice to all owners, prior to invading joint property. This never happened.  The Director of the USPTO could put a guardianship lawyer on the ROA (Record on Appeal) and this person would have a field day making a list of all the improprieties of the Sykes 09 P 4585.  However, this has been already done to a large part, see the Table of Torts, https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwZlhsbXU2bTFqN0k.  I apologized that this document  has not been updated.

And finally, at numerous points in the case, it was admitted that the case was simply fixed.  At p.91 of her deposition, when it was pointed that Mary Sykes was never served with the Summons and Complaint, Judge Maureen Connors merely stated she would have had the case dismissed, then reinstated it and come to the same result.  Judges are supposed to make original decisions with the facts and case law in front of them. Judges are not permitted to dismiss a crooked case and then reinstate it and come to the same decisions.  See, Connors Deposition at https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwZ3RKeF9wcHNTZ3M.  Page 91.

Prior to this, in Mary’s advance directives for her Trust, it said that only her personal physician could make the determination as to when she became incompetent.  He refused to do so.  When Judge Connors was told this, she merely told Atty. Peter Schmeidel, “well then go find a doctor that will.”  This was an incredible example of the worst sort of case fixing–doctor shopping, taking place in open court and clearly against the terms stated in Mary’s Trust.  See — https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwb3I1RV9IQnJlY3M, page 4.

In addition, in one of the court transcripts, Peter Schmeidel states that while Gloria has filed numerous appeals, he has that “taken care of” those with Judge Bernstein (now why he would admit this is open court is a mystery).  Of course Gloria filed about 4 or 5 appeals and lost many on motion practice–all courtesy of “Judge Bernstein”.  Respondent immediately reported this to the FBI and then he was moved to downstate Illinois in a few months, and now he is no longer an Appellate court judge at all.

Judge Stuart would be removed from the bench after she changed her testimony at my trial.  I merely asked her, “Is it true that you had Gloria Sykes chained in your ante room and had your bailiffs threaten to have her pets euthanized at the City Pound if she did not tell you where all her assets were?”  Answer, “of course not.”  I asked then a few other questions and went back to the subject.  Question: “How many people have you chained in your ante room.”  Answer, “you know that was the fir—-.  Let me change that Answer, I have never chained anyone in my anteroom.”  Fortunately, an FBI agent was sitting right behind me in the dead of winter.  While he would not identify himself, he said he was “an observer” for Judge Stuart which is very interesting. She “suddenly retired” in 6 weeks. see, declaration of Respondent, supra.

When the transcripts were received, interestingly enough, this entire section was mangled, despite the fact the court reporter promised me she would not alter the transcript from the true words of the proceeding, she did in fact do so.  The Tribunal was immediately informed and Respondent’s counsel asked for a copy of the audio portion and the Tribunal said “it was not necessary” and covered up the felony of perjury and subornation of perjury.  Why the FBI did not arrest her or the court reporter is unknown, but people are now making vociferous demands to have crooked judges arrested and that day will come.

Finally, the entire verdict of the ARDC tribunal was completely Illegal under Illinois Law. It turns out that the court reporter who transcribed most hearings and all of the trial was unlicensed. (JoAnn Egan) And not just a little bit, but since 1995 or nearly 8 years at the time of trial.

(225 ILCS 415/1) (from Ch. 111, par. 6201)

(Section scheduled to be repealed on January 1, 2024)

 Sec. 1. The practice of shorthand reporting in the State of Illinois is hereby declared to affect the public health, safety and welfare and to be subject to regulation and control in the public interest. This Act is designed to encourage proficiency in the practice of shorthand reporting as a profession; to promote efficiency in court and general reporting; and to extend to the public the protection afforded by a standardized profession by establishing a standard of competency for certified shorthand reporters. It is further declared that, in order for the practice of shorthand reporting as defined in this Act to merit and receive the confidence of the public, only qualified persons shall be authorized to practice shorthand reporting in the State of Illinois. This Act shall be liberally construed to best carry out these subjects and purposes.

                (Source: P.A. 83-73.)

(225 ILCS 415/3) (from Ch. 111, par. 6203)

   (Section scheduled to be repealed on January 1, 2024)

Sec. 3. License required. No person may practice shorthand reporting on a temporary or permanent basis in this State without being certified under this Act.

(Section scheduled to be repealed on January 1, 2024)

Sec. 3.5. Uncertified practice; violation; civil penalty.

(a) Any person who practices, offers to practice, attempts to practice, or holds oneself out to practice as a shorthand reporter without being certified under this Act shall, in addition to any other penalty provided by law, pay a civil penalty to the Department in an amount not to exceed $10,000 for each offense as determined by the Department and the assessment of costs as provided under Section 23.3 of this Act.

(Section scheduled to be repealed on January 1, 2024)

Sec. 3. License required. No person may practice shorthand reporting on a temporary or permanent basis in this State without being certified under this Act.

(225 ILCS 415/13) (from Ch. 111, par. 6213)

(Section scheduled to be repealed on January 1, 2024)

   Sec. 13. No action or suit shall be instituted, nor recovery therein be had, in any court of this State by any person for compensation for any act done or service rendered, the doing or rendering of which is prohibited under the provisions of this Act to other than certified shorthand reporters.

(Source: P.A. 83-73.)

Thus, Illinois law makes it clear that no judgment may be taken where a person who is not a licensed shorthand reporter has recorded a trial.  Joann Egan admits in her declaration at

Hence the judgement at the IARDC was void ab initio and should be reversed by the Illinois Supreme court.

Records from the Illinois Department of Professional Regulation show that the trial court reporter Joann Egan was not licensed and that she was not a court reporter during the numerous hearings and trial dates for 2013 PR 01.  See, https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwZERNdXNCYmJvY1k.

The entire judgement should be stricken in the State of Illinois.

For the USPTO and the General Counsel of the USPTO and the Director of Enrollment and Discipline to enforce and give effect to a “judgment” which is void pe se and ineffective by operation of Illinois law would result in grave injustice.

Hence, Applicant submits her Response to the false allegations contained in the Aug. 31, 2016 are without merit and respectfully moves that the allegations and request for discipline against her for merely running a truthful blog be DENIED.

Respectfully Submitted,

_____/esign/joannemdenison/_______

JoAnne M. Denison

Pat. Reg. No. 34,150

Joanne Denison

Justice 4 Every 1, NFP

5940 W Touhy Ave, #120

Niles, IL 60714

email: joanne@justice4every1.com

ph 312-553-1300

fax 312-553-1307

EXHIBIT A – RELEVANT CASES

Bates v. State Bar of Arizona,

433 U.S. 350, 97 S. Ct. 2691,

53 L. Ed. 2d 810 (1977)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/433/350.

Facts:  Lawyer desired to advertise for his law clinic describing what work the law clinic performed.

The American Bar Association itself has a provision in its current Code of Professional Responsibility that would allow the disclosure of such information, and more, [p367] in the classified section of the telephone directory. DR 2-102(A)(6) (1976). [n18]We recognize, however, that an advertising diet limited to such spartan fare would provide scant nourishment.

We suspect that few attorneys engage in such self-deception. [n19]

The alternative — the prohibition of advertising — serves only to restrict the information that flows to consumers. [n30]

As the bar acknowledges, “the middle 70% of our population is not being reached or served adequately by the legal profession.“ ABA, Revised Handbook on Prepaid Legal Services 2 (1972).

Overbreadth is a strong medicine that must be applied sparingly and only as a last resort.

Holding:  Lawyers have a First Amendment Right to advertise.

Brown v. Entm’t Merchants Ass’n,

131 S. Ct. 2729, 180 L. Ed. 2d 708 (2011)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1448.ZS.html.  

Holding:  Violent video games need not display outer package warnings;  strict scrutiny required to any restrictions on advertising of commercial speech.

Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm’n,

558 U.S. 310, 130 S. Ct. 876,

175 L. Ed. 2d 753 (2010)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html

The Federal Election Commission could not withhold a scandalous movie made about Hillary Clinton days before the election.  The “strict scrutiny”” standard was applied.

The First Amendment does not permit laws that force speakers to retain a campaign finance attorney, conduct demographic marketing research, or seek declaratory rulings before discussing the most salient political issues of our day. Prolix laws chill speech for the same reason that vague laws chill speech: People “of common intelligence must necessarily guess at [the law’s] meaning and differ as to its application.” Connally v. General Constr. Co. , 269 U. S. 385, 391 (1926) .

Courts, too, are bound by the First Amendment . We must decline to draw, and then redraw, constitutional lines based on the particular media or technology used to disseminate political speech from a particular speaker. It must be noted, moreover, that this undertaking would require substantial litigation over an extended time, all to interpret a law that beyond doubt discloses serious First Amendment flaws. The interpretive process itself would create an inevitable, pervasive, and serious risk of chilling protected speech pending the drawing of fine distinctions that, in the end, would themselves be questionable. First Amendment standards, however, “must give the benefit of any doubt to protecting rather than stifling speech.” WRTL , 551 U. S., at 469 (opinion of Roberts , C. J.) (citing New York Times Co. v. Sullivan , 376 U. S. 254, 269–270 (1964) ).  

We decline to adopt an interpretation that requires intricate case-by-case determinations to verify whether political speech is banned, especially if we are convinced that, in the end, this corporation has a constitutional right to speak on this subject.

We find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the Government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers. Both history and logic lead us to this conclusion.

Political speech is “indispensable to decisionmaking in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation rather than an individual.” Bellotti, 435 U. S., at 777 (footnote omitted); see ibid. (the worth of speech “does not depend upon the identity of its source, whether corporation, association, union, or individual”); Buckley , 424 U. S., at 48–49 (“[T]he concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment ”)

Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada,

501 U.S. 1030, 111 S. Ct. 2720,

115 L. Ed. 2d 888 (1991)

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/501/1030/case.html

Facts:  Lawyer made out of court statements during a press conference that he was innocent minutes after his indictment was announced.  Later the Lawyer was found not guilty.  

Public awareness and criticism have even greater importance where, as here, they concern allegations of police corruption, see Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, 427 U. S. 539, 427 U. S. 606 (1976)

The Supreme Court considered whether Respondent’s statements did in fact carry a threat of clear and present danger to the impartiality and good order of the courts or whether they are of a character which the principles of the First Amendment, as adopted by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, protect.

“‘Whenever the fundamental rights of free speech . . . are alleged to have been invaded, it must remain open to a defendant to present the issue whether there actually Page 501 U. S. 1039 did exist at the time a clear danger; whether the danger, if any, was imminent; and whether the evil apprehended was one so substantial as to justify the stringent restriction interposed by the legislature.'”

Held:  Lawyer’s statements were protected by the First Amendment

Hunter v. Virginia State Bar ex rel. Third

Dist. Comm., 285 Va. 485, 744 S.E.2d 611

(2013) cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 2871, 186 L.

Ed. 2d 913 (U.S. 2013). 2013 WL 227970611.  Virginia Supreme Court

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/va-supreme-court/1624547.html

Facts:  Attorney Hunter was a criminal defense attorney that kept a blog of his winning cases.  Some clients complained that they did not want their cases on his blog because they did not want anyone to know that they had won a criminal case.  Held:  criminal records are public and the blog is protected by the First Amendment, however the case was remanded to explore the imposition of a disclaimer for the blog.

Loving v. I.R.S.,

917 F. Supp. 2d 67, 80 (D.D.C. 2013) aff’d,

742 F.3d 1013

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwcHJTYnpwckw1ejA

Facts:  IRS sought to expand the scope of its duties to merely collect taxes and they embark on a scheme to license and regulate tax preparers.  Mrs. Loving sues stating this was outside the realm of work granted to them by Congress.  U.S. Supreme Court agrees.  Likewise, the IARDC cannot regulate the media or blogs of attorneys.

Peel v. Attorney Registration & Disciplinary

Comm’n of Illinois,

496 U.S. 91, 110 S. Ct. 2281,

110 L. Ed. 2d 83 (1990)

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/496/91/

Facts:  IARDC sought to discipline Mr. Peel for announcing on his letterhead his specialty, which was not permitted by IARDC rules.  Held:  Mr. Peel had a First Amendment right to advertise his speciality, as long as it was not deceptive.

Snyder v. Phelps,

131 S. Ct. 1207,

179 L. Ed. 2d 172 (2011)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-751.ZS.html

Facts: Westboro Baptist Church asserts that it has a First Amendment right to protest “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” “Fags Doom Nations,” “America is Doomed,” “Priests Rape Boys,” and “You’re Going to Hell”—for about 30 minutes before the funeral began.

Held:  These activities were protected by the First Amendment

United States v. Alvarez,

132 S. Ct. 2537, 183 L.Ed.2d 574 (2012)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-210

Facts:  the US had a strong law against people falsely wearing or claiming war medals under the “Stolen Valor Act.”  The 9th Circuit held the law unconstitutional under the First Amendment and the US Supreme Court Agreed.

Facts:  Mr. Alvarez made statements to numerous third parties that he possessed a Medal of Valor when he in fact he did not.  He pled guilty, with the right to appeal the conviction on First Amendment grounds.  From the court’s decision:

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.

Absent from these few categories is any general exception for false statements. The Government argues that cases such as Hustler Magazine, Inc., v. Falwell, 485 U. S. 46, support its claim that false statements have no value and hence no First Amendment protection. But all the Government’s quotations derive from cases discussing defamation, fraud, or some other legally cognizable harm associated with a false statement.

(b) The Act seeks to control and suppress all false statements on this one subject in almost limitless times and settings without regard to whether the lie was made for the purpose of material gain. Permitting the Government to decree this speech to be a criminal offense would endorse government authority to compile a list of subjects about which false statements are punishable. That governmental power has no clear limiting principle. Pp. 10−11.

(c) The Court applies the “most exacting scrutiny” in assessing content-based restrictions on protected speech. Turner Broadcasting System Inc. v.FCC, 512 U. S. 622. The Act does not satisfy that scrutiny. While the Government’s interest in protecting the integrity of the Medal of Honor is beyond question, the First Amendment requires that there be a direct causal link between the restriction imposed and the injury to be prevented. Here, that link has not been shown. The Government points to no evidence supporting its claim that the public’s general perception of military awards is diluted by false claims such as those made by respondent. And it has not shown, and cannot show, why counterspeech, such as the ridicule respondent received online and in the press, would not suffice to achieve its interest.

Held:  even false statements can be protected under the First Amendment

Baskin v. Hale, App. Ct. Georgia

https://casetext.com/case/baskin-v-hale

Facts:  Trial court entered an injunction regarding the parties making posts and comments regarding the case on Facebook and stated the parties must refrain from “posting matters about each other or their current litigation on Facebook or other social networking sites.”24 This Court noted that “a trial court can require the parties in a divorce proceeding to refrain from making derogatory remarks about the other before the children.”25

The Government thus carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint.”27 An attempt to effect a prior restraint is subject to “exacting scrutiny.”28 The United States Supreme Court has instructed that: [p]roperly applied, the test requires a court to make its own inquiry into the imminence and magnitude of the danger said to flow from the particular utterance and then to balance the character of the evil, as well as its likelihood, against the need for free and unfettered expression. The possibility that other measures will serve the State’s interests should also be weighed.29 Reviewing the injunction in this case, we conclude that the superior court failed to properly balance the danger flowing from the prohibited speech with the parties’ and attorneys’ First Amendment rights.

As the United States Supreme Court has stated, [w]hatever differences may exist about interpretations of the First Amendment, there is practically universal agreement that a major purpose of that Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs. Although it is assumed that judges will ignore the public clamor or media reports and editorials in reaching their decisions and by tradition will not respond to public commentary, the law gives judges as persons, or courts as institutions no greater immunity from criticism than other persons or institutions. The operations of the courts and the judicial conduct of judges are matters of utmost public concern.32

In Re Sawyer, 360 U.S. 622, 79 S.Ct. 1376, 3 L.Ed.2d 1473

Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings against Harriet Bouslog SAWYER,

Petitioner. No. 326.

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/105935/in-re-sawyer/

For many months beginning in late 1952 she participated, in the United States District Court at Honolulu, as one of the defense counsel in the trial of an indictment against a number of defendants for conspiracy under the Smith Act,18 U.S. C. § 2385. The trial was before Federal District Judge Jon Wiig and a jury. Both disciplinary charges against petitioner had to do with the Smith Act trial. One charge related to a speech she made about six weeks after the trial began. The speech was made on the Island of Hawaii, at Honokaa, a village some 182 miles from Honolulu, Oahu, on a Sunday morning.

We think that our review may be limited to the narrow question whether the facts adduced are capable of supporting the findings that the petitioner’s speech impugned Judge Wiig’s impartiality and fairness in conducting the Smith Act trial and thus reflected upon his integrity in the dispensation of justice in that case. We deal with the Court’s findings, not with “misconduct” in the abstract.

We start with the proposition that lawyers are free to criticize the state of the law.

But all are free to express their views on 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.[9] 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;

The specific statements found censurable (without which the bringing of the charge would have been inconceivable) are not in the least inconsistent with this, even though they must be taken to relate to the trial in progress. These specific statements are hardly damning by themselves, and clearly call for the light examination in context may give them; so examined, they do not furnish any basis for a finding of professional misconduct. She said that there were “horrible” and “shocking” things going on at the trial, but this remark, introductory to the speech, of course was in the context of what she further said about conspiracy prosecutions, Smith Act trials, and the prosecution’s conduct.

Hence, Mrs. Sawyer was allowed to criticize, a law, a decision, a trial and the prosecutor.

Scholarly Articles on the First Amendment and Lawyers

• Leslie Salzman, Rethinking Guardianship

(Again): Substituted Decision Making As

A Violation of the Integration Mandate of

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities

Act, 81 U. COLO. L. REV. 157 (2010)

http://lawreview.colorado.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/10Salzman-FINAL_s.pdf

    2) The Truth be Damned; The first Amendment Attorney Speech and Judicial Reputation by Prof. Margaret Tarkington

http://georgetownlawjournal.org/articles/the-truth-be-damned-the-first-amendment-attorney-speech-and-judicial-reputation/

   3)  Harvard Law Review:  Occupational Speech and the First Amendment

http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/occupational-speech-and-the-first-amendment/

Article promotes that lawyer speech should be fully protected under the First Amendment

  4)  Yale Law Review Article:  Professional speech by Claudia Haupft

http://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/professional-speech

http://graphics.latimes.com/retirement-nomads/

At the wise age of 79, Dolores Westfall knows food shopping on an empty stomach is a fool’s errand. On her way to the grocery store last May, she pulled into the Town & Country Family Restaurant to take the edge off her appetite.

After much consideration, she ordered the prime rib special and an iced tea — expensive at $21.36, but the leftovers, wrapped carefully to go, would provide two more lunches.

The problem, she later realized, was that a big insurance bill was coming due. How was she going to pay it? Was she going to tip into insolvency over a plate of prime rib?

“I thought I could handle eating and shopping,” she said, “but lunch put me over the top.”

Westfall — 5 feet 1 tall, with a graceful dancer’s body she honed as a tap-dancing teenager — is as stubborn as she is high-spirited. But she finds herself these days in a precarious place: Her savings long gone, and having never done much long-term financial planning, Westfall left her home in California to live in an aging RV she calls Big Foot, driving from one temporary job to the next.

She endures what is for many aging Americans an unforgiving economy. Nearly one-third of U.S. heads of households ages 55 and older have no pension or retirement savings and a median annual income of about $19,000.

A growing proportion of the nation’s elderly are like Westfall: too poor to retire and too young to die.

Many rely on Social Security and minimal pensions, in part because half of all workers have no employer-backed retirement plans. Eight in 10 Americans say they will work well into their 60s or skip retirement entirely.

Have you or someone in your family been in this position? We want to hear your story.

Westfall hadn’t planned to keep working. But in 2008, as the U.S. economy spasmed, she lost her home and tumbled out of the middle class.

Today, Westfall is one of America’s graying nomads. Although many middle-class retirees ply the interstates in Winnebagos as a lifestyle choice, for Westfall and many others, life on the move is not as much a choice as a necessity.

Her seven-year journey has taken Westfall to 33 states and counting. She’s worked as a cavern tour guide, resort receptionist, crowd control officer, hustling clerk at an Amazon warehouse. Others like her have cleaned toilets, picked beets, plucked chickens.

Her monthly income consists of $1,200 in Social Security and a $190 pension, plus pay from her seasonal jobs. She owes $50,000 on her credit cards. There’s also a $268 monthly loan payment for her aging rig.

There have been times when she has survived on brown rice and milk — and worried the milk would run out.

Westfall spent the Christmas season of 2014 working at a Fort Lauderdale, Fla., mall for $10 an hour, then hit Virginia for a stint selling photos door-to-door on commission. By May 2015, she brought her roadshow into the Darien Lake Theme Park in upstate New York for a job as a kiddie ride operator. The pay: $9 an hour. The job would carry her only through September.

She untethered from Big Foot the tiny white Smart car she calls Little Tow and set up camp in a field among two dozen other seasonal workers, nearly all of them retirement age. Wearing an electric orange work shirt, she’d soon become known among youngsters there as “the Ride Lady.”

Nearing 80, she suffers daily aches and pains — leg cramps and arthritis and weakness from low blood sugar. Big Foot has its own problems: The roof leaks, so do the pipes beneath the sink. The water pump feeding the shower and sink is failing. “One of us is going to give out first,” Westfall said with a laugh. “It’s either me or Big Foot.”

She avoided disaster after the prime rib dinner by persuading the insurance company to space out her payment in installments. But then that same month, she was caught driving 43 mph in a 35-mph zone. The ticket: $300.

“I could just cry,” she wrote in her journal. “I won’t have earned $300 in all of May. If I can get it lowered to $150, it will still be more than my entire grocery budget. Don’t know how I’m going to manage it.”

For weeks in the spring of 2008, Westfall lingered alone inside Big Foot, parked outside her double-wide trailer in a mobile home park in Kelseyville, a rural town in Northern California.

The furniture was sold, the mobile home up for sale, and Westfall was living in the driveway. She thought about killing herself.

“I had a serious out-loud talk with myself,” she recalled, about how to get out of her financial fix — an unforeseen downturn in a long and independent life.

The New York City native had put herself through business school and had spent time as a bank executive secretary and a museum curator. She’d later started her own interior design consulting firm. That’s when she bought Big Foot, using it as a mobile office to meet clients across California.

Westfall didn’t know it, but she was perched on the fault line of an economic temblor: In a few months, U.S. housing prices would record their largest drop in history.

The Great Recession would hit older Americans hard. Of the 4.7 million home foreclosures from 2007 to 2011, one-third, or 1.5 million, involved people ages 50 and older. Studies show that older single women are the most vulnerable: They make less than male workers, and those that take time off to have children often miss chances for seniority and pay raises.

Westfall married twice decades ago but never had children, deciding she was at her loneliest with a man in her life. After her retirement in 2007, she had planned on selling the double-wide to finance a lifelong dream: touring the nation from behind the wheel of Big Foot.

She knew the move would be a stretch. The financial fallout had rendered her modest stock portfolio worthless, and she’d never put away much in savings.

The mobile home was worth $40,000, but there was a catch: The trailer park’s new owner had tripled the rent, making it impossible to sell her unit. She reached out to the local senior law center, even her county supervisor, scrambling for a solution.

It was around this time in 2008 that Sheila Faulds died; she’d been a friend of Westfall’s for half a century and she left her $20,000. “Promise me you won’t pay bills with the money,” Faulds had told her. “I want you to buy a car.”

Westfall’s journal oozed despair: Her best friend was gone. And she was stuck: How could she hit the road without selling her double-wide? Her skin flushed with hives. She couldn’t sleep.

“I burst into tears and had a big long whopping cry,” she wrote in her journal. Then she pounded her fists on the sofa until she fell asleep.

She awoke to this thought: There was another option.

With a pad and pencil, she produced a pro-and-con ledger to assess her predicament. On one side of the page, under “Bad,” she wrote, “No money. No job. Insufficient income. Big debt. No place to go. No plans.”

Under “Good”: “Motor home to live in (though part of the debt). Ability to make plans.”

Then she made another two-sided list. One column read, “What have I always wanted to do in retirement?” The other: “How close can I get to it.”

She could hit the road, but she would have to keep working. And just maybe, there might be money for a few nice things. It was all so scary but also a little exciting.

Westfall sold off most of what was left of her belongings and put the rest in storage. Her friend’s gift would launch her life as a road gypsy, and she would leave the double-wide behind without getting a dime for it.

She started Big Foot’s engine, drove down the blacktop driveway and turned right, heading south onto Soda Bay Road and a life as a tumbleweed on wheels.

“I’m not sure if I even closed the gate behind me,” she recalled. “I just drove away.”

Westfall has long been used to being on her own. In her youth she took solitary road trips into the desert and mountains and once took flying lessons. But life on the road taught her to be more resourceful, bolder.

She once raced north out of Texas to escape a hurricane and rode out the remnants of the storm at a truck stop in Little Rock, Ark. One Christmas in Florida, she scared off a would-be armed robber who accosted her at an ATM, yelling, “I haven’t got any more money, fool.”

Last summer, a few weeks after getting the speeding ticket, Westfall stood in traffic court to fight the $300 fine. She persuaded the judge to reduce it to $75 — but missed a day’s pay to plead her case.

Two months later, in August, she still didn’t know where she’d be working after Darien Lake, and faced yet another nasty choice between need and want.

Should she go to the dentist, or take a guided tour of buildings designed by her favorite architect, Frank Lloyd Wright? Each cost $100.

She picked Frank Lloyd Wright. Her teeth could wait.

“I believe doing something fun, no matter how frivolous it might seem, is food for the soul,” she said. “You need to feed yourself some pleasure once in a while to keep feeling alive. Otherwise, it’s just drudgery.”

But there is little money to see the sights. She earns too much to receivefood stamps, and a lot of it goes to groceries. She tries to eat organic food, with her low blood sugar. That rules out cheap but filling Big Macs — as well as the food kitchens whose mass-produced meals, she decided, are unhealthful.

She can’t buy in bulk because Big Foot has little storage space. Often, she’s forced to purchase smaller-sized products — at convenience store prices — that fit a smallish RV refrigerator. At laundromats, she tries to keep wash day under $10, always scouting the hotter money-saving dryers.

Her key ring is crowded with plastic discount tags for supermarkets and places like Staples and Books-A-Million.

But Westfall finds that she is now more in debt than when she hit the road. She hasn’t been able to visit her younger sister, Mary Ann, in California since she set out; she can afford to take only the shortest route to the next job, and the jobs haven’t taken her that way. The biggest blow came in 2013 when she faced $8,000 in charges for emergency dental work and rig repairs. It was a gut punch from which she has yet to recover.

She tries to do the repairs herself when she can. One day at Darien Lake, she climbed a ladder to lean over the RV’s roof, looking for the source of a leak that was dripping water onto her laptop. Time was, she’d climb all the way up on the roof to take care of things. But not anymore.

“I’m beginning to feel ineffectual,” she said. “And I’ve never felt that before. I don’t feel desperate, but I’m getting close.”

::

Westfall was working her last shift at the theme park on a warm Sunday afternoon in late September. While some co-workers slouched glumly at the controls, she was a blur of activity. Using a stick, she measured each tyke to make sure they were tall enough to ride; she strapped the youngest ones in tightly.

Wearing the leopard-spotted glasses she’d bought at a truck stop, she stooped face-to-face with little ones for conversations that never condescended. Some wrapped her in a spontaneous hug.

They’d ask, “Did you get your glasses at Target?” or “Are you nice.”

Her favorite: “How did you get so old.”

She responded, “By hanging around a really long time.”

Her feet hurt constantly from standing 12 hours at a stretch, six days a week, racking up overtime. On her last day, an hour before the park would begin to shut down for the year, Westfall gently corrected a mother who’d barged into the ride area to check on her child after the security gate was closed. That was her job, Westfall explained.

The mother exploded. She shouted inches from Westfall’s face, spittle flying.

“Just because you’re a miserable old lady with your effing $7-an-hour job,” she hissed. “You don’t have a life.”

As the irate woman was finally escorted away by security, a bystander sent her daughter over with a $10 bill. She said Westfall deserved a nice dinner.

An hour later, Westfall walked to her car, exhausted and preoccupied: She still had not lined up her next job. Suddenly, a small crowd rushed the vehicle, and Westfall tensed: the irate mother again?

It was six teenagers she’d worked with that summer. They rocked her car back and forth, chanting, “We love Dolores! We love Dolores.”

The youngsters pulled Westfall out for a group hug and invited her to Denny’s for a going-away dinner. Her face flushed at this gift of grace. At the restaurant, she laughed along with high schoolers that in another life could have been her grandchildren.

After a waitress dropped off the check, a manager approached and put a hand on Westfall’s shoulder. “So, you’re going to pay for the whole crew.”

The group ignored him and divvied up the bill. Westfall’s portion came to $10; Her AARP card cut the damage to $8 and change.

She walked into the night feeling less alone. Later, she sat at the picnic table next to her rig, one she’d cozied up with a red-and-white plastic tablecloth.

::

Most of the RVs belonging to other seasonal workers had already departed. On a gray October morning, a flock of geese flew in formation overhead, and Westfall knew she’d have to flee too. Big Foot could never keep her warm in winter, but she couldn’t travel too far south; she knew from experience that south Florida was too expensive.

But where to go? Despite hours of phone work, Westfall still didn’t know whether she was heading to Maryland for a door-to-door sales gig or to Georgia for a mall kiosk job.

Big Foot was another problem. The roof still leaked, and the plumbing was acting up. Thanks to a surprise $1,000 limit increase on one credit card, she had a bit of headroom, but $400 of that was already spent.

The deadline for leaving Darien Lake was the next day. She turned on the kitchen faucet. Water collected in the sink.

A flash of weariness crossed her face. “I don’t like this,” she said.

Westfall, in a brown house robe, began once again storing her life for the next move. The driver and passenger seats and floor were stacked with boxes marked “writing,” “receipts,” “credit cards” and “insurance.”

She emerged from the bathroom looking glum: The foot pedal toilet flusher had just broken.

Soon a security guard knocked.

“Hi,” he said. “I just wanted to know when you plan on leaving.”

“Oh, in about a year,” Westfall said with a laugh. “You know, packing one of these is like putting your house on wheels.”

As the afternoon waned, she finished organizing and moved outside. Winding up several hoses, her fingers ached in the cold. Then a brace on the rig’s stairwell snapped. In frustration and despair, she banged on Big Foot’s side.

“You’re getting damned uninhabitable,” she scolded.

With the sun sinking, Westfall drove to a repair shop.

The mechanics confirmed the busted water pump. Without it, she couldn’t save money by parking at truck stops and would have to pay to stay at campgrounds with water hookups.

But the mechanics wanted thousands for the repair. So Westfall did without it, scouting half-price campgrounds while hopscotching south to the Carolinas, where she found a mechanic to fix the pump for $200.

By late October, she was parked at a campsite in Savannah, Ga., her Christmas season working grounds. She was entering her eighth year on the road, ready to start the entire process all over again.

Dinner was back to brown rice and milk. Big Foot’s kitchen sink still drained slowly.

More tales from families on the road

Two couples trying to rebound from the Great Recession have hit the road.

Denise and Mark Fuller

After a series of financial setbacks, and hopelessly behind on the mortgage, Mark and Denise walked away from their Oregon home in 2012. “It was scary at first,” Denise, 59, recalled. “But just getting out from under all that weight was a huge relief.” With the help of Denise’s sister, they bought a Georgie Boy Pursuit RV for $22,000, and Denise found websites with seasonal lists of job opportunities. “We could do this,” she thought. “We could travel together.” They joined a tireless workforce of retirement-age Americans doing work they never imagined.

In their seven years on the road, they’ve harvested beets, sorted goods in warehouses, sold Christmas trees. This summer they found a few months’ work in isolated Door County, Wis., where their commute consisted of riding bikes down leafy lanes from their RV parked among the trees. They biked because they had ridden bikes on their first date and liked the exercise. Each day, they reveled in their togetherness despite a fierce financial tailspin that had led to this: cleaning bathrooms at the Wagon Trail Campgrounds.

One Sunday in May at the Friends Community Church in nearby Sturgeon Bay, Wis., Denise comforted a woman who had just revealed she had cancer. Mark and Denise are devoutly religious. He’s a Mormon; she’s a Quaker. He’s a former military policeman with the U.S. National Guard and a gun lover. She has a bumper sticker that says: “Make love, not war.” Yet somehow, they fit. She’d left a troubled marriage and had a grown son; he was twice divorced, with grandchildren. They married in 2008, but as they forged a new life together, their financial house of cards was toppling.

Mark, 61, relies on Denise for much, grateful for her love and her common-sense budgeting. He had never managed his money well. When he met Denise, his ex-wife’s name was still on the title to the mobile home they’d purchased. He borrowed $200,000 to buy her out and pay off some credit card debt. In 2007, he secretly spent $2,000 on a wedding ring for Denise. Days later, he lost his job. But he kept the ring anyway. Then Denise lost the last of several part-time librarian jobs.

Along with his finances, Mark battles emotional demons. He has faced learning disabilities since childhood and eventually discovered that he is bipolar and suffers from post-traumatic stress. “It means I’m screwed up,” he said one day. When he and Denise lost their jobs, she begged the mortgage bank to temporarily reduce monthly payments from $2,150 to $1,500. But the going remained difficult, and a consumer debt advisor suggested they walk away from the house. Mark was aghast. ”That was just unheard of for me,“ he said. Added Denise: ”We were responsible people. We just didn’t see any way out of the financial spiral.”

As Denise pushed a mop inside a campsite men’s room, she talked about music and opera. The former librarian and online editor knows that her current jobs do not define her. The couple’s first-ever seasonal job was at a gun club in California, where Mark was hired as a range safety officer. Denise initially was assigned to distribute targets and ammunition, but true to her Quaker faith, she’s a pacifist and declined. So they handed her a scrub brush. While cleaning restrooms, the smell of urine stung her eyes. “I’ve got a master’s degree,” she reminded herself. “Good thing my old classmates can’t see me now.”

At the campground, Mark and Denise worked six hours a day for $7.25 an hour, the state’s minimum wage, plus free RV parking. In late May, they collected their first paychecks for two weeks’ work: He made $300, she a little less. Their practice is to always take the lesser check and save it for future days on the road. Mark also receives $2,700 a month for his military retirement, along with disability payments and a small IRA. Neither has been to the dentist in three years. It’s a life lived on faith. “We never know where the next job is going to be,” said Denise, “but our faith tells us that there’s going to be work and there’s going to be money.”

Who knew cleaning toilets could lead to personal triumph, a shot to reinvent oneself? But as they look back now, Mark and Denise see that their decision to strike out as aging American nomads made them grow as both individuals and as a couple, allowing a level of intimacy they’d never known before. One day they cleaned a men’s room, working quietly and efficiently. “Where’s the white stuff?” she asked, looking for a cleaner. “It’s on the counter, waiting for you,” he said. There’s a satisfaction in a job well done. “By the time we’re finished with this place,” she said, “I wouldn’t think twice about sitting down and having a picnic on the floor.”

At night, croaking frogs sang a chorus as Mark and Denise settled in after another day’s work, their RV parked beside those of other seasonal workers. In October, they would move south for another gig. Mark has started taking classes to become an on-the-road rig repairman and inspector known as an RV doctor. He sees only open highway ahead, but Denise envisions an end to their travels. She’d like to spend winters working in the Pacific Northwest so she can be close to her aging parents. For now, they forge ahead.

---

Mary Katherine Nelson and Mark Schweiger

In 2008, amid the nation’s housing downturn, Mary Katherine Nelson and Mark Schweiger struggled to make payments on their home near Flagstaff, Ariz. Mark is a skilled carpenter and former construction-site supervisor who had lovingly added a huge stone fireplace and extra-large closets to keep her happy. But in 2011, they sold the house at a significant loss, a setback that cast them into a subculture of wandering retirement-age couples who travel in RVs from one part-time job to another.

Mark, 65, has rebuilt picnic tables and roofs, worked at a llama farm, dressed pheasants bagged by hunters and inspected RV campsites — all for less money than he ever dreamed he’d accept. In May he began a minimum-wage security job at a private campground in Winters, Calif. “Right now, we have zero money,” Mary Katherine said one day, her thumb and index finger creating a circle. “Zero.” She wiped away tears. “Mark keeps our head above water, right here,” she said, her hand below her chin. “We’d like to be around the shoulders, but we’re at the chin. That’s scary and dangerous.”

Mary Katherine manages the finances and tries to make their rig feel like a home. But she must pace herself. An inner ear problem has caused a 90% hearing loss. Mary Katherine, 65, worked 25 years as a nurse but now suffers from arthritis in her hands and fingers and from fibromyalgia, which causes pain and fatigue throughout her body. “Every time we get a little something, when we get ahead just a little bit, God takes it away from us,” she said. “We hold each other and sigh and say, ‘God didn’t intend for us to have much.’”

Skimpy budgets can lead to friction. One day Mark wanted to cut short a trip to the store, worried he’d be late for work. When he said they should stop shopping, she resisted, saying they would have to pay nearly $4 a gallon for propane at the campground when they could get it at the store for a dollar cheaper. “We don’t have any time for propane,” he snapped. “Well,” she fired back, “if those tanks go dry, we’ll have to pay $3.85 a gallon, won’t we?”

Mary Katherine wandered the aisles of a Northern California grocery store, her wallet full of plastic savings cards. In the meat aisle, she picked up a large package of corned beef and examined the price: more than $23. She dropped it with disdain. At the checkout, she nervously asked the cashier which savings cards they accepted. “Don’t worry about it,” the woman said. But she does worry.

On his security rounds, Mark described his “stolen retirement.” He blamed the banks for triggering the 2008 housing collapse, then complained that the government bailed out Wall Street but not homeowners. “Rather than spread the money evenly among taxpayers who had lost everything, the politicians gave it to the thieves,” he said. Mark dreams of driving a mule team across America, all the way to Washington, with a banner: “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore.”

After they sold their house, they paid cash — the last of his retirement nest egg — for the RV because they didn’t want to be beholden to any more banks. Months later, they bought a diesel truck at an auction. Then its engine blew. Cost: $18,000. The bills never stop coming. In May, with no telephone reception in the campground, they got a $300 smartphone for a link to the outside world. Then the truck needed a radiator and two tires.

He’s a bit of a dreamer, dabbling in nature photography, fly fishing and gold panning. She’s more of a realist. Before she met Mark, she had raised three kids on a single income. These days, Mary Katherine tries to keep their financial predicament in perspective. “I have a warm bed,” she said. “I have food. I have water. I have so much that people in the Holocaust didn’t have. Surely I can survive one more day. If they did, so can I.”

Design and development: Stephanie Ferrell and Sean Greene. Lead photo caption: Dolores Westfall, 79, sits behind the wheel of her aging RV she calls Big Foot. She is one of America’s graying nomads, for whom on the move is not as much a choice as a necessity.

Please see my new forms and fill out and return to me via joanne@justice4every1.com, facebook or any social media account of mine.  https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwc1BxMlNmWERnOTg

You can view and fill them out as a copy on Google Docts which accepts most word processing programs and it’s free.

I will be putting up a page on this blog and Justice 4 every1.com with these forms also.

Coming up:  make an appointment for your book or blog post on Youcanbookme.com

I will soon post the link

ALSO I NEED SOMEONE TO REPAIR MY XEROX WORKCENTER 5675 COPIER ADF, IF YOU KNOW OF ANYONE, HAVE THEM EMAIL ME PLEASE.

Joanne

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/trusts_estates_prof/2009/01/probate-excepti.html

This may help many of you when preparing Responses to the dreaded Motions to Dismiss in Federal Court when you file your 42 USC 1983/85 claims; 18 USC 241/242 claims and ADA claims:

Had this occurred in Illinois – assuming that the lawyer was part of the miscreant co-operative, Jerome Larkin would have covered this up and it would be ethically challenged to point it out!

 It is interesting to not e that when Lawyer Seth Gillman stole  over $100 million as part of his fraudulent hospice activity, there was no ARDC action when this was announced by an indictment–or when members of the public complained before the indictment.   When he pleaded guilty, Larkin and the IARDC were silent; however, when Gillman started to co-operate with the Federal Authorities – bingo! – the IARDC (Larkin) were before the Supreme Court of Illinois to get an interium suspension of Gillman’s license.    The miscreants in the Sykes case are still practicing law, even though about $3 million dollars has been stolen and the judge at page 91 of her evidence deposition spilled the beans – the case was fixed.  In the probate court, all discovery was quashed, and then later during my trial and later Ms. Denison’s trial, though we both asked for discovery on the thefts, the answer was an unmitigated NO!

Of course we (and Jerome Larkin) knew the Sykes 09 P 4585 guardianship was fixed!    This is the pattern that is and was being protected!    

Nevertheless it is good to know that someone is minding the store somewhere!    

 

What we need is for our US Senators and Presidential Candidates  *****   is to step and actually do something positive for the elderly and the disabled who are being eldercleansed by the Judicial and Political elite.  

So far all we have heard is rhetoric from the candidates from public office and so far no one of them has stained their hands or damages their status amongst the promulgators of the Modern American Holocaust ==  Not one of this gang of **** who seek to lead us has even had the courage to call for an HONEST INVESTIGATION!     That should give everyone an insight into those individuals who would assume the leadership of the most powerful nation on earth!

 

Scared yet?    You are more than 1/2 a day older than you were went you woke up this morning and 1/2 day closer to having a real threat to your independence and humanity — Mary Sykes was competent when the ‘wired judge’ appointed a guardian for her.   She was competent when the court appointed guardian entered her safety deposit box and stole nearly a million dollars in gold coins  (see Gloria Sykes affidavit and the fact that the guardian has never denied the theft!).   Mary was competent when she was ultimately place in a nursing home so as to journey to her final reward.  (see other posts on this blog).   

 

When one citizen is denied his/her civil rights = we all are.   Lanre Amu lost his law license for three years plus for making the exact same claim that a distinquished business publication made (Crains Chicago Business).    Practicing Law while Black is not allowed in Illinois!

 

L’ Shanah Twa

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

---

From: Cynthia Stephens <cynthiastphns@gmail.com>
To:
Sent: Sunday, October 2, 2016 12:31 PM
Subject: New York Lawyer Gets Prison Time for Stealing $5 Million From Clients Stuart A. Schlesinger, who practiced for half a century, was sentenced to six and a half years in prison for theft that involved about two dozen clients. nytimes.com|By Benjamin Weiser

This should happen to those attorneys and judges, or former judges and others who have done pretty much the same, or are doing pretty much the same in Monroe County, Pennsylvania, I believe!  The victims of those in these syndicates have been forced to endure extortion attempts, fraudulent filings, mail frauds and wire frauds, incompetence, fraudulent property thefts, slapp, apparently intentional destruction of their homes and property, insults and falsehoods about these victims and so much more. Especially, in the range of the HOA criminality, legal and judicial abuses, discrimination, fraudulent and secretive injustices, denial of rights, denial of due process and denial of protections and the laws, so their homes, equity, finances and maybe even the people also can and will be stolen!

They HOA homeowner horrors, legal and judicial abuses and fraudulent property thefts are happening all across America and I believe too many unethical, dishonest, criminal and abusive attorneys and judges, or former judges and others, among their “friends” have been the worst HOA homeowner abusers and property and equity, and the much more they steal from their victims, outright thieves!  All need to be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law, no matter the locale in America, or who they are, or who they know and their victims rectified!

The HOA homeowner horrors, abuses, criminality and property thefts, and all the injustice inflicted upon these innocent and unsuspecting homeowners have become one of the worst abuses and injustices any homeowner and their family should be forced to endure in America.  Wake up Americans before it is you, or someone close to you!

Via Eliot Bernstein:

New York Lawyer Gets Prison Time for Stealing $5 Million From Clients

New York Lawyer Gets Prison Time for Stealing $5 Million From Clients

Stuart A. Schlesinger, who practiced for half a century, was sentenced to six and a half years in prison for theft that involved about two dozen clients.

nytimes.com|By Benjamin Weiser

In Some Cases of Elder Abuse, Banks Facilitated Financial Exploitation

Posted on Sep 23, 2016

By Colton Lochhead / Las Vegas Review-Journal

Wells Fargo allowed Guadalupe Olvera’s guardian to improperly bill his trust for $39,297. (Mike Mozart / CC 2.0)

Editor’s note: In the wake of the recent revelations of Wells Fargo’s illegal and unethical business practices, Truthdig is analyzing other instances of greed and expanding American corporatism. The following excerpt examines the issue of elder abuse under court-appointed guardians. In this specific case, Wells Fargo contributed to one guardian’s financial exploitation of a “ward” by approving huge withdrawals from the elderly person’s trust. The piece reproduced in full below, “Clark County’s Private Guardians May Protect—Or Just Steal and Abuse,” is one of the articles in M. Larsen’s book “Guardianship: How Judges and Lawyers Steal Your Money,” a collection of reports on guardianship abuse. Written by Colton Lochhead, the article originally was published in the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

APTOS, Calif. — Guadalupe Olvera sits in his tall green chair, blowing a familiar tune on his harmonica as a baseball game plays on his television. The harmony echoes off the walls of his daughter’s 1960s-era home, filling the air with an enticing melody.

Although slowed by age at 95, the World War II veteran regularly attends Veterans of Foreign Wars barbecues in Aptos, where he easily remembers the names and family details of those he meets. Life in the lush green hills near Santa Cruz is peaceful for Olvera and his family.

That wasn’t the case a few years ago, when he was isolated and alone, a prisoner in his Henderson home — a ward of Clark County, surrounded by people he didn’t know who were supposed to protect him, but who ended up with more than $420,000 of his money, most of his estate.

No longer a ward of any state, he’s settled in the home of the daughter who had to “kidnap” him when all else failed.

A FATEFUL CHOICE

Olvera and his wife, Carmela, moved from California to Henderson to retire in 2002. They enjoyed warm weather and quickly became active members of their new Sun City Anthem community. Life was serene for the Olveras.

In 2007, Carmela took a step that would later prove costly. At a financial planner’s behest, she became her husband’s guardian.

The couple’s daughter, Rebecca Schultz, said Carmela already handled the couples’ finances, so Guadalupe never questioned the move.

But after Camela’s sudden death in fall 2009, he needed a new guardian. Schultz wasn’t an option because state law says a guardian must live in Nevada.

“I didn’t understand it,” Schultz said of the guardianship system. “I knew nothing about what that term meant, legally.”

Schultz called the office of the guardianship commissioner, who at any one time supervises 8,500 such cases for Clark County Family Court.

“I thought these people were going to help me,” Schultz said.

A court clerk told her she needed to see Jared Shafer, who for 24 years handled estate administration and guardianships as Clark County public administrator before starting Professional Fiduciary Services of Nevada, a guardianship company for hire, in 2003.

Shafer told Schultz he would act as a temporary guardian until conservatorship could be transferred to California, which should have taken about six months. She assumed the transfer would go quickly with such an experienced guardian involved.

In a few months she realized she was wrong.

Rather than making an easy move to California, Olvera was stuck in Nevada while his family was forced to watch him lose everything.

“My father had a 3,000-square-foot house with a huge master bedroom and two guest bedrooms and they (his court-appointed guardians) wouldn’t let us stay there when we first visited,” Schultz said. Later visits were limited to a maximum of four days.

“That’s the first sign I saw that ‘OK, something’s wrong,’ ” she said.

A month after he was granted temporary guardianship, Shafer petitioned the court to make it permanent — a legal move that tethered Olvera and his money to Nevada.

Schultz and her father became increasingly suspicious of Shafer and the people he assigned to work with Olvera — people such as Shafer’s case manager, Patience Bristol, and his bookkeeper, Amy Deittrick.

Deittrick runs AViD Business Services, a bookkeeping company with ties to Shafer.

In February 2010, just three months after Shafer became guardian, Olvera’s Wells Fargo trust was billed $39,297.

More than $8,700 went to Bristol. AViD received $5,760 for charges ranging from $40 to $125 to pay a bill.

Shafer’s then-attorney, Elyse Tyrell, was paid $5,919.

Shafer’s bill alone was $15,000.

Only $3,080 went to KeepYou Company, a health care provider that took care of Olvera in his home. A representative of the now-defunct company said it had no business relationship with Shafer beyond caring for Olvera.

Neither Shafer nor Deittrick responded to requests for comment for this article. Bristol could not be reached for comment, for good reason. After leaving Shafer’s office to start her own business she was convicted of stealing at least $200,000 from her wards and is now serving a prison term.

Still mourning the death of his wife, Olvera began to change, Schultz said. Once a cheerful joker, he became withdrawn — a shell of his former self, she said.

“He wasn’t happy being there with somebody that wasn’t his family,” Schultz said. “He had no friends there. No relatives. He was fearful.”

Watching costs mount and fearing her father was being exploited, she tried to have Shafer removed as guardian, hoping to eventually move Olvera to California.

That set in motion a long, costly legal battle that resulted in a warrant for her arrest.

(Page 2)

HARD TO FIGHT

Schultz learned quickly that Nevada law and Family Court favor the guardian. She couldn’t even go to court unless a Nevada resident would act as a co-petitioner. A friend from Las Vegas agreed to help, and they hired local attorney Brian Boggess.

Shafer responded by filing court papers claiming Schultz was an estranged daughter who had no contact with her parents after they left California, and thus should not be allowed to care for her father.

“They said that I had no relationship at all with my parents, which I found kind of strange since a year and a half before my mom’s death I had been there taking care of her when she broke her hip,” Schultz said. “I’m the one who taught my mother, at her late age, how to use a computer.”

Jon Norheim is an attorney appointed by the Clark County Commission to serve as guardianship commissioner. His clerk was the one who suggested Shafer to Schultz.

Although not a judge, Norheim’s decisions carry the weight of one. His ruling can be appealed to higher courts, but seldom are because of the cost. Attorneys familiar with the process say an appeal to District Court and the state Supreme Court would run about $50,000, too much for most estates to bear.

In response to Shafer’s claims, Schultz tried to show her relationship with her parents to the court. She provided a stack of handwritten letters that spoke of recent visits and dozens of emails between her and her mother.

Norheim wasn’t moved. He observed that Olvera enjoyed having Shafer as his guardian, and didn’t want to move to California.

But that’s not what the old soldier said.

In the one time he was allowed to speak in court, Olvera said, “I would like to live in California. I don’t need that man. I don’t need Jared.”

Boggess, meanwhile, argued that Shafer was improperly draining Olvera’s estate with excessive charges, and challenged the legality of Shafer’s appointment as guardian, citing state and federal laws that say guardians for military veterans are limited to having only five wards at any one time. Shafer had dozens of wards at the time of his appointment.

The same law also limits how much guardians can charge wards to 5 percent of the ward’s annual income. Boggess argued that Shafer’s billings far exceeded that limit.

Again, Norheim was unmoved. According to a hearing transcript, he called the law regarding veterans “nice and clear,” but not enough to justify “a major upsetting of the apple cart” for Shafer and other private guardians.

“All these private guardians have more than five wards,” Norheim said in court. “You couldn’t stay in business if you only had a couple of wards.”

Olvera would stay Shafer’s ward in Nevada, Norheim ruled later.

Boggess said he thought Norheim was more concerned about the effect on Shafer’s business than the law’s aim of assuring proper attention to the needs of veterans.

“That should be the last conceivable thing that a judge or commissioner thinks about — how it will upset somebody else’s business,” Boggess said.

In a recent interview, Norheim told the Las Vegas Review-Journal that statutes regarding veterans “could be read harmoniously, and not in conflict.”

And Olvera was inconsistent about wanting to return to California, he said.

“They totally ignored him,” Schultz said. “In my opinion, it’s a kangaroo court, at least concerning Shafer’s cases. Your attorneys can spend an enormous amount of time researching and filing and writing … and you don’t get anywhere.”

Days after the hearing, Olvera and his daughter took what they saw as their only option.

“The only way to solve the problem was to get my dad out of there,” Schultz said.

Olvera packed a few belongings and they drove to her home in Aptos.

“He left of his own volition,” Schultz said. “He wanted to go. He was afraid.”

Boggess said he didn’t tell Schultz to run, but he understands why she did.

“If I was in Becky’s shoes, and I could see that I wasn’t going to get a fair shake, I’m not sure I would have made a different choice,” Boggess said.

In subsequent Guardian Court hearings, Shafer’s lawyers accused Schultz of kidnapping her father.

No such charges were ever filed, but Norheim did issue a bench warrant for Schultz’s arrest after she and her father ignored his order to return for a court appearance.

“This was considered a kidnapping because he’s incapacitated. And (Schultz) took him in violation of Nevada law, and we can’t allow that to happen,” Norheim recently told the Review-Journal. “There has to be enforcement of the statutes.”

1   2   3   NEXT PAGE >>>

(Page 3)

FOLLOWING THE DOLLARS

Although Olvera made it out of Nevada, his money did not. For years after Schultz and Olvera fled to California, Shafer continued an expensive court fight to maintain his status as the old soldier’s guardian.

Olvera paid for all of it — about $240,000 in legal costs over five years, all billed to the estate Shafer still controlled.

More than $130,000 of the charges went to lawyers representing Bristol and Shafer, Solomon Dwiggins and Freer, Clark & Trevithick in Henderson, and the Grunksy Law Firm in California.

Shafer himself charged $250 per hour to send emails or make phone calls related to the case. Often he and his lawyers would discuss matters over the telephone, with each billing Olvera’s account separately for their time, according to invoices obtained by the Review-Journal.

Clark County District Judge Charles Hoskin, who supervises the guardianship program, said he doesn’t see a problem with Shafer’s rates or billing practices.

“Given his background and experience, I think that’s a reasonable number,” Hoskin told the Review-Journal.

Lawyers fighting Shafer on Olvera’s behalf also were paid from his estate, but their bills amounted to just about $60,000.

All told, over about 31?2 years Olvera’s estate had been tapped for at least $420,000, Boggess said in a U.S. District Court lawsuit filed last fall in Las Vegas.

In the lawsuit, Boggess accuses Shafer of inflating bills, submitting false charges and embezzlement.

“They were robbing me of my money,” Olvera said.

In Nevada, guardians are allowed to use their ward’s estate to pay for services and other fees, including attorney fees. But many involved in the guardianship world warn that the practice is easily abused by those in power.

“When people aren’t using their own money to fight the war, the disincentives aren’t as present,” said David Hardy, chief judge of District Court in Washoe County and an advocate for reforming the guardianship system. “Those numbers add up very, very quickly.”

In late 2012 the legal case was transferred to a Superior Court in California, where on Aug. 21, 2013, a judge terminated Olvera’s guardianship, restoring his ability to manage his own affairs. Shafer withdrew his accusations of kidnapping, and the bench warrant for Schultz was dismissed.

The judge in California did not respond to interview requests, but in court he cited Olvera’s improved condition thanks partly to being home with family.

“I never felt that my father needed a guardian,” Schultz said. “He just needed someone to assist him for his disabilities.”

Olvera still struggles with a bum knee, a sore shoulder and back, and permanent frostbite damage from his wartime service. But those injuries don’t slow him as much as they used to, thanks in part to electric chair lifts the Veterans Administration installed in Schultz’s two-story house. The VA also gave him a motorized scooter.

When the old soldier was a ward in Nevada, no one bothered to ask the VA to help improve his quality of life, Schultz said.

“None of my dad’s benefits were really utilized, because Shafer really didn’t care,” Schultz said. “I believe that if I’d left him there that he would be dead now.

“He’s healthier, heavier and happier than when he was down there,” Schultz said. “He’s in his comfort zone.”

Olvera and his son-in-law seldom miss a VFW post meeting, barbecue or parade. That VA-provided scooter gets good use.

No longer surrounded by strangers and left with no say over his own life, Olvera has no complaints.

Family and friends “treat me real fine,” he said. “They feed me anything I want … They know what I like.”

is anyone surprised?

As an employer, it wasn’t exactly the bank for all of America.

Bank of America was ordered Monday to pay 1,147 African American job applicants $2,181,593 in back wages and interest after a judge found that the company’s Charlotte office had racially discriminated against them.

Judge Linda S. Chapman ruled that the bank used “unfair and inconsistent selection criteria” when it routinely chose white applicants over black job-seekers in 1993 and again between 2002 and 2005.

In 1993, the Labor Department’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs launched a review of the bank that turned up evidence of “systemic hiring discrimination” against African Americans, denying them entry-level clerical and administrative positions.

Bank of America vigorously contested the allegations and argued that the Labor Department did not have the legal authority to impose fines against it, but the judge sided with the government’s claim that because the bank is a federally insured entity, it qualifies as a federal contractor.

The ruling was a long-awaited victory for the Labor Department, which had first brought the case to court in 1997.

“Wherever doors of opportunity are unfairly closed to workers, we will be there to open them — no matter how long it takes,” OFCCP Director Patricia A. Shiu said in a statement. “Judge Chapman’s decision upholds the legal principle of making victims of discrimination whole, and these workers deserve to get the full measure of what is owed to them.”

The bank must now pay $964,033 to 1,034 applicants who were rejected for jobs in 1993, and another $1,217,560 to 113 African Americans who were denied work between 2002 and 2005. In addition, Bank of America has been ordered offer jobs to 10 applicants who were originally turned down.

The bank, meanwhile, refused to comment on the specifics of the ruling.

“At Bank of America, diversity and inclusion are part of our culture and core company values,” Christopher Feeney, a spokesman for the bank, said in a statement. “We actively promote an environment where all employees have the opportunity to succeed.”