I had a question today about proper legal citations and where to find the rules for that.

Cornell University has published an online guide for this which can be found at:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/citation/

Anatomy Of A Scam: How Lawyers Hurt Clients And Crush Nursing Homes

KEVIN DALEY

Supreme Court Reporter

6:51 PM 08/22/2017

http://www.nationallawjournal.com/legaltimes/id=1202796129499/Judge-Tells-EEOC-to-Revisit-Rule-for-Workplace-Wellness-Programs?kw=Judge%20Tells%20EEOC%20to%20Revisit%20Rule%20for%20Workplace%20Wellness%20Programs&et=editorial&bu=National%20Law%20Journal&cn=20170822&src=EMC-Email&pt=Legal%20Times%20Afternoon%20Update&slreturn=20170722171844

SHARE

PRINT

REPRINTS

Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi/ALM

A federal judge on Tuesday sent the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission back to the drawing board on regulations for increasingly popular workplace wellness programs, ruling in part that the agency failed to justify its 30 percent cap on cost incentives for participating workers.

AARP challenged the rule in October, arguing it would allow employers to illegally access private health information and potentially use that data in a discriminatory manner. The AARP, which lobbies on behalf of nearly 38 million people age 50 and older, also alleged the 30 percent limit on health care cost incentives was too high of a penalty for nonparticipating workers.

In the rulemaking process, the EEOC determined a wellness program could be considered “voluntary” so long as the cost incentives—or, seen another way, the penalty for nonparticipating employees—did not exceed 30 percent of the value of an individual’s plan.

In his decision, U.S. District Judge John Bates of the District of Columbia in Washington acknowledged the “tension that exists between the laudable goals behind such wellness programs”—which often entail collecting sensitive medical information from employees—and other federal regulations limiting employers’ access to such data. But he found that the EEOC had failed to adequately explain its decision to interpret the term “voluntary” in those other regulations—the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act—to allow the 30 percent incentive threshold.

“Neither the final rules nor the administrative record contain any concrete data, studies or analysis that would support any particular incentive level as the threshold past which an incentive becomes involuntary in violation of the ADA and GINA,” Bates wrote. “To be clear, this would likely be a different case if the administrative record had contained support for and an explanation of the agency’s decision, given the deference courts must give in this context. But ‘deference’ does not mean that courts act as a rubber stamp for agency policies.”

The EEOC and AARP—represented by its litigation arm, the AARP Foundation Litigation—did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Read more: Anthem, Cigna and Macy’s Sued Over Wellness Plan

Bates’ decision granted the AARP’s motion for summary judgment against the EEOC rule. But Bates declined to vacate the rule entirely out of concern for “significant disruptive consequences.”

If the rule were vacated, Bates said, employees who’ve already received wellness program incentives “would presumably be obligated to pay these back,” while employers who effectively imposed a penalty on nonparticipating employees “would likewise be obligated to repay to employees the cost of the penalty.”

Protected health care information that was already disclosed to companies “cannot be made confidential again,” Bates said.

“It is far from clear that it would be possible to restore the status quo ante if the rules were vacated; rather, it may well end up punishing those firms—and employees—who acted in reliance on the rules,” Bates wrote.

Related Articles:

• AARP Sues the EEOC to Enjoin Workplace Wellness Program Regulation
• AARP Lawyer Urges Fresh Look at Mandatory Retirement at Big Firms
• Hiring, Not Firing, Is a New Focus in Age Discrimination Suits
• Employer Wellness Programs Face Challenges
• Under the L&E Microscope: Political Talk, Independent Contractors and Work Wellness Programs

This morning, GG tells me he spent 45 min. trying to upload a document on the new Illinois Court of Appeals Website.

So he called the help desk and they told him one of the portals doesn’t work and they forgot to take it down but another one does work.

So here is the correct URL if you are filing something:

from Odessey tech support:
the e-filing website has changed
the old one is not supported anymore and has errors

use https://illinois.tylerhost.net/OfsWeb/   to access their current website

see Barnes v Chase 9th Circuit RESCINDED and Remanded NOT for Publication 13-35716
Causey v US Bank 9th Circuit RESCINDED and Remanded NOT for Publication 10-56021
Here we find some amazing rulings from the Ninth Circuit. One pre-Jesinoski, and the other post Jesinoski …
Causey v. US Bank (2011) [3 day rescission decided pre-Jesinoski]
But in a case where the creditor acquiesces in the
consumer’s notice of rescission or fails to respond within the 20-day response period, rescission is accomplished automatically. See id.
Barnes v Chase (8/10/2017)
Check this ruling out:
For reasons that are unclear from the record, the letter to the creditor was returned to Barnes undelivered. The loan was not rescinded, and Barnes brought suit for rescission and violation of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., and its requirements regarding rescission procedures against CBUSA, CHF, and LBPS.1 The district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Because notice of rescission was properly given, we vacate the grant of summary judgment on Barnes’s claims for rescission and failure to effect
rescission and remand for further proceedings.2
And:
Specifically, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Official Staff
Commentary to Regulation Z provides: “Where the creditor fails to provide the consumer with a designated address for sending the notification of rescission delivery of the notification to the person or address to which the consumer has been directed to send payments constitutes delivery to the creditor or assignee.” 12 C.F.R. § 226, Supp. I, para. 23(a)(2); Truth in Lending, 69 Fed. Reg. 16,769-03,
16,771 (Mar. 31, 2004).

And:

CBUSA “fail[ed] to provide [Barnes] with a designated address for sending the notification of rescission” because the address it did provide was not successfully receiving mail when Barnes sent his notice there. See 12 C.F.R. § 226, Supp. I, paras. 15(a)(2), 23(a)(2). The only remaining action for Barnes to take, per Regulation Z and the CFPB Official Staff Commentary, was to notify the servicer, which he had already done.

and

U.S. Bank N.A. v. Naifeh (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 767, 769: “[A] timely notice of rescission automatically renders the security interest void under section 1635(b) where the creditor acquiesces in the rescission or ignores it.”

Merritt v. Countrywide Fin. Corp. (9th Cir. 2012) 759 F.3d 1023, 1030 [under the procedure set forth in 15 USC 1635(b), “‘all that the consumer need do is notify the creditor of his intent to rescind,’” and the “‘”agreement is then automatically rescinded”‘”]; Sherzer v. Homestar Mortgage Services (3rd Cir. 2013) 707 F.3d 255, 258 [“rescission occurs automatically when the obligor validly exercises his right to rescind;” Williams v. Homestake Mortgage Co. (11th Cir. 1992) 968 F.2d 1137, 1140 [agreement “automatically rescinded” when consumer notifies the creditor of his intent to rescind] and of course Jesinoski.

I just checked AND MY PHONE NUMBER was on the list.

I have no doubt that I receive dozens of these stupid robo calls per week or month.

Go to https://www.rmgtcpasettlement.com/Landing.aspx and put in your cell phone, work phone (if you own a business like I do) and home phone.

See if you are eligible to get $300 per phone call or up to $900 if you received 3 or more phone calls.

I know many of you hate attorneys, but don’t let that stop you. Every once in a while the little guys with no clout win just a teeny tiny bit.

Joanne

I find countless cases of erroneous and/or malicious removal of kids from their homes based on any number of questionable allegations; One must ask not only themselves, but certainly the COURTS claiming jurisdiction over the family or subject, on what foundation do the merits of these petitions to remove rest?
Our constitution was written to establish the guidelines that should enforce the protections of ALL citizens involved in any case brought to a court when any person’s human, fundamental & constitutional rights are threatened on either side of a case.

When highly publicized crimes are tried in our living rooms via news or television stations allow us into the courtroom, we are also exposed to the reporters own reaction, no matter how subdued, to any particular component of a case on either side. It is natural for us to assume that what WE see and hear about a case is also what the jury inside also sees and hears. From our perspectives, the facts as presented (on our side of the television screen) are so conclusive, there can be no question as to the findings of guilt, whether the guilt is on the accused or revealed to be more on the accuser.

We have seen cases that cause us to truly question the judicial machine and the competence of jurors who hand down verdicts that defy OUR logic.

High-profile cases such as OJ Simpson’s murder trial and Casey Anthony, have left us in jaw-dropping disbelief as we are riveted to the television broadcast of verdicts handed down that are in direct conflict to what OUR perception of them were: But WE are also privileged to information of a case that the inside courtroom never saw… ie: the bloody glove and shoes theory in explicit detail or the mother’s lifestyle over the 31 days between the last time she saw her child and the time she finally “mentioned” it had been a month and she did not know where her child was. There are infinite innuendos, revelations, and even personal interjections by the reporters that we were receiving in our private living rooms that the judge and jury trying and hearing the case never knew.
While we want to scream out for justice, there is an entire court process that has concluded, from its perspective, that justice has been served.
The occurrence of child removal from parents based on nothing more than the allegation that caused the petition to be filed is increasing at an alarming rate. The reference in this article, calling these accelerated dissolutions of families “ASSEMBLY LINE JUSTICE” is horrifyingly accurate.

There is something very obviously missing in these cases, but only to those who are standing on the INSIDE of the closed doors of a family court;

*EVIDENCE, MOTIVE, REASONABLE EFFORT, JURISDICTION, VALIDITY*

The officers of the courts who are solely empowered to determine the filing, trying and defending these cases, have become so overburdened by the frequency and numbers of these cases filed, while also cloaked in the secrecy of the closed doors of family court, it has become commonplace practice of the entire system inside to fall into a mindset of mass-production. Every case has a different number, the names change, but the common factor in all of them are the allegations contain within.
Our courts have unconsciously streamlined the process, to lighten their loads. In that streamlining, certain elements of the process have been eliminated, to save time and energy.
Unfortunately for the families, mainly the parents who have been FALSELY ACCUSED by a malicious reporter, an angry family member, an uninformed caller, and even a misconstrued comment from the child himself, the courts have decided to forego the FACTS of a case that may ONLY be determined through a thorough a properly conducted investigative process, then fact-checked for validation by the court, and finally, by the Due Process protections we are promised as United States citizens.

Our family courts have forgotten those components and erroneously proceed with “Best Interest” as their motivator, as they justify the systematic annihilation of the American family on the predetermined assumption of guilt based on nothing more than a written report of a caseworker who was entrusted with the duty to investigate the allegations against parents, to collect evidence through interviews of witnesses who give weight to BOTH sides, and then to compare this evidence to conclude: Is there enough evidence to indicate this parent is a danger to her child and the child is in imminent danger of harm or has this parent been falsely, even mistakenly accused and evidence gathered has shown this to be the foundation of an allegation that does NOT constitute abuse or neglect.
These caseworkers have been bestowed with a duty to ensure a child is safe and out of harm’s way. They are sent out to the population with an illusion of superpowers. They see themselves as necessary heroes.
In many ways, they should be.

But it is the “quota” that becomes the delusion. When there are no guilty parents, no children to take, there is no funding for the budget. Then there is really no need for so many caseworkers, (just to name ONE basic reason for the need to increase the numbers of removals…if you review this ONE component in a breakdown of every penny that comes out of the budget, it may seem insignificant in the vast $$$$ of expenses included in the granting of federal funds to agencies. BUT, no $$$ are granted for intact families! It only starts flowing when the valve is opened with the removal of the children. From there it becomes a flood).
The workers who have the successful Indicated Findings which end up in family court for removal are the bread winners for this broken system. It has become a survival tactic; Their OWN self-preservation has become priority over family preservation.
*****************************************
LEGISLATORS…There is an immediate and urgent need for review of the FACTS and REASONABLE EFFORTS practices of DCFS nation wide!!! The Administrative Codes are subliminally written with the protection of the AGENCY first. The child is the vehicle. Many of the codes, policies and procedures are written to allow the agencies themselves to inflict the very same treatment of a child that they used against a parent to TAKE that child. They are given protections from prosecutions for committing the same acts they have just accused and prosecuted parents for, and usually this is done without the court ever establishing any substantial or evidentiary basis at all!
The workers write the complaint. They hand it in like a homework assignment. Their supervisor signs off on these reports as being valid and accurate without even making a follow up call to anyone noted in the investigation or a background check of the reporter to determine possible malicious motivation…all of these are essential and relevant components that are SUPPOSED to be included in the investigation process, but are overlooked or ignored. These accepted and approved submissions ultimately result in $$$$ flowing into the budget, ensures job security, wage increases, and the creation of more jobs when the numbers indicate the need for MORE SERVICES (consequently, more service PROVIDERS).

Every successful removal is like another can of spinach to Popeye.
The statutes are written to cover every aspect of potential prosecution of a guilty parent…and guilty parents SHOULD be prosecuted APPROPRIATELY. What the laws and policies do NOT address is the potential prosecution of innocent parents. Laws are written in the conclusion that ANY parent indicated for abuse/neglect IS guilty, and the Due Process that is supposed to ensure that is a CORRECT assumption ceases to exist. There is no consideration to the contrary once an Indicated finding has been submitted.

When will the courts finally begin moving the over-population of legal orphans into the FEMA camps along with the rest of the refugees, undesirables and overflows from whatever else the system has caused through mismanagement and lack of accountability?

THINK ABOUT IT

Sharon Shay Watson, court corruption victim (loss of grandchild)

If anyone knows where she is, please hand her a phone and ask her to call her mother please.

As you all know, Lilly is in an abusive guardianship and was removed from her home under false premises (promised more education and a safe place to live) instead, she has been isolated from her family and has been put in a string of abusive nursing homes where she has been beaten and sexually assaulted and not provided with medical or dental care.

Her mother worries constantly about her and she is heartsick.

Please help Mary and Lily, if you can.

She was last seen at New Trails in Albany Missouri.

thanks

joanne

As most of you know, in the past, when the Mary Sykes case was going on, a fun thing to do was to as Sheriff Dart’s offices for proof of service on Mary when the case was going on for 5 years and she was never served.

The first time you do it and ask how Mary could have been guardianized and a case was running in Cook County for years without jurisdiction, all the employees go nuts and that’s fairly entertaining (of course, Judge Stuart should have just dismissed the case, but she’s long gone.  No clout for her.  But someone pretty powerful is protecting Justice Maureen Connors because she ran the Sykes case for years without jurisdiction and when the stuff hit the fan, she got promoted to the Court of Appeals!  Too funny.  But that’s how it works in Crook County.  You really screw up a case, there’s only 2 ways to go, one is out the door and the other is getting promoted).

So, just so you all know, today a probate court corruption client went to Room 701 and asked a Sheriff Dart employee for a copy of the Service papers on his mother, and that was met with a “you have to get a court order.”

Excuse me?  Either this person is covering up another lack of jurisdiction judge (Quinn), or Sheriff Dart needs some serious retraining of people in Room 701. Since 6th grade student in Illinois must pass an US Constitution test, perhaps this person never made it beyond 6th grade?

Court records and Service records are supposed to be public, not private, in an open, free and transparent democracy.

I hope someone from Room 701 reads this and posts it in that office on Monday.  Better yet, if you, my dear reader, are going down to the Daley Center on Monday, please print out a copy of this blog page and drop it off and ask whoever comes to the window in 701 to post a reminder to everyone that unless a case is sealed, Service Records are public and not private information. They are public property and not private property of the employees working there.

This is ridiculous.  Over and over, scores of posts on this blog have been on the issue of Service, Jurisdiction and copies of Court/Service files, and THERE IS STILL A PROBLEM?

I just don’t know how to say this any clearer.  The judge cannot take jurisdiction of a case until a person (defendant or respondent, generally) is properly served.  Service records are clearly public and belong to the public and should be accessible during normal business hours for inspection and copying.

In reality, all of this stuff should have been been put online back in 2000 and made available to the public.  That’s when the Federal Courts went to Pacer and put all their stuff online.

Dorothy Brown has been asked over and over to put all her court records online for 8 cents per page or less.  This has been going on for years.

Sheriff Dart should put his Service records online for 8 cents per page or less.

It’s time to end the moniker Crook County.  People are sick of this nonsense and we want and deserve better, much, much better.

JoAnne

Please call me if you can help.  Because the one is moving into a senior housing high rise, we have to move Mon to Fri, 9 to 5.  Please call me or text me if you can help 773 255 7608, or email me at justice4every1.com.

the move will be an ongoing process.  They have until the 15th to get out of their old place and into a new one.

The woman is about 60 and is very nice, just had eye surgery and is suppose to be on bed rest for another 5 weeks.  She did not get housing and is looking for a reasonably priced apartment or roommate situation.

The man has limited speaking ability, is paralyzed on one side and suffered a stroke/aneurysm at age 30 and he is now 62.

Both are on SSI disability.

If you can help, please contact me.

Thanks so much and take care.

Love and Light, namaste,

Joanne

From the Palm Beach Post

Advocates for guardianship reform clamored in vain for years that Florida’s system failed to properly protect incapacitated seniors, that its primary purpose had been perverted to line the pockets of greedy attorneys and professional guardians with the hard-earned life savings of the elderly.

Now they can point to a new federal verdict awarding a whopping $16.4 million in a lawsuit claiming that two West Palm Beach attorneys breached their fiduciary duties while running up “unnecessary and excessive fees” of $1 million.

“It’s really kind of a landmark case,” said Julian Bivins, who brought the suit as the personal representative of the estate of his father, Oliver, a Texas oil man. “It sends a message to these unscrupulous lawyers and guardians that they are not going to be able to get away with it anymore.”

The Bivins guardianship case emanates out of the court of Circuit Judge Martin Colin, the subject of an investigation by The Palm Beach Post into the judge’s conflicts of interest because his wife is a professional guardian.

Colin in open court had heaped praise on the attorneys who lost the case and refused to hold a hearing to decide whether the attorneys had “secretly” kept money from the sale of one of Oliver Bivins’ properties in an escrow account for more than a year, according to court documents.

The Post’s award-winning series featuring Colin, Guardianships: A Broken Trust, resulted in an overhaul of guardianship rules in Palm Beach County. Colin retired last December after he was transferred from the Probate & Guardianship Division because of The Post’s reporting.

Weeks after The Post published, Julian Bivins filed a motion to disqualify Colin, saying his concerns about the “close-knit atmosphere of the Guardians, their attorneys” and Colin had been “glaringly brought to light” in the stories.

Held captive?

The younger Bivins said he felt his father was “held captive” in South Florida by the guardianship so the attorneys could liquidate real estate assets — including a New York City Upper East Side mansion — and charge more fees. Colin granted an emergency order prohibiting the senior from returning to Texas.

The jury found on July 28 that attorneys Brian M. O’Connell and Ashley N. Crispin of the Ciklin, Lubitz & O’Connell firm not only breached their fiduciary duty but committed professional negligence.

The lawsuit claimed they failed to get appraisals on two high-end New York City properties being divided among family. They were not of equal value and as a result, Julian Bivins ended up with one that was worth millions less than other.

The jury’s decision to award $16.4 million makes up the difference.

But the fight over the property is far less important to reform advocates than the fact that attorneys who carry out the wishes of professional guardians and are paid with the ward’s money were held accountable.

“This case in one of the longtime hotbeds of guardianship abuse is a tipping point,” said Sam Sugar, director of Americans Against Abusive Probate Guardianship.

“This first salvo sends a serious message not only to the predatory guardians and lawyers who have been exploiting families all over Florida for decades but especially to the probate judges without whose complicity these cases could never happen.”

Oliver Bivins died at age 97 in March 2015. He ended up in the court-ordered guardianship when he visited his condominium in Palm Beach in 2011 and a social worker became concerned with his well-being, according to court documents.

+

Oliver Wilson Bivins Sr. passed away at age 97 in 2015 but his son continued to fight the professional guardian who … Read More

Oliver Bivins appeared to be coming to Florida for a weekend vacation, leaving his refrigerator in Texas fully stocked, plaintiff attorneys told the jury. His son said he often didn’t visit his Palm Beach condominium for years at a time.

The verdict takes a further step toward re-establishing that attorneys are supposed to represent the incapacitated ward, not the court-appointed professional guardian — a position many lawyers have argued in court to thwart families trying to rein in a fee frenzy.

“If it wasn’t for me, they would have completely depleted my dad’s estate,” said Julian Bivins, who now lives in Palm Beach. “I’ve been fighting them from the beginning to just get him back to Texas. Finally, I got him back there 35 days before he passed away.”

As with many family members who challenge the status quo in guardianship in Palm Beach County, Julian said he found himself relentlessly attacked in court. He was even sued by one of the guardians in the case, Curtis Rogers.

The biggest toll, he said, though, was his relationship with his father as Rogers told the elder Bivins that his son only wanted his money. “He turned my dad against me,” Julian Bivins said. “I could never explain to my father how he was being held for ransom, how they wouldn’t let him go.”

The Ciklin firm said it is confident it can prevail on post-trial motions in front of U.S. District Court Judge Kenneth Marra.

“We think the verdict was not in keeping with the law or the facts and, in fact, was considerably more than the plaintiff even asked for,” said Alan Ciklin, the firm’s managing partner. “We feel pretty good about our ability to have this reduced dramatically.”

Rogers, one of two professional guardians dismissed as defendants in the lawsuit, testified for more than two days at the trial. He told The Post he believes the younger Bivins financially took advantage of his father. “The verdict was a total shock to me,” he said. “I anticipated there was no way that type of verdict could be made.”

It may come as a shock to Judge Colin, as well.

Colin during a Feb. 3, 2016, hearing in the guardianship case bristled at the suggestion that the Ciklin Lubitz firm was not acting as a good custodian of Bivins’ assets. The senior’s son questioned why the firm had failed to turn over $472,000 from the sale of his father’s commercial property in New York City, requesting Colin refer their actions to the Florida Bar or keep them from holding onto the money.

“The Ciklin Lubitz law firm has a well-earned reputation of honesty. And this is honesty,” Colin said in court. “Not for a moment do I have any concern because their reputation is well-earned in this respect.”

Colin denied Julian Bivins’ request without hearing any evidence but ordered the firm to return about $400,000.

An attorney for Julian Bivins filed a motion to disqualify Colin because of those statements, but the judge denied it.

“We never got anything done in his court,” Julian said. “We complained about the amount of the fees and he (Colin) cut them down 25 percent, but then we had to pay their fees for them to defend those fees. So they just made it back.”

Guardianship Catch-22

It is in this Catch-22 that families often find themselves when trying to decide whether to fight unethical actions by a professional guardian: Either way they pay, and either way the lawyers’ wallets grow fatter.

The guardianship issue is being looked at by a task force formed by Florida Supreme Court Justice Jorge Labarga. The state Legislature established the new Office of Public & Professional Guardianship as a result of lobbying by advocacy groups and others about lawyers and guardians siphoning off fees.

Attorney Greg Coleman, past president of The Florida Bar, wrote to the work group in June to alert it to “inappropriate, improper and illegal activities of a very small number of Florida attorneys” practicing in the guardianship arena.

“Unfortunately, the way guardianship statutes and rules are currently constituted allows for a window of exploitation by bad attorneys and bad guardians for their own personal monetary gain,” said Coleman, who was not associated with the Bivins guardianship or any of the relating litigation.

Coleman said everything is moving in the right direction for seniors. “The issue has the (Florida Supreme) Court’s attention, I can tell you,” he said. “It is not something that is being ignored or swept under the rug.”

+

Oliver Wilson Bivins Sr. was an oil man whose family were pioneers in Amarillo, Texas. He visited his Florida condo infrequently … Read More

Dominoes falling?

Sugar’s grassroots-group based out of Hollywood was the force behind legislative reform last year. He said the verdict in Bivins is a sign “the dominoes are starting to fall.”

Several years ago Sugar could barely get a conference with key Florida lawmakers. Now his group has spearheaded legislation and made guardianship an issue around the country. Sugar pointed to the recent federal indictment of a professional guardianship firm in New Mexico, charging the owners with stealing millions from seniors, as an example that justice could be done for these seniors.

Attorneys who represented the Bivins family — Charles D. Bavol and Ron Denman of The Bleakley Bavol law firm in Tampa — compared the trial to a climactic brawl from the movie Rocky. The Ciklin defendants knocked out their expert witness and cited attorney-client privilege in refusing to turn over crucial emails between the Ciklin lawyers and the guardians. The son’s testimony persuaded the jury, his lawyers said.

“What the defendants did in this case was wrong,” Denman told the jury. “It was legally wrong, what they did was ethically wrong, and what they did was morally wrong.”

Bavol and Denman said the verdict builds off a 2015 state court appellate finding out of Palm Beach County, ruling that the guardianship attorneys’ duty is to the incapacitated adult, not the professional guardian.

The 4th District Court of Appeal in recent years has reined in circuit courts in Palm Beach County that reform advocates say patently favor professional guardians and their attorneys. Still, advocates such as Sugar say they hear about abuses almost daily in the guardianship courts.

Bavol and Denman said the verdict underscores the need for accountability from guardians and their lawyers.

“Based on this significant jury verdict and the ongoing investigative journalism in Southern Florida concerning professional guardianships, the need for reform of the guardianship system to protect Florida’s elderly citizens is again underscored,” the lawyers said in a news release.

For those of you that are facing an appeal, your Record on Appeal can now be filed on line. (Hint: this is the easy new part).  Go to the Dorothy Brown Clerk of Court Website and click on Appellate efiling.

Now that was the easy part.

Next are filing the Record on Appeal (once you get it) online and the Docketing Statement.

So you go to the Court of Appeals/Supreme Court website and you try to find the portal.

You click on “ebusiness”.  No apparent portal.

So here’s the secret (and this is proof of too many corrupt cases and don’t dare file an appeal and we’ll put your screwed up case in a non citeable “Rule 23” Opinion), you have to click on one of “The Choices” for efiling in the 1st district court of appeals.

Now you can click about a dozen links on the SCOI/court of appeals website and go no where.

This process is about as obscure as it could be.  There is no “easy” button on efiling the 1st district court of appeals, nor is there any “click here stupid” link.

What is wrong with a “click here stupid to file your 1st dist. court of appeals stuff”?

Nope, they’re not going there.

So here is the secret:

Go here:  http://efile.illinoiscourts.gov/service-providers.htm

I guess this is good, there is competition and you can compare benefits.

I’ll give you a hint, choose the first link, the fee is free. Free is good for my indigent/middle class clients.

Odyessy does a good job, but once you get there, you will never remember the URL, so bookmark it. If you don’t know how to use a bookmark, ask a kid or someone under 30, or call me. I won’t even make fun of you like those under 30 will.

Set up an account and bingo, you can efile your Docketing Statement and your briefs.

If you click from the Dorothy Brown Clerk of Court website, you can get to Pat O’brien’s Chief of Appeals website to upload your transcripts (assuming the court provided a court reporter and you can afford to pay for them, or better yet, you got a private court reporter and don’t have to worry about someone changing them, or the court reporter was unlicensed, like they do at the IARDC–the ARDC will NEVER live that down, as long as I am alive and that will be for quite a few more decades thank you attys Larkin, Smart, Opryszek, Splitt and others. Go for it, you turned the ARDC into a circus with your prosecution of the only real, honest attorney out there).

So here is the secret to the new stuff and appealing all those corrupt probate, child custody and foreclosure cases.

Call me if you have tech problems or want to report those miscreant attorneys and judges now.  That’s what I do now and I do it for free. Just a donation. Free is always the best, esp. if you are making min. wage or nearly that.

Illinois can no longer be for the clouted, wealthy and elite. The people have to take it back.   And that means supporting the attorneys that work for free or low cost (me). I am the real thing, and no, the ARDC can’t stop me from helping everyone, the best I can.

Has the ARDC helped you?  Has the ARDC given you your money back when attorneys take it and don’t do the work?  Probably not. They don’t care, but they’re supposed to do that and protect the public.

Help me in turning the State of Illinois honest and accountable today.

Support this work. Search for me for grants.  I am here and I am not going away.

I turn away no one, I help everyone.  I do as much as I can do.

peace and light everyone

Joanne

From Law 360 and my friend Nejla Lane:

So last week, I received a cease and desist letter from Judge Larsen of the Circuit Court.  I called right away to find out what it was about and asked for her email.

No response.

So then I drafted a letter in response.

She claims I published her “personal information” and that of her husband, which I don’t get, it’s all public information and SHE, not me, caused it all to be published with her own signatures and that of her husband.

It all runs smack dab up against the First Amendment to the US Constitution and the Illinois Free Speech clause.

She is making these douments public herself, by her own personal signature and her own personal actions.  She doesn’t want them on a blog.  I think it looks questionable.  Many of my readers think it all looks questionable.

She asks for a response in 72 hours and doesn’t give enough information, including the specific URL what is offending her and her husband.

Hmmm, more fish to look at.

She perfectly knows well the rule is now according to SCOI, you have to put your email on pleadings.  She has not sent me her email or any email at all.

But I have angels on my side and after a period of time and prayer, they got the entire situation to me, as they always do.

So, below is her letter, which I don’t get.  Why would she accuse me of divulging personal information when she well knows that the Cook County Recorder of Deeds puts property information on their website?  Seems strange.

It’s also relevant to her job and the right of the public to know who is taking salaries that are really taxpayer funds.

It’s nothing that should not be published every time the Sun Times recommends a judge or politician for that matter.  They recommend, they should publish property records in a discernible manner.

Here is her very strange letter, which I can’t figure out and which she has not responded to any inquiry.

State of Illinois
Circuit Court of Cook County
Chicago. illinoiS 60602
July 21, 2017

Joanne Denison

5330 W Devon Ave, #6

Chicago, IL 60646
It has come to my attention that you have published on the internet personal
information regarding myself, Including but not limited to information concerning my
residence. In accordance with the provisions of “The Judicial Privacy Act!’ (70S ILCS 90/2-5 et
seq.) (the “Act”), I hereby request that you cease and desist in publishing any personal
information regarding myself. I further request that you remove from any internet site under your direction or control any personal information regarding myself that has already been posted. This request specifically includes, without limitation, the personal information posted on the following web address http://www.Marygsykes.com.This judicial request also includes a request to cease and desist in the publication of any personal information of my spouse Edward Maliszewski and a request for removal of all such personal information posted to date.
To assist. you in compliance with the Act, I am enclosing a copy along with this
request of the Rule. Your prompt attention to this matter within 72 hours, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, is expected.
Respectfully,
Diane Joan Larsen
Judge of the Circuit Court
of Cook County
705 TLCS 90/2-5
Statutes current through the P.A. 100-19 of the 2017 Regular Legislative Session
illinois C01lf]JUed Statutes Annotated> Chapter 705 COURTS> JUDICIARY> Judicial Privacy Act>
Article 2. Civil Provisions
705 ILCS 90/2-5 Publicly posting It judicial officer’s personal information on tbe
Internet by persons, businesses, and associations
(a) Prohibited Conduct.
(1) All persons, businesses, and associations shall refrain from publicly posting or
displaying on the Internet publicly available content that includes a judicial
officer’s personal information, provided that the judicial officer has made a
written request to the person, business, or association that it refrain from
disclosing the personal information.
(2) No person, business, or association shall solicit, sell, or trade on the Internet a
judicial officer’s personal information with the intent to pose an imminent and
serious threat to the health and safety of the judicial officer or the judicial
officer’s immediate family.
(3) This subsection includes, but is not limited to, Internet phone directories, Internet
search engines, Internet data aggregators, and Internet service providers.
(b) Required Conduct.
(1) After a person, business, or association has received a written request from a
judicial officer to protect the privacy of the officer’s personal information, that
person, business, or association shall have 72 hours to remove the personal
information from the Internet.
(2) After a person, business, or association has received a written request from a
judicial officer, that person, business, or association shall ensure that the judicial
officer’s personal information is not made available on any website or subsidiary
website controlled by that person, business, or association.
(3) After receiving a judicial officer’s written request, no person, business, or
association shall transfer the judicial officer’s personal information to any other
person, business, or association through any medium.
(c) Redress.

History
Page 2 of 2
705 ILCS 9012-5
A judicial officer whose personal information is made public as a result of a
violation of this Act may bring an action seeking injunctive or declaratory relief
in any court of competent jurisdiction. If the court grants injunctive or
declaratory relief, the person, business, or association responsible for the
violation shall be required to pay the judicial officer’s costs and reasonable
attorney’s fees.
P.A. 97-847, § 2-5.
Illinois Compiled Statutes Annotated
Copyright © 2017 Matthew Bender & Company, Inc.
member of the LexisNexis Group. All rights reserved.
End of Document

Comment: my OCR/scan isn’t the best equipment because, as you know, I work on a budget being a not for profit and a 501-c-3.

the link to the original letter can be found here:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwVWZaVjFZeDlrTjQ

Here is my response.  I assume because she reads my blog, she will read my response here because she didn’t enclose a SASE or an email address and I called for one.  I would have asked her for a prepublication comment, but somehow I suspect she isn’t interested:

JUSTICE 4 EVERY1, NFPJUSTICE 4 EVERY1, NFP5330 W. Devon Ave. #6         JoAnne Denison, Executive Director*Chicago, IL 60646 Cell Phone 773-255-7608ph 312-553-1300 http://www.justice4every1.comfax 312-553-1307 JoAnne@Justice4Every1.comVolunteer: Lisa Scully, court corruption victim.

July 29, 2017
Hon. Diane Joan LarsenJudge, Circuit Court Cook County50 W. Washington St, Courtroom 2405Chicago, IL 60602
RE: Your Cease and Desist letter of July 21, 2017
Dear Judge Larson;
I called your offices to try to respond to your request in 72 hours, and asked for your email, but never received it.  Accordingly, I am responding by snail mail or my volunteer, who ever gets there first.
In the future, please put your correct address, including an email on all correspondence if you would like a prompt response.
To begin with, I had a great deal of difficulty in researching your request regarding your “personal information.”  You did not include a specific URL or printout of your allegedly offending material.  Accordingly, saying something appears on a blog with thousands of posts over 5 years with hundred of comments is like referring to finding a person with a common name in Chicago without a street address or phone.  We don’t generally publish any “personal information” and are not really interested in anyone’s personal information.  Our research and interests lie in that which occurs in public and which is part of the public records.
Unfortunately, with the internet, there is probably not much left on earth or in the universe that is likely no longer public, and I guess we all have to deal with that.
You additionally did not specify the particular URL to which you were referring to, nor did you enclose copies of the offending material.  However, since I have a lot of guides and angels to help me, even with your limited information, this did not take me too long, just a couple of days.
I initially did a search in the box on top of the website, http://www.marygsykes.com, but found nothing under your name or “Larsen”–just dozens of references to Michael Larsen’s book on court corruption, which I assume you are not concerned about.
Then it dawned on me to look at my Gdrive which contains a synopsis of judge’s records at the Recorder of Deeds which lists only public information summarized from there–warranty deeds, recorded mortgages and releases.  Although I did not specifically recall the reason why your property records were analyzed, there must have been a request from the general public.  Often people will complain about a judge engaging in activities they find to be suspicious, and ask for a analysis of Cook County Recorder’s Offices information, which I will often do.  If the results are or may be of interest, they are published on my blog as an example of suspicious financial dealing which requires further investigation, and also they are sent to the US DOJ and the FBI.
I do not recall the specific request for the analysis; however, the information published is not private or personal, but taken from readily available internet sources.  You will have to discuss the matter further with Karen Yarborough, Recorder of Deeds and her Website, but it my understanding that the Recorder of Deeds is required by law, and pursuant to Constitutional guidelines to keep the property records of a democracy free, open and transparent.  As a result, all the documents mentioned in the synopsis were put on public record with your consent or the consent of your attorneys and agents.  You, yourself, and your husband signed these deeds and legal instruments, knew they would be recorded publicly, and they were in fact made public. I had nothing whatsoever to do with that process.
Accordingly, I have to assert that this information, published anywhere on the internet and obtained legally and by law (other than what you cite) is protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution and the Illinois Constitution.
While doing my research to find out how my blog, http://www.marygsykes.com is connected to your name, Diane Joan Larsen, circuit court Cook County Judge, while I found absolutely no connection on a Google search, I did find several nice articles on how you had supported some very progressive and helpful caselaw. One such article is where you struck down damage caps.  Good job.
But on the other hand, we do know that obtaining a judgeship in Cook County is not a badge of honor.  It is nefariously political in nature and too many articles show it to be highly suspect. It is said by some attorneys, the “bid” is now up to $150k or more. It is up to $250k for a federal judgeship. What is the quid quo pro for that?  Recently, a female attorney running for prosecutor in a small farming county was caught with $500k in her campaign fund.  What was that for?  In addition, all judgeships in Cook County go through Ald. Ed Burke, which is a real problem if any judge wants to assert the innocence of Ceasar’s Wife and claim that their position is not suspect in and of itself.
I hope you will continue to work as you did on the case which struck down damage caps in malpractice.
I hope you understand that asking me to take down information on a blog is a very serious matter in light of the US and Illinois Constitutions. My blog states clearly I subscribe to the Code of Ethics for Journalists, though I do not have a degree Journalism, for integrity purposes, nothing is removed from my blog.  I am not inclined to do anything about your Cease and Desist letter, but I do wish you would have emailed me first and sent me a complete URL so I could figure out what you were asking, but then again, it is fun to ask the angels, right?  They always seem to come through.
If you would like to have me publish or republish articles on your good works to protect Illinois citizens from over reaching by clouted corporations on my blog, I would be glad to do so. You are also invited to publish comments on posts.  That is your right and I grant you that right.  No reasonable requests are denied.
I am always interested in articles on how pro se litigants can be protected.  In particular, I really need articles on how it is a Constitutional right to proceed pro se in court and courts have to stop telling people they cannot appear or proceed without an attorney.  At $200-$400 per hour, a person who is disabled, elderly, sick or making minimum wage simply cannot afford an attorney and there are no private low cost or free attorneys (or no where near enough of them) to represent the disabled, elderly, sick and indigent or working poor. Legal clinics are a joke at best and completely ineffective.  It is the worst tragedy these pro se litigants rarely see any justice at all and they are routinely maligned, stabbed in the back and made fun of in court.  It’s sad.  Too sad.  Where is justice for “the people”?
I trust this dispenses with the issue of “personal information.”  You might want to review the case of In re Weddington (published elsewhere on my blog) where the 4th Dist. Court of Appeals Illinois in its concurring opinion gave an excellent history of the First Amendment, and stated that the courts have absolutely no jurisdiction over social media, which would include my Word Press blog.  Your information was public.  You even signed these documents and gave them to your attorneys to record on a public forum knowing they would be made public–for the rest of all eternity.  This information lost its “personal” nature years ago–but only at your personal, signed request.
You are welcome to write an article, which I will publish, on why your property records are innocent of any wrong doing or how they are personal information to be protected when you caused them to be published on a public forum.  You may also write an article on how the passing of $150k to the DNC is an entirely innocent action to obtain a judgeship in the Circuit Court of Cook County with no quid pro quo involved even though we already know that judges make only $150k to $180k annually, so what is the ROI on that one?   Sorry to be so skeptical.  I do not mean to be overly critical of the judiciary in Illinois.
I would like to know.  My blog fans would like to know.  We would like to know why judgeships are still being channeled through one entity–Ed Burke and that’s a troublesome name at best.
I personally would like to know, since you are a chancery judge, why chancery judges are routinely and wrongfully dismissing counterclaims by pro se litigants (Kang Hong Lee and Greg Groeper). I have a lot of questions for my readers but no answers so far.  Elena Federova wants to know why her counterclaims were routinely dismissed and why her small HOA fee turned into a loss of an entire condo with massive fees.  I want to know that too.  Doesn’t look too good, now does it?
In peace and light and many blessings,
Joanne Denison
cc: http://www.marygsykes.comTimothy Evans, Presiding Judge, via email

here is the full letter with footnotes:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwYzJiUWJVWEcxc2M

So, my dear blog fans, does anyone have any insight on her letter.  Why is Presiding Judge Timothy Evans even allowing judges to send out these letters which run right up against the First Amendment to the US Constitution and directly undermine it?

I have a lot of questions for her.  I assume she reads the blog.

Judge Larsen, you can email me at joanne@jutice4every1.com if you have a response and I would be glad to publish, or you can just post a comment below and I will be glad to approve it.

My readers want to know what this is all about. Why are you claiming that information already divulged to the public is private in nature.  Why are you sending out a cease and desist letter to me and not Karen Yarborough who has the original information.

And why isn’t the Chicago Suntimes and Tribune and Crain’s already digging into this stuff as a matter of routine, especially before they rate judges as “recommended” or “highly recommended”?  What about Judge Anne Loftus who wrongfully is part of denying Ken Ditkowsky’s First Amendment rights to publish corruption on this blog before she is “somehow” “recommended” by the Suntimes?  Do they not look at these issues?  People want to know.

When the Suntimes, Tribune or Crian’s recommends a judge, they better have investigated this stuff and made it public.  The public has a right to know.

And finally, I have absolutely  no idea why a powerful, wealthy, clouted circuit court judge would send me a letter, any letter at all.  I don’t get it.  I have no money, power, no wealthy clouted friends, I am a mother of 4 and a nerd with a degree in Thermo Mechanical Engineering.  You can’t get more benign than that one.  Why would she ever stoop so low to read my blog?  I don’t get it.  She should be sending her letters to those in control–the president, the whitehouse, the state governors, etc.  Really important clouted people with money who can help her ambitions. for power and wealth and influence  I have no ambition other than to help the poor, the elderly, the disabled and those in need.  I don’t care if they have money or not.  Pretty much no one has money or worse yet, any hope.  For sure, the people I serve have no money, power, wealth or clout.

I can’t figure for the life of me how such a lowly person got on the radar of someone very important, clouted and powerful.  Same with the ARDC, what’s all that about.  You would think the DOJ and FBI would investigate because it all looks so utterly strange.

Thanks

JoAnne