From KKD–What is testi-lying? Apparently the police know all about this term–you take the truth and stretch it out and out and out, until the truth is lightyears away.

From  Joanne:
Now you would think that with all the surveillance cameras, cell phones, dash board cams, body dams, the incidence of anyone lying would be practically nil.
Apparently not for the police.  Now studies show that psychopaths are drawn to jobs like police, judge, lawyer and we should be testing all those individuals first with a PET brain scan, but apparently no one cares that our professions are packed with lying, cheating scum the tax payers support.
For a new great video and series on psychopathy, see this lady.  She explains in detail how these people infiltrate, take control and then eventually ruin an entire organization.
We see that with judges at the Daley center, with the ARDC.  Apparently I am told that the JIB contains the names of a number of individuals that have the same last names as many judges on the bench and that seems to explain the fact that while hundreds of valid complaints against judges are submitted per year, only a handful result in any discipline, let alone removal.
From Dr. Karen Horton on psychopaths, how to identify them:
From Ken Ditkowsky:
Perjury is not a crime anymore – it is routine.   adjustments in the truth to meet a scenario is commonplace.   The electoral advertisements are replete with outright lies!    The half truths published in the media along with the distortions are now legend.    Why should the Police and law enforcement get into the act!
Here in Chicago just before the last mayoral election a young man with a deep hue to his skin was shot 16 times by the a policeman.   An election was being held and the Mayor might lose the election if word of the shooting were to get out!   What happened:    The City council met and voted 5 million dollars of hush money to be paid to keep the atrocity secret until after the election.   All 50 Alderman voted to pay the bribe!   The mayor was elected and the Police Department was charged with a COVER UP!    Details of the ‘cover up’ by the MAYOR’S POLITICAL MACHINE were and are still being kept secret.    Mention this and Stromy something or other becomes the center of the conversation.
—– Forwarded Message —–
To: Kenneth Ditkowsky <>
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2018, 10:33:55 PM CDT
Subject: False testimony by the police in routine cases is so prevalent it’s known as “testilying.” Even when exposed, it rarely hurts careers.
Kimberly Thomas was arrested on gun charges in the Bronx that were later dropped. “For 396 days I have been fighting for my life, my freedom and my sanity,” she said. CreditHilary Swift for The New York Times

Officer Nector Martinez took the witness stand in a Bronx courtroom on Oct. 10, 2017, and swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help him God.

There had been a shooting, Officer Martinez testified, and he wanted to search a nearby apartment for evidence. A woman stood in the doorway, carrying a laundry bag. Officer Martinez said she set the bag down “in the middle of the doorway” — directly in his path. “I picked it up to move it out of the way so we could get in.”

The laundry bag felt heavy. When he put it down, he said, he heard a “clunk, a thud.”

What might be inside?

Officer Martinez tapped the bag with his foot and felt something hard, he testified. He opened the bag, leading to the discovery of a Ruger 9-millimeter handgun and the arrest of the woman.

But a hallway surveillance camera captured the true story: There’s no laundry bag or gun in sight as Officer Martinez and other investigators question the woman in the doorway and then stride into the apartment. Inside, they did find a gun, but little to link it to the woman, Kimberly Thomas. Still, had the camera not captured the hallway scene, Officer Martinez’s testimony might well have sent her to prison.






When Ms. Thomas’s lawyer sought to play the video in court, prosecutors in the Bronx dropped the case. Then the court sealed the case file, hiding from view a problem so old and persistent that the criminal justice system sometimes responds with little more than a shrug: false testimony by the police.

Continue reading the main story


  • New York Detective Charged with Faking Lineup Results FEB. 27, 2018

  • He Excelled as a Detective, Until Prosecutors Stopped Believing Him  OCT. 10, 2017

“Behind closed doors, we call it testilying,” a New York City police officer, Pedro Serrano, said in a recent interview, echoing a word that officers coined at least 25 years ago. “You take the truth and stretch it out a little bit.”

An investigation by The New York Times has found that on more than 25 occasions since January 2015, judges or prosecutors determined that a key aspect of a New York City police officer’s testimony was probably untrue. The Times identified these cases — many of which are sealed — through interviews with lawyers, police officers and current and former judges.

In these cases, officers have lied about the whereabouts of guns, putting them in suspects’ hands or waistbands when they were actually hidden out of sight. They have barged into apartments and conducted searches, only to testify otherwise later. Under oath, they have given firsthand accounts of crimes or arrests that they did not in fact witness. They have falsely claimed to have watched drug deals happen, only to later recant or be shown to have lied.

No detail, seemingly, is too minor to embellish. “Clenched fists” is how one Brooklyn officer described the hands of a man he claimed had angrily approached him and started screaming and yelling — an encounter that prosecutors later determined never occurred. Another officer, during a Bronx trial, accused a driver of recklessly crossing the double-yellow line — on a stretch of road that had no double-yellow line.

In many instances, the motive for lying was readily apparent: to skirt constitutional restrictions against unreasonable searches and stops. In other cases, the falsehoods appear aimed at convicting people — who may or may not have committed a crime — with trumped-up evidence.

In still others, the motive is not easy to discern. In October 2016, for example, a plainclothes Brooklyn officer gave a grand jury a first-person account of a gun arrest. Putting herself in the center of the action, the officer, Dornezia Agard, testified that as she approached a man to confront him for littering, he suddenly crouched behind a van, pulled from his waistband a dark object — later identified as a gun — and threw it on the ground.

“P.O. Agard testified that she heard a hard metal object hit the ground,” according to a letter the Brooklyn district attorney’s office wrote summarizing her testimony.

But prosecutors lost faith in her account in July 2017, after learning from other officers that she was not among the first officers on the scene. Officer Agard had arrived later as backup, according to the letter, which noted that the gun charges against the man were later dismissed. The prosecutors did not address why Officer Agard claimed to be a witness, or why the other officers present seem to have allowed her to process the arrest.

Police lying raises the likelihood that the innocent end up in jail — and that as juries and judges come to regard the police as less credible, or as cases are dismissed when the lies are discovered, the guilty will go free. Police falsehoods also impede judges’ efforts to enforce constitutional limits on police searches and seizures.

“We have 36,000 officers with law enforcement power, and there are a small handful of these cases every year,” said J. Peter Donald, a spokesman for the Police Department, the nation’s largest municipal force. “That doesn’t make any of these cases any less troubling. Our goal is always, always zero. One is too many, but we have taken significant steps to combat this issue.”

Shrouded, but Persistent

The 25 cases identified by The Times are almost certainly only a fraction of those in which officers have come under suspicion for lying in the past three years. That’s because a vast majority of cases end in plea deals before an officer is ever required to take the witness stand in open court, meaning the possibility that an officer lied is seldom aired in public. And in the rare cases when an officer does testify in court — and a judge finds the testimony suspicious, leading to the dismissal of the case — the proceedings are often sealed afterward.

Still, the cases identified by The Times reveal an entrenched perjury problem several decades in the making that shows little sign of fading.

So far in 2018, a Queens detective has been convicted of lying in a drug case and a Brooklyn detective has been arrested amid accusations that he fabricated the results of a photo lineup. These cases returned the phenomenon of police lying to the public eye, leaving police officials to defend the integrity of honest officers.

Kevin Richardson, the Police Department’s top internal prosecutor, said he believed so-called testilying was nearing its end. “I think it’s a problem that’s very much largely on its way out,” he said.

Indeed, it’s tempting to think about police lying as a bygone of past eras: a form of misconduct that ran unchecked as soaring street violence left the police overwhelmed during the 1980s and early 1990s and that re-emerged as police embraced stop-and-frisk tactics and covered up constitutional violations with lies.

But false testimony by the police persists even as crime has drastically receded across the city and as the Police Department has renounced the excesses of the stop-and-frisk years.

Some policing experts anticipate that the ubiquity of cameras — whether on cellphones, affixed to buildings or worn by officers — will greatly reduce police lying. For the moment, however, video seems more capable of exposing lies than vanquishing them.

Memory and Manipulation

In two recent cases, The Times found, officers appear to have given false accounts about witness identifications. These cases are particularly troubling because erroneous identifications by witnesses have been a leading cause of wrongful convictions.

After a 2016 mugging near a Brooklyn subway station, the police arrested a group of four people, one of whom was found to be in possession of the victim’s wallet. In preparing the case, prosecutors sought to pin down a few basic facts. Had the police brought the victim, who was punched and had his wallet taken, to positively identify the four suspects after they were taken into custody? If so, what had the victim said?

Getting a straight answer from the arresting officer, Chedanan Naurang, proved nearly impossible. It had been Officer Naurang’s quick thinking that had made the arrest possible: Having lost the suspects at one subway station, he followed a hunch and drove one stop down the line, where he caught up with the four men after they got off the train.

But certain details Officer Naurang gave prosecutors kept shifting over the next year, according to a February 2017 letter that prosecutors wrote in which they summarized his fluid story.

Officer Naurang said at one point that the identification had occurred inside a police station when the victim passed by the holding cells, saw the men and confirmed their involvement in the crime.

A few weeks later, he backtracked. No, the victim had actually never gotten to see the suspects at the police station, Officer Naurang explained. Instead, the victim had gotten a chance to view them on the street, shortly after their arrest. That’s when the victim got out of the police vehicle in which he had been waiting, Officer Naurang said, and pointed to one of the four men, identifying him as an attacker.

This version of events, however, was at odds with the recollection of the police officer who had driven the victim to the scene of the arrest. That officer, Christopher McDonald, told prosecutors that the victim had remained in the back seat while viewing the four suspects. And Officer McDonald said that the victim couldn’t say whether they were his assailants. He thought he recognized their clothing, but wasn’t sure.

Because of Officer Naurang’s changing story, prosecutors dropped the case against the men as part of a deal in which all four pleaded guilty to charges stemming from a second mugging they were accused of the same night.

Continue reading the main story


Detective Michael Foder, right, walked out of Federal District Court in Brooklyn accompanied by his lawyer, James Moschella, after his February arraignment on perjury charges. CreditVictor J. Blue for The New York Times

Another case in which the police gave false information about a witness identification came after a carjacking in Brooklyn in 2015. In that case, the police began to focus on two suspects based on an anonymous tip and a fingerprint. A detective, Michael Foder, testified that he had then prepared two photo lineups — one for each suspect.

Each consisted of the suspect’s photograph printed on a sheet of paper, alongside the photos of “fillers” — people of vaguely similar appearance with no connection to the crime. The hope was that the victim, a livery cabdriver, might recognize the suspect’s photo and pick him out — an outcome that prosecutors regard as a strong indicator of a suspect’s guilt.

That’s what happened, Detective Foder testified, when the victim came to the precinct to view the photo lineup for one suspect in November 2015 and returned in February 2016 to view one for the second suspect.

But the photo lineups that Detective Foder had prepared — and were submitted as evidence in federal court — were fabrications. It was a federal prosecutor who first realized that many of the photos used in the lineups were not yet available at the time Detective Foder claimed to have shown them to the victim. The reason? The photos of some of the fillers had yet to be taken.

The lineup that was said to be from November 2015 included filler photographs that were not taken until December. And the one he claimed to have administered in February featured photos that were taken in March.

Last month, Detective Foder was indicted on federal perjury charges. The indictment accuses him of lying to “conceal the fact that he had falsified documentation” related to the photo lineups. Detective Foder’s lawyer entered a plea of not guilty on the detective’s behalf.


A prosecutor discovered that many of the photos in the array Detective Foder said he had shown the victim Feb. 14, 2016, were not even taken until after that date.

Justifying a Search

Detective Foder’s actions appear to be aimed at tilting the scales toward guilt.

But more often, The Times found, false statements by the police seem intended to hide illegal searches and seizures, such as questionable car stops or entries into apartments that result in officers finding guns or drugs. If the truth were to emerge that the case began with an illegal police search, the evidence would quite likely be thrown out and the case dismissed.

Blue Lies

A series of stories examining the entrenched culture of ‘testilying’ in the New York Police Department.

    The story that Christopher Thomas, a plainclothes police officer, told a grand jury in December 2014 sounded plausible enough. As he approached a parked car with a flashlight in hand, he said, he saw a man in the driver’s seat pull a firearm out of his waistband and stick it between the car’s center console and the front seat. The driver was indicted on gun-possession charges.

    But by July 2015, as video of the encounter was about to emerge, Officer Thomas started backtracking. In conversations with the assistant district attorney on the case, Officer Thomas acknowledged that he had not seen the driver pull the gun from his waistband. In fact, he said, he had never seen the driver with his hand on the gun.

    “He stated to the A.D.A. that he did not know why he had testified to those facts before the grand jury,” according to an email prosecutors later sent to a defense lawyer. This email, as well as several similar letters that prosecutors sent in other cases, were provided to The Times by Cynthia Conti-Cook, a Legal Aid Society lawyer who has been compiling a database of police misconduct allegations.

    The video undermined Officer Thomas’s original claim of having seen the gun at the outset. It shows Officer Thomas and his partner approach the car and shine their flashlights inside. Their demeanor on the video suggests that they had seen nothing so far to cause alarm. One of the two officers — either Officer Thomas or his partner — is so unconcerned that he bends down for about seven seconds, and appears to tie his shoe.

    Continue reading the main story

    Continue reading the main story

    Brooklyn prosecutors dismissed the gun case and, according to the prosecutors’ email, informed the Police Department’s Internal Affairs Bureau about the problems with Officer Thomas’s account. An internal police disciplinary process led to Officer Thomas losing 30 vacation days and being placed on dismissal probation for a year, according to a person familiar with the case.

    He is now a sergeant in a narcotics unit.

    Officer Thomas is not the only officer to have tried to withdraw earlier testimony as soon as video of an encounter emerged, or was about to.

    “I misspoke when I was in grand jury,” Sean Kinane, an officer with the 52nd Precinct in the Bronx, testified in federal court in 2016. That was all the explanation he gave, or was asked to give, for why he was recanting his earlier testimony about witnessing what appeared to be narcotics transactions in the moments before he stopped a heroin dealer in the street.

    That claim, if true, would have given the police justification to stop the man, who was discovered to be carrying 153 glassine envelopes of heroin and eight bags of crack cocaine. But after the drug dealer managed to get a video recording of the encounter, Officer Kinane’s story changed. He had misspoken.

    Reached by telephone for comment, Detective Kinane — he was promoted in 2017 — hung up.

    ‘No Fear of Being Caught’

    Many police officials and experts express optimism that the prevalence of cameras will reduce police lying. As officers begin to accept that digital evidence of an encounter will emerge, lying will be perceived as too risky — or so the thinking goes.

    “Basically it’s harder for a cop to lie today,” the Police Department’s top legal official, Lawrence Byrne, said last year at a New York City Bar Association event, noting that there were millions of cellphones on the streets of New York, each with a camera. “There is virtually no enforcement encounter where there isn’t immediate video of what the officers are doing.”

    As more police encounters are recorded — whether on the cellphones of bystanders or the body-worn cameras of officers — false police testimony is being exposed in cases where the officer’s word might once have carried the day. That is true for run-of-the-mill drug cases as well as for police shootings so notorious that they are seared into the national consciousness.

    Yet interviews with officers suggest the prevalence of cameras alone won’t end police lying. That’s because even with cameras present, some officers still figure — with good reason — that a lie is unlikely to be exposed. Because plea deals are a typical outcome, it’s rare for a case to develop to the point where the defendant can question an officer’s version of events at a hearing.

    “There’s no fear of being caught,” said one Brooklyn officer who has been on the force for roughly a decade. “You’re not going to go to trial and nobody is going to be cross-examined.”

    The percentage of cases that progress to the point where an officer is cross-examined is tiny. In 2016, for instance, there were slightly more than 185 guilty pleas, dismissals or other non-trial outcomes for each criminal case in New York City that went to trial and reached a verdict. There were 1,460 trial verdicts in criminal cases that year, while 270,304 criminal cases were resolved without a trial.

    To be sure, officers are sometimes called to testify before trial at so-called suppression hearings in which the legality of police conduct is evaluated. But those are rare. In Manhattan, about 2.4 percent of felony criminal cases have a suppression hearing, according to data from the Manhattan district attorney’s office. The rate for non-felony cases is slightly more than one-tenth of 1 percent.

    Continue reading the main story


    Officer Pedro Serrano said he doesn’t engage in “testilying,” but he said it remains a problem in the New York City Police Department. “You take the truth and stretch it out a little bit.” CreditKarsten Moran for The New York Times

    A Crucial Court Decision

    Several officers, all working in the Bronx and Brooklyn, candidly described in interviews how the practice of lying runs like a fault line through precincts. “You’re either a ‘lie guy’ or you’re not,” said the Brooklyn officer. Speaking on condition of anonymity, he described how he avoided certain officers and units in his precinct based on his discomfort with the arrests they made.

    Earlier in his career, he said, a supervisor and a detective had each encouraged him to lie about the circumstances of drug arrests. Another time, he said, he had worked with an officer who, after discovering drugs while searching a suspect without cause, turned to the other officers present with a question — “How did we find this?” — and sought their help devising a false story.

    Countless police officers have struggled with that question — “How did we find this?” — ever since 1961, when the Supreme Court ruled, in Mapp v. Ohio, that state judges must throw out evidence from illegal searches and seizures. Before this ruling, New York City officers could stop someone they thought might be dealing or using drugs, search their pockets and clothing, describe the encounter truthfully, and not worry that a court would throw out the drugs that they had discovered, even though the stop and search had been, strictly speaking, illegal. That changed with the Mapp decision, which greatly expanded the reach of the Fourth Amendment.

    Immediately after the Mapp case, police officers saw many narcotics cases be dismissed. Then they made what one judge called “the great discovery.” If they testified that the suspect had dropped a bag of drugs on the ground as the police approached, courts would generally deem those arrests legal.

    Within a year of the Mapp decision, courts in New York City were seeing a marked increase in what became known as “dropsy” testimony — in some units “dropsy” cases increased more than 70 percent, according to one 1968 study.

    There was little reason to think drug users had grown more skittish. Rather, the influx of these cases was understood to be a sign that police officers were lying in a substantial number of cases. Ever since, courts in New York have been plagued with officers lying about how they came to discover that a suspect was carrying drugs or guns.

    By 1994, a commission appointed to investigate police corruption noted that lying to make cases stick was common enough for “testilying” to become a well-known portmanteau.

    The report by the Mollen Commission noted a few established patterns of falsehoods. Officers who illegally searched a car might later say they discovered contraband in “plain view.” Or an officer who found a gun or drugs in someone’s clothing during an illegal search might falsely claim to have seen “a bulge in the person’s pocket.”

    Just like the dropsy testimony a few decades earlier, these stories of “plain view” and “suspicious bulges” became scripts that many police officers stuck to. They were rarely challenged, not even as officers in New York City began repeating them tens and then hundreds of thousands of times as police stops of mainly black and Latino men skyrocketed during the years Michael R. Bloomberg was mayor.

    Embellished Narratives

    In recent years, the number of times police stopped and frisked pedestrians has declined precipitously. But certain plainclothes units, such as the so-called anti-crime teams, still engage in an aggressive style of policing that relies heavily on stop-and-frisk tactics. These teams make a disproportionate number of gun arrests, but they are also responsible for a substantial number of dubious stops of pedestrians and drivers, police officers and legal experts said in interviews.

    Several uniformed patrol officers said they have long suspected that the track record of plainclothes anti-crime teams for making weapons and drug arrests was bolstered by illegal searches and a tolerance for lying about them.

    These officers described a familiar scene: a group of black men ordered out of a vehicle for little reason and made to sit on the curb or lean against the bumper, as officers search the vehicle for guns and drugs.

    “Certain car stops, certain cops will say there is odor of marijuana. And when I get to the scene, I immediately don’t smell anything,” said Officer Serrano, one of the few officers interviewed who was willing to speak on the record. “I can’t tell you what you smelled, but it’s obvious to me there is no smell of marijuana.”

    Mr. Serrano’s testimony about a secret station-house recording he made was crucial evidence in a landmark stop-and-frisk trial in 2013. He and nearly a dozen other current and former officers are suing the Police Department over what they describe as arrest quotas.


    Edwin Raymond, a New York City police sergeant, said plainclothes officers working with so-called anti-crime teams bend the truth “to fit the narrative.” CreditChristopher Anderson/Magnum Photos

    “It’s the anti-crime teams, the plainclothes officers, everyone knows they will violate the law, get what they want and then write it to fit the narrative,” said Edwin Raymond, a police sergeant who is also a plaintiff in the arrest-quota case. “The narratives will be embellished to fit the parameters of probable cause, if need be.”

    ‘A Surreal Journey’

    To be sure, there are other motives for lying, other than to cover up illegal searches.

    Some police officers have said they faced pressure from commanders to write more tickets or make more arrests. A decade ago, narcotics detectives were found to have falsely accused people of dealing drugs in order to meet arrest quotas.

    And there is pressure to solve — or at least close — cases. That may have motivated Officer Martinez’s gun-in-the-laundry-bag-in-the-doorway story.

    What appears to have actually happened is that Officer Martinez and other officers searched inside the apartment for evidence from a nearby shooting. They had good reason to focus on that apartment. The victim, after being shot, had rushed there, along with others. Crime-scene photos taken by the department’s Evidence Collection Team suggest that a gun was found inside the apartment, in or near a laundry bag on the floor.

    But whose gun was it? That was not clear. A number of people had been in the apartment in the preceding hours. And Ms. Thomas, who lived more than a mile away and arrived about an hour after the shooting, was one of the few people there when Officer Martinez showed up.

    There is little, if any, evidence tying Ms. Thomas to the gun other than Officer Martinez’s false testimony that placed her in the doorway with the laundry bag in her arms. Prosecutors acknowledged that DNA testing indicates that Ms. Thomas did not handle the gun. Moreover, court papers that prosecutors filed after the case fell apart noted that the police appear to have focused on Ms. Thomas while ignoring other potential suspects. Several other people had entered the apartment shortly before Ms. Thomas — “none of whom are questioned by the police,” the prosecutors’ papers noted.

    As for Officer Martinez’s false story of the laundry bag in the doorway, the prosecution’s legal papers noted only that “there are clear inconsistencies” between Officer Martinez’s “recollection of events and the video.”

    “At no time in this video is there a laundry bag in the defendant’s hands,” the prosecution’s legal papers noted. “Neither is there a bag in the doorway of the apartment, and at no time is the arresting officer observed moving a bag before entering the apartment.”

    By the time prosecutors officially dropped the case in November 2017, Ms. Thomas had already appeared in court 16 times, according to a tally of appearances kept by one of her lawyers, Alexandra Conlon, of the Bronx Defenders. On the last appearance, Ms. Thomas, 39, asked to address the court. “For 396 days I have been fighting for my life, my freedom and my sanity,” she said. “This has been such a surreal journey that I don’t wish on anyone.”

    Officer Martinez remains in good standing at the 41st Precinct. Shortly after the case was dismissed, he was promoted to detective and given his gold shield. When a reporter tried to interview him in January about his testimony in the case, he declined to comment, saying, “That’s not something I can speak about directly with you.”

    Continue reading the main story


    Ms. Thomas outside the Bronx apartment building where she was arrested on gun charges that were dismissed after a video contradicted the police officer’s account.CreditHilary Swift for The New York Times

    Continue reading the main story


    1. New York Detective Charged with Faking Lineup Results  FEB. 27, 2018

    [Message clipped]  View entire message


    From KKD: Void Judgments, Larkin perfidy, etc.

    I received an e-mail that I responded to with my comments in red.    I am forwarding the words and phrases as the problem is brought forward in a very straight forward manner, to wit:
    On Thursday, March 8, 2018, 11:21:28 AM CST, MARK TOMEY SR. <> wrote:
    Mr. Ditkowsky: some legal passages concerning “void judgements”
              a.) “Any judge who does not comply with his oath of office to the Constitution 

    of the United States, wars against the Constitution and engages in violation of the 

    Supreme Law of the Land. If a judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then

    his orders are void. In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), he is without jurisdiction, and 

    he/ she has engaged in an act or acts of treason. U.S. v. Will 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 

    S. Ct. 471, 66 EEd. 2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 

    5 L. Ed. 257 (1821).    I have no problem with the statement – but note a judge who acts ultra vires creats a voidable judgment at best – not a void judgment.
                   b.) Judgement is a “void judgement” if court has rendered judgement lacked 

    jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent 

    with due process. Klugh v. U.S., D.C.S.C., 610 F. Supp. 892, 901.  absolutely correct.

                   c.) A court lacks jurisdiction anytime it denies a citizen the Bill of Rights 

    or amendments, particularly Due Process 1308, (C.A. 10 (Colo.). 1994); VC.A. 10   Now we are getting into the area of distinctions.    If a judge acts badly, or exceeds his authority an Appellate Court usually reverses the action.    Here the action of the judge is subject to reversal and we can consider the judgment rendered voidable.    A voidable judgment is fully enforceable until reversed.      

    (Colo.), 1994).  “Spitzberg v Notaro – Judge Gerald Rosenberg void – There is a miscon-

    ception by some attorneys and judges that only a judge may declare an order void, but 

    this is not the law: (1) there is no statute nor case law that supports this position, and 

    (2) should there be any case law that allegedly supported this argument, it would be 

    directly contrary to the law established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Vallely v. Northern This is true but, self help is prohibited.   Thus if a judge enters an order that it is illegal to wear a red shirt, indeed that order is void.    If Law Enforcement desires to enforce the order, it is protected UNTIL the order is ruled by a Court having jurisdiction as void.     Ordinary citizens like you and me do not get to determine which orders are void, voidable, valid, or not applicable.   This is the function of the judicial system.      This is also the reason that CORRUPTION in the Courts is such a devastating crime. 

    Fire & Marine Ins. Co. 254 U.S. 348, 41 S. Ctr. 116 (1920) as well as other state courts, e.g.

    by the Illinois Supreme Court in People v Miller. Supra. 

                  d.) Per Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1574, void 

    judgement is defined as “one which has no legal effect, invalidity of which may be 

    asserted by any person whose rights are affected at any time and at any place directly 

    or collaterally.”

                  e.) Violation of due process results in “void judgements”: “A court lacks jurisdic-

    tion anytime it denies you the Bill of Rights or amendments, particularly Due Process” 

    1308 (C.A. 10 (Colo.), 1994); V.T.A., Inc. v. Airco, Inc., 597 F. 2d 220, 221 (1979).  A judge-

    ment reached without due process of the law is without jurisdiction and thus void. See above:     I have no quarrel with these definitions – my quarrel is with the ‘lay’ interpretation  by some that by their determination that a judgment is void – it is.     In fact it is NOT.    You may feel that your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS have been violated, but only a Court having jurisdiction to make that determination has the authority to determine that facts.

    Bass v. Hoagland, 172 F. 2d 205, 209 (1949). Any motion for relief from a void judgement 

    is timely reguardless of when it is filed. V.T.A., Inc., supra@ 224 (footnote no. 9). If a 

    judgement is  void, it is a nullity from the outset and any Civ. R60 (B) motion is there-

    fore filed within a reasonable time. Omer v. Shala, supra@1308 The Words that you should focus upon MOTION FOR RELIEF.    A motion that refers to a voidable judgment has to be brought during term time or the statutory time (2 years) and must meet the criterion of GOOD FAITH and due diligence.     This is a very important distinction.

                   f.) In my cases there was bias against a pro se litigant, which has become an

    epidemic in American courts, where lawyers become judges who then protect the 

    business of lawyers (purportedly illegal in the court system). Justice is not needed to

    be purchased according to the law and was written to be”of the people, by the people

    and for the people; “we the people”. Yet it has been reported by Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq,

    Phd University of Cambridge England, MBA University of Michigan Business School and 

    D.E.A. La Sorbonne Paris, who has taken up the cause of pro se litigants, through his 

    investigation that over 97% of pro se litigant cases are being illegally dismissed by courts;

    and as such said rulings are “void judgments”.   Bias does not create either a void or voidable judgment.   Neither does a judgment entered by a judge who has been ‘wired!’       Such is indeed a violation of civil rights, but if you do not speak up and follow the procedure for addressing the problem (or cannot prove the bias) a valid judgment can be rendered against you.     You also can waive the bias.     (Merely proceeding in the case and allowing the judge to rule on issues can be deemed a waiver.

    Let me give you an example.     Lanre Amu, is a lawyer, a graduate engineer, etc.     He emigrated to America from Africa, became a citizen and a lawyer.    His skin color is very dark.     His clients also share his racial characteristics.
    It is no secret that Chicago politics is dirty as can be and the “fix” is not uncommon.    Amu ran into an obvious fix representing a client.    The Judge was on the Board of Directors of the defendant and her brother was one of the attorneys for the defendant.  Amu complained and the Judge ignored him.    He then complained to the Bar (IARDC) etc.   His clout was zero and as is quite common the JUDICIAL ELITE were in ‘cover-up’ mode.    
    As a believer in the Justice system he would not back down.    The IARDC commenced proceedings against him to induce him to ‘shut up!’     He refused and they sought and obtained an interim order suspending his law license.   He continued on and was awarded a 3 year suspension of his law license.    (During the interim a respected publication (Crain’s Chicago Business) independently investigated and found the exact facts that Amu complained of, to wit:  the Judge was on the Board of the defendant and her brother was an attorney for the defendant.     The JUDICIAL ELITE were unmoved and not only did Amu’s suspension stand, but, as a condition for reinstatement Mr. Larkin and the Illinois Supreme Court want Amu to admit that he lied and Judge and her brother were acting entirely proper.   He has refused.
    The judge, her brother, Mr. Larkin, the Justices of the Supreme Court of Illinois have all acted in the most reprehensible and unconstitutional manner possible –  however, this corrupt judges’ orders are NOT VOID – they are voidable and until our government acts this outrage will be the RULE OF CASE.
    Mr. Amu, yours truly, you et al are not given the authority OR the power to unilaterally  impose PROPRIETY on even the most obvious of miscreants.    
    Jerome Larkin exceeded his authority when under oath he filed FALSE PLEADINGS intended to deny both Amu and his clients EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW.     Indeed, Larkin should be disbarred and sent to jail for his perfidy – BUT ALL OF THAT IS A SEPARATE ISSUE.    We live in a Nation of Laws and from time to time we will find in authority people who should not be – and should be in jail, but, to accomplish the demands of DEMOCRACY we in particular have to be like Caesar’s wife and follow the letter of the law even if it is grossly a bitter pill to absorb.
    NB.  Amu’s remedy was Appeal and Petition LAW ENFORCEMENT to do their sworn duty.   Indeed, the remedy is inconvenient, uncertain, and time consuming – but it is the price we pay.       I also would like a more efficacious remedy. 
    No matter where you turn, the carnage continues.    The government and the great unwashed pay a 700% fraud surcharge for health care.   Hardly a day goes by and the scenario is repeated, to wit:  an elder incarcerated and removed from his/her family.  The elder’s estate is decimated = if there is any money in it, if not MEDICARE and government programs are used to extract every possible dollar.    
    As the time goes by and the theft of Medicare money (and the patient’s assets become more difficult the patient falls out of bed, has hit surgery, follow through illness and dies).   Fast cremation occurs and the elderly person being trafficking is swept under the web.    Anyone who complains has LEGAL PROBLEMS!
    The beat continues, to wit:
    On Thursday, March 8, 2018, 10:38:07 AM CST,  MTS wroge

    I have yet to decide what actions and against whom I will take in the

    debacle of a 76 year old I had been caring for recently. Baltimore City

    Social Services case worker Jorge Mitchell forced him into a Manor Care

    facility. When I questioned why none of the family or I as his them power

    of attorney had been contacted. said case worker stated that the facility

    was good and “if you screw this up for me you will never see Alejandro again”.


    It was his intent to see the elder apartment lease and be kept at Manor Care.

    My wife, two of the elder’s brother and I went to see the situation for

    ourselves. We found him not provided a simple tooth brush he had been

    requesting. He was having problems swallowing and thus eating, but if he

    did not finish his food in the allotted 1/2 hour, it was taken away and nothing else provided until the next meal


    The unit attempted to set up the elder’s girlfriend as power of attorney, but she contacted an attorney, who sent a legal letter stating she would not accept this. Next, I found case workers told the elder if he signed paperwork for them, he would immediately go home. He signed and then got ready to leave. After waiting hours, he was

    told he would never go home. I discovered the paperwork to be hospice
     and told all involved it was null and void as the elder never understood

    what he was tricked into signing.

     Then, I got a call that he had fallen out of
    bed and was sent to Union Memorial Hospital ER. There he stated to me he 
    had been walking to the bathroom, when he fell and hit his head. He claimed 
    he pressed the emergency call button for an hour but no one came to help
    him. I told the ER doctor about his swallowing problem and that he was losing
    weight. Said doctor stated they found nothing wrong from his fall and would
    give him medication for thrush, as that was most likely his swallowing prob-
     I stated that I wanted the elder transported to York Hospital for further
    care. Instead we were forced to drive him in our private car. At the York ER,
    the elder was found to have a broken hip. But after his hip surgery he began continued issues with infections and blood pressure drops. The hospital never worked to have him transported to see a liver specialist, though the doctors stated his main issue was liver problems. I questioned his bad gallbladder
    as possibly causing systemic poisoning of the elder as had occurred with his
    older brother, but this was not taken seriously until the day before his death.
    Doctors continually attempted to have me “pull the plug on him” in clear
    violation of his written medical directives and without the benefit of a liver
    specialist seeing him. The night before his death, a doctor stated he would
    be stopping any attempts at resuscitation, would not send him to the ICU
    and would withhold blood pressure medications.
     I stated that would be tantamount to murder, and told him not to take such actions. I call the hospital administration and was forced to leave a message for the head of
    the hospital. next, I requested who ever was currently in charge of the
    hospital that evening, but was forced to leave a message. So, I called the
    nurse handling his care, and stated for the record, to be placed also into
    his record, that all care must continue for him to maintain his life, or legal
    action would be taken against all those involved. Also, I asked her to relay
    this to his doctor. Yet about 15 hours later he was dead.
    Was a withholding of care involved? I contacted the coroner’s office to let them know about all the improper actions that precluded his death and requested a forensic
    autopsy. But the coroner’s office balked. I contacted the governor’s office,
    head of the health department, inspector general’s office, etc. I followed

    up with the district attorney and filed police reports as requested. In the

    end the coroner stated ‘no one would bully her into doing an autopsy”.

    The corner’s office had the body sent to a funeral home and cremated,

    destroying evidence. My question was why the coroner’s office was not

    doing random autopsy’s to check on death of elderly in the hospital, let

    alone checking on questionable deaths? their response was a ruling

    that this elder had died of “complications from hip surgery”, even though

    the treating doctor’s constantly stated that his main health issue was

    a bad liver – though no liver specialist ever saw, diagnosed, or treated

    him. The attitude when you are old, especially if found to have some
    chronic or terminal condition, you should just die – does not matter

    how much longer you might live if treated properly. But my response

    is no one has an expiration date stamped upon them. And if you think
    about it, we are all terminal from the time we are born. The elderly,
    and people in general, have become like everything else in our society
    today, throwaway; you do not fix it, there are too may more around,
    just throw it away, as it has no true value anymore.  Sorry, but I am a
    senior citizen, as are many friends, and I take umbrage to this attitude,
    as should everyone, as all will become old someday if they live long
    enough. I challenge everyone to speak out to protect the elderly!
    Mark Tomey Sr.
    COINCIDENTS ARE INTERESTING  – I DO NOT BELIEVE IN THEM, BUT THEY MAY EXIST.    If all these elderly people falling out of bed is a coincident maybe the miscreants would not resist so vigorously an HONEST INVESTIGATION!    Maybe the exposure of judicial corruption would not be akin to “yelling fire in a crowded theater!”       May be all the corruption would not be so obvious and maybe the elderly victims would not be cremated as soon as their eyes close!!!!
    The breach of trust is a TAXABLE EVENT!    If the establishment is so shocked by the concept of an HONEST INVESTIGATION maybe saving the State from bankruptcy would be a reasonable alternative.    As Medicare fraud is clearly present in every one of these cases and all the miscreants work together for a common purpose 18 USCA 371 is applicable.   Ergo, conspirators are JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY liable for damages and Federal and State Income Taxes.     Civil Tax collection carries no stigma!    Thus let me recommend that the State/Federal Bureaucrats intent  on engaging in the activites of ELDER CLEANSING (HUMAN TRAFFICKING IN THE ELDERLY) pay Federal and State Income taxes due  (plus interest and penalties).
    Using the Mary Sykes case 09 P 4585 as an example.    3 million dollars was stolen from the Estate and tens of thousands of dollars stolen from HEALTH CARE PROGRAMS including Medicare.     Every miscreant who participated has joint and several liability, including Mr. Jerome Larkin and each of the attorneys at the IARDC who participated in attempting to silence the Rule 8.3 reporting of myself and Ms. Denison.
    Ken Ditkowsky
    Those of us who disregard history are doomed to relive it.    The Elder Cleansing/human trafficking in the elderly is a subject that everyone desires to avoid and ignore.    It does not matter who you are or what you are – when you get old you are a target.    Your children may protest, you may protest, friends may protest, but the protest usually falls on deaf ears.   Occasionally an anomaly occurs and there is a write up in a mainstream publication.  (you of course remember the New Yorker Magazine article published last year!)   The sad commentary is that the amount of money that the ‘swamp’ obtains from the felonies of elder cleansing is so huge that even a call for an HONEST INVESTIGATION meets with extreme resistance.
    It is difficult to bring home to the ‘great unwashed’ that each of us is a potential target.     Not one of us is immune.     Unprincipled public officials who profit on the weakness of the potential targets today have the upper hand and are literally protected in every way as they prey on the elderly and the disabled.
    I’ve sent everyone in sight the information as to the MARY SYKES and ALICE GORE cases.   I referred every one to the blogs PROBATE SHARKS, MARYGSYKES, NASGA, AAAPG, ****.   The five GAO REPORTS to Congress that have been virtually ignored by our elected representatives have been referred to numerous times.    No one is interested UNTIL THEY ARE THE TARGET or ONE OF THEIR LOVED ONES is a target!   At that point in time it is too late!    A corrupt judge has authorized your (or your loved one’s) estate to be ravaged and a Jerome Larkin clone – if not Larkin himself- has made certain that no lawyer who wants to keep his law license is going to complain.    The corrupt judge and corrupt judicial officials will use the power of the courts to intimidate you or to deny you justice, and you will be labelled a NUT and ignored.
    Rest assured – the miscreants who ravage your estate ( or that of your loved one) will escape and enjoy the aforesaid estate fully – without even having to pay a dollar tax on the booty!    Your elected representatives when you write them will express extreme sympathy.     I wrote Senator Durbin (Illinois’ senior senator) and received his response – a copy of one of his stupid speeches on how he was saving social security  – so it too could be stolen.
    (Philip Esformes over a year ago was indicted for stealing a billion (nine zeros) dollars in Medicare Funds! – his trial has not been had as of today.   Seth Gillman in a medicare hospice scheme stole many many millions of dollars – when he was rumored to be co-operating with the FBI, it was quite obvious that the POLITICAL ELITE and the JUDICIAL ELITE in Illinois were troubled – -Jerome Larkin and the IARDC filed a petition before the Supreme Court of Illinois for an interim suspension of Gillman’s license.    (There was no danger to public created by his stealing of trust funds or medicare funds etc – Larkin the IARDC only acted when they feared he might expose them to an HONEST INVESTIGATION by Federal Authorities!)

    The problem that we face is corruption and hypocrisy.       The local media here in Chicago must think that we – the great unwashed – are stupid.     They accept millions – maybe billions of dollars – from political organizations that are totally irresponsible and promise in election years the world and deliver only corruption and hypocrisy.     The news is slanted in most cases to glorify the POLITICAL ELITE and to reward favorites and punish those who are not liked.


    We see multiple examples of the bias daily.   Today, the Chicago Tribune was lauding one of the candidates for Assessor and crying over the fact that she had been removed from the ballot by the election commission only to be reinstated when the political elite candidate appeared to be having trouble in the primary election.    The addition of the previously removed candidate splits the opposition vote and thus almost guarantees that the political elite candidate will be re-slated.      This is an old ploy but an effective one.      It is also being used in the Attorney General’s race for the nomination.     These two offices are essential to maintaining power.      


    The parallels are numerous.     The Human Trafficking (elder cleansing) scandal is an obvious metaphor.    The Circuit Court of Cook County, Probate Division can only be described as a cesspool.     Unfortunately, the problem is universal.    The Elderly, and elderly widows are too lucrative and easy target to be neglected.    Five Government Accounting Office reports to Congress have been virtually ignored and government sponsored, and funded organizations have used ever device possible to attempt to silence blogs such as MaryGSykes, Probate Sharks, NASGA, AAAPG, ******.      No ‘dirty trick’ is too ethically challenged or despicable not to be used in the quest to ‘cover up’ the criminal activity of the publicly funded organizations.


    In particular, here in Illinois the JoAnne Denison disciplinary proceeding stands out for its infamy and its reach for the nadir of ethical conduct.     The case started out as part of the cover-up of the Mary Sykes case 09 P 4585.     One of the Guardian ad litem who was allegedly preying on the elderly matron/widow felt aggrieved that the blog Probate Sharks published a demand made by yours truly and Ms. Denison for an HONEST INVESTIGATION.        The demand for an HONEST INVESTIGATION was prompted by the fact that all the protections of the Act 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3 and 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10 were ignored, including but not limited to service of a proper summons, prior notice to next of kin,  the holding a hearing as to the extent and nature of any disability (755 ILCS 5/11a – 3), application of the proper standards etc.      Heretofore, a public official – such as a guardian or conservator was considered a fiduciary and owed the ‘ward’ the highest standard of conduct.    Heretofore, forfeiture of property and liberty was strictly prohibited by both the Illinois Constitution and the United States Constitution.     


    The demand for an HONEST INVESTIGATION, even though ignored, was a call to LAW ENFORCEMENT to protect the Constitution of the United States of America, the Illinois Constitution of 1970, and the Rule of Law.     As there was three million dollars to be stolen sans Federal and State Tax enforcement, and millions in Federal Health Care money to steal the call for an HONEST INVESTIGATION was totally repugnant to the Establishment.      Attorney Denison not only refused to ‘back off’ from her demand for the political organization to comply with the demand that its members respect the rule of law and the Constitution, but, she published in her blog – – instances of criminal corruption by sitting Judges.    Many of these Judges were acting in criminal concert promulgating the felonies of ELDER CLEANSING and HUMAN TRAFFICKING.       Ms. Denison’s exposure of the continued criminal conduct and ‘OPERATION GREYLORD’ activities was not appreciated and connoted by the Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission as being akin to “yelling fire in a crowded theater.”   


    Mr. Larkin (the administrator) was not content with filing false pleadings under oath.     He made certain that he punished Attorney Denison and sullied her reputation and ability to practice law.     In so doing he himself violated the Law!     He engaged as an example an unlicensed ‘court reporter!’      One of the transcripts of proceedings was indeed interesting.    A judge (who presided over the Sykes case) admitted to telling a falsehood under oath during her direct examination according to Court watchers.     The official transcript was filed with the admission (elicited under cross examination) deleted.     The required standard of proof was modified from ‘clear and convincing’ to Jerome Larkin says it is true – to hell with the truth.


    Unfortunately, the Denison perfidy is not an anomaly, but, is common place and as the investigation continues – S.O.P.      Rule 8.3 compliance in HUMAN TRAFFICKING by people favored by the political elite is not tolerated and a lawyer who complies with Rule 8.3 is almost guaranteed an interruption of his/her law license.     ELDER CLEANSING is a major fund-raising strategy for the POLITICAL ELITE.      

    We – the great unwashed – will have no Democracy, no Republic, and no Freedom UNLESS we react and rebel.        The strategy of splitting our vote so that the machine candidate can be nominated or elected will be difficult to address – but, we must do so.     The outright campaign lies, and demonization of the opposition may be more difficult.      For instance, racism has become a catch word.    What is racism?     It certainly was not racism for Lanre Amu to have his license suspended for practicing law while black!    Indeed, Mr. Larkin’s perjury goes unpunished even though we (and Larkin) all know that CRAINS CHICAGO BUSINESS   make the very averment against Judge Egan that Amu did.    Larkin’s prevarication was rubber-stamped in the face of unequivocal evidence of Egan’s perfidy and ethically challenged behavior on the bench.    Hell – Egan did not even deny the misconduct!       Today, to obtain the reinstatement of his law license, the Illinois Supreme Court is demanding that Amu admit that he lied – even though everyone knows that he told the truth and Larkin was very frugal with the truth under oath.

     Of course, it was not racism in Illinois when Larkin’s legions denied admission to an icon of the Civil Rights movement.       This esteemed lady = who marched with DR. KING and who was recognized as one of the planners of the Selma March (Diane Nash) was denied entry to one of the kangaroo hearings in which Attorney Denison was being denied her civil rights.    (I personally was at the hearing and there was a vacant seat adjacent to me – I requested an apology for Ms. Nash from Mr. Larkin – no apology was ever given).

           It does not guaranty that I can kidnap Mary Sykes, drag her before a corrupt judge lacking jurisdiction and ethics and deprive Mary of her liberty, her property, and the fruits of her American citizenship.     (Amazing – but the Courts are protecting my whim (if I have sufficient political and judicial clout) to deprive others of due process, liberty and property)


    The government supports health care fraud and its 700% surcharge.     Philip Esformes was indicted in the US Court for the Southern District of Florida for stealing a billion dollars in Medicare Money.    Seth Gillam was convicted of a serious Medicare Fraud involving Hospice, stealing from trust funds etc.    These are not isolated cases – they are the norm and unfortunately both Gillman and Esformes are not the biggest players in this trillion dollar criminal enterprise.     Florida elderly are not the only targets.    Why then are prosecutions so rare?  It is respectfully suggested that the POLITICAL ELITE are so invested in the Elder Cleansing frauds and the money that they can steal from both the government and the victim, that they have created a protected cottage industry.


    It does not take a Philadelphia Lawyer to answer the query!      Prosecutions are rare because the criminals are heavily tied in with the ESTABLISHMENT.       In my Brewer case the canvass of the 50th Ward in Chicago revealed that my extremely qualified client received virtually NO VOTES from any of the nursing homes in the area.     It appeared that every resident voted for the incumbent alderman.     It appears that this was not an anomaly=  it appears representative of nursing home voting.      Let’s make this very clear – – a candidate running for public office can obtain enough votes from his/her relationship with the nursing home operator to swing the election either for him or against him.     Even lifetime voters for the candidate not favored by the nursing home operator will be seen to have voted for the candidate favored by the operator of the facility.   (Indeed – I am suggesting blatant vote fraud!)


    ELDER CLEANSING (HUMAN TRAFFICKING) is not a minor event – it is a cancer that could destroy the America they we know.        The persons engaged in the criminal conspiracy are well connected public servants.   In Germany during the 1930s, and in Soviet Russia during the Gulags human cleansing/trafficking was a NATIONAL POLICY.      Today in Southern Florida and in Cook County, Illinois it is so commonplace that it can be deemed public policy.     The fact that so many of the practitioners and their political co-conspirators get away with it (and the life savings of the elderly) with such impunity suggests that America is in deep trouble!        At the very least – it would be nice if the DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY had an agent or two wander into Mr. Jerome Larkin’s office and collect the FEDERAL INCOME TAXES due on the booty that Mr. Larkin protected for his 18 USCA 371 co-conspirators!   

    In the HUMAN TRAFFICKING (ELDER CLEANSING ) SCANDAL we do not have a half dozen Congressional committees ferreting out the facts, but we do have scores of public officials who are engaged in the cover-up.
    The words – HONEST INVESTIGATION are deemed to be ETHICALLY CHALLENGED!   No wonder the ‘swamp’ is so upset by even the thought of such an event!   Honesty in government and enforcement of the Law might totally revolutionize both Federal and State government!     Imagine a politico who actually did the job that he/she was elected to fulfill.  Imagine a JUDGE who took his owe seriously!    (It could result in a serious drop in revenue for the Political parties and might ******)


    From Probate Sharks:

    From Probate Sharks Blog: Hijacking a Fla. Estate for millions from Chicago

    Posted on July 28, 2016

    On the pages of the Probate Sharks blog is the following: Irving Faskowitz probate court case. Irving’s 2 million dollar estate was high jacked by Chicago and New York non-relatives who were also named Faskowitz. The real Faskowitz heirs never were informed of Irving’s death and never saw a penny.

    One of the biggest problem that exists today is the unequal enforcement of the law, or the enforcement of the law to protect particular interests.    There is no question that when a person is placed in a police vehicle while in custody, and emerges dead there is a problem that the community should be concerned with.   The prosecutor knew that the individual was not murdered and no intent crime could be proven; however, in the true spirit of an opportunist unethical member of the political elite five police officers were ‘over charged’ with crimes that could not sustained.
    The issue of whether or not criminal charges of some kind should have been brought is not relevant as the establishment was looking for a scapegoat.   It is this tactic that is destroying the basic institutions of America.   Special interests can routine ‘fix’ the process or the case and a large segment of the population screams to deaf ears the words: “foul!”
    A burr under the skin has been the Florida Irving Faskowitz case.    Briefly the facts are allegedly as follows:
    Irving Faskowitz died.   It just so happened that an infamous Chicago Lawyer had a maiden name that was very strongly similar; however, she was not related.   Exhibiting the criterion of conduct advocated by the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission and the Illinois Supreme Court and the conduct that they wish to foster, this lawyer filed documents claiming that she and a specific group of her relatations were heirs to the estate.    The claim was bogus on its face and so obscene that the Florida Attorney General rose out of her slumber and filed an objection.
    As Lawyers live by the proposition that a bad settlement is better than the best litigation, the case settled and the spurious claimants got 1/2 of the Estate.   Victims of the infamous Chicago lawyer heard about the Florida expedition and screams to everyone who would listen ‘foul’    The protector of the virtue of Illinois lawyers the IARDC apparently have a special relationship with this lawyer could not be bothered to investigate, but gave its stamp of approval on the fraud.   Further action by the Florida Attorney General was unthinkable to Florida officials.   I guess they were too absorbed in annulling the Smith marriage and silencing the heirs of Helen Stone.
    As the lawyer who filed the claim is an Illinois lawyer and was also believed to be culpable for the horrendous torture that Alice Gore was subjected to and to the quest for gold in her teeth the IARDC and the Illinois Supreme Court ratified their approval of the alleged theft and the complaining citizens were told to ‘stuff it!’
    This is our current state of affairs in the cottage industry of elder cleansing.    Mr. Larkin is not a card carrying Nazi.   Indeed, he most probably has not even accidentally rubbed elbows with one.   Indeed, I would suspect that he is even loved by some children and dogs, but, he accepted a job to do – i.e. police the legal profession and rid it of the dishonest lawyers who prey on Illinois citizens – including the elderly.    Someone along the way Mr. Larkin got mixed up and decided to rid the legal profession of the lawyers who would pursuant to Rule 8.3 and 18 USCA 4 speak up against corruption in the Court system.   Indeed, he felt it his duty to defend and coverup 18 UsCA 371 the confession of Judge Connors (at page 91 of her evidence deposition) that she was ‘wired.’   The confession of perjury in the JoAnne Denison hearing by Judge Stuart.   The Faskowitz theft and the hunt for gold in the mouth of Alice by lawyer *****.    ******.
    Elderly people are being elder cleansed, and then euthanized and corrupt courts, corrupt judges, corrupt lawyers, corrupt judicial officials and corrupt political figures are all actively engaged in the activity.   Our cause is just, but ignored.   Linking the cause to a great ***** Conspiracy is counter productive.   Judge **** sitting in Emmett County, Michigan is not involved in the Mary Sykes case directly, indirectly or in his dreams.   The WW2 Nazis who escaped from Germany in 1944/45 are all dead or nearly dead at this point in time.
    Ladies – all we have in these elder cleansing cases is garden variety avarice and local conspiracies by a group of like thinking miscreants to enrich themselves by stealing from grandma.    Judge **** in Florida has no role in whatever Judge **** in Illinois is doing or not doing.   The attempt to link their actions just destroys our credibility.

    The health care fraud surcharge of 700% is alive and well.  Corruption is alive and well in Illinois, Florida, *******.    It would effect you personally unless you do something to address it effectively.     In the F Estate even though the AG smelled a rat and tried to thwart the Fraud, the AG compromised the case and the miscreant lawyer escaped with a large sum of money totally free to taxes!     Of course the IDR ignored the Illinois taxes – the lawyer engaged in this criminal enterprise was a member of the POLITICAL ELITE and therefore was entitled to a ‘blind eye’ enforcement procedure.  Ditto for the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY!

    Only the great unwashed are concerned that Illinois is on the verge of Bankruptcy.  Indeed, the 21 trillion dollar deficit is chump change of the Swamp – we, the great unwashed and our children and grandchildren will figure it out.
    I had a horse a few years ago.   Every day I fed that horse a little less food — I was teaching the horse to not eat.     Just when I came close to success my horse died!      I still remember that when I wrote Senator Durbin for help in relation to the Elder Cleansing of Mary Sykes, he responded – he sent me a copy of a speech he gave detailing how her was saving social security.   (NB. the fact that Mary’s social security was also being stolen by the miscreants ******).  
    The time might be NOW or NEVER!     Any day you or I could wind up in an ESFORMES nursing home!    Philip Esformes was charged by the USA of stealing a billion dollars from MEDICARE.    How much was stolen from patients and their insurance companies?    How many Mary Sykes and Alice Gores are there out there?   
    NB. Concealed carry is NOT the answer or the solution – when they get you in a room, opioids are very effective!    A corrupt judge will appoint a conservator/guardian for you and enjoy being a zombie!   You will vote in every election as long as you are believed to be alive, but you will vote for people who are engaged in the 18 USCA371 conspiracy to deprive you of your liberty.   

    [Message clipped]  View entire message

    As a start the government has to start firing some of the corrupt members of the swamp!   In Illinois, Florida and in General (including the Federal Government)  members of the POLITICAL ELITE AND JUDICIAL ELITE who breach their public duty should be terminated.    We cannot afford them!    Jerome Larkin as an example should be first made to pay the FEDERAL INCOME AND STATE INCOME TAXES due as the result of his open and notorious conspiracy with criminals who robbed and deprived ELDERLY PEOPLE of their liberty, property and human rights, and then be terminated.     The penalty for breach of the public trust should be strict application of the RULE OF LAW and very strict enforcement of the tax law.    We have to take the profit out of human trafficking.

    From KD: Nursing home in N. Fla. shut down for bed bugs, rats and filth.

    Barbara Stone who is doing prison time for merely telling the truth and defending her elderly mother said it best:  nursing homes are nothing but slums and ghettos for the elderly.

    I still have the same challenge for all of you out there who say, “well some are good.” F no, they are not.  Go take a survey at any nursing home.  If the residents are not comatose and drooling in front of a TV droning or or in the hallways slumped over, they will 99% tell you they want to go home or live with a beloved child or relative or friend.  Their beds are crap, the food is crap and you wouldn’t let a dog or cat live like the elderly do in nursing homes.  Even a dog at the shelter has  a chance for adoption. These people do not. They will assuredly die in the end without ever seeing the light of day again.

    Again, who is looking into this?  Answer:  no one. Not the Chicago Police, not the FBI, the states attorneys, no one.  Who give a flying you know what about the elderly? Targeted, drugged forced into nursing homes, why not bring back the cattle cars and human incinerators of World War II?

    Are we really doing any better?  Nope. I’m still waiting for ONE PERSON to answer my challenge about how 99% of nursing home patients want to go home, and no one investigates, no one helps them and no one cares about their human and civil rights violations. Why?  the money is far too good, really great in fact. For $70k per month would YOU let a one of them go home?

    read on.  I am disgusted for sure.

    This morning I wondered when the trial of Philip Esformes was going to occur —-

    Bed bugs, rodents shut down North Miami assisted living facility

    State seeks to permanently revoke license of Eden Gardens because of infestation

    By Jeff Weinsier – Investigative Reporter

    Posted: 8:08 AM, November 02, 2017

    NORTH MIAMI, Fla. – A total of 104 residents and patients were recently evacuated from a North Miami assisted living facility after state inspectors said the conditions were unsafe and unsanitary.

    Inspectors with the Florida Department of Health and the Agency for Health Care Administrationshowed up at Eden Gardens, 12221 W. Dixie Highway, in August after a complaint about a bed bug infestation.

    Eden Gardens signEden Gardens Assisted Living Facility was ordered closed by the state.

    Conditions were so bad that the Agency for Health Care Administration is looking to permanently revoke the facility’s license to operate and fine the owners $20,000.

    A man who identified himself only as Bobby said he saw bed bugs and rodents when he was a resident at Eden Gardens. He was among the residents who were moved to another facility in North Miami.

    Eden Gardens bed bugs

    “How long did they give you to pack up?” Local 10 News investigative reporter Jeff Weinsier asked.

    “Twenty minutes,” Bobby said.

    “Is that enough time?” Weinsier asked.

    “No,” Bobby answered.

    Photographs taken by investigators and obtained by Local 10 News show dead rodents, bed bugs on sheets and rodent droppings.

    According to state records, live and dead bugs were found in 20 rooms. Dead rodents and fresh rodent droppings were found in seven rooms.

    Eden Gardens dead rodents

    Furniture and fixtures were accumulated with dust, food residue and dead insects. Eden Gardens was also cited for worn mattresses, broken beds and soiled sheets.

    Records show the facility was ordered to stop serving lunch because wastewater was coming up through the drains and there was a bad smell.

    Eden Gardens wastewater drain

    Bobby said there were bed bugs in his room.

    “They were everywhere,” he said.

    The emergency order to shut down the facility said the bed bug issue was well known to those in charge, and efforts to eradicate the problem didn’t work.

    “I don’t think it was right, you know, us living in conditions like that,” he said.

    “Did you ever complain to them?” Weinsier asked.

    “Who you going to complaint to?” Bobby said.

    State records show Philip Esformes was listed as the owner/manager of Eden Gardens for 11 years.

    Esformes is now in federal prison and is said to be the mastermind of a billion-dollar Medicare scheme. He is awaiting trial.

    Eden Gardens Philip EsformesPhilip Esformes was listed as the owner/manager of Eden Gardens for 11 years. He is now in federal prison.

    According the federal indictment, Eden Gardens was one of the facilities used in the scheme. Morris Esformes is now listed as the owner/manager. The father of Philip Esformes is a Chicago rabbi who was in business with his son for years.

    A spokesman for Florida’s Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program said the agency received 83 complaints and opened 44 investigations on Eden Gardens since 2004.

    The Agency for Health Care Administration cited deficiencies 14 times since 2010.

    Eden Gardens is fighting the revocation of its license to operate. A December hearing has been set.

    For now, Eden Gardens remains closed.

    Below is a statement sent on behalf of Eden Gardens:

    “Eden Gardens has been under the current ownership since 2004. For the past 13 years, it has never had a bed bug problem until recently. Eden Gardens spent significant resources trying to remedy the problem and thought that the problem had been resolved. In fact, six weeks prior to the incident which you are reviewing, the Department of Health inspected all rooms in the facility and found no bed bugs or rodent problems. When the Department of Health received the complaint, it came out and found bed bugs in some rooms and a rodent in a trap. This was photographed by the Department of Health. The facility immediately responded by indicating to the Department of Health that it would evacuate the Facility and tent it to assure that all insect or rodent problems would be permanently eliminated. It did that at great cost but without any incident of resident complaint. The Facility has been recently reviewed by the Department of Health and found to be free of the prior problem. The prior residents of the facility are anxious to return and the owners are hopeful that the Facility can be reopened to allow that to occur. For these residents, Eden Gardens has been their home for many years and the fine staff of the facility has been their family. The incident that occurred was an aberrant situation that was not reflective of the facility’s past history or quality of care and certainly not what it expects to provide in the future.” — Attorney Harvey M. Tettlebaum

    On Wednesday, March 14, 2018, 5:19:21 PM CDT, Janet Pipes <> wrote:

    Ken – what a great ending to a fictional professional guardianship fraud story.  Many of us have enacted out this scenario in our mind I believe – only it wasn’t just the guardian left tied to a chair by thugs!  I’ve talked to a couple of ladies who do target practice so that they can pretend the target is a judge.

    This is what we’ve come to – the shoot-out at the OK Corral!   Anyone who travels to Tombstone, Arizona hears the controversy that still rages on – was Wyatt Earp a good guy or someone wearing a sheriff’s badge to kill his enemies?

    From: kenneth ditkowsky []
    Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 2:51 PM
    To: White House; The Wall Street Journal; Probate Sharks; Chicago FBI; Nasga Us; JoAnne M. Denison; Jay Goldman; Robert Grundstein; J. Ditkowsky; Bev Cooper;; Andy Ostrowski; Harry Heckert; ABA Commission On Racial and Ethnic Diversity In the Profession
    Cc: Better Government Association; Scott Evans; Janet Phelan; Dow Jones; ISBA Main Discussion Group; The State of Illinois; Cynthia Stephens; Candice Schwager; Angela Woodhull; ACLU; The Disability Discussion Docket – Official E-mail List of the Commission On Disability Right; Diane Nash; KRISTI HOOD; Aging Contact (Aging); Fiduciary Watch; 60m Cbs News; John Howard Wyman; Cook County States Attorney; Rabbi Moshe Soloveitchik; Lisa Madigan Ill Atty Gen Office; Eric Blair; Ginny Johnson; Dr. Rich Swier; Alyece Russell; The Wall Street Journal; Edward Carter; Douglas Kinan; ACLU of Illinois; Beverly Newman; The New York Times; Newseditors; Endxploitation; AARP Inc; Summer Chicago; Governor Rick Scott; Doug Franks; Kenneth Ditkowsky’ via Lawsters; Kevin Pizzarello; Marti Oakley; Elaine Renoire; Glenda Martinez; DOEA INFO; FBI-; Mary Richards; ABA Commission On Racial and Ethnic Diversity; FOX News Network LLC; Candy Schwager; Len Holland; Paul K. Ogden; Mr. Lanre Amu — Honest Atty Unfairly Persecuted By ARDC; SUNTIMES; Marty Prehn; Teresa Lyles; Illinois ARDC; Tribune Alert; Cook Sheriff; Garr Sanders; Chicago Lawyer Magazine; Sylvia Rudek NASGA; Janet Pipes; Doug Franks; The Huffington Post; American Bar Association; Legal Abuse Syndrome; Eliot Ivan Bernstein; PA Governor’s Office; Attorneygeneral Info; Brenda & Norm Krit; Rosanna Miller
    Subject: Re: WE NEED AN HONEST INVESTIGATION (equivalent to yelling fire in a crowded theater)

    It is always interesting to get an accurate view of the past.    Channel 274 (Direct TV) is replaying the episodes of BOSTON LAW.     This afternoon I accidentally tuned in on a program that featured the hero addressing the situation in which a conservator (guardian) was appointed to handle the Estate of 80 year old woman who was placed in a nursing home.

    As the woman was elderly the Boston Court appointed a Conservator for her.   When the woman recovered her senses she discovered that she was a prisoner and the Court appointed conservator was spending all her money.    She tried to escape, but she and her helper were apprehended.   The high powered law firm heroes of BOSTON LAW were engaged.    To my surprise they went to Court and a judge appeared who was a double for one of our Cook County judges was depicted as presiding.    She did exactly what a Cook County, Illinois judge would have done leaving the conservator/guardian with full power to continue the ELDER CLEANSING/HUMAN TRAFFICKING.

    I was glued to the Television — I waited for the fictional solution.    I personally in the Sykes case 09 P 4585 and several other cases I tried everything I could think of.    Maybe the creative fiction writers could create a solution!

    The solution was so simple – it was one that I thought of myself, but rejected as I just did not practice law or conduct business that way.    The lawyer hero, Alan Shore, hired a bunch of thugs who went to the conservators’ home, beat him up, and left his tied like a steer at roundup time.    To add to the decor the thugs duct taped the mouth of the lawyer conservator.    Alan Shore made it a condition precedent to releasing the guardian/conservator his (the conservator) victim from hostage.    Simple, direct, economical, however, unlawful and unethical — HOWEVER human trafficking,  theft, tax evasion, kidnapping,  fraud ******* in most jurisdictions (apparently not in Illinois, Florida, Massachusetts *******)is also a bit anti=social and illegal even when applied to the elderly and the infirm.

    I know about Illinois — In the Sykes case when Ms. Denison and I were quoted by PROBATE SHARKS blog crying out for an honest investigation the Supreme Court of Illinois,  Mr. Jerome Larkin, and the Illinois Attorney Disciplinary Commission (IARDC) went bonkers and Larkin authored one false pleading after another.  Ken Ditkowsky!

    On Tuesday, March 13, 2018, 12:20:58 PM CDT, kenneth ditkowsky <> wrote:

    I keep mentioning Attorney JoAnne Denison’s blog however I wonder if anyone other that me actually looks at it.     Certainty, assuming that the Supreme Court Justices are honorable people, one or two should have looked at it and was more than a rubber stamp of Jerome Larkins perjury and perfidy.

    Just for the record I went to the blog and copied a portion for your edification, to wit:

    (see recent posts)

    From GG: One hour podcast discussing standing in foreclosure

    Special Guest: Illinois Foreclosure Defense Attorney Douglas Matton

    March 4, 2018 – Gary Dubin

    Co-Host: John Waihee

    Identification of the 21 Major “Standing” Issues in Foreclosure Litigation Today —

    With Returning Special Guest: Illinois Foreclosure Defense Attorney Douglas Matton

    (click here to listen)

    ldentification of the 21 Major “Standing” lssues in Foreclosure Litigation Today

    From FB: Right to appear pro se, while not unconstitutional, is an important right in the US

    In a criminal case, the 8th and 14th amendment confer the right of a defendant to appear pro se.  However, Sec. 35 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 confirms the right of a civil litigant to appear pro se.

    From O’Reilly v. NY Times  692 F.2d 863 (C.A.2 (N.Y.), 1982):

    We start with the proposition that the right to self-representation in civil cases conferred by Sec. 35 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, although not enjoying the constitutional protection subsequently afforded to the right of self-representation in criminal cases, Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 80695 S.Ct. 252545 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), is a right of high standing, not simply a practice to be honored or dishonored by a court depending on its assessment of the desiderata of a particular case. As the Court said in Faretta, supra, 422 U.S. at 830 n. 39, 95 S.Ct. at 2538 n. 39: “The Founders believed that self-representation was a basic right of a free people.” 5 Section 1654 comes to us freighted with history; it calls back visions of days when much litigation, especially on the “law side”, was carried on by strong self-reliant citizens who preferred to appeal to the sense of justice of “the country” rather than entrust their causes to lawyers trained in the intricacies of the law. In light of all this and with a citation to Faretta, we recognized in Phillips v. Tobin, 548 F.2d 408, 411 (2 Cir.1976), the “long established principle that in the federal courts the parties have the right to plead and conduct their own cases ….”, although holding the principle inapplicable when a layman sought to represent a corporation of which he was a stockholder in a derivative suit.

            The few qualifications which this court has put on the clear language of the self-representation clause of Sec. 1654 are consistent with its high purpose. One such qualification, enunciated in criminal cases, see United States v. Bentvena, 319 F.2d 916, 938 (2 Cir.1963); United States ex rel. Maldonado v. Denno, 348 F.2d 12, 15 (2 Cir.1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 100786 S.Ct. 195016 L.Ed.2d 1020 (1966), but equally applicable in civil cases, is that the right to self-representation must be timely asserted. The right is “unqualified” if invoked prior to trial but is “sharply curtailed” if first asserted after the trial has begun. Denno, supra, 348 F.2d at 15. An untimely request is committed to the discretion of the trial court, which may consider, among other factors, the reason for the

    Page 868

    request, the quality of the counsel representing the moving party, the party’s prior proclivity to substitute counsel, and the potential disruption to the proceedings. See Sapienza v. Vincent, 534 F.2d 1007, 1010 (2 Cir.1976). Rev. O’Reilly asserted his right in timely fashion, well before trial. The fact that his request came swiftly on the heels of defendant’s notice of motion for summary judgment does not make it untimely under Denno or confer discretion on the judge to treat it as such.

            A second qualification recognized in our cases is that the rights of self-representation and representation by counsel “cannot be both exercised at the same time.”United States v. Mitchell, 137 F.2d 1006, 1010 (2 Cir.1943), cert. denied, 321 U.S. 79464 S.Ct. 78588 L.Ed. 1083 (1944). Although a trial judge may in his discretion permit a party to enjoy both halves of the statutory right, see United States v. Swinton, 400 F.Supp. 805, 806 (S.D.N.Y.1975) and cases cited therein, Section 1654 does not itself confer any right to “hybrid representation”. United States v. Wolfish, 525 F.2d 457, 462-63 (2 Cir.1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 105996 S.Ct. 79446 L.Ed.2d 649 (1976)Accord, United States v. Hill, 526 F.2d 1019 (10 Cir.1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 94096 S.Ct. 167648 L.Ed.2d 182 (1976)United States v. Daniels, 572 F.2d 535 (5 Cir.1978). Thus, a party seeking to assert his statutory right of self-representation must clearly and unequivocally discharge any lawyer previously retained. See Wolfish, supra, 525 F.2d at 462. Rev. O’Reilly has done just that. In his initial letter to Judge Broderick of April 29, 1982, he stated that “I have discharged my attorney, William O’Reilly, [and] … shall henceforth plead and conduct my own case on a pro se basis.” He repeated this in his letters to the court of May 3 and May 7, 1982, as well as in the oral argument on his formal motion.

            Notwithstanding this, the Times contends here, as it did before Judge Broderick, that what Rev. O’Reilly really seeks, despite his avowals, is “hybrid representation”. In support of this contention it cites our decision in United States v. Private Brands, Inc., 250 F.2d 554 (2 Cir.1957), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 95778 S.Ct. 5422 L.Ed.2d 532 (1958). In that case a corporation and Carey, its President and controlling stockholder, had been jointly prosecuted for fraudulently misrepresenting the quality of chloroform sold to Government agencies. On the day trial was to begin, but before a jury was empanelled, Carey sought permission to proceed pro se and to have Driscoll, the attorney who had up to that point represented both him and the corporation, continue to represent the latter. The trial court denied Carey’s request and we affirmed. In a passage on which appellee seizes, we stated:

    In the case at bar Mr. Carey in effect wished to be represented by the attorney for the corporation, whose interests were identical with his own, and also act as his own attorney. The trial judge may well have thought this would cause delay and confusion in the trial. We cannot see any abuse of discretion in the way he handled the matter …. (emphasis supplied) 6

    You can find the entire case here:

    From FB: Texas Judge indicted by FBI over $6,000 in bribes for favorable rulings

    Photo: Shutterstock

    The FBI has charged a South Texas judge with accepting bribes after a lawyer working as a confidential informant helped agents record the jurist allegedly accepting $6,000 in cash in exchange for favorable rulings.

    Federal agents arrested 93rd State District Judge Rodolfo “Rudy” Delgado of Edinburg on Feb. 2. Delgado was charged with “bribery concerning programs receiving federal funds,” and released on $100,000 bond. The criminal complaint filed against Delgado alleges the FBI worked with an unnamed lawyer, who confessed he had a history dating back to 2008 of bribing Delgado.

    The lawyer-turned-informant, listed in the complaint under the initials CHS, worked with the FBI for over a year and participated in numerous recorded phone calls and meetings with Delgado.

    The attorney provided Delgado with pre-recorded government funds on two occasions, according to the complaint. In each instance, Delgado allegedly accepted a bribe to place the attorney’s clients on bond.

    The attorney wore a recording device as he met with Delgado at a restaurant to hand off an envelope containing the bribery money on Jan. 17, according to the complaint. Delgado allegedly accepted the bribe and then asked for the client and case number. Delgado placed the attorney’s client on bond the next day.

    However, on Jan. 29, Delgado sent a text message to the attorney, which stated, “Good evening, please call me. The campaign contribution needs to be by check. I need to return that to you so you can write a check. Sorry about the confusion, I though you knew and I did not open the envelope till today.”

    The complaint alleges the text message was an attempt by Delgado to cover up the bribe.

    “Delgado had solicited contributions from CHS in the past, but when CHS offered Delgado the bribe, he did not say that it was a campaign donation. Furthermore, CHS offered and Delgado accepted a thick white envelope full of prerecorded government funds,” the complaint alleges. Delgado did not return a call for comment. Neither did his attorney, Adolfo “Al” Alvarez.

    Eric Vinson, executive director of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, said Delgado will automatically be suspended from the bench upon indictment.

    The commission normally suspends judges without pay automatically if they are indicted for a felony or a misdemeanor involving official misconduct. Judges are allowed to petition the commission to resume their pay or to return to the bench after an indictment, Vinson said, but the commission has historically not allowed indicted judges to sit in Texas.

    “The Feds have 30 days to indict and we’re going to kind of watch and see what happens and go from there,” Vinson said.

    Delgado has a history with the commission. He was suspended from the bench in 2005 after a grand jury indicted him in connection with a driving while intoxicated incident. That suspension was later lifted by the commission in 2007 after the criminal charges against Delgado were dismissed by a visiting judge—a decision that was later upheld by Corpus Christi’s 13th Court of Appeals.

    From EB: A complaint filed by an attorney working the Disciplinary Board in NY admits that certain attorney grievances are routinely discarded without action

    At just about every juncture, everyone I talk to now who complaints about corruption in their casein Illinois, and in particular, Cook County, says you file a complaint with the Illinois ARDC and the JIB and in the end it is either lost or denied.

    Folks, these are valid grievances.

    How does this happen?  we can get a clue from the lawsuit filed in New York wherein a whistleblower at their offices make the following admission in a complaint (Anderson v. New York, find the complaint at this link:

    19. For more than six years, Plaintiff was employed as a Principal Attorney at the DDC, which is responsible for investigating and disciplining attorneys found guilty of misconduct in representing the public.
    20. Upon learning of the DDC’s pattern and practice of whitewashing and routinely dismissing complaints leveled against certain select attorneys – to the detriment of the very members  of the public the DDC is duty-bound to serve – Plaintiff reported these wrongdoings. In response, rather than attempting to address and rectify the problem, the DDC embarked upon a campaign of abuse and harassment of Plaintiff – including a physical assault upon Plaintiff – purposefully impeding and obstructing her ability to fulfill and serve in her legitimate job functions, and ultimately culminating in her retaliatory dismissal. That retaliatory dismissal also came in the middle of Plaintiffs pending grievance and violated the Union procedural rules for due process.


    29. For example, when Plaintiff learned of a complaint of misconduct against an attorney who was “favored” by her superiors, she witnessed that her fair and even-handed approach was not welcome in light of defendants desire to whitewash the pending complaint and contrive a quick dismissal of all charges.
    A. Plaintiff Discovers Corruption At The DDC
    30. From early 200 1 through in or about early 2003, as a Principal Attorney, Plaintiff worked independently, investigating complaints of misconduct from the public and adjudicating the merits of those complaints, as standard procedure. Plaintiff set forth her conclusions in memoranda, in the form a recommendation, which either argued in favor of bringing charges against the respondent or dismissing the complaint. Plaintiff’s work was then reviewed by her “case load supervisor,” Judith Stein. Ms. Stein would review Plaintiffs recommendations, and once approved, the recommendation would be sent to Defendant CAHILL. Once Defendant CAHILL reviewed and signed off on the recommendation, it would be sent to the Policy Committee, a body commissioned with the final recommendations for discipline. After reviewing the entire file, the Policy Committee would decide the ultimate level of discipline to be imposed. Defendant CAHILL’s First Deputy at the time was Sarah Jo Hamilton, who, while in that position, had not been involved in this review and approval process.
    31. In or about the Spring of 2003, Hamilton stepped down from her position of First Deputy to Cahill. She then assumed the position of Secretary of the Committee on Character and Fitness. She was replaced in the position of First Deputy by defendant Cohen.
    32. At first, Plaintiff’s job remained unaffected, as the First Deputy had never played a role in the direct supervision or the review of her work, as a Principal Attorney. Plaintiff thus continued to report to Stein, her caseload supervisor, who in tum reported to Chief Counsel Cahill, who would sign off on the matter. Suddenly, Cohen inserted herself into Plaintiff s work product, to advance her own agenda.
    33. In 2005 Plaintiff began to discovered that Cahill and Cohen were apparently engaged in a “numbers game” and practice of selectively disposing of complaints – dismissing complaints that involved certain parties. These actions were taken for their own personal or political reasons, and lor if they believed that a complaint would be burdensome or otherwise “unworthy” of prosecution for them.
    34. In addressing these dismissals to Cahill, Plaintiff stated that any such dismissal would constitute a fraud upon the public – as well as a grave injustice to the complainant to whom the DDC was duty-bound to serve. Plaintiff discovered that such complaints were being dismissed regardless of their merits – much to the detriment of the complainants.
    35. Plaintiff was highly disturbed, as she knew that any such pattern or practice of
    whitewashing certain complaints – in complete disregard oftheir merits – would plainly violate the rules and served to be completely inconsistent with the law, the mission of the DDC and constituted a grave and devastating fraud on the public.
    36. Plaintiff, was extremely concerned at this situation, and Plaintiff began to become increasingly uncomfortable in her job, as she observed the actions of Defendants. Plaintiff also acknowledged and reminded CahiIl that she had a duty, pursuant to DR l-103(A), to report acts of misconduct.
    37. In or about 2003, Plaintiff observed one such instance of corruption. Following a highly sensitive investigation which uncovered overwhelming concrete evidence of misconduct on the part of the respondent, Plaintiff concluded her investigation with a recommendation that the respondent be brought up on charges. Plaintiff received the approval of her case load supervisor, who in turn referred Plaintiff’s recommendations on to Defendant CAHILL.
    38. At some subsequent point, however, Plaintiff was informed that the complaint had been dismissed. Plaintiff was stunned. In light of the copious evidence of misconduct uncovered during her investigation, both she and her supervisor had readily and reasonably recommended charges. Plaintiff queried the final result. Upon information an belief, it was soon discovered that the Policy Committee had never received the recommendation that she authored and that Stein had approved.
    39. More shockingly, Plaintiff later discovered that the large file of evidence she had amassed during the course of her investigation had been gutted; the overstuffed file containing undisputable evidence of misconduct was suddenly paper-thin, lacking any of Plaintiffs significant evidentiary investigative findings.
    40. Upon information and belief, the case file of the complainant in question had been gutted by Defendants CAHILL and COHEN, who conspired to cover-up the respondent’s misconduct and Plaintiffs recommendation, for their own personal and/or political incentives.
    41. Upon information and belief, when Plaintiff inquired as to the final disposition of complaints -and discovered the cover-ups – Plaintiffs actions were closely observed by her superiors, Defendants CAHILL and COHEN. Shortly thereafter, upon information and belief, Plaintiff began to be regarded as a threat, as someone who was not a “team player” in the estimation of Defendants
    42. Defendants CAHILL and COHEN’s corrupt pattern and practice of fraudulently
    whitewashing certain complaints continued. In or about September 2005, Plaintiff completed an extremely complex investigation of a respondent. Although Plaintiff believed that the conduct complained of argued strongly in favor of charges, because of both a lack of actual proof of a conversion, and initial lack of cooperation from the client, Plaintiff and her case load supervisor, Ms. Stein, agreed that the matter be recommended for an admonition.
    43. Ms. Stein referred the recommendation to Defendant CAHILL. Both Ms. Stein and
    Defendant CAHILL approved the admonition. Defendant CAHILL simply requested an introductory paragraph, explaining to the Policy Committee the reasons that the DDC chose to recommend an admonition as opposed to charges. (The Policy Committee, after reviewing the entire file, decides the level of discipline to be imposed.)
    44. Plaintiff complied and inserted such an explanatory paragraph, however, Defendant COHEN intervened. Despite Defendant CAHILL’s prior approval, Defendant COHEN stated that she intended to re-write the admonition because it was “too harsh” in its tone, and that she was afraid the Committee might send the admonition back to the DDC for the imposition of charges. Defendant Cohen
    stated that she did not want to “tie up” an attorney “for six months” on a trial, if no charges were determined to be imposed.
    45. Plaintiff responded that Staff attorneys were tied up on trials all the time, and that it was improper to re-write a document in order to skew it to achieve a particular result. Over Plaintiff s objections, Defendant COHEN stepped in and re-wrote the admonition, deleting facts Plaintiff had uncovered during her investigation, and misrepresented the conclusions that Plaintiff had reached.
    Plaintiff was shocked, and such action was unprecedented.
    46. By the time Defendant COHEN had completed her re-write, the document no longer reflected the conclusions Plaintiff had reached. Plaintiff refused to have her name used on Defendant COHEN’s new creation, as the document was no longer an honest and accurate representation of the facts uncovered and conclusions reached as a result of Plaintiff’s investigation.
    47. Upon information and belief, Cohen intervened on this matter because she had a prior working relationship with the respondent’s counsel. Upon information and belief, Cohen sought to prevent the respondent from being brought up on charges as a favor to this counsel.
    48. Nine months later, when Cohen had finally completed her re-write, she sent it to the Policy Committee. Lacking knowledge as to Cohen’s manipulations, the Committee unwittingly signed
    off on the recommendation. Plaintiff was troubled that the Committee had never received an honest rendering of the facts; she believed that they had been deceived.
    49. Plaintiff was also concerned that Cahill and Cohen, actively and tacitly – were engaged in a corrupt, criminal pattern and practice of fraudulently obstructing and manipulating the disposition of certain complaints. Such behavior in which defendants were engaged was doing a disservice to the public. Plaintiff was compelled to reported her concerns to Cahill, advising him that she believed
    Cohen’s actions had been unethical and that he, also, had orchestrated and been a party to that unethical conduct.

    You can read more in the complaint about how the NY Disciplinary Board wholly ignored certain complaints and how Plaintiff was a good whistleblower who had no protection.

    But this is obviously going on in Illinois, judging from information I have seen in complaints about attorneys working in probate (Sykes, Alice Gore, both murder, both had millions missing; Jay Brouckmeersch–murdered, no action taken;  Helen Rector–murdered and false arrests, no action taken; Mary Teichert, murdered, assets stolen, destroyed, looted, no action taken against attorneys at OPG Nathan Goldenson, etc.  too many cases to mention.)