From KKD: Judges and attorneys continue to exploit and abuse Amy and Dean Sallas

As I stated, it is time for the ‘good guys’ to rise up and address the clear and present danger that corrupt predators present.    It is time for the Court appointed guardians who have ravaged the lives of Mr. and Mrs. Sallas account.

On the streets of the major cities the frontier approach is becoming more and more evident, and victims more and more diverse.    Respect for the rule of law is virtually identical to that exhibited a week ago Tuesday in Judge Boliker’s courtroom and in Judge Robles courtroom as he issued a secret order (holding it in secret from Dean Sallas for about 11 days).      The distinction was that the elderly victims of the breach of the public trust did not and could not physically react in a violent manner.    Indeed, while the miscreant guardian and his co-conspirators were physically safe,  the elderly couple had to deal with impending official violence directed to them.

At all time relevant every Judge, every lawyer, every social worker, every claimed worker for social justice and everyone associated with the political system knew that the guardian’s authority was limited and the statute made it very clear that in Illinois the Rule of Law was consistent with the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, to wit:

(b) Guardianship shall be utilized only as is necessary to promote the well-being of the person with a disability, to protect him from neglect, exploitation, or abuse, and to encourage development of his maximum self-reliance and independence. Guardianship shall be ordered only to the extent necessitated by the individual's actual mental, physical, and adaptive limitations.
(Source: P.A. 99-143, eff. 7-27-15.)

How does isolating, medicating, and otherwise abusing an 80 year old widow promote her well-being.    How does isolating her from her spouse of more than 50 years not exploit or abuse her?   How does pulling all her teeth and render her immobile encourage development of her maximum self-reliance and independence?    How does making her and her husband’s marital property interests disappear comport with the statute?    It should be noted that in spite of the clear words of section 22 the Guardian did not even raise a defense to the Byline Bank’s wrongfully trading, bartering with the 80 year old widow to gain control over her home.   The statute is absolutely clear, i.e.

  (755 ILCS 5/11a-22) (from Ch. 110 1/2, par. 11a-22)
    Sec. 11a-22. Trade and contracts with a person with a disability.
    (a) Anyone who by trading with, bartering, gaming or any other device, wrongfully possesses himself of any property of a person known to be a person with a disability commits a Class A misdemeanor.
    (b) Every note, bill, bond or other contract by any person for whom a plenary guardian has been appointed or who is adjudged to be unable to so contract is void as against that person and his estate, but a person making a contract with the person so adjudged is bound thereby.
(Source: P.A. 99-143, eff. 7-27-15.)

Indeed, Illinois and many other states have enacted legislation to address the actions of  the guardian, the judges, the lawyers, and all others who are vested with the public trust, to wit:

·         Criminal Elder Abuse
720 Ill. Comp. Stat.  5/17-56
·         (a) A person commits financial exploitation of an elderly person or a person with a disability when he or she stands in a position of trust or confidence with the elderly person or a person with a disability and he or she knowingly and by deception or intimidation obtains control over the property of an elderly person or a person with a disability or illegally uses the assets or resources of an elderly person or a person with a disability.
    (b) Sentence. Financial exploitation of an elderly person or a person with a disability is: (1) a Class 4 felony if the value of the property is $300 or less, (2) a Class 3 felony if the value of the property is more than $300 but less than $5,000, (3) a Class 2 felony if the value of the property is $5,000 or more but less than $50,000, and (4) a Class 1 felony if the value of the property is $50,000 or more or if the elderly person is over 70 years of age and the value of the property is $15,000 or more or if the elderly person is 80 years of age or older and the value of the property is $5,000 or more.
    (c) For purposes of this Section:
        (1) “Elderly person” means a person 60 years of age
or older.
        (2) “Person with a disability” means a person who
suffers from a physical or mental impairment resulting from disease, injury, functional disorder or congenital condition that impairs the individual’s mental or physical ability to independently manage his or her property or financial resources, or both.
        (3) “Intimidation” means the communication to an
elderly person or a person with a disability that he or she shall be deprived of food and nutrition, shelter, prescribed medication or medical care and treatment or conduct as provided in Section 12-6 of this Code.
        (4) “Deception” means, in addition to its meaning as
defined in Section 15-4 of this Code, a misrepresentation or concealment of material fact relating to the terms of a contract or agreement entered into with the elderly person or person with a disability or to the existing or pre-existing condition of any of the property involved in such contract or agreement; or the use or employment of any misrepresentation, false pretense or false promise in order to induce, encourage or solicit the elderly person or person with a disability to enter into a contract or agreement.
    The illegal use of the assets or resources of an elderly person or a person with a disability includes, but is not limited to, the misappropriation of those assets or resources by undue influence, breach of a fiduciary relationship, fraud, deception, extortion, or use of the assets or resources contrary to law.
    A person stands in a position of trust and confidence with an elderly person or person with a disability when he (i) is a parent, spouse, adult child or other relative by blood or marriage of the elderly person or person with a disability, (ii) is a joint tenant or tenant in common with the elderly person or person with a disability, (iii) has a legal or fiduciary relationship with the elderly person or person with a disability, (iv) is a financial planning or investment professional, or (v) is a paid or unpaid caregiver for the elderly person or person with a disability.
    (d) Limitations. Nothing in this Section shall be construed to limit the remedies available to the victim under the Illinois Domestic Violence Act of 1986.
    (e) Good faith efforts. Nothing in this Section shall be construed to impose criminal liability on a person who has made a good faith effort to assist the elderly person or person with a disability in the management of his or her property, but through no fault of his or her own has been unable to provide such assistance.
    (f) Not a defense. It shall not be a defense to financial exploitation of an elderly person or person with a disability that the accused reasonably believed that the victim was not an elderly person or person with a disability.
    (g) Civil Liability. A civil cause of action exists for financial exploitation of an elderly person or a person with a disability as described in subsection (a) of this Section. A person against whom a civil judgment has been entered for financial exploitation of an elderly person or person with a disability shall be liable to the victim or to the estate of the victim in damages of treble the amount of the value of the property obtained, plus reasonable attorney fees and court costs. In a civil action under this subsection, the burden of proof that the defendant committed financial exploitation of an elderly person or a person with a disability as described in subsection (a) of this Section shall be by a preponderance of the evidence. This subsection shall be operative whether or not the defendant has been charged or convicted of the criminal offense as described in subsection (a) of this Section. This subsection (g) shall not limit or affect the right of any person to bring any cause of action or seek any remedy available under the common law, or other applicable law, arising out of the financial exploitation of an elderly person or a person with a disability.
    (h) If a person is charged with financial exploitation of an elderly person or a person with a disability that involves the taking or loss of property valued at more than $5,000, a prosecuting attorney may file a petition with the circuit court of the county in which the defendant has been charged to freeze the assets of the defendant in an amount equal to but not greater than the alleged value of lost or stolen property in the defendant’s pending criminal proceeding for purposes of restitution to the victim. The burden of proof required to freeze the defendant’s assets shall be by a preponderance of the evidence.
(Source: P.A. 99-272, eff. 1-1-16.)

Dean Sallas’ Bankruptcy is not a casual affair to gain time or to prevent the Byline Bank from completing it illegal sale of the home of Mr. and Mrs. Sallas.   It is not a counter to the expected approval of just about anything that Byline or its nominee do by Judge Robles.

Congress enacted the Bankruptcy law and gave wide powers to the Bankruptcy Court to address exactly the type of predation that has occurred in case 07 P 5360  and 2019 CH 13960.   An Adversary proceeding should be filed to recover from the miscreants the marital property interests stolen from this elderly couple and to recover damages for the serious breach of trust demonstrated by the judges who abandoned their public trust and became co-conspirators with the guardian and the Financial institution that did the dirty work.   

By the Bankruptcy filing, the UNITED STATES TRUSTEE now owns the multi=million dollar claim for Dean Sallas’ marital property interests stolen from he and his wife by the ultra vires actions of persons guilty of financial elder abuse.  The fact that the crimes were committed in the Courthouse, but acts acting in direct derogation of the 14th Amendment and the limitations of their authority does not give immunity or exculpation.

Dean Sallas is not going out and car jacking Mr. Golbert’s vehicle, nor is he going out and purchasing a gun.   The Bankruptcy code and the Trustee in Bankruptcy give him a nuclear option.    In fact it provides all the helpless elderly victims of America’s modern Holocaust a remedy.   The Bankruptcy Judge is not running mortgage foreclosure mill weighed heavily toward ethically challenged creditors, nor is he providing jobs and income to his special friends – appointing them guardians, GAL’s, attorney for ****.   The United States Trustee’s office is interested in providing a level playing field for all who it services and in particular protecting the rights of the less affluent litigant cannot claim that the Byline Bank’s attorney fees for a case still in the pleading stage generated $41,000 dollars of attorney fees.   (Even Judge Robles could not purchase that averment – he reduced the fee to $25,000)

Ken Ditkowsky

On Tuesday, February 22, 2022, 10:01:26 PM CST, kenneth ditkowsky <> wrote:

To those who are possessed with the public trust, the elderly are not a considered to be very important.  The Felonies of elder cleansing, financial elder abuse, human trafficking in the elderly etc are not high priority – just a pain.

Unfortunately it is not long and we all look in the mirror and an image looks back at us that we do not recognize – in my case it was an old man with white hair dressed in a sweat shirt that looked like a handmedown and a a pair of basketball shorts that obviously was a handmedown.   The face is what was scary – that old man looked like me!!!!    As I was contemplating the image a middle aged woman obviously in her late 50’s or early 60’s  accosted me and started her utterance with the word “DAD!”

To my shock – I was being told that it was too cold for me to take my bicycle out!

It happens to everyone!   It happened to Mr. and Mrs. Dean Sallas.   In their situation they were ambushed by the propaganda that America is a democracy, the home of the free and the brave, etc, etc.    Indeed, it is IF YOU KEEP YOUR GUARD UP!    Amy Sallas had some problems, and retired from her employment.  Dean who was a bit older also was retired and together that put together a nest egg of investments that had a net value of more than 8 million dollars.

Mr. and Mrs. Sallas were seduced and infected by the bug – IT CANNOT HAPPEN TO ME.   They like so many vulnerable elderly actually believed the political people who sold snake oil, to wit:  America has a caring government and we respect the elderly.    They had not met Judge Stuart, Judge Boliker, the Cook County Public Guardian or that cast of characters.    Sallas actually believed that the Rule of Law meant something and 755 ILCS 5/11a -10 and its due process provision was more than words.   The old man and woman thought that 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3 providing for CLEAR & CONVINCING EVIDENCE of disability meant that at least a scintilla of evidence was equated to the words Clear and Convincing!   As I said, they did not know Judge Stuart or the her appointed guardian.   They saw the dollar signs and Mr. and Mrs. Sallas were off on the fast track to isolation, medication, and deprivation of rights, privileges and immunities.   The protection and limitations of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3b were ignored.

Seize the money was the credo and even before a hearing could be held the victims were sized, seized and diced!    Everyone who co-operated with the miscreants got a piece of the pie.    Lawyers who thought that the oath of an attorney meant something soon learned that there was a penalty of suspension of your license if you protested.   To Hell with decisions such as Himmel

 the object of Guardianship was not to protect – it was to pillage and destroy – AND most importantly get those savings accumulated by Mr. and Mrs. Sallas into ‘hands’ that would appreciate them!   All Sallas would do with those funds would be to spoil his/her grandchildren.

Today, with Mr. Sallas’ Bankruptcy the miscreants are able to pat themselves on the back and cry out!

well done!

Indeed,  the Corrupt judges, the guardians, and the various hangeron lawyers have over the past approximately 15 years undone well over 50 years of blood sweat and tears.    Amy Sallas has lost her teeth, her mobility, but she has a Grave!   Dean Sallas has filed for Bankruptcy – or the goal of making him homeless and penniless would have been accomplished! Good people across America have protested this American holocaust, but rest assured [ no one cares and the poor bastards are satisfied by pols who enact more and more legislation that it ignored, or better yet write GAO reports to Congress that are never read.   As I said at word one – those old folks are a pain -0- until I become one of them.
The Sallas case is particularly obnoxious as it embodies for all to observe the full extent of the perfidy and avarice of our judicial system and too many of the people tied to it.   It embodies the ‘don’t see, don’t hear, don’t tell, and do not make waves attitude of our those members of our political system who characterize themselves as the ‘best and the brightest.’     It embodies the thin blue line of our law enforcement and it impotence.  And finally it informs all of us, rich, poor, old, young, et al that never trust a politician or a guy (or gal) in a suit who promises you something.   Indeed, it tells everyone why our streets are a war zone and why so many of us are purchasing guns!
Let me be candid – when Dean Sallas told me that his wife was at a nursing home, had been exposed to covid and the ‘guardian’ told him that he could not give him a report on his wife’s condition because of HIPPA, had someone said that to me instead of Judge Boliker approving the Guardian’s death and burial plan for Amy Sallas, the actual event targeting the guardian might be taking place.    I am not known for being so docile!   (My wife and my children also are not so *****)
The Sallas case is replete with the Court, the guardian and all their co-conspirators running rampant over the human and civil rights of Mr. and Mrs. Sallas.    Today is the first day of the rest of the lives of Mr. and Mrs. Sallas and I’m assured that that *****.   Talk is cheap!    

Ken Ditkowsky

From the IARDC: more fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud and theft

Fwd: Joanne Denison – ARDC LIEN – Closing: 2/16
3 messages

MICHAEL RIVAS <>Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 7:27 AM
To: JoAnne M Denison <>, Brian Thompson <>, Sharon E Corse <>
Sent from my iPhoneBegin forwarded message:From: “Brown, Amy” <>
Date: February 15, 2022 at 5:27:17 PM CST
To: Michael Rivas <>,
Cc: “Lowery, Mary” <>
Subject: RE: Joanne Denison – ARDC LIEN – Closing: 2/16Good evening:  I was not at my computer today.  I will be in the office all day tomorrow.  We are in the process of calculating the interest on the $17,554.58 judgment.  I should have an answer to you by tomorrow (Wednesday).  Sorry for the delay.  Amy Amy G. BrownSenior Litigation ParalegalAttorney Registration & Disciplinary Commissionof the Supreme Court of Illinois130 East Randolph, St. 1500Chicago, Illinois 60601312-565-2600 (main)312-565-2320 (fax)312-540-5248 (direct)   From: Michael Rivas <>
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 8:44 AM
Cc: Brown, Amy <>
Subject: Joanne Denison – ARDC LIEN – Closing: 2/16 Brian:     I have still have not received an invoice from the ARDC concerning the above. If nothing is received by the end of business day, I would suggest setting aside $30K in escrow – Mike Rivas

JoAnne M Denison <>Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 9:30 AM
I am objecting to paying off that lien. It’s a false judgment in the court reporter was unlicensed and it should have been taken care of months ago[Quoted text hidden]

JoAnne M Denison <>Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 9:45 AM
To: MICHAEL RIVAS <>,, Kenneth Ditkowsky <>Cc: Brian Thompson <>, Sharon E Corse <>
Dear Amy;I am objecting to any payout on the ARDC loan. It fully is false and fraudulent lien.  If there is a payout instead of a full release, I will sue everyone involved at the ARDC, including you, personally and I will drag the  ARDC through the mud again for their perfidy and mendacity.The amount is based upon transcripts prepared for an unlicensed court reporter.  You can look that up, you can call the IDPFR and get the documents.  She was unlicensed for 10 years and had to voluntarily surrender her license.  If the court reporter is unlicensed, there is no judgment in the case.I have warned Sharon Opryszek that the lien is false and fraudulent and she said nothing. She did nothing about it.  I have no intention of ever becoming licensed again through the IARDC, because it is a criminal organization.I am herewith demanding the IARDC send my attorney, Michael Rivas, a full release of this loan instead.Thank  you for your cooperation.The pleadings for my case are published on my blog and are in the IARDC files.You have been forewarned.  Govern yourself accordingly,  Do the right thing.Joanne Denisoncc:[Quoted text hidden]–
JoAnne Denison, Justice 4 Every1, NFP, 5534 N. Milwaukee Ave, Chicago, IL 60634.  work phone 312;553-1300 efax 773-423-4455; cell phone 773-255-7608.  NOTE:  Joanne Denison is not a licensed attorney and does not provide any legal opinions or advice.  She is an expert consultant in political/court corruption; follow my blog at to promote judicial integrity and accountability.
make an appointment at and bring a donationour work can only continue via your generous donations. we are  a 501 c 3 not for profit corp and donations may be tax deductible with a receipt.donate at or on patreon at

I will be filing a police report on this attempted fraud and theft

From AS: Andrew Straw disciplined and suspended for filing ADA cases to protect the disabled

United States District Court for the
Northern District of Indiana
IN THE MATTER OF ) Case No.: 1:17-mc-00005
An Attorney. )

I, plaintiff, Andrew U. D. Straw, PETITION for reinstatement under the
Local Rule 83.6-11(c):

  1. I paid in full the discipline fees of the Indiana Supreme Court in
    March 2021 with my Biden Stimulus Payment.
  2. I have been suspended both by the Indiana Supreme Court and this
    Court, though this Court’s reciprocal suspension at Dkt. 4
    (3/21/2017) was entered on the record with two federal lawsuits
    pending to stop the Indiana suspension.
  3. I include a copy of the Indiana suspension and the VSB ORDER
    exonerating me and finding that I had violated no ethical rule by
    “clear and convincing” evidence. Exhibits 1 & 2.
  4. This Court has never given me the right to a proper hearing so I
    could explain why the Indiana Supreme Court discipline is wholly
    without substance and void.
  5. The same question of whether to impose a suspension was before
    the Virginia State Bar and after due process before a 3-judge panel,
    I was 100% exonerated, found not to have violated any ethical rule,
    and that the Indiana Supreme Court’s attack using its ADA
    coordinator, “had all the grace and charm of a drive-by shooting.”
  7. The problem for Indiana is that my suspension was still being
    appealed two different ways when Virginia’s ORDER became final
    and was not appealed because the Bar Counsel in Virginia actually
    agreed with me that I did nothing unethical in filing 4 federal
    lawsuits for disability rights as a disabled person.
  8. Thus, the Virginia State Bar ORDER finding by clear and
    convincing evidence is first in time final on June 20, 2017. The
    summary dismissal ORDER was entered on May 24, 2017.
  9. The 16-1346 direct appeal of my suspension to the U.S. Supreme
    Court via petition for writ of cert. was not decided until June 26,
  10. This was too late to create first in time final effect.
  11. Note that this is 6 days after the VSB ORDER was entered.
  12. I also had another federal lawsuit to stop the discipline under
    the ADA Title II, which does apply to state courts. Tennessee v.
    Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 525, 531 (2004).
  13. That lawsuit was not decided on appeal at the 7th Circuit until
    July 6, 2017, meaning the case to stop what Indiana did was not
    final at the 7th Circuit until 16 days after the VSB ORDER was first
    in time final.
  14. Straw v. Indiana Supreme Court, et. al., 17-1338, 692 F. App’x
    291 (7th Cir. 7/6/2017).
  15. I appealed this 7th Circuit decision to the U.S. Supreme Court
    and the denial of certiorari did not take place in that 17-6812 docket
    until January 8, 2018, 202 days after the VSB ORDER was first in
    time final.
  16. Please never forget that this is between me and my former
    employer when I became disabled driving there to work, a reckless
    driver breaking my legs, pelvis, and skull as I drove to serve the
    Chief Justice of Indiana and every court in the State of Indiana,
    over 400 of them I served.
  17. I made a complaint about the ADA violations of my former
    employer and it ended up on the desk of the Indiana Supreme Court
    ADA coordinator, who was eager to cause me injury and discredit
    me. She attacked 4 federal lawsuits I had filed in 2014 that were
    not final when she attacked them. She also attacked my mental
    disability and blamed it for my filing these cases.
  18. Please take notice of her judicial act as an officer of the
    Indiana Supreme Court:
  19. In every one of the cases she attacked that ended up in the
    suspension ORDER, I was not accused of anything unethical, did
    not receive any FRCP Rule 11(c) due process, and was not issued
    any sanction, and this is obvious because the due process was
    wholly lacking to justify any sanction.
  20. Judges don’t just get to point at people, grunt angrily, and end
    their careers. While that is apparently how it works at the Indiana
    Supreme Court, federal courts are bound by due process under the
    5th Amendment.
  21. Thus, while Indiana says it was enforcing Rule 3.1, it was not.
    There was no evidence of a Rule 3.1 violation given no due process
    was provided to reach that conclusion.
  22. This Court in particular in the Rutherford and Dixon cases
    did not give me due process under Rule 11(c) for any sanction, and
    did not impose a sanction under Rule 11.
  23. The Northern District of Illinois was even more dubious. The
    ABA case was dismissed, but the word frivolous did not even appear
    in any order of the Court, but Indiana just stepped in and
  24. Even the Kloecker case dismissal only mentioned the word
    frivolous one time, and it was done not in the ethical sense, but to
    say my legal interpretation of evidence was wrong. Wrong is not an
    ethical violation. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 320 (1989).
  25. Moreover, even the 7th Circuit that has been so hostile to me
    has said there is a First Amendment right to file lawsuits and
    petition courts with viewpoints. Domanus v. Locke Lord LLP, 847
    F.3d 469, 483 (7th Cir. 2017).
  26. The 7th Circuit has punished me and restricted my ability to
    file across its area in all courts because I expressed the viewpoint
    that the 7th Circuit hiring my appellee to be a federal judge and
    favoring him in my appeal was illegitimate and wrong. Straw v.
    Indiana Supreme Court, et. al., 692 F. App’x 291 (7th Cir. 2017)
    (Dkts. 79 & 80). It is a due process violation for the 7th Circuit to
    continue violating my rights to use the courts while making my
    opponents into federal judges. There is no shame, but this Court
    does not have to collude and violate the 5th Amendment.
  27. The Indiana Supreme Court was simply out to get me after I
    made a legitimate and true ADA complaint about it. It cannot then
    turn around and do a DARVO against me, claiming its victim is
    really at fault.
  28. The Indiana Supreme Court has taken 2 cases from this
    District Court and imposed a reciprocal suspension based on them
    when this Court, the Northern District of Indiana, imposed no
    discipline at all, and I was and still am an attorney of this Court.
  29. I am a federal attorney, associated with the bar of this Court,
    and I have been abused by a lower state court without any good
    reason, only discrimination and retaliation. It should shock the
    conscience that a state court would abuse me that way.
  30. Indiana imposed a reciprocal suspension when there was no
    suspension (either in Indiana or Illinois) against me, and then this
    District Court imposed a reciprocal suspension based on that
    meritless and baseless Indiana reciprocal suspension.
  31. Bootstrapping retaliation based on NOTHING by a state
    supreme court UNDER this Court should not be allowed.
  32. I committed no crime, felony or misdemeanor.
  33. I committed no dishonest act.
  34. I had a clean disciplinary history as a lawyer from 1999 (my
    first bar exam passage in Virginia) to 2017, when this fake
    reciprocal suspension was imposed to get revenge and ruin my
  35. Not one of my 10+ mitigating facts, brimming over in my selfdefense in that fake Indiana process, was considered or made part
    of the final Indiana suspension ORDER. I may as well have been
    gagged and thrown in the basement while they did this to me.
  36. Please take notice:
  37. It is below the dignity of this Court to continue this fake
    reciprocal discipline that the Virginia State Bar found in its
    ORDER to be wholly without merit.
  38. That Virginia State Bar ORDER must be obeyed and its
    findings of fact and law are FIRST IN TIME FINAL.
  39. Thus there is res judicata impact and collateral preclusion of
    any contrary finding. 28 U.S.C. § 1738 (cl. 3).
  40. Reinstatement here should happen under N.D. Ind. L.R. 83-
  41. I petition here under (c)(1) and provide the Indiana and
    Virginia ORDERs as attached Exhibits 1 & 2.
  42. (c)(2)(A) provides that the Chief Judge must promptly decide
    whether I am fit to practice law again. In this case, it was never
    established that I was not fit and that is why the FIRST IN TIME
    FINAL ORDER in Virginia should determine this decision. I was
    exonerated by clear and convincing evidence. (Ex. 2)
  43. Under (c)(2)(B) the Chief Judge, finding absolutely no
    sanctions justifying Indiana’s reciprocal attack, should recommend
    reinstatement without fees, given this was never my fault. I
    presented over 1500 pages of evidence to show VSB that I did not
    deserve this, ever.
  44. I ask the Court’s District Judges (not any bankruptcy judge)
    to find under (c)(3)(A) that given the VSB ORDER, its first in time
    final findings of fact and law, there is no reason to keep me from
    being the fully admitted federal attorney here that started when I
    passed the Indiana Bar Exam in 2002 while working for the Chief
    Justice of Indiana and serving every court in the state.
  45. Help me celebrate my 20 years of bar membership here by
    removing this 5 years of bogus and unfair discipline that violates
    my constitutional and statutory rights.
  46. My efiling privileges should be reinstated.
  47. Given I have not filed an explicit N.D. Ind. L.R. 83-6.11(c)
    petition up to this point, this petition should be allowed now.
  48. Out of respect for the Court’s recent COVID ORDERs (e.g.,
    General Order No. 2021-33), I ask that the admonition to file by US
    Mail be set aside and this document and the exhibits be allowed by
    WHEREFORE, I petition the Court to reinstate me as an active in good
    standing attorney of this Court, and make this nunc pro tunc due to the
    circumstances of the fake reciprocal suspension.
    I, plaintiff Andrew U. D. Straw, verify that to the best of my knowledge,
    information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the
    circumstances, that the above statements and factual representations
    are true and correct under penalty of perjury. February 13, 2022
    Respectfully submitted,
    700 12th ST NW STE 700 PMB 92403
    Washington, DC 20005
    Telephone: (847) 807-5237

I, Andrew U. D. Straw, certify that I filed the above PETITION and
EXHIBITS and ORDER proposed below with the Clerk of Court via email
on February 13, 2022.
Respectfully submitted,
700 12th ST NW STE 700
PMB 92403
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (847) 807-5237
Pro Se
United States District Court for the
Northern District of Indiana
IN THE MATTER OF ) Case No.: 1:17-mc-00005
An Attorney. )

The Court, having considered the matter in the facts and law and
premises, hereby find that Andrew U. D. Straw did not merit any
reciprocal suspension here and his sanctions are hereby obliterated as
though never imposed. His efiling privileges are hereby reinstated.
Given Attorney Straw did not merit these sanctions at all, no fees will be
imposed on him. The Court wishes Attorney Straw well on his 20th
Anniversary of being admitted to the Bar of this Court.
It is so ORDERED.