About jmdenison

Patent and Trademark Attorney practicing in Chicago, Illinois accepting clients nationwide. We also do trademarks, general intellectual property and business litigation. See our website at www.DenisonLaw.com. Now suspended for 3 years by the Illinois Atty Regn and Disciplinary Commission for blogging about corruption and telling truths that the ARDC wants to cover up. Still a patent agent, tho.

Finally, John Oliver does Guardianships!


While the blogs and those who have been burned in gship and their family members and who have gone to mega media over and over again, only to find out they won’t report on this news, they and the media are threatened by the court system with lawsuits, this is for you.

This was published on June 3, 2018 and already has 1.7 million views and 3.9k comments

Thanks so much to Mr. John Oliver for doing this and bringing out an important problem in the US court systems.

It is everywhere across the nation.


From RM: On restricting access to courts

Here is an interesting article with the basic law and then Kansas cases


and here is an excerpt.

Generally tho, when a judge issues a “cannot file” order, it just means you have to file a motion to file and declaration with your motion.

Most pro se litigants do not know this, so it stops them from filing 95% of the time and the judge’s problem is solved.


Summary of Authorities for Judges Considering
Whether to Restrict Court Filings
This document, which was prepared by the Kansas Supreme Court Access to Justice
Committee, is intended to be a summary of current case law and legislation about restricting
court filings submitted by abusive litigants. The Summary of Authorities does not constitute a
rule or order of the court.
I. Constitutional Right of Access to the Courts.
The Fourteenth Amendment provides a right of access to the courts, which
includes access by inmates. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977). This right is neither
absolute nor unconditional. A litigant has “no constitutional right of access to the courts
to prosecute an action that is frivolous or malicious.” Holt v. State, 290 Kan. 491, 500,
232 P.3d 848 (2010). Yet, “[l]itigiousness alone will not support an injunction restricting
filing activities.” Tripati v. Beamani, 878 F.2d 351, 353 (10th Cir. 1989). Federal courts
have recognized a court’s inherent power to control the actions of abusive litigants “by
imposing carefully tailored restrictions in appropriate circumstances.” Ford v. Pryor, 553
F.3d 1174, 1180 (10th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). Citing these Tenth Circuit
decisions, the Kansas Supreme Court has held that Kansas district courts have inherent
power to impose carefully tailored restrictions on abusive litigants in appropriate
circumstances and has authority to direct a district court clerk to refrain from filing
pleadings in such cases. Holt, 290 Kan. at 500-02.
This Summary of Authorities reviews Kansas law for a judge of the district court
to consider when encountering a litigant who repeatedly files frivolous, malicious, or
duplicative pleadings. The court will need to evaluate several issues to determine
whether filing restrictions are justified, to fashion appropriate restrictions for an abusive
litigant, and to enforce those restrictions. The designation of a litigant as abusive should
be an extraordinary remedy to be used in the most extreme cases.

II. Are Filing Restrictions Justified?
A judge of the district court may, upon his or her own motion, make a
determination that an individual is an abusive litigant and make restrictions on filings in a
particular case or future cases. The court must first determine whether filing restrictions
are justified for a particular litigant. While some states have a statutory framework
defining restrictions,1
Kansas does not. Instead, except for certain habeas corpus filings,

The number of states with statutory provisions is difficult to establish. Some statutes relate specifically to inmate
filings and others have been held unconstitutional. Cf., Mulroony, Amanda L.B., Indiana’s “Three Strikes” Inmate
Litigation Limitations: 2009 Legislation Does Not Hit a Home Run, 44 Ind. L. Rev. 957 (2011). State statutes not
limited to inmate filings include: CAL. CCP. CODE § 391 (vexatious litigant is a person filing 5 cases in 7 years all
decided against the litigant); FL Civil Prac.§ 68.093 (vexatious litigant is a person filing 5 or more cases in previous
5 years that are decided against the litigant); Haw. Rev. Stat. § 634J-7 (vexatious litigant); Ohio Rev. Code §
2323.52 (vexatious conduct defined); TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 11.051, et seq. (procedure to
determine if vexatious litigant, prohibit filings, and place on state list of vexatious litigants).

2 Rev. 6/5/2015
a Kansas court must turn to case law for guidance about what circumstances justify
imposition of filing restrictions.
A. Civil cases in Kansas courts: Does a pattern of litigation activity justify
1. Kansas Appellate Courts.

The Kansas Court of Appeals has held a court should consider
whether a litigant’s “pattern of litigation activity” justifies imposing filing
restrictions, noting numerous factors may be considered depending upon
the circumstances. State ex rel. Stoval v. Lynn, 26 Kan. App. 2d 79, 82,
975 P.2d 813, 815, rev. denied 267 Kan. 890 (1999) (hereinafter Lynn).
Paraphrasing, the court held that a “pattern of litigation activity” justifies
imposition of filing restrictions if:
(a) a litigant files numerous pleadings,
(b) the pleadings are manifestly abusive toward the court or another
litigant, and
(c) prior pleadings have not been successful for the litigant.

The court found a pattern of litigation activity justified imposing
filing restrictions where numerous cases were filed in state district court
(eight are listed) seeking information to support a litigant’s pending direct
criminal appeal. Lawsuits filed against the victim of rape charges,
witnesses, police investigators, prosecutors, judges, and a juror’s spouse
were held to be abusive and an attempt to harass those being sued. Lynn,
26 Kan. App. 2d at 79-82.
2. United States District Court for the District of Kansas.
The United States District Court for the District of Kansas has held
that several factors are relevant in deciding future restrictions are
appropriate, including:
(a) a litigant’s history of litigation and particularly whether this history
entailed vexatious, harassing, or duplicative lawsuits;
(b) a litigant’s motive in pursuing litigation, such as whether the
litigant has an objective good faith expectation of prevailing;
(c) whether a litigant is represented by counsel;
(d) whether a litigant has caused needless expense to other parties or
has posed an unnecessary burden on the courts and court
personnel; and
(e) whether other sanctions would be adequate to protect the court and
other parties.

3 Rev. 6/5/2015
An injunction issued by a federal district court was approved that
restricted filings “where the litigant’s abusive and lengthy history of
filings was properly set forth” in the court’s decision. United States v.
Kettler, No. 90-3011, 1991 WL 94457 at *6 (10th Cir. June 3, 1991).
The Kansas federal district court has stated that the most important
question in deciding if an injunction can issue restricting filings is
“whether the litigant who has a history of vexatious litigation is likely to
continue to abuse the judicial process and harass other parties.” Landrith
v. Schmidt, No. 12-2161-CM, 2012 WL 5995342 at *6 (D. Kan. Nov. 30,
2012) (Landrith). The Court entered an injunction against a disbarred
Kansas attorney who had filed multiple unsuccessful cases against
individuals involved in his disbarment proceedings, including the panel
that heard the proceedings, witnesses, and investigators. The restrictions
adopted are set forth later in this Summary of Authorities. See also, Salem
v Kansas, Case No. 15-2209-CM (D. KS March 26, 2015), Slip Op. pages
21-22 (filing restrictions recommended where 27 cases filed in 3 months
with many duplicative parties named).

From AJO: False psych hold of court corruption victim Amy Kush: please help her

Statement of Andrew Joseph Ostrowski

I submit this statement in the matter of the 302 petition, and commitment, of Amy Kush.

I have known Amy for several years as a facebook friend, not knowing anything about her or where she was from.

She reached out to me a couple months ago concerning a mortgage foreclosure matter for any suggestions I had for her, her knowing that I have a background as a lawyer, and have talked a lot about mortgage foreclosures and the court system.

I went to Amy’s house on Monday, May 14, 2018 to look at some of her documents, to see if I could provide her any direction, or suggestions as to anything else she could do to address the situation.

Amy was very stressed about the impending June 1, 2018 sheriff’s sale, as she felt that it was wrongful, and she did not get a fair chance to present her claims in court. I did not observe her disposition on May 14, or the previous week when I first met her, as being any different than any other of the many persons I have met over the years who have been dealing with the tremendous stress of having a foreclosure looming over them while feeling that they have not been provided due process by the courts. In fact, Amy was very engaging, and even took some time to read some Bible passages to me, as I knew from viewing her facebook posts that she is a woman of faith.

On Monday, May 14, when I was there to pick up/look at some documents, Amy showed me and separately handed me a letter she had sent, or was going to send, and insisted that I and the other person I was with read it. This, I believe, is the letter that was the subject of the 302 affidavit.

I did read it, in its entirety, and I told her immediately that it was a very bad idea to send the letter, and it put her at risk of inviting some intrusion or other, because of the wording she used. I believe I specifically said “you can’t send this letter.”

As I understood it, she was asserting some biblical right under the Book of Ezekiel, I believe, in defense of her due process rights, and it contained something about a “warning of death,” and had it in bold letters. I believe she used those words because she felt that her mandate was to express it as expressed in the Bible passages to which she was referring. I have not gone and looked at any of these passages.

I told her at least 5 times that she should not send the letter as it stood, because I believed it would reasonably cause the recipient(s) some concern as to whether it was threat of physical harm, and would justify a further inquiry into it, and that I did not support her sending the letter as it was written, and that I wanted no part of any of it, and my admonitions were echoed right down to forecasting that the sheriff would be contacting her if she sent it.

I further did an assessment of her myself as to whether she presented any threat of harm. I asked her if she was planning to do anything affirmative to anyone that came upon her property, and I even asked her if she had any weapons of any sort in her home. She said answered negatively to both questions, and I did not observe any signs in her home of any such things – all of the items and materials around her house had messages of love and peace, and Jesus, etc..

The following Monday, as I recall, Amy filed a document in the Luzerne County courthouse, and messaged me when she got home and told me she was stopped by the sheriff’s deputies, and asked about her letter.

I believe it was a proper and reasonable inquiry under the circumstances, and I told her that specifically, and further reminded her that it was very bad judgment on her part to send the letter. I was actually surprised that they just let her go as she explained to me, because I do believe that further inquiry into it was a duty on the part of law enforcement under the circumstances, and remain of that opinion.

I also believe that, under all the circumstances, the detention of her for purposes of conducting a more thorough evaluation, whether through the law enforcement process, or through the mental health process, was fully proper and I, too, remained bothered by the lack of judgment she displayed in sending it, even though I do not believe the words themselves present any threat to anyone, and I did not believe that she presented such a risk to anyone.

I believe, based upon my own observation, that Amy was very distressed about her foreclosure, and that her lack of judgment in sending the letter resulted from that stress, together with her rigidity in matters of biblical interpretation.

Other than that one exercise of poor judgment, Amy was otherwise fine in all respects, though, in my opinion, she possesses some eccentricities, and unique world views that are not in the mainstream, but are all within the realm of the human condition, and that nothing I have observed suggests that she is any threat of harm to anyone, as her guiding ethics are the Love and Peace of God, and she grounds that in the Bible.

I will be available, and request the opportunity, to testify at any further proceedings in this matter.

Andrew Joseph Osrowski

From Joanne:

I am trying to get the fax and email of the judge so everyone might respond.  Please, if you have any info on false psych holds, get the name, fax and email of the director of the facility AND the name and fax of the judge involved so people can respond.

Since there is little or no oversight in the court system (less than 1% of all judges are ever removed from the bench for wrongful conduct after complaints are filed), you the public has the right to turn to the media (blogs) to get this done.

Help me help you all.  We must protect our still fragile democracy in the US

While I have not seen the letter, unless it contained a direct and imminent threat and she had the tools to carry it out, confirmed in the letter, she had a 1st Amendment right to write whatever her heart dictated, including very strong Bible passages, as a woman of faith, even if they were in bold.  F that nonsense.  She had a foreclosure, what do you think she was feeling at the time.  At least she was being honest about her situation.

From DM: Fax to Cal. lawmakers begs them to fix Probate in Alameda County

City Council
Darryl Moore 510 981 7120
Council Member, district 2

October 18, 2016
To; Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From:  Darryl oore
Subject:  Resolution to Fix Probate Court and Investigate
Council member Darryl Moore
Mayor Tom Bates
Council member Kriss Worthington
Examining Alameda County Probate Court Process, Including
Consideration of Establishing A Grand Jury to Investigate
Adopt a Resolution requesting an examination of the way in Which the probate courts in
Alameda County function and the City Clerk send copies of the resolution and agenda
item to the Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O’Malley, Alameda County
Supervisor Keith Carson, Assembly member Tony Thurmond, and State Senator Loni
The Berkeley City Council was recently approached by a group consisting of dozens of
African American families that feel that they have been unfairly treated by the probate
court system and, as a result, lost significant portions of their respective Inherited
Some of the concerns raised by local African American families include the folIowing:
When there are issues with an estate, the matter of disbursing the proceeds of the
estate is typically assigned to a probate court. Differences of opinion in selecting an
heir as the Special Administrators or Managing Trustees of the Living Trust or Will can
often lead the probate judge to assign a court-appointed attorney to function In this role,
These court-appointed attorneys often accumulated significant fees that are assessed
as a lien against the assets of the will or living trust. As a result, there is an implicit
incentive for the court-appointed attorney to sell assets as to extract their payment. The sale of said assets can often be done hastily, at below-market-value, to encourage a quick sale. Those sales are often done without consideration by the court appointed trustee or special administrator to whether or not the heirs of the estate may desire to purchase the asset. As a result of those aforementioned factors, heirs are often unable to purchase the assets of the estate and are often saddled with significant costs liened against assets of the estate. When the assets are disbursed to the heirs, the costs incurred can often approach 30-50% of the estate value.
We request that the District Attorney of Alameda County impanel a grand jury to
investigate the way in which the probate court system functions to determine whether
certain groups are disproportionately affected compared to others and how the system
can be improved for all families,


WHEREAS, questions have been raised about whether certain groups are
disproportionately affected compared to other groups; and
WHEREAS, as a result, a group of local African American families feel as though issues
related to the probate court system are magnified for their community. including the
following; and
WHEREAS, differences of opinion in selecting an heir as the Special Administrators or
Managing Trustees of the Living Trust or Will can often lead the probate judge to assign
a court-appointed attorney to function in this role; and
WHEREAS. court-appointed attorneys often accumulated significant fees that are
assessed as a lien against the assets of the will or living trust; and
WHEREAS, as a result, there is an implicit incentive for the court-appointed attorney to
sell assets as to extract their payment; and
WHEREAS, the sale of estate assets can often be done hastily, at below-market-value,
to encourage a quick sale; and
WHEREAS, the sale of estate assets are also often done without consideration by the
court-appointed trustee or special administrator to whether or not the heirs of the estate
may have a desire to purchase the asset; and
WHEREAS, costs incurred on the estate can approach 30-50% of the value; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the
Council requests that the Alameda County District Attorney empanel a grand jury to
review the process in which probate is administered to determine whether people of color and/or women may be being disproportionately affected by the probate court system and whether improvements can be made to correct the system for all families and become more equitable


From Joanne:


I think this is a wonderful declaration of rights for what is really happening in our nation’s court system and it has to end.  The poor and minorities and brown and black people are affected the worse by  all of the perfidy, legerdemain and mendacity which runs amok.

We must insist on accountability and oversight from committees who have members who are tested for psychopathy with a PET brain scan first.

We are all tired of the lies, deceptions and theft of our loved ones and their assets.


From EB: Kentucky Judge faces 20 years in prison for human trafficking; many victims under age 18


A former Kentucky judge has been sentenced to 20 years in prison on human trafficking charges.

Timothy Nolan, a 71-year-old former Campbell County district judge, pleaded guilty to human trafficking and other felony sex crimes involving minors, according to multiple reports.

Nolan is also a conservative political activist and worked on President Trump’s campaign in Kentucky during the 2016 presidential race.

Nolan apologized and vowed to seek treatment during his sentencing hearing on Friday after prosecutors read statements from the nearly 20 teen victims, many of whom were under 16 years old, according to The Associated Press.

Nolan previously forced a delay in the sentencing by firing his attorneys and attempting to withdraw his guilty plea in a “wild” court hearing in March, according to The Cincinnati Enquirer.




NEWPORT, Ky. (AP) — A former Kentucky judge and conservative political activist has been sentenced to 20 years in prison after pleading guilty to human trafficking and other sex crimes.

A special prosecutor said Tim Nolan, 71, targeted young women, gave them opioids and threatened to withhold the drugs or call law enforcement if they didn’t perform sex acts.

News outlets report that prosecutor Barbara Whaley read statements from some of the women. Seven of the 19 victims were under 16 years old.

Nolan fired his attorney in March and tried to withdraw his guilty plea.

On Friday, he apologized in court and promised to seek treatment.


from EB: Oakland County Judges hire attorney under investigation for probate fraud

does this sound familiar to anyone?


PONTIAC, Mich. (WXYZ) – She was terminated from her position by the Attorney General and she was at the center of a 7 Action News investigation. So why are taxpayers now paying the salary of this local lawyer?

A criminal investigation was launched after we exposed how some public officials and real estate brokers were cashing in on probate estates, often leaving rightful heirs with very little.

So why is one of the public officials being investigated by Oakland County — now working for Oakland County’s Probate Court?

The 7 Investigators first exposed probate attorney Barbara Andruccioli a year ago.

“How can the taxpayers have any confidence with you working here,” asked 7 Investigator Heather Catallo.

“Really, I think you probably need to talk to the judges,” said Andruccioli.

Andruccioli was a partner at Kemp Klein law firm. She was also an Attorney General-appointed Public Administrator:  a public official with the authority to open probate estates after someone dies if there are no heirs available.

Court records show Andruccioli teamed up with real estate broker Ralph Roberts and his companies to open those estates, sell the homes, and cash in.

We uncovered court filings that show Andruccioli and one of Roberts’ companies, Probate Asset Recovery, were billing for thousands of dollars, while the actual heirs ended up with very little.

“They should be held accountable,” Joanne Zaremba told Catallo in 2017.

Until the 7 Investigators got involved, Zaremba had no idea that Andruccioli had opened an estate in her late mother’s name, even though under the law, Andruccioli had a duty to find the heirs.

After our investigation, Attorney General Bill Schuette terminated Andruccioli as a Public Administrator. And that’s not all:  the FBI and Oakland County Sheriff’s detectives raided Ralph Roberts offices, and launched a criminal probe into the Public Administrators.

So why did the Oakland County Probate judges recently hire Andruccioli as the Probate Register for the county?

“How can the taxpayers have any confidence — when you’re now under criminal investigation — with you working in this court,” asked Catallo.

“That’s not true,” said Andruccioli.

“It struck me as the wolf guarding the hen house,” said Oakland County Treasurer Andy Meisner.

Oakland County Clerk Lisa Brown described her reaction when she first heard that the judges from the Probate Court (which Brown and Meisner do not oversee) hired Andruccioli: “Shock, absolute shock and bewilderment…  So out of having a wonderful pool of applicants, why would you choose this person who has a cloud over them?”

In the wake of our reporting, Brown and Meisner successfully fought to change the state laws that allowed this probate practice to go on.  Neither can understand why the four Probate judges would hire Andruccioli.

“It’s natural that people that work together are going to get to know each other and establish relationships,” said Meisner. “The unusual part is when those relationships and friendships result in inappropriate preference, self-dealing, and lack of due process.”

The Probate Register oversees the daily operations of the Probate Courts Estates and Mental Health division.

Chief Probate Judge Kathleen Ryan would not talk to us on camera, but she did tell 7 Action News that the decision to hire Andruccioli as the Probate Register of the court was unanimous among all four judges and she said, “we’re confident in our hire.”

Judge Ryan also confirmed they hired Andruccioli at the top of the county pay scale, at $102,650.  Also, in the past Andruccioli has given small campaign contributions to two of the judges who hired her (Judge Ryan and Judge Jennifer Callaghan), but Judge Ryan says that had no bearing on the hiring decision.

“I think it is a slap in the face to a lot of people,” said Brown. “It reduces confidence that justice will be served here.”

Officials from both the Oakland County Prosecutor’s office and Sheriff’s office tell the 7 Investigators that the criminal probe into the probate scheme and the Public Administrators is ongoing.

County officials such as the Clerk, the Treasurer and the County Executive do not have control over who the judges hire.

If you have a story for Heather, please email her at hcatallo@wxyz.comor call 248-827-4473.