Most of you already know our work, but we have ongoing expenses to keep our little office open–rent, cell phone, comcast, fax, copier paper, etc.  It is very, very expensive to operate any type of an office, but especially in the area of helping out court corruption victims.

Any amount will help, no amount is too small.

Please read on and we all thank you for your support.

We need help to fight corruption. We need help to fight for victims who have experienced a loss of a loved one in Probate (guardianship) or Custody through corruption (lack of jurisdiction, changed transcripts, lying in court, false evidence, lying shrinks and courtroom vendors.
Right now, we are trying to raise funds for telephone service, supplies and whatever else is needed to help fight corruption for our victims (~$1800). Most of you are familiar with the work we do – we help everyone and do not turn anyone away.  We are also trying to get to Washington, D.C. and deliver the stories of court corruption vicitms to the Senate Subcommittee on Aging and the House subcommittee on the Judiciary.  I  am always told by politician that the FBI, the States Attorneys and other government agencies that these are “isolated incidencts” and that’s why they do not have to act.  You and I know this is code speak for an excuse to cover up the massive amounts of fraud in health care and in custody battles.

Currently, we are working on taking cases involving courtroom corruption in Probate Court to the Senate Subcommittee on the Judiciary. We want to demand that they appoint a special investigator to review all the corrupt cases where seniors and the disabled are at high risk involving “target, isolate, medicate, drain the estate, eliminate and cremate,” as well as custody where parents are denied co-parenting (50-50) due to corruption in the court room – no service of pleadings, no due process, evaluation reports ignored, and lying psychiatrists/psychologists.   We also want to go to the House Subcommittee on the judiciary to have them appoint a special investigator in custody/state kidnap cases where DCFS and police reports are 180 degrees of home inspections, psych reports from court tied in evaluators–psychD’s and psychiatrists that always want to declare the poorer parent as having a mental disease or disorder which they do not have so the richer parent pays them the most money for the best (albeit lying) outcome.
All our work is important. We return loved ones and their monies to their families.

We are taking any donation – no donation is too small. Everyone who makes a request will be put on my prayer list if you do not have the funds to donate, just let me know.

We are mostly looking for small donations of $10 to $50, but any amount can be put to good use in cleaning up our courtrooms.

You can text, email or Facebook a check to my name or “Justice4 Every1, NFP” or you can donate by Paypal to joanne@denisonlaw.com or text a check to 773 255 7608.  I can send you a paypal invoice.

We do not have any government funding and we rely on donations. We are a 501(c)(4) social justice Not for Profit, and donations are not tax deductible so we can support and endorse new laws that stop corruption in its tracks (requiring waiver of rights to be in writing or recorded by GAL’s, see our wish list on our blog at http://www.marygsykes.com,)

Joanne

http://www.hannapub.com/ouachitacitizen/news/local_state_headlines/judges-claim-immunity-to-lawsuits-for-acts-of-corruption/article_4de47d9a-389f-11e6-bff3-c78a264b282a.html

And you wonder why Jerome Larkin has a problem

Some Fourth Judicial District Court judges, who face claims for damages in a lawsuit filed in federal court by their peer Judge Sharon Marchman, filed pleadings Monday arguing they cannot be sued for acts of corruption or malice.

The four defendant judges making that argument are judges Fred Amman, Wilson Rambo and Carl Sharp as well as retired Judge Ben Jones, who now serves as court administrator, at Fourth Judicial District Court for Ouachita and Morehouse parishes. They are represented by special assistant attorney general Brian D. Landry, of Shreveport.

Those four judges are just a few of a handful of defendants who Marchman claimed violated her constitutional rights when she tried to expose the defendants’ concerted efforts to cover up law clerk Allyson Campbell’s alleged payroll fraud and document destruction.

In her lawsuit filed April 19 in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Marchman is seeking damages from the judges, Campbell, their attorneys as well as from former Attorney General Buddy Caldwell.

Many of the same defendants also were sued by Monroe businessman Stanley Palowsky III in Fourth Judicial District Court. Palowsky’s July 2015 lawsuit against Campbell and the judges detailed many of the same allegations that appeared in Marchman’s lawsuit. Marchman is represented in her federal lawsuit by attorneys Sedric Banks of Monroe and Joe Ward of Covington, who also represent Palowsky in his district court litigation.

“It is from this diseased root system of a state court action that Plaintiff Judge Marchman’s civil rights’ lawsuit arises, with even the same gardeners, in the form of Mr. Palowsky’s own attorneys seeking to tend the same noxious vines in this federal action,” stated a proposed memorandum filed Monday by the four defendant judges in U.S. District Court.

As of Tuesday afternoon, the four defendant judges were awaiting approval of their proposed memorandum since it exceeded the page count requirements under federal court guidelines.

In their proposed memorandum, the four defendant judges urged U.S. District Court Judge Maurice Hicks Jr. to follow the example of ad hoc Judge Jerry Barbera, of Thibodeaux, who dismissed Palowsky’s lawsuit against Campbell and the judges in November 2015 on the grounds of judicial immunity. At that time, Barbera ruled that judges and law clerks were shielded from lawsuits — even if they committed criminal acts — because they performed a necessary judicial function.

“The alleged cover-up allegations are the most egregious, as Plaintiff Judge Marchman is accusing the Defendant Judges of what constitutes essentially corruption,” stated the judges’ memorandum. “Although not specifically pled, there is also an undercurrent of implied malice, when Plaintiff Judge Marchman asserts her retaliation charge.”

“However, acts of corruption or malice, even if true, do not affect absolute judicial immunity,” the judges added.

The defendant judges argued further that a U.S. District Court judge must set “all its experience and common sense aside (to) find some viable constitutional claim” in Marchman’s lawsuit. If that happened, the judges were still protected under judicial immunity, they argued.

The defendant judges claim Marchman, like other judges of the court, did not believe any crime had been committed when allegations first surfaced that Campbell had committed payroll fraud. That matter was discussed during a personnel committee meeting among Fourth Judicial District Court judges, but Marchman didn’t ask an outside authority to investigate, the judges said.

“… (Marchman) did not recommend referral of the payroll issue to any law enforcement or prosecuting authority for investigation or prosecution,” the judges’ memorandum stated.

The defendant judges argued Marchman’s claims that her constitutional rights were violated can be boiled down to frustration with other judges who did not agree with her administrative recommendations concerning Campbell.

“Plaintiff Judge Marchman may truly be a pariah, or an outcast among her peers, but that status appears to be of her own making, and not the actions of the Defendant Judges,” the judges’ memorandum stated.

Marchman’s claim that her free speech rights as a private citizen were violated rings false, the judges argued, especially since private citizens do not generally enjoy the right to participate in the judges’ personnel committee meetings.

“For whatever reason, Mr. Palowsky, Plaintiff Judge Marchman, and their attorneys do not like this law clerk,” stated the judges’ memorandum. “Further, Plaintiff Judge Marchman is unhappy with her judicial colleagues’ decisions concerning the law clerk, even to the point where Plaintiff Judge Marchman moved for discharge of employment, and none of the other 10 members of the bench would allegedly second her motion.”

Answer:  Check and see if his fingers are crossed behind his back!

From Ken Ditkowsky:

From: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>

From Joanne:  I would like to note that Larkin has plenty of co-conspirators to chip in on the $18,550+ bill:  Sharon Opryszek, Melissa Smart, Sang Yul Lee, Ziad Alnaqib, Stephen Splitt (ironically, also an ethics reporter at John Marshall).  If they each put up about $3,700 that would take care of their false, fraudulent and void judgment against me for $18,554 in false court reporter and vendor charges they rubber stamped through the Illinois Supreme Court without notice to myself or any one else the charges were primarily fake.  Then they can surrender their law licenses, place a notice on the ARDC website and apologize to me and the citizens of the State of Illinois for their legerdemain and perfidy.  (as Ken noted, we cannot simply call the “judicial elite” thieves and fraudsters.  We must be careful in our use of language. Theft is embezzlement or conversion, and lying and cheating is malfeasance, misfeasance or defalcation.)

From: Zamboni John
Sent: Jul 13, 2016 5:04 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Filing a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court is an exercise in rigged gambling and waste

From: Anon Lawyer
Sent: Jul 13, 2016 11:16 AM
To: ‘SAM’ , ‘Harley Chick’ , ‘Gwendolyn Shavers’ , ‘JoAnne M Denison’
Subject: Linked is a article regarding ethics and judges/lawyers.

Here are a few of my favorite quotes from the lined article.

“those who want to be a judge can’t discuss most issues that voters are interested in.”  So you are left with Bar Association reviews (those not “connected” do not get rated highly.

“There are also ethics rules that bar lawyers from besmirching other lawyers.”  So much for freedom of speech.  With no criticism, there is no way to fix (or identify) any problems with the system or profession.  Speaking up is an ethics violation.  And we complain about the police “code of silence.”  Lawyers have a required code of silence to not besmirch other lawyers?

” So it’s a quid pro quo.”  In other words, lawyers/judges help each other.  You donate to my campaign, you can expect me to help you in court.  Seems to me this is nothing but a system to ensure case fixing and continue the public’s low regard for lawyers.

“I’ve been applying for judicial positions for some time,” Reid said. “Frankly, I haven’t been successful. After this last go-around, I just decided, if I’m going to be a judge, I have to run for it.”  In other words, judges are not appointed by quality, but by who they know.  Ordinary people have to do it the correct way – by being elected by the people.

“in 2009, when she was initially appointed to the bench, she failed to get a 65-percent approval rating, the minimum needed to be considered a recommended choice for a judgeship.”  Yet, “Illinois Supreme Court last year picked her over Reid and other candidates to fill the circuit court vacancy”  Sounds like she has the qualities to be an Illinois judge – friends in high places.

“Those bar polls can have a lot of value, but I’d much rather have the approval of the Illinois Supreme Court.”  While I think it is BS that voters must rely on attorneys to tell them who is qualified, it is even more BS that we discount people who may know the candidates, and instead, go strictly with those who have friends on the Supreme Court.

Question:  Am I in violation of ethics rules by pointing out and commenting on the above.  If so, then someone must have hacked my email, and this did not come from me.

http://illinoistimes.com/article-17430-running-for-judge.html

Not so Deep Throat

From   Jill Soderman and Jan Levin.  As many of you know, my three biggest areas of complaint–that no one apparently wants to touch are corruption and resultant inaction in 1) guardianship; 2) custody where false charges and reports fly all over the place and 3) sexual assault where the crime is seldom reported and authorities refuse to process rape test kits and sex rings and human trafficking flourish.  The sex rings are so notorious, the Vatican has class actions against priests and the Vatican fights them instead of paying what is due victims and taking care of their needs. (See movie–Inside the Vatican and Attacking the Devil, now on netflix)

read on, and thanks so much for doing these investigations, ladies

Nancy LevineFollowNancy Levine

Publish a post

Is Whole Foods co-founder and co-CEO John Mackey an accomplice to child sexual abuse? Mackey released a statement this week, declaring his loyalty to spiritual leader, a former rabbi accused of sexual abuse, Marc Gafni.

Politico reported this week on Vice President Joe Biden’s speech at the United State of Women Summit in Washington, D.C. He “insisted that men who stay quiet about rape culture and sexual assaults are accomplices.”

I previously blogged about the importance Mackey speaking up about his relationship with Gafni, as reported by The New York Times in December. I am an activist, working to change the culture of silence surrounding sexual violence. I have been writing about this matter since I read Mark Oppenheimer’s expose in The Times, detailing Gafni’s background and his association with Mackey:

“A co-founder of Whole Foods, John Mackey, a proponent of conscious capitalism, calls Mr. Gafni ‘a bold visionary.’ He is a chairman of the executive board of Mr. Gafni’s center, and he hosts board meetings at his Texas ranch.”

“Mr. Gafni was quoted saying they had been in love. He added, ‘She was 14 going on 35, and I never forced her.'”

Mackey is also a co-founder and board member of Conscious Capitalism, Inc., a nonprofit corporation supporting ethical business practices. On June 9, I sent the email below to speakers at the upcoming Conscious Capitalism CEO Summit, Brené Brown, founder and CEO of COURAGEworks, and to media contacts for Denise Morrison, President and CEO of Campbell Soup Company, and Jostein Solheim, CEO of Ben & Jerry’s Homemade:

“I am a writer and [volunteer] publicist working with nonprofits SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, featured in the movie Spotlight), and Peaceful Hearts Foundation, founded by Matthew Sandusky, adopted son of former Penn State football coach and convicted sex offender Jerry Sandusky.

I see Ben & Jerry’s Homemade CEO Jostein Solheim is scheduled to be a speaker at the Tenth Annual Conscious Capitalism CEO Summit, October 18-20.

As you may know, Whole Foods co-CEO John Mackey is a founding board member of Conscious Capitalism.

Is Mr. Solheim aware of Mr. Mackey’s relationship with accused sex offender, former rabbi Marc Gafni, as reported by The New York Times and The Washington Post?

The New York Times, 12/25/15:

‘A Spiritual Leader Gains Stature, Trailed by a Troubled Past’

The Washington Post, 5/25/16:

‘Protesters’ problem with new Whole Foods concept: An ex-rabbi’s alleged sex scandal’

‘The protesters are targeting Whole Foods CEO John Mackey’s links to Marc Gafni, a former rabbi who allegedly had sex with a number of his followers, including two teenage girls, as the New York Times reported last year.’

Would Mr. Solheim like to make a statement about the matter above?”

I received this email from Julie van Amerongan, Director of Programs and Events of Conscious Capitalism, Inc.:

“By way of introduction, I’m Julie van Amerongen, longtime director at Conscious Capitalism, Inc. and producer of our annual conferences.

I am aware of your efforts to raise awareness about issues with Marc Gafni and again want to reiterate to you that Conscious Capitalism has no professional association with Marc.  As longtime producer of our events I can assure you that Marc has neither spoken at nor attended any of our events.  As you know, our organization does not condone or support or ignore issues of sexual assault, harassment or abuse and are unequivocal that it is absolutely unacceptable.  We have created and support a culture of love and care here – words not often used in business environments, but words I don’t hesitate to use here.

As you also know, John Mackey is the co-founder of our organization and sits on the board.  I have known John for many years and he has spoken numerous times at the events I have produced and has always been a strong proponent of elevating the role of women in the workplace.  I want to make sure you have seen the statement he has released which also makes clear his alignment with our organization’s stated values:

‘I want to make it crystal clear that I do not condone sexual assault, harassment, or abuse in any form.  I have known Marc Gafni for several years, and he has continued to tell me that he is innocent of the allegations being made about him.  Loyalty and the presumption of innocence are important values to me, so I will not join those who are condemning him.  At the same time, I understand the devastating effects of abuse, and my heart goes out to any and all victims of sexual abuse everywhere.  I am, at once, presuming Marc’s innocence and firmly standing against what he’s accused of.’

I understand that you like and even admire the work of Conscious Capitalism. Yet when I see and hear about your outreach to our event speakers, sponsors and attendees I have to ask what your intentions are here.  My staff and I feel like we are innocent bystanders in the crossfire of your attack against Marc.  We don’t support Marc, we’ve done nothing wrong, our work is noble and we work so hard, yet day after day we have another mess to clean up because you are choosing to attack us and our amazing community to get to Marc.  In my mind there has just got to be another way.

Since John has stepped off Marc’s board and has released a statement against sexual abuse–cutting whatever imagined ties there were between Conscious Capitalism and Marc, I’d respectfully request that you look for an alternative avenue for your crusade against Marc so that our team can continue our focus on elevating humanity through business.”

I responded to van Amerongan:

“Thank you, Julie, I do appreciate your note. I had not previously seen John’s statement. Do you know where his statement was released prior to your emailing it to me?

My motivation is this: I’m working as a volunteer with nonprofit advocacy groups SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, featured in the movieSpotlight), Peaceful Hearts Foundation, founded by Matthew Sandusky, son of Jerry Sandusky, and NAASCA (National Association of Adult Survivors of Child Abuse).

The leaders of these groups are unequivocal about the importance of breaking the culture of silence that underlies all sexual violence. John’s silence was hurtful to all survivors of child sexual abuse, and served to reinforce the culture of silence underlying child sexual abuse.

I’m all for elevating humanity through conscious business practices and awareness. My point has been that in order to elevate humanity we must elevate for all — and break the culture of silence surrounding sexual abuse. Otherwise, we are only selectively conscious.”

As to the provenance of Mackey’s statement, van Amerongan emailed:

“I’m not sure where the statement was released. I’m not privy to Whole Foods press releases. John shared this with me last month and said it could be shared with others.”

I have emailed Whole Foods’ executive spokesperson Robin Rehfield Kelley to inquire about the release of Mackey’s statement. Previously, Rehfield Kelley had emailed, when asked if Mackey wanted to make a statement in advance of the protests at Whole Foods in New York and at the company’s 365 store launch in Los Angeles:

“John no longer serves on Mr. Gafni’s  board and has no connection to the Center for Integral Wisdom. That being said, there’s nothing else to say on this matter.” Leaders of advocacy organizations and protesters objected to Mackey’s and Whole Foods’ silence.

I will update this blog if/when Rehfield Kelley or a spokesperson from Whole Foods replies. The Forward has subsequently reported on the release of Mackey’s statement.

As for Mackey’s statement regarding Gafni’s “presumption of innocence,” I haveblogged about embattled legislation, the Child Victims Act in New York State and related media coverage. Gafni’s accusers are prevented from pursuing legal action because of statute of limitations restrictions. The proposed legislation would extend or eliminate statutes of limitations for child sexual abuse.

One of Gafni’s accusers, Sara Kabakov is working to help champion the proposed legislation. After The Times story was published in December, Kabakov came forward publicly for the first time in an opinion piece in the Forward: “I Was 13 When Marc Gafni’s Abuse Began.”

As for the “imagined ties” between Conscious Capitalism and Gafni, The Washington Post reported, “He [Mackey] quotes Gafni liberally in his 2013 book ‘Conscious Capitalism,’ and appeared with Gafni in videos discussing the book that, until recently,appeared on Whole Foods’ website.”

Forbes Magazine published an interview with Mackey and Gafni about their books, Mackey’s Conscious Capitalism and Gafni’s Your Unique Self, saying, “the authors have been in dialogue for years now about interesting crossovers in their thinking.”

At last summer’s FreedomFest, the annual libertarian-themed conference in Las Vegas (where Donald Trump headlined), Mackey and Gafni joined forces as a debate team. Later in the program, Gafni presented solo, “The Erotic and the Ethical: Next Steps in Libertarian Awakening.” Forbes separately reported, “Among FreedomFest’s biggest supporters, regular attendees, keynote speakers and panelists are Forbes chairman Steve Forbes and Whole Foods Market (Nasdaq: WFM) co-CEO John Mackey.”

Another CEO of a public company who was in contact with Mackey messaged me about his allegiance to Gafni: “it’s more of his libertarian ideology as I understand.” Mother Jones published a scathing review of Mackey’s book Conscious Capitalism: “Libertarian Propaganda with Your Organic Arugula?”

As for Gafni having “neither spoken at nor attended any” Conscious Capitalism events, from the conference summary for the 2nd Invitational Conclave on Conscious Business, presented by the Esalen Institute and Conscious Capitalism Institute in 2012: “On Monday morning, the Director of the Center for World Spirituality, Marc Gafni, launched the week’s conversations…”

As for my creating “another mess to clean up because [I am] choosing to attack” Conscious Capitalism, I would posit that I am neither attacking nor creating a mess. Rather, I am shining a spotlight on the “Whole Mess at Whole Foods,” as reported byNonprofit Quarterly: “Just like the hypocrisy of Bill Cosby’s moralizing about black respectability and Jared Fogle’s trying to help childhood obesity, Marc Gafni’s views and new age spirituality look very much like an attempt to overshadow the pain he has caused by letting the world know what a ‘profoundly good person he is.’ John Mackey is compounding this hypocrisy and bringing Whole Foods with him.”

So is Mackey an accomplice?

Myka Held, staff attorney with SurvJustice, previously emailed this comment for a piece I wrote for Epic Times. Her statement is included here, in its entirety:

“Given the dismal rates of prosecution of rapists, and the fact that even rapists who are prosecuted are not always convicted or appropriately punished, we cannot use the wide-spread failure of the criminal justice system as an excuse to let offenders off the hook. Marc Gafni has publicly admitted to having sex with a 13 year old girl while he was an adult. Regardless of his arguments about consent, it is a crime in this country to have sex with a minor and his defenders cannot hide behind the argument that sex was consensual. His attempts to shift blame to his young victim, stating that she was ’14 going on 35′ are despicable and show both his lack of remorse for his crime and his inability to recognize the seriousness of his crime.

For these reasons alone it is important for us as a society to hold him accountable, and part of the mechanisms for doing so require us to demand that his powerful friends end their support. It is comments like Marc Gafni’s, that his victim was ’14 going on 35′, that silence victims in the first place and make them afraid to come forward and report to police. I commend the bravery of the two women who have come forward publicly to warn others about the abuse Marc Gafni perpetuated against them and hope that we as a society can rally around these women rather than allow Marc Gafni to attack his victims, both of whom were not old enough to consent, and by their own words, did not consent to sexual relations with Marc Gafni.”

In response to Mackey’s statement, New York Rabbi David Ingber, who has spearheaded the criticism of Gafni and his supporters, posted this on his Facebook page:

“Shame on you John Mackey. Shame on you for your ‘loyalty’ and for your abhorrent callousness towards real victims, real women, real abuse, real stories that are not only from some mythic past but are still happening, right here and right now. Shame on you Mackey for trusting a sociopath instead of reaching out to those whom he has abused. Shame on you for calling your complicity with sexual exploitation anything [other] than what it is….accomplice to a very disturbed and sick man.”

What about accountability? Cary Krosinsky, lecturer at Yale University previously emailed for my Epic Times piece, “I think in a case like this, it should be the obligation of all investors to hold the companies they own to a minimum standard behavior.”

The largest individual investors in Whole Foods Market are members of the board of directors, including Mackey. Kip Tindell, Chairman and CEO of The Container Store sits on the boards of both Whole Foods Market and Conscious Capitalism, Inc.Business Ethics magazine reported: “If WFM’s board accepts that there is a firewall protecting the company from adverse attention in Mackey’s relationship with Gafni, as well as that the relationship is ‘in the company’s best interests,’ they shoulder accountability to stakeholders if they are wrong.”

Whole Foods has posted this statement about Marc Gafni on their website: “John is no longer on the board of directors of the Center for Integral Wisdom and we’ve made that position very clear. John Mackey chose not to renew his role on the Board of Directors of the Center for Integral Wisdom. This decision was personal and independent of Whole Foods Market.” The statement serves to indemnify the company and protect its material assets. But in remaining silent on Gafni, is Whole Foods Market ethically bankrupt?

As 18th century Irish statesman Edmund Burke said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” And as 20th century Jewish theologianAbraham Joshua Heschel said, “Indifference to evil is worse than evil itself.”

• LikeWhole Foods CEO declares loyalty to accused sexual abuser, former rabbi
• Comment
• ShareShare Whole Foods CEO declares loyalty to accused sexual abuser, former rabbi

Report this

And another article on the subject from Ms. Soderman relates this

LOS ANGELES, CA, May 3, 2016 (Newswire.com”>Newswire.com) –  National  advocacy organizations for raising awareness of childhood sexual abuse issues are backing a protest at the inaugural opening of Whole Foods 365 store, May 25 in Los Angeles. Planning is underway for a coordinated protest at a Whole Foods store in New York City.

The protests are in response to Whole Foods co-founder and co-CEO John Mackey’s link to spiritual leader and former rabbi Marc Gafni, as reported by The New York Times in December.

John Mackey and the Whole Foods Market Board of Directors have an opportunity to reach millions with an important message. Instead of maintaining the societal norm of silence around these issues, I would like to see them take a stand against child sexual abuse publicly — to take a leadership role in getting the message across that we can no longer remain silent.

MATTHEW SANDUSKY, FOUNDER AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PEACEFUL HEARTS FOUNDATION

Advocacy groups SNAP (Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests),NAASCA (National Association of Adult Survivors of Child Abuse), and Peaceful Hearts Foundation (founded by Matthew Sandusky) are supporting the protests.

On December 25, 2015, The New York Times reported Mackey’s affiliation with Gafni, and the controversy surrounding the former rabbi:

“A co-founder of Whole Foods, John Mackey, a proponent of conscious capitalism, calls Mr. Gafni ‘a bold visionary.’ He is a chairman of the executive board of Mr. Gafni’s center, and he hosts board meetings at his Texas ranch.” And of one of his accusers, “He [Gafni] added, ‘She was 14 going on 35, and I never forced her.'”

More than 100 rabbis authored a petition demanding that Whole Foods sever ties with Gafni.Sara Kabakov came forward publicly for the first time in an opinion piece in the  Forward: “I Was 13 When Marc Gafni’s Abuse Began.” New York Rabbi David Ingber, lead author of the petition, emailed that planning is underway for a coordinated protest at Whole Foods’ Upper West Side location in New York City.

Mackey’s public statement, posted on his Whole Foods blog, says his affiliation with Gafni is “strictly a personal relationship.” His post includes a link to Gafni’s website and their seven-part video dialogue. Since The Times story broke, Mackey has been widely criticized by experts in business, academia, and survivors’ advocacy work.

According to a post on Gafni’s Center for Integral Wisdom site, Mackey’s term as board co-chair ended in March. The Forward reported: “A spokesman for Gafni said that Mackey had also left the board, ‘as all previous board chair members do.’ He added that, ‘There was no break between Mackey and Gafni.'”

A spokesperson for Whole Foods emailed: “John no longer serves on Mr. Gafni’s board and has no connection to the Center for Integral Wisdom. That being said, there’s nothing else to say on this matter.”

But leaders of advocacy organizations have voiced stern disagreement with Whole Foods’ statement, “there’s nothing else to say.”

David Clohessy, Executive Director of SNAP, from their press release (SNAP gained prominence on Oscar® night when actor Mark Ruffalo, director Tom McCarthy and and screenwriter Josh Singer of the Spotlight movie joined a SNAP protest against sexual abuse in the Catholic Church):

“We hope it’s true that CEO Mackey is distancing himself from Gafni. If so, however, we disagree with the public relations staffer who claims ‘there’s nothing else to say on this matter.’ We hope Mackey takes clear, public and effective steps to ameliorate suffering and to contribute to a climate that welcomes and encourages victims of sexual violence to speak up, rather than a climate that depresses and deters them. If you’ve hurt people, distancing yourself from a wrongdoer isn’t enough. You have a moral duty to do more. We hope to see tangible helpful action by Mackey very soon to lessen the harm he has caused by his irresponsible affiliation with and support for an admitted sex offender.”

Bill Murray, Founder and CEO of NAASCA:

“As a community, we need to bring light into the shadows of the taboo issues of child sexual abuse — we must expose institutional enabling to stop the silence and change the culture. John Mackey and the Whole Foods Market Board of Directors have an opportunity here to impress the masses they’d like to reach with the Whole Foods 365 launch. Instead of stepping out of this discussion they should publicly step up to the plate by taking a responsible corporate stand against child sexual abuse as soon as possible.”

Matthew Sandusky, Founder and Executive Director, Peaceful Hearts Foundation:

“Whole Foods’ public statement, ‘there’s nothing else to say on this matter’ could not be more incorrect. John Mackey and the Whole Foods Market Board of Directors have an opportunity to reach millions with an important message. Instead of maintaining the societal norm of silence around these issues, I would like to see them take a stand against child sexual abuse publicly — to take a leadership role in getting the message across that we can no longer remain silent.”

SNAP, NAASCA, and Peaceful Hearts Foundation are independent 501(c)(3) organizations.

Right now I have a disabled person picked up by the police who needs to be guardianized to keep him out of jail.  He has no rap sheet other than arguing with police.  He is however,  delusional and has no grasp on reality due to long term abuse in court and lost everything and has lived on the street.  The businesses don’t like him, so they call the police on him constantly.

He is older and his health is not good.  He can go back to jail without risking death.  He has a heart condition, so a cardiologist, G.P or other internal medicine M.D. would be great.

Please contact me IMMEDIATELY.  A warrant is out for his arrest for some minor false crime of disorderly conduct, etc.

Thanks

From Joanne;

And it is interesting to note that it has now been since May 24, 2016 a demand has been made on this blog to Jerome Larkin to correct the situation, a grievance was filed against all the attorneys involved by fax on June 8, 2016 (Larkin, Opryszek, Smart, Sang Yul Lee and Ziab Alnaqib) and not a peep has been heard from the five of them. I wonder if Steven Splitt is also involved, as an “ethics” professor at John Marshall, I think he needs to give that one up and turn himself in, primarily because it was during his “Review Board” hearing that my court reporter was not able to set up.  He was the ARDC lawyer there, why was she not able to set up?  I now have her affidavit.

Of course, there needs to be an investigation, but it seems like the ARDC is fighting the fact their cover ups and misuse of public funds has now been brought to light.

I have not seen an apology from the six of them–Larkin, Opryszek, Smart, Sang Yul Lee and Alnaqib–to set the record straight and turn themelves in for flagrant breaches of ethics.

Just brought to my attention is the following:

18 U.S. Code § 2071 – Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202762098089/Cheat-the-Government-Soon-Pay-Double-Penalties?back=DC&kw=Cheat%20the%20Government%2C%20Soon%20Pay%20Double%20Penalties&cn=20160708&pt=Legal%20Times%20Afternoon%20Update&src=EMC-Email&et=editorial&bu=National%20Law%20Journal&slreturn=20160608155000

Health care providers, drug and medical-device manufacturers and others doing business with the federal government face a doubling of penalties on Aug. 1 if they violate the False Claims Act—the government’s chief and most lucrative fraud-fighting tool.

The U.S. Department of Justice, in a July 1 interim final rule, increased the law’s minimum penalty from $5,500 to $10,781 per claim, and the maximum from $11,000 to $21,563 per claim, plus the act’s trebling of actual damages.

“These types of penalties easily can add up, particularly in the health care context where you may have lots of claims but the actual damages may be small,” said Matthew Turetzky of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton. Turetzky predicted “plenty of cases where you will see substantial penalties.”

Turetzky, who practices government contracts, investigations and international trade, gave as an example a hospital that falsely certifies that it is giving the best possible price on a drug. The price certified is $2 but the going price is $1.98.

“If you take those 2 cents per treatment and they sold 10,000, actual damages are $200, and even if trebled under the act, you get to $600,” he said. “But if you’re talking about 10,000 claims at $10,000 per claim, now you’re into the millions of dollars even though the government was cheated of $600.”

The Justice Department issued its interim rule as its “catch-up adjustment” under the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015. The act requires federal agencies to adjust the level of civil monetary penalties with an initial “catch-up” adjustment through an interim final rulemaking, and to make subsequent annual adjustments for inflation. Adjustments previously were made every four years.

The act defines a civil monetary penalty as any monetary assessment levied for a violation of a federal civil statute or regulation, assessed or enforceable through a civil action in federal court or an administrative proceeding.

Although the department’s rule is effective Aug. 1, it is taking public comments until Aug. 29.

Turetzky expects the department to be “inundated” with industry comments. Agencies regularly acknowledge comments in a final rule and have some response to them. “So even if the rule doesn’t change, folks will see the agency’s rationale for why it’s doing what it has done,” he said.

And the citizens lose in the end.

These are sections from a complaint she wrote regarding general law and theory from her latest complaint which I am not publishing yet, because it has not been served yet. But I will publish as soon as these miscreants in Texas get an earful from Candice and her long suffering Plaintiffs.

XI. Affirmative Pleading on Doctrines of Immunity
181. Fraus Omnia Vitiat.
182. There is no judicial immunity to civil liability for non-judicial acts, anti-judicial
acts or RICO Predicate Acts forming a pattern of racketeering activity, as none of these types of conduct can be said to be judicial functions even when disguised as such.
183. Article III, Section I of the Constitution for the United States of America,
specifically creates the U.S. Supreme Court and gives Congress the authority to create the lower federal courts. Congress used this power to establish 13 U.S. Courts of Appeals, 94 U.S. District Courts, the U.S. Court of Claims. and the U.S. Court oflntemational Trade.
184. The U.S. Supreme Court is the only court of general jurisdiction in the federal
system, all other federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction created and empowered by Congressional statute.
185. Chief Justice Marshall. writing for the Court in Cohens. 19 U.S. at 404 observed:
1/ is most true that this Court will not lake jurisdiction if if should not: but it is
equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the
legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the
constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts,
with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be
brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction
which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would
be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid;
but we cannot, “Congress, and not the Judiciary, defines the scope of federal
jurisdiction within the constitutionally permissible bounds. “

186. The list of predicate acts specifically enumerated at 18 U.S.C. §1961(1) includes
§§37 I, 1346 and 195 I each of which requires a public corruption/color oflaw element.
187. To argue that a judge is immune from a public cOiruption statute if acting within
the four walls of a court room and exempt if not acting in his public capacity is a very precise statement that judges are above the law and that the victims of public conuption related deprivations of rights have no remedy and, thus, no rights.
188. 42 U.S.C. §1983 clearly slates an exception to actions brought against judicial
officers. That one exception provides pre-requisites to injunctive relief in actions brought against judicial officers. To conclude that Congress did not intend a private right of claims against judges under § 1983 is to render the language of the statute superfluous, which thc rules governing statutory construction will not allow.
42 Us.c. §1983 Civil Action for Deprivation of Civil Rights (emphasis added)
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or
usage, of any State or Territory or the District a/Columbia, subjects, or causes 10
be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the
jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an
action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that
in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in
such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive reliershall not be granted unless a
declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the
purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District
of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
(R.S. § 1979; Pub. L. 96-170. § 1. Dec. 29. 1979. 93 Stat. 1284; Pub. L. 104- 317.
title Ill, § 309(c). Oct. 19. 1996. llOStat. 3853.)
189. There is no privity defense, no attorney immunity defense and no judicial
immunity exception to the federal Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization statutes. The language of the Act differentiates between criminal and civil liability and explicitly provides private parties with civil remedy for injuries to property and business caused by a pattern of racketeering activity involving two (2) or more of the predicate acts defined at 18 USC § 1961 (1).
The RICO Act provides for criminal penalties in Section 1963 and provides private litigants with civil remedy in section 1964(c).
190. Several predicate act statutes, mostly codified in Title 18 of the United States
Code, provide for federal prosecution of public corruption. Among these are the Hobbs Act (18 USC § 1951), the mail and wire fraud statutes (18 USC §§ 1341 & 1343), the honest services fraud provision (18 USC § 1346), the Travel Act (18 USC § 1952), the federal official bribery and gratuity statute, (18 USC § 201 enacted 1962), the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) (enacted 1977), the federal program bribery statute, 18 USC § 666 (enacted 1984) and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) (18 USC §§1961-1968 enacted in 1970). Each statute directly addresses public corruption and most of these are specifically identified as RICO predicate acts at 18 USC. 1961(1).
191. The recent plea bargain and sentencing of Texas State 404th District Court Judge
Abel Limas to six years in federal prison for violating 18 USC §§ 1343 (Honest Services Wire
Fraud), § 1346 (Honest Services Fraud) and § 1951 and 2 (Hobbs Act Extortion), clearly verifies that these public corruption statutes apply to judges by operation of the RICO statutes 12.

************

This cancerous judicial black market plague has spread like wildfire throughout
the state court systems whether family law court, juvenile, traffic, probate or any other municipal level judicial arena on the state wide level. They have all become criminal racketeering enterprises and the root cause for each of these obscenities is “impunity” by any other name.

****

195. Imposition of an enlarged version of the judicially created English common law
doctrine of limited Judicial Immunity to foreclose private claims for civil remedy against judges under the RICO and civil rights statutes, has nurtured a contagion of public corruption throughout all three branches of government. is in direct opposition to the clearly expressed intentions of Congress in providing such remedy, is a violation of the separation of powers doctrine and, as the learned Chief Justice Marshall expressed, “treason to the constitution”.
196. Article I Section 8 Clause 3 of the federal Constitution grants exclusive
jurisdiction over interstate and foreign commerce to Congress. Given that all federal crimes are commercial the nexus with interstate commerce is inarguable and the notion that state court judges are absolutely immune from 42 U.S.C. §1983 or 18 U.S.C. §1964(c) actions ignores the very clear language of those sections and violates the supremacy clause.
XII. Aiding and Abetting, Fraud, and the Texas Attorney Immunity Doctrine
197. “Attorney Immunity” is a vague expression. Any civil immunity an attorney has
is strictly limited to the litigation context and does not include actively engaging in an organized criminal color of law enterprise involving RICO predicate act conduct.

198. The RICO Defendant attorneys understood that the conduct of their clients was
tortious and criminal and the lawyers helped the clients with the conduct thinking only to stuff their own pockets, showing no regard for ethics or law.
199. Conduct sufficient to state a claim of a racketeering conspiracy including
predicate acts of extortion § 1951. Obstruction §371, Honest Services § 1346, Impartial Forum §242, Illegal Wiretap §25 11 , Mail Fraud § 1341, Wire Fraud § 1343, Banking Fraud § 1344 and Securities Fraud 15 U.S.C. 78 et seq., is not within the scope oflega.! representation and cannot be excused as part of the attorney’s discharge of his duties to his client, even when masqueraded under the litigation umbrella. (The Litigation Privilege)
200. Acts constituting knowing substantial assistance, sufficient to state a claim for in concert aiding and abetting RlCO predicate act crimes, torts and breaches of fiduciary committed by the client, are sufficient to establish in-concert liability of the attorney. There are no exceptions.
201. In reading the text and legislative history of the RlCO act, the Fifth Circuit has
interpreted that Congress intended the act to strike at criminal conduct characterized by at least two consequential dimensions. The offenses must be of a degree sufficiently serious not only to inflict injury upon its immediate private victims, but also to cause harm to significant public processes or institutions, or otherwise pose threats to larger societal interests worthy of the severe punitive and deterrent purposes embodied in the statute.
202. These aims and structure are somewhat akin to those reflected in the Clayton Act,
15 U.S.C. § 15, after which RICO civil remedies were patterned.
203. Both statutes bring to bear the pressure of “private attorneys general” on a serious
national problem for which public prosecutorial resources are deemed “inadequate”; see also  Sedima, 473 U.S. at 489; Genty v. Resolution Trust Co., 937 F.2d 899, 912 (3d Cir. 1991)
(“Congress obviously had much more in mind than merely providing compensation for
individual RICO victims when it authorized RICO civil actions. Indeed, the harn of racketeering is dispersed among the public at large, including draining resources from the economy. subverting the democratic process and undermining the general welfare. “)
204. This construction accords with the legislative intent of RICO. As explained by the
Supreme Court, the purpose of the Act was to address a problem which Congress perceived “was of national dimensions.” Turkette. 452 U.S. at 586. Specifically, in the Statement of Findings and Purpose of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, Title IX of which encompassed RICO, Congress declared that the activities of organized crime that prompted the legislation “weaken the stability of the Nation’s economic system, harm innocent investors and competing organizations, interfere with free competition, seriously burden interstate and foreign commence, threaten the domestic security, and undermine the general welfare of the Nation and its citizens.”
Statement of Findings and Purpose, Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, Pub. L. No. 91-452, 84 Stat. 922, 923 (1970).
205. Congress did not distinguish between public and private Organized Crime. Public
corruption and criminal abuse of the state judicial office has become the number one threat to the security of the people of this nation. The creation of the RICO act as exemplified by the “Statement of Findings and Purpose” and the inclusion of public corruption requisite statutes among the list of predicate acts at 18 U.S.c. § 1961 (I) clearly indicates a congressional intention to curb public corruption and abuse of the doctrines of immunity, by a dishonest self-protection criminal racketeering industry.

206. The protection for criminal conduct in Texas has also been expanded to include
wrongful conduct by attorneys under the Texas Attorney Immunity Doctrine, which has also led to the corruption and criminal takeover of our state judicial institutions.
207. Congress never intended to immunize state-court judges from federal civil rights
suits nor from federal Racketeering suits and a doctrine of judicial immunity implemented by the judiciary to protect a corrupt judiciary from legislation designed to protect the public interest from corruption violates the Separation of Powers Doctrine and undermines the public’s confidence in the legitimacy of the government of this Nation.
XIII. Affirmative Pleading on Conspiracy and Statutes of Limitations
208. Before the Court are allegations of public corruption involving a conspiracy to
deprive the People of Texas and others of the honest services of elected public officers. The
conduct complained of is only a small part of a complex multi-layered, multi-faceted criminal industry run by state court judges. who act with impunity with the full collusion, cooperation and participation of attorneys, court appointed administrators, social workers and others.
209. Federal conspiracy laws rest on the belief that criminal schemes are equally, or
even more reprehensible than are the substantive offenses to which they are devoted. The Supreme Court has explained that a “collective criminal agreement-(a] partnership in crime presents a greater potential threat to the public than individual verdicts. Concerted action both increases the likelihood that the criminal object will be successfully attained and decreases the probability that the individuals involved will depart from their path of criminality.’ Moreover, observed the Court. “[g]roup association for criminal purposes often, if not normally, makes possible the attainment of ends more complex than those which one criminal could accomplish. Nor is the danger of a conspiratorial group limited to the particular end toward which it has embarked.” Finally, “[combination in crime makes more likely the commission of crimes unrelated to the original purpose for which the group was formed.” In sum, “the danger which a conspiracy generates is not confined to the substantive offense which is the immediate aim of the enterprise.”
210. Conspiracies and acts in furtherance are considered a single continuing act for
limitations purposes. The equitable doctrines of tailing and estopple apply to these claims.
XIV. Affirmative Pleading on Public Corruption
211. Public corruption involves a breach of public trust and/or abuse of position by
federal, state, or local officials and their private sector accomplices. By broad definition. a
government officia1~ whether elected, appointed or hired, may violate federal law when he/she asks, demands, solicits, accepts, or agrees to receive anything of value in return for being influenced in the performance of their official duties.
212. Public corruption poses a fundamental threat to our national security and way of
life. It impacts everything from how well our borders are secured and our neighborhoods
protected … to verdicts handed down in courts … to the quality of our roads, schools, and other government services. And it takes a significant toll on our pocketbooks, wasting billions in tax dollars every year. 14

EXCELLENT JOB, CANDICE!

Highly recommended video on courtroom corruption in Ohio where man is threatened by bailiff with hand on holster he will be shot for merely taking notes and and asking questions. The courtroom he is directed to attend on $500 for a simple traffic ticket turns out to have no magistrate and everyone is told to “pay up” or the judge will be worse than simply paying some tied in crony lawyer in a non courtroom that day.  Of course, all of this is highly illegal, but the state lets it go on unchecked.

Next, is the truth about guardianship cases in Michigan. Thanks so much Debbie. These videos are great.

FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET
To: ARDC
Attn: Jerome Larkin, Sharon Opryszek, Melissa Smart, Sang Yul Lee, Zanib Alnqqib
Fax No. 312-565-2320 From: Joanne Denison
Justice 4 Every1, NFP
5940 W Touhy Ave, #120
Niles, Illinois 60714
phone 312 553 1300 fax 312-553-1307
Now–wrongfully suspended for 3 years in Illinois for asking for a complete, honest and thorough investigation of abusive guardianship cases in Cook County Illinois from the Illinois ARDC.

July 6, 2016

Re: Repayment of funds held in trust by the ARDC to protect the citizens of Illinois from unscrupulous lawyers

Dear Counsel;

On or about May 24, 2016 I filed pleadings with the Illinois Supreme Court that indicated that the court reporter and the corporations asserting your judgment against me for $18,554 was false and fraudulent. The corporations did not exist or were on inactive or expired status. You received a copy of the pleading contemporaneously and it was published on my blog.

Last week I received a pleading objecting to my Supplement to My Motion to Vacate that Judgment in which 1) you admit no wrong doing 2) you blame me for your hiring unlicensed court reporters; 3) you ask that a false and fraudulent judgement for $18,554 be enforced. You then do not acknowledge that Illinois law is clear 1) that an unlicensed court reporter is forbidden to take transcriptions in any court proceeding and 2) judgments rendered from said proceedings are void and of no effect and should not have been rendered in the first place. Your citations of Utah law and filing the Record on Appeal as some sort of bizarre approval of fraud are interesting, but wholly irrelevant. Your actions constitute Fraud on the Court and result in your personal liability under the Ciavarella case, 3rd circuit, 2013 (see Kids for Cash case) No. 11-3277.

Your lack of inaction in numerous probate cases and refusing to open up fair, honest and complete investigations of the following individuals has resulted in their death and/or pain and agony for years, which no senior citizen should ever have to suffer at the hands of Illinois lawyers; Mary G Sykes, isolated, drugged and alone, died May 23, 2015 without investigation, Alice Gore, Rose Drabik, Dorothy Baker, Carol Wyman (attempted murder), Robert Jaycox, Lydia Tyler, Alice Gore, Helen Rector, Ms. LV (attempted murder, still at risk), Delores Bedin (attempted murder and conspiracy to commit same), Alan Frake, drugged and in paid, no investigation.

I am herewith demanding that you all arrange to pay back $18,554 to the ARDC trust fund and inform the Illinois Supreme Court that you have paid this amount because the proceedings and the judgment in conjunction therewith were wrongful and illegal. You are all jointly and severally liable.

You are also demanded to inform the Illinois Supreme Court that you are complying with Illinois law and you will immediately reinstate my license based upon the above compliance with Illinois Law.

If you do not comply, I intend to inform the taxing authorities of your criminal gains. I also intend to file a Qui Tam, if possible, in the appropriate jurisdiction.
Sincerely,
JoAnne M Denison

cc: FBI, states attorney and http://www.marygsykes.com

June 23, 2016
JoAnne Dennison
5940 W. Touhy Avenue, #120
Niles, OH 60714
Dear Ms. Denni!lol1~ ..
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
Investigations Division
142S New York Avenue MY,: Suile 7100
Washington. D.C. 20530
The purpose of this Jetter is to acknowledge receipt of your correspondence. The matters
that you raised have been reviewed by the staff of the Investigations Division, Office of
the Inspector General.
The primary investigative responsibilities of this office are:
• Allegations of misconduct committed by U.S. Department of Justice employees and
contractors; and
• Waste and abuse by high ranking Department officials, or that affects major
programs and operations.
This Office does not have jurisdiction in the matter you described. Therefore, your
complaint has been forwarded to the following office:
Administrative Office for the United States Courts
1 Columbus Circle Northeast
Washington, DC 20002
Any further correspondence regarding this matter should be directed to that office.
I hope this answers any questions you have relative to this matter.
Sincerely,
Office of the Inspector General
Investigations Division

The email I found on the website to write to is:

AOdb_Internal_Control_and_Audit@ao.uscourts.gov

Most of our problems, as you know are with the State Courts and not with the Federal Courts, but as we exhaust our state court remedies, this email may become more important.

For certain, the theft of assets in probate and embezzlement, use of expensive chemical restraints going unchecked is all fraud on the courts and fraud on Medicare/Medicaid. It seems there is a conflict between state court proceedings where crimes are committed, and Medicare/Medicaid and the federal government.

I’m not even sure which communication they are referring to, but it certainly won’t hurt to add this email to our arsenal of places to write.

JoAnne

A good Christian woman lost everything in probate, her home, her bank account and her paid up car, is now in a horrible place without sufficient food and clothes and needs some money for urgent necessary living expenses.

She is asking for $70 per month to help her out, if you can do so, that would be very nice, please let me know.

You can donate by paypal, credit card at paypal to joanne@denisonlaw.com, or text a check to 773-255-7608 or fax one to 312-553-1307.  This is one person I hope to help when I get to Washington and demand that all the money taken by probate attorneys, the OPG and court room vendors be returned to the victim and they be assigned an Elder Assistant volunteer that just helps the elderly pay bills and make decisions.

Any amount would be greatly appreciated.  Thanks.

Please mark your donation “Christian woman”

From Joanne;

As you will recall, on or about 5/24/16, I filed a Supplement to my Motion to Vacate and served the ARDC with the pleading relating how the ARDC had 2500 pages (out of 2600) transcribed by an unlicensed court reporter.

The Illinois Law on Court reporters is clear that in order to protect the public, all court reporters must be licensed in order to prepare and file transcripts with the court and no judgment shall issue on any cause of action where the court reporter(s) were unlicensed.  The Illinois legislature could not be clearer on the matter.

Larkin, Opryszek, Smart, Alnaqib and Sang Yul Lee should have immediately stroked a check for $18,554.58 made payable to the ARDC and notified the Illinois Supreme Court the judgment has been satisfied out of their own pockets because the judgment was wrongfully and illegally obtained.  They are licensed lawyers and should know that they cannot bill or be involved in any proceeding where a bill is false and fraudulent.

The ARDC admits that the court reporter was unlicensed for a period beginning in 2005.

Opryszek and Larkin, in their pleading, sidesteps the issue of a false and fraudulent bill and does not explain how their filing false and fraudulent transcripts constitutes perjury, subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice.

Larkin, Opryszek, Smart, Alnaqib and Sang Yul Lee, on or by 5/30/16, should have submitted a check to the ARDC account for $18,554.58.  Their illegal actions are a conspiracy, joint and several, against all the citizens of the State of Illinois who are entitled to protection against unscrupulous attorneys and the funds should be used for that purpose, not to commit further felonies and conversion of funds against honest and ethical citizens who are running blogs to help court corruption victims.

It is now July 1, 2016 and apparently on June 29, 2016, the ARDC has not received any reimbursement for funds taken under false pretenses from its own accounts. Instead, the criminals continue to sidestep liability and blame others for their own perjury and subornation of perjury.

By copy of this blog post, I am requesting the the ARDC intake offices open and full, honest and thorough investigation of how $18,554.58 disappeared from the coffers of the ARDC under false pretenses by paying an unlicensed court reporter and obtaining a wrongful license suspension against an innocent, honest and ethical attorney and how they used other culprits and dupes to do so–namely Morgan and Messina and Nextpoint.

You can see their pleading full of excuses and extortion here:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwTEhnUFRMVkY3akE

One of their most interesting arguments is the theory of “waiver”. Waiver applies only to civil matters and only when:

Waivers Law & Legal Definition. A waiver is the intentional and voluntary giving up of something. A waiver may be made by an express statement or by conduct, such as not enforcing a right.

A typical example of waiver is when a your landlord accepts half rent and then wants to sue for it later.  He cannot do that.  Once he accepts one dime of rent for the month and not the whole amount, without a written agreement to the contrary, it is presumed in court the balance is waived.

But one cannot “waive” a crime. These are serious felonies that have been committed and no single person can possibly waive theft and conversion of State Assets.  There is simply nothing that I can say or do to prevent the prosecution of these individuals.

This evil cabal that tramples upon first amendment rights–Larkin, Opryszek, Alnaqib, Sang Yul Lee, etc. should have immediately paid this amount back to the State of Illinois, ARDC trust account.  Apparently, they did not do this, and they continue to blame me and come after me. This only compounds their crimes against the State.

And no where in their pleading did they admit this blog tells the truth and only the truth. What the Illinois probate courts are running, and continue to run is a cottage industry of “target, isolate, medicate with narcotics, drain the estate, then narcotize to elimiate and cremate to destroy the witness and evidence”. They claim the blog is a lie, but no one else in their right mind who gets sucked into the guardianship system would ever, in their wildest dreams claim that what goes on in guardianship is nothing other than this mantra.

Joanne

From Joanne

Apparently some key figures in the nursing home industry have been singing to the Feds like canaries and recently they got news from the Feds that they are now blessed with a clean slate in exchange for the information they provided to get to the head of the corruption in Illinois. As many of you know, the Obama administration and the FBI and HHS has taken a keen interested in curbing Medicare/Medicaid fraud which is bilking taxpayers and our health care system in bogus charges with fraud in some key areas (nursing homes, health insurance, hospice plans (think Seth Gillman who ran Passages for years upgrading as many patients as he could for 2 years, I do believe that the FBI from this blog has taken note it takes the ARDC years to discipline an attorney involved in health care fraud)–the health care fraud charge according to Ken is around 500 to 700% and that is the reason why we do not have single payer Universal health care in this country despite the fact every other developed country, and even many very poor undeveloped countries, have decent to good Universal Health Care.  Just think of all the undelivered wheel chairs, expensive chemo and psych drugs, scooters, IV tubes and bags–you name it, it gets billed to the US govt but the items never get put to use on any actual patient in need).  This is not even to mention the fact it costs $1,000 to $1,500 per month to house a disabled person or senior, but the nursing homes bill what ever they want, minimum $4,000 to $15,000/mo. and are bilking the elderly and their families and Medicare/Medicaid hand over fist–and via a series of complicated corporations, one owning the land, another owning the building, another owning equipment, another managing staff, another managing nurses, another managing doctors–this complicated web of corporations ensures the tangled mess can bill, bill and then bill some more.  More than one court corruption victim has asked why their loved one has their photo up or put in the nursing home book with up to three or four names!  It’s obvious those people don’t exist and to report it immediately to the Feds. Take a picture. Ask the staff and record their answers.  Turn it all in. Fraud hurts our health care system. And it’s not the little guy bilking the state, it’s licensed doctors, nurses, accountants and administrators with degrees and advanced degrees–mostly in fraud. Some steal with a gun, some steal with a pen.

From Ken Ditkowsky:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/06/27/man-charged-raping-2-women-gets-one-day-jail/86425872/

Apparently darker hair absorbs more chemicals and drugs than lighter hair, and women using alcohol based hair care products can make the alcohol portion of the test unreliable.

Nova Scotia has become the fourth known province to suspend or ban the use of drug and alcohol hair testing in child protection proceedings, after New Brunswick, British Columbia and Ontario.

“The department has decided to suspend hair strand testing for child protection cases in Nova Scotia effective immediately,” said department of community services spokeswoman Heather Fairbairn Tuesday.

The move comes in the wake of a 2014 Star investigation into the Hospital for Sick Children’s Motherisk laboratory, which found that prior to 2010, the lab was using a hair test that was not recognized as the “gold standard.”

An independent review deemed the hair test results “inadequate and unreliable” in 2015.

They were used in potentially thousands of child protection cases in Ontario as well as in British Columbia, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, where they were routinely accepted as evidence with little scrutiny in court.

“The department has been reviewing the use of hair strand testing for some time. We stopped using Motherisk as soon as issues about their test results became known in 2015,” said Fairbairn.

“Since then, questions continued to be raised about the procedures used and the differences between the drug testing laboratories. The decision to suspend all hair strand testing will enable careful consideration of these questions. For the time being, we will rely on other established methods of testing and social work practice.”

Motherisk ceased its hair testing practices in 2015 prior to the completion of the independent review, but some provinces were still using hair tests from other labs in some cases until very recently.
“It’s welcome and long overdue,” said Halifax lawyer Mike Dull of the suspension. “Obviously, it’s recognition by the province of Nova Scotia that such tests are not reliable, so they’re taking active steps from preventing future harm that could result from these unreliable tests.

“But the question remains: What are they doing about the past harm, to families affected by these tests that they’ve implicitly deemed to be unreliable by stopping to use them? Those are questions that remain unanswered.”

Dull is co-counsel in the case of Nova Scotia residents William McIntyre and Natacha LeRoy. Motherisk hair testing was done in child protection cases that dealt with some of their children.

They are among an unknown number of Canadians outside of Ontario whose cases will not be reviewed by the ongoing Motherisk Commission in this province, chaired by retired Justice Judith Beaman, which is looking at files going back 25 years.

McIntyre and LeRoy’s case is being reviewed by the Nova Scotia department of community services, said Dull, but it’s unclear when they’ll receive any information.

“It’s an atrocity,” McIntyre, 50, told the Star earlier this year. “How could this be just an Ontario thing? You came down and took my hair and sent it to Ontario … This is not just Ontario. This is a Canada-wide situation.”

McIntyre and LeRoy’s 3-year-old son was made a ward of the province and later adopted as the result of a proceeding in which Motherisk said both parents had tested positive for traces of cocaine.

McIntyre and LeRoy — who were previously in a relationship and remain good friends — deny using the drug at the time. McIntyre also claims that subsequent hair testing done in the U.S. showed he was negative. They say they were asking that the court grant custody of their son to McIntyre with access to LeRoy.

There were 49 open child protection cases using Motherisk hair tests in Nova Scotia in 2014. The province continued to use hair testing services from other labs, including Toronto-based Dynacare, CBC reported.

The lab confirmed to the Star on Tuesday it has done testing for clients in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, but would not disclose who the clients were, citing its privacy policy.

A Dynacare spokesperson said in an emailed statement that it provides “robust, high-quality analytical toxicology service” and presumptive positive tests are confirmed with more specific tests.

“Analysis for the presence of drugs in hair samples has been utilized and accepted as a powerful evidential tool in many criminal cases in the last decade. It is an important component of modern forensic science,” Andrea Price wrote in an emailed statement.

Motherisk hair tests have been used in Quebec court proceedings, but they were either requested by individuals or children and youth agencies and are not tracked by the government, a Ministry of Health spokeswoman previously told the Star.

Questions have been raised for years about hair strand testing, regardless of the laboratory performing the service.

Because of the effect of alcohol-based hair products, “the risk for false-positive results appears high when monitoring a female population,” Motherisk’s own manager at the time, Joey Gareri, wrote in a 2011 paper he co-authored with Motherisk founder and director Gideon Koren.

Studies have also suggested that drugs appear to be incorporated more readily into darker-coloured hair, and there is also evidence that the way substances are incorporated into the hair of a single individual may vary from strand to strand.

Ontario’s Ministry of Children and Youth Services ordered children’s aid societies amid the independent review into Motherisk last year to stop using hair strand testing.

The results from that review, released in December, were damning.

“In the circumstances, I have concluded that the laboratory’s flawed hair-testing evidence had serious implications for the fairness of child protection and criminal cases,” concluded independent reviewer Susan Lang, a retired Ontario Court of Appeal judge, last December.

The suspension of hair strand testing across the country would appear to be a natural consequence of the Lang report, said Katharina Janczaruk, chair of the Family Lawyers Association of Ontario.

“I think a natural event flowing from this examination of hair testing is a reaffirmation that we need to look at those other factors (in child protection proceedings), we need to demand that social workers are doing their social work (role) and not simply relying on the test, that lawyers are questioning tests when tests are being made,” she said.
With files from Rachel Mendleson and Sarah-Joyce Battersby

Read more about: Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, British Columbia

Professional Guardianship Fraud Quotes
“A simple slip-and-fall can put someone into the guardianship of unknown persons with no knowledge to family and friends until the deed is done. Forced incompetency; get control over everything and the ward (senior) loses all rights.” Robert W Melton, Pinellas County Internal Auditor, “Dirty Tricks of Guardianships – The Need for Change,” April 2004
“You are a target because you have assets. You don’t necessarily have to be very old. You can even be quite lucid. That won’t stop these predators. When it comes to removing your rights and your money, these folks are experts.” Money Magazine.
“It’s difficult to believe it happens, but forced guardianship fraud runs unchecked throughout international probate courts. Deemed incapacitated by the courts, elderly citizens are robbed of all decision-making rights and assigned professional guardians whose only-interest lies in profiting from their vulnerable charges’ estates.” The Washington Examiner
“There is a web of murderous profiteering, all sanctioned by a corrupt legal system. As
guardianship firms take everything they can, state attorneys turn a blind eye. Crooked cops harass family members into silence, while the very attorneys you hired won’t help for fear of losing their licenses.” Katherine Hein, Journalist

“Instead of serving to protect the assets of incapacitated persons, the existing guardianship system presents the opportunity for unscrupulous guardians to loot the assets of their wards and enrich themselves with impunity.” -New York Grand Jury
“These are the people who may one day control your loved one’s health care, living
arrangements, finances, and very life. Ostensibly created to prevent financial abuse by
caregivers and family members, professional guardianship instead gave the legal system carte blanche to destroy lives.” Dr. Angela Woodhull

” … usually after the victims are purportedly diagnosed with a disease such as. Alzheimer’s (often by non-expert without medical evidence), then, in spite of protests by family members, the family court has historically , consistently approved the bilking of the hard-earned assets of elderly or disabled persons by crooks-for-hire guardians under the color of often ignored Nevada laws.” Steve Miller, former Las Vegas City Councilman
“outside of execution, guardianship is the most radical remedy we have.”  Elias Cohen, Philadelphia Attorney and Gerontologist
“your loved one kidnapped, your inheritance stolen. It’s all legal and you can’t stop it .” David Culbertson, National pipe and Plastics, NY.

See these quotes and more in Michael Larsen’s New Book,

“Guardianship:  How Judges and lawyers Steal Your Money”
This new book is a resource guide for seniors and their loved ones to help them understand the problems of not having good representation or an advocate who can help them avoid dangerous pitfalls as they age.  It is also designed to help seniors discuss the issues pertaining to incapacity before they are in that precarious position.

Available on Amazon.

Thanks Janet for sending this along.

Whether you are pro life or pro choice or whatever is going on here, this is the bizarre story of a 14 year old girl who was raped, decided to keep the child, had the child, and then soon as the baby was born, the brilliant state of Alabama took both the mother and newborn, nursing at the breast into state custody.  Mega media was silent.  The State of Alabama also let the alleged father and rapist see the baby at the hospital against the wishes of the girl and her family.

BUT the internet went viral.  Millions of hits, all over the place.  MedicalKidnap, the Daily Haze, and dozens of smaller blogs just got the thing buzzing like nuts.

So what did DCHS from Alabama do next?  The right thing, return this mother and child to where the 14 year old wanted to live with her grandparents?  For sure not, that would make sense.  Leave mom and baby be, right?

Of course not, they put mom with one foster family and baby with another!  Next, they took the girl’s 14 year old brother from the grandparents and put him in yet a 3rd foster home. Psychopathic monsters, they are.  As if DCHS couldn’t make a worse decision. And then, because apparently they are getting bad press and threats and no one likes them any longer, they got a gag order against the bloggers, and the family, and then sued the blogs.

Jerome Larkin would be proud.  Ruin a bunch of lives, make the state pay for it, cover everything up, and then make the state pay for that lawsuit too.

Little does Alabama know about bloggers, but these are activist bloggers and real hard core.  No, I cannot possibly publish the comments made by some of these blogs about the lawsuit, but you know I love these types of kill the messenger types of gag order lawsuits.

check out the story here:

https://community.healthimpactnews.com/topic/3323/health-impact-news-named-in-alabama-lawsuit-for-exposing-state-sponsored-child-kidnapping

http://www.opexposecps.anonresistance.com/Articles/Article022.html#sthash.bRongbGd.2OEow3re.dpbs

and there are more links on these sites, so I have no idea how the court thinks it is going to enforce any gag order and force them to remove anything because every night the historical websites troll the internet and keep everything forever anyway.

It’s finally a losing battle. The internet is the great leveler.

from the Daily Haze:

The lawsuit is just a glimpse into the corrupt injustices Shelby County is doing to families on a daily basis. At the heart of their corruption lies a bizarre money trail that webs through the entire State of Alabama. Alabama holds no jurisdiction over Daily Haze, as we are not based in their state. Daily Haze has simply been doing a full internal investigation into the practices of DHR, and have broken no laws to conduct our interview, violated no rights, and followed all protocols. In short, we have done nothing wrong. The Shelby County DHR is simply trying to bully us into shutting up.

The title of this article says it all. To the Alabama DHR, f*** you! We will not be backing off this story. In fact, you just gave us more than enough reason to dig even deeper. The actions of DHR at the Shelby County Courthouse were not the actions of an innocent party attempting to help a family. These were the actions of a guilty party attempting to silence everyone that was trying to expose their illegal and unjust actions. Earlier in the day, Daily Haze released proof that the grandparents had been cleared by DHR just a week before the children were removed from their custody.

As of now, we do not have an update on how court went, but will be waiting to update that information as soon as we can. This does not look good for this family, as today we have witnessed that justice is dead in Shelby County Alabama. Today Shelby County Alabama trampled on the Constitution and infringed upon both civilian and press rights. One can only wonder how long this corruption has been going on?

There are numerous address and emails and phone numbers on these websites to call and complain to public officials.

Keep up the good work, bloggers.  Don’t let up until that family is together again.

Here is proof that at my Review Board hearing the court reporter was told “not to set up”, that “we don’t do that here”.  Amazing. So where are we, North Korea?

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwdWVGUHpDNGdralh6ZkM4ZEdadDVETElYZ0hj

This is the very basis or root cause of corruption in the Illinois Court System–the changed transcript or the court reporter told “not to set up”.  This happens all the time in secret child custody meetings with the judge and in other arenas.  In the Phillips case, the judge manipulated a settlement discussion meeting so a “court reporter could not set up” and that cost the estate $300,000.

It is the common stated goal of an open, honest, transparent and free democracy to have open and public court hearings–nothing must be done in secret.  But here we have the ARDC advocating and even insisting on kicking out the court reporters.

You will recall when I published the covered outlets so no one can bring a laptop and blog all day long.

The ARDC doesn’t want blogging or court reporters. They want secrecy to protect their friends and cronies.  Court reporters and blogging stop them in their tracks and they don’t want that.

No court reporters need apply.  No bloggers ever period. These are covert operations.

joanne