About Joanne M Denison

Former Patent and Trademark Attorney practicing in Chicago, Illinois accepting clients nationwide. We also did 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. And while I am doing that, I will continue on my blogging work. Now I work full time on court corruption and corruption at the ARDC and JIB (Illinois attorney and judge discipline boards)

Corrupt Judges Gorcyca/Petrsky need to go now!

Posted on June 15, 2016 by Joanne M Denison

Please sign the petition at https://www.change.org/p/california-state-house-recall-judge-aaron-persky

There are now over a million signatures on this petition which involved a slap on the wrist prison sentence for a well to do Stanford athlete and his family, when the state was asking for 6 to 8.

He should have received 8 to 10. Why the lax request from the state’s attorneys offices? And the horrific miscarriage of justice by this judge?

Was it because Stanford athletes have multi million dollar programs and this lady was just a poor working class kulak?

Was it because there is a tacit agreement to give Standford rapists a slap on the wrist?

98% of rapes are not even reported, primarily due to conduct like this from the courts, and many women don’t get the press this woman got.

The entire case demands a full investigation. I want to see all of the other rape penalites handed down by this judge in the last 8 years, don’t you?

Please sign the petition.

The US and Cal. state governments are protecting perps and not vulnerable women.

Equally, the US and state governments do not protect the elders and disableds that are at risk of the mantra “target, isolate, medicate, drain the estate, narcotize and eliminate, cremate”. Nor are they stopping Title 4 and they stop co parenting from spreading, they do not test parents for psychpathy and supervise those parents, they allow the states to medically kidnap and steal kids from their parents with false DCFS/CPS reports from unqualified anti-social workers.

Please help reform the system and clean it up.

JoAnne

From Sunita Advaney–take a look at www.recallaaronpersky.com

Posted on June 14, 2016 by Joanne M Denison

please go to http://www.recallaaronpersky.com

This judge clearly needs to be impeached if he is not disciplined earlier and removed from the bench. The comments from the father are equally disgusting about rape and the kid should probably sue his father for raising him with highly questionable morals and ethics.

From an article on http://www.alm.com: additional comments in blue

Backlash Over Stanford Sexual Assault Case Sets Judges, Advocates on Edge

Brock, a former Stanford swimmer, was convicted of 3 counts of felony sexual assault on a 22-year-old young woman on the Stanford campus following a party on January 18, 2015. Brock was in court for his sentencing. (Dan Honda/Bay Area News Group)

If there is one thing that lawyers, legal academics and judges agree on about the Aaron Persky controversy, it is this: They’ve never seen anything like it.

Persky, a Santa Clara Superior Court judge, has served in relative obscurity for more than a decade. Now, his name is a Twitter hashtag, and the missives bearing it are laden with invective for his sentencing in the Stanford sexual assault case. Hundreds of thousands of people have signed online petitions calling for his ouster, and there’s also a serious effort underway to recall him. Court officials have also reported that he’s receiving death threats. The national news media has paid rapt attention to all of it.

Like Judge Gorcyca, he needs to be removed from the bench. I hope he is appearing under hashtag “impeachment”

It’s not the first time that a judge has been indicted by the court of public opinion. But the intensity and the head-spinning speed of the reaction to Persky’s sentencing of former Stanford swimmer Brock Turner to a six-month stint in the county jail instead of prison time is unique, observers say. It’s a perfect storm that the judge probably never saw coming: in one decision, he tapped into simmering nationwide angst over campus sexual assault, racial justice and class privilege. And social-media tools have allowed popular pushback on a level that the judicial branch has never before experienced.

To Persky’s harshest critics, the public rebuke is warranted and appropriate, given what they see as undue concern for Turner’s future and too little care for his victim. They see the signal his sentencing decision sends to young men and women on campuses as so dangerous and repugnant that regardless of his overall judicial record, he ought to be yanked off the bench. And to the extent that social media enables that effort, so much the better.But even among those people who disagree strongly with Persky’s sentencing decision, there is some deep discomfort about the idea that such potent public pressure can be brought to bear on an institution that is in some ways designed to be insulated from popular opinion.

To be discarded behind a dumpster like trash is the worst type of psychopathic act of all.

“If every judge who made a sentencing decision that people didn’t like were gone after, there wouldn’t be anybody sitting on the bench,” said LaDoris Cordell, who served as a judge for 20 years on the Santa Clara Superior Court and was also a vice provost at Stanford.

In an interview, Cordell said she favors the “sunshine” that social media puts on the court system—a sentiment echoed by others in the Bay Area legal community. She also said she believes that Persky’s sentencing of Turner, a white 20-year-old competitive swimmer raised in an affluent Ohio suburb, was tainted by the implicit bias of a judge who perhaps related too closely to the defendant before him.

If the defendant had been a poor black man from East Palo Alto, the outcome would almost certainly have been different, she said. “One of the nerves that this case has really hit is this whole issue of bias in the system.”

The California system is well known for its bias and unequal treatment of white Europeans and minorities from poorer countries.

But she also is uneasy with the way social media has enabled a massive, nationwide call to push out Persky. Cordell recalled an instance many years ago in which she gave a 15-year-old convicted of murder a lighter sentence than the prosecutors had sought. The district attorney’s office was angry, but the blowback was constrained to an article in the San Jose Mercury News, she said. “Today, it’s a whole different ballgame.”

THE MAKING OF A STORM

Turner, who is represented by Michael Armstrong, a solo practitioner who runs Peninsula Criminal Law in Redwood City, was convicted in March of sexually assaulting a 23-year-old woman who was unconscious behind a dumpster on campus. He was caught by two graduate students who detained him and called the police.

These two guys are hero. Do you know their names?

In sparing Turner time in a state prison, Persky cited factors like Turner’s background of high achievement, his lack of a criminal record, and the judge’s belief that Turner was unlikely to be a repeat offender. He also said that a prison term would have a severe impact on Turner, according to news reports and people in the courtroom.

“The message to women is, ‘You’re on your own, don’t call the police because the courts are not going to help you,’ ” said Michele Dauber, a law professor at Stanford who is leading the recall campaign against Persky. ” And the message to potential perpetrators is, ‘Don’t worry, we have your back.’ “ Perhaps the most powerful factor rocketing the case to the forefront of the American public conversation was the 12-page letter authored by the victim, known only as Emily Doe. The full text of the letter, which the victim read to Turner in court, was published by BuzzFeed the day after his sentencing. The letter, disturbing and visceral, recounts how she woke up in a hospital with pine needles in her hair and a sore vagina, being told that she had been attacked while out cold. The post has received millions of hits.

A statement by Turner’s father, which was tweeted out by Dauber, fanned the controversy by callously describing the attack as “20 minutes of action.”

Persky has come under such fire because of not only the light sentencing, but also because of the stated reasons for granting it. The DA’s office asked for Turner to be sentenced to six years in state prison, and the three felony charges that he was convicted of carry a minimum sentence of three years. Persky instead agreed with a probation officer’s report recommending six months in the county jail—which will more likely be three months, if Turner keeps out of trouble.

He should have received 8 to 10. She was bruised, beaten and left in a horrible,dangerous place.

Judges are required by law to explain their reasoning on the record when they hand down less than the minimum sentence, and the “unusual” or “mitigating” factors that warrant doing so. Among those Persky cited were the fact that Turner was drunk and didn’t have a criminal record.

Okay, drunk is better? BS

To Dauber and other critics, those are not unusual factors.

“We have alcohol being involved, and a high-achieving young man with a very long record of athletic and academic achievement. That’s every student at Stanford that you’ve just described,” she said. “That’s every campus sexual assault that occurs at Stanford, at Cal, and at all the other campuses around the state, if not the nation.”

In an editorial for Vox, Oakland public defender Rachel Marshall contended that Persky had seen Turner as someone who, because of his privileged background, didn’t “belong” in the prison system. She contrasted that with the clients she represents, who are poor and often people of color. “[W]hen they are convicted of a crime, a judge slams them for their lack of privilege, their inability to point to a string of successes,” she wrote.

Dauber is a family friend of the unidentified victim, and has been vocal on the issue of campus sexual assault since before the sentence was handed down. Her move to recall Persky was swift. Within days, she had raised $15,000 with the help of a Silicon Valley super PAC, retained a law firm specializing in ballot initiatives and referenda, and hired a pollster and a political adviser.

“This is not some sort of halfway, wacky thing where people who didn’t know what they were doing said, ‘We’re going to recall him. Let’s do Change.org,’ ” said Dauber, referring to the site where the online petitions against Persky have circulated. “ The people that I’m doing this with are heavy hitters. We’re doing this for a reason and we’re going to succeed.”

But her effort faces significant hurdles. It’s the citizens of Santa Clara County—not the masses of Twitter—who would have to petition to recall Persky. According to a spokeswoman for the Santa Clara County Voter Registrars office, it would take 58,634 signatures to initiate a recall for the judge. That’s 20 percent of the votes cast in the last judicial election.

Obviously this law needs to be changed.

Perhaps ironically, the Change.org petitions have also siphoned away some of the money and support that Dauber’s campaign otherwise might have gotten. She’s spent a lot of time trying to raise awareness of her campaign’s website (www.recallaaronpersky.com). “I keep getting these emails from people saying, ‘I signed the Change.org petition and I donated $50 dollars.’ And I’m like, ‘Oh, man that’s $50 we would have liked to have had.’ ”

JUDICIAL IMPARTIALITY?

U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel, who serves as director of the Federal Judicial Center in Washington, D.C., said there have been similar instances when judges have faced a popular backlash, but the outcry has tended to be slower moving, and more local.

“I don’t think anybody quite bargained for the intensity that social media has enabled,” he said.

Fogel, a longtime state and federal judge in the South Bay, made clear that he cannot comment on the Turner case in particular. However, he expressed concern that the potential for intense pushback on social media could spur judges to weigh public opinion more heavily before making a decision.

“Judges can’t be and shouldn’t be completely insensitive to public opinion, because that has the potential to undermine the legitimacy of the process itself,” Fogel said. ” At the same time, they have an ethical mandate to base their decisions on the facts and the law in each case, even if the end result in a given case may be unpopular.”

Others echo those worries. This week, the Minnesota-based International Academy of Trial Lawyers issued a statement that made no explicit reference to the Turner case, but condemned “ attacks on the independence of the judiciary on any basis or for any purpose.”

Cristina Arguedas, a Berkeley criminal defense attorney with a history of litigating high-profile criminal cases, said in an interview that the premise of the campaign to oust Persky—that his sentencing sends a bad signal to women on campuses across the U.S.—is wrong.

“The judge is sentencing a person in his court. He is not supposed to be sending a message to anyone,” said Arguedas, who added that she does not know Persky and has not appeared in his court. “He is supposed to be handling the case in front of him, based on the information he has, that the Twitter-verse does not have.”

Well that’s good news. Someone just has to explain to him that a rape and battering and leaving a woman in a horrible dangerous spot deserves 8 to 10. Come on, if some one can “talk” to the judge to get that idiotic slap on the wrist, the judge better be reading Twitter.

Mark Lemley, a professor at Stanford who specializes in intellectual property law, was among those in the local legal community who fired off a tweet backing recall efforts. “As a general matter I don’t like judicial elections, because I worry about judges ignoring the law to do what is politically popular,” Lemley said in an email. “But in this case the judge disregarded the law … because of his view that the rapist was not such a bad guy. The question is whether he has sent a signal that rape victims will not get fair treatment in his courtroom.”

PERSKY DEFENDED

Santa Clara Superior Court

Judge Aaron Persky

(photo by Jason Doiy)

Persky, a Democrat, former prosecutor and a Morrison & Foerster alum, has been on the Santa Clara bench since Gov. Gray Davis appointed him in 2003. Since handing down the sentence on June 3, he has received death threats and jurors appearing in his courtroom have refused to serve, according to news reports. And by the end of the week, at least three lawmakers had called on Persky to resign.

But Persky is not without his defenders. Retired Judge Susan Bernardini, who supervised the Santa Clara Superior Court’s family division while Persky served on it, defended his record as a judge—while steering clear of commenting on his decision in the Turner case.

“He is a hard-working jurist of the highest caliber,” Bernardini said in an interview.

She also took aim at the notion that any judge should be pulled off the bench because of one decision. “As soon as you start using a singular decision by a judge as a reason to recall a judge, you do exactly what my worst fear is, which is that judges will succumb to the corrupting influence of public opinion,” she said. “And then we’re done.”

The district attorney’s office, while publicly disagreeing with Persky’s decision, has said it does not believe he should be forced out. It’s also not going to mount a formal legal challenge of the sentencing he handed down, according to spokeswoman Cynthia Sumida.

“We don’t believe that we have a basis to appeal or seek a writ in this case, though, because his decision was authorized by law and was made by applying the correct standards,” she said.

A spokesman for the Santa Clara Superior Court said that because the conviction has been appealed by Turner, the judge is barred from commenting on the case.

Other observers point out that subjecting the courts to public opinion can cut both ways. Joshua Davis, director of the Center for Law and Ethics at the University of San Francisco, said he feels that Persky’s ruling was the wrong one. But he also noted that judges have been subject to similar kinds of pressure when trying to enforce things like desegregation. If social media carries the power to kick out a judge over a controversial decision, he said, “we might be nervous about that.”

From another article:

Meet the Stanford Law Prof Who’s Taking On Judge Aaron Persky

SAN FRANCISCO — Stanford University law professor Michele Dauber is serious about her effort to recall Aaron Persky, the Santa Clara Superior Court judge who handed down a six-month county jail sentence to a former student convicted on three felony sexual assault charges. She’s working with a super PAC called Progressive Women of Silicon Valley, has hired outside counsel, a political advisor, and a pollster, and has already raised $15,000. Dauber, an expert on campus sexual assault who helped revise Stanford’s policy, says she doesn’t believe Persky is guilty of misconduct. But she argues there are important reasons why he needs to be taken off the bench.

Q. You said you’re not making any allegations of judicial misconduct or anything of that nature. So why are you doing this?

The decision that Judge Persky made in this particular case has made all women at Stanford and in fact at other colleges in Santa Clara County, and perhaps across the state, less safe. Because it has exposed them to the risk that sexual assault will go unaddressed if it occurs on college campuses. It’s reduced incentives to report and it has failed to properly deter sexual assault on college campuses.

Q. What do we have as the basis for the so-called “unusual” case [warranting a lesser sentence]?

We have alcohol being involved, and a high-achieving young man with a very long record of athletic and academic achievement. That’s every student at Stanford that you’ve just described. That’s every campus sexual assault that occurs at Stanford, at Cal, and at all the other campuses around the state, if not the nation. … The message to women is, “You’re on your own, don’t call the police because the courts are not going to help you.” And the message to potential perpetrators is, “Don’t worry, we have your back.”

There are a lot of poor and black and brown kids who are serving time in the California penitentiary system who never sexually assaulted anybody. Who committed property crimes, who committed drug offenses. And the level of solicitude, and bending over backwards that Judge Persky exhibited towards this young man I think is really remarkable.

Q. Should judges always be subject to this kind of scrutiny and skepticism for the decisions that they hand down, or is it that this particular set of facts—this particular decision—is really so egregious that it really calls for action?

I think that the latter is true. I think this decision is so egregious that it deserves action. A recall campaign is not easy. It’s going to cost well over $500,000 and it’s going to be work. It’s not like I can just pick up the phone and say, “Recall him!” And then that happens.

In contrast to a federal district court judge, this judge is elected. He’s not appointed, he’s not confirmed by the Senate for life, he has to stand for reelection every term. And that is because the California legislature provides a role for the voters for these judges.

[Federal judges] are vetted by the office of the president, they are vetted by the [Justice Department’s] Office of Legal Counsel, they are vetted by the American Bar Association … Aaron Persky has been through none of that vetting. Basically anybody who wants to put their name into the ring can get one of these positions. [But] you’re talking about people who decide divorces and domestic violence cases, and things that matter a lot to women in their day-to-day lives.

Q. To what degree has social media had an impact on this effort?

I think Twitter, I think Facebook, I think social media definitely is moving the message. It’s also hurting the message in a sense because there are these giant Change.org petitions that have hundreds of thousands of signatures on them that have literally no legal relevance or significance.

I’ve spent a lot of time today trying to tell people [about] www.recallaaronpersky.com, and I’d appreciate it if you’d direct people to the correct address … I keep getting these emails from people saying, “I signed the Change.org petition and I donated $50 dollars.” And I’m like, “Oh man, that’s $50 dollars we would have liked to have had.”

Q. How long is this going to take?

As long as it takes … We’re going to move forward in an extremely professional, organized, deliberate, manner. This is not some sort of halfway, wacky thing where people who didn’t know what they were doing said, “We’re going to recall him. Let’s do Change.org.” The people that I’m doing this with are heavy hitters. We’re doing this for a reason and we’re going to succeed.

Use of Public Funds to pay Unlicensed Court reporters is Illegal, Mr. Larkin

Posted on June 14, 2016 by Joanne M Denison

From: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com> [Edit Address Book]

Subject: effect of Jerome Larkin’s refusals to make disclosures of illegal payments of public funds to non-licensed professionals.

Date: Jun 14, 2016 9:35 AM

To: approximately 100 activist accounts including the states attorneys

It is an axiom of the law that action consistent with other wrongful action is proof that the entire scenario of wrongful conduct was intentional. Thus, participation in the ‘cover up’ of criminal behavior is not given a pass – see 18 USCA 371.

The administration of the IARDC under Jerome Larkin, including the demonstrated ignorance of certain attorneys employed by the agency as to the law, the Constitution, the core values of America etc, has demonstrated just how venal the agency has become. Not only does it appear that the 18 USCA 371 cover-up of the criminal felonies of elder cleansing exhibited by the Gore, Sykes, **** cases were carefully crafted acts of extortion, intimidation, and conspiracy, but, had a profit motive. There is no doubt at this point in time that the criminal enterprise was crafted by the miscreants who sought to rape the treasury as part of the massive health care fraud that defeats the attempt to provide health care to all in America. Lawyers who might demand Honest investigations were targeted for extinction so that corrupt judges could act with impunity to assist the criminal enterprise.

It now appears that the use of unlicensed court reporters was promulgated so that Larkin and his miscreant 18 USCA 371 co-conspirators had an edge over the transcripts of proceedings – i.e. when a protected corrupt jurist was called upon the testify, if by accident the jurist testified truthfully and incriminated herself or disclosed something was an inconvenient truth, an unlicensed professional would be much more vulnerable and inclined to alter the transcript of proceedings. This is exactly what happened with Judge Stuart’s testimony in the JoAnne Denison kangaroo hearing.

Such is old hat! The question for discussion is whether or not there are Federal land State Income Taxes due. My answer is Yes,

Jerome Larkin and each of the attorneys he employs in his scheme to elder cleanse from profit certain targeted senior citizens is a public servant enjoying a public trust. Any act that thusly has a effect of benefiting the scheme to defraud or otherwise obfuscate the function of the public agency is taxable.

Thus, when Larkin authorizes and the agency pays out illegal payments to unlicensed professionals he creates a taxable event and he and everyone else involved owes Federal and State Income taxes on the amounts paid out. The subsequent payment by the court reporter of taxes does not create a deduction for the dishonest public official. It therefore follows that if $18,000 were paid out to unlicensed court reporters in the Denison case Jerome Larkin and the two attorneys who joined in the fraud on the IARDC (as a government agency) jointly and severally must report the $18,000.00 on their personal 1040 tax form. Only one payment of the tax is due, but all must make the disclosure.

The failure to report this income by Larkin et al in my opinion is Federal and State Income Tax evasion and the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the report is made. As it appears that Larkin and his co-conspirators do not file State of Illinois Ethics statements if the FOI requests are not voluntarily provided to JoAnne, myself, and government agencies it is additional evidence that the evasion of taxes is intentional by Larkin.

In every case that he authorized directly or indirectly these payments to unlicensed professionals he owes the USA and the State of Illinois Federal and State Income taxes in the amount paid. He also owes the State of Illinois (public) reimbursement of these charges.

Being a public servant creates a position of trust that is not easily ignored or shunted. Jerome Larkin and his 18 USCA 371 co-conspirators have intentionally violated that public trust and therefore deserve no mercy, on consideration, and no quarter. The criminal acts that they participated in are reprehensible and abhorrent. Looking the other way, covering them up, or otherwise not acting forcibly and with efficacy is unacceptable. Larkin acted with dispatch to violate his public trust – he should be required to act with equal dispatch to pay the taxes due the State of Illinois and the USA.

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

From: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
To: “likeablelawyer@likeablelawyer.com” <likeablelawyer@likeablelawyer.com>

Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 6:11 AM
Subject: Re: Alchemy of Idiots, Negotiating Great Client Outcomes: New MCLE

When the Administrator of the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission gets caught violating the law – i.e. engaging unlicensed professionals, illegally paying them with public funds, and then in exparte proceedings appearing before the Court to seeks reimbursement for the illegal payments a strong message is being sent to the public, It is not a positive one.

This is the same disciplinarian who has misrepresented the SCOTUS rulings, assaulted the First Amendment, protected and covered up unconscionable conduct on the part of clout heavy and corrupt lawyers, judges, and judicial officials etc. His crimes and ethically challenged actions are legend and obscene – yet as a memorial to corruption he laughs at the law, the Constitution, and the oath of a lawyer.

Equal protection of the law and the Bill of Rights (1st ten amendments to the Constitution) are routinely mocked and ignored as elderly citizens are elder cleansed openly and notoriously. (elder cleansing being isolation of senior citizens so that they can be systematically deprived or their savings, assets, liberty and rights by court appointed guardians acting wrongfully under the supervision of the Court in their nefariousness. In the Gore case the avarice included removing her teeth so that access could be had by the miscreants to the few grains of gold in her teeth. These grains of gold were not inventoried – the miscreants just pocketed them a spoils of elder cleansing.)

To demonstrate that the legal profession is not ‘likeable’ the Illinois Supreme Court has failed to act against obvious criminal activity by the IARDC and its administrator that it would not tolerate from Joe sixpack.

Illinois is one of the most corrupt States in the Union, and it supplies the jails with corrupt political and judicial officials on a regular basis. We even had two former governors in prison at the very same time!

It is scant comfort to read the Wall Street Journal and enjoy the fact that their corrupt political structure is finally getting its due. see: Probe of Ex-Aide Caused a Stir at N.Y. Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s Office

Probe of Ex-Aide Caused a Stir at N.Y. Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s Office

By Erica Orden

Soon after the home of one of Andrew Cuomo’s aides was searched by federal agents, the New York governor’s admin…

Medical Kidnap site–judicial corruption rarely investigated and now the norm in the US

Posted on June 14, 2016 by Joanne M Denison

American Judicial System for Sale: Bribes and Corruption now the Norm

Health Impact News Editor Comments

Since Health Impact News started reporting on medical kidnappings taking place in the United States, we have briefly touched upon the topic of corrupt judges and the courts that allow this to happen. See:

Medical Kidnapping Business: Judges Skirting the Law for Federal Funds

Retired Arizona Judge Reveals Corruption in Legal System

Who is Trying to Silence Filmmaker and Judicial Watchdog Bill Windsor, Currently Held in County Jail?

I recently was privileged to have a conversation with one of the top American legal minds of our day and age, Dr. Richard I. Fine, who lost his career and was unjustly put in prison for 18 months as a political prisoner. He was never even charged with a crime.

His story is not widely known, and it gives the public an insider perspective to the depth of the corruption in the American judiciary.

Health Impact News investigative reporter John P. Thomas recently interviewed Dr. Fine, and his report is below. Dr. Fine’s message is a message every American needs to know.

Dr. Richard Fine’s Experience with Corrupt Judges in California

by John P. Thomas
Health Impact News

There have been many articles published on the websites of Health Impact News and Medical Kidnap which mention judicial corruption. In this article, we take an in-depth look at one man’s attempt to expose judicial corruption, and the destruction of his legal career that followed. It destroys the myth that judges are always people of integrity who seek a fair outcome for those who appear in their courtrooms.

To be fair, there are still some genuinely honest people who work in the courts. However, the presence of good people is being overshadowed by those who routinely misuse the authority that has been given to them for personal gain. Corrupt judges do not identify conflicts of interest and do not step aside from cases where their personal connections might cause them to give an unfair judgement. Corrupt judges provide advantages to those who have given them money and power, while they disregard the rights of those who seek justice for acts of wrongdoing perpetrated against them.

One Honest Attorney’s Ten Year Battle with Corruption

A ten year battle with judicial corruption cost Dr. Richard I. Fine his freedom and his license to practice law. He was not punished because he did wrong, but he was attacked because he did the right thing.

The right thing was to expose the paying of illegal money to Los Angeles County judges and other California Superior Court judges after he learned about the practice in 1999. The right thing was to use his extensive legal training and experience to confront the pattern of corruption in the California judiciary and to do battle with the system that was corrupting judicial integrity.

California Superior Court judges in Los Angeles County began to receive large amounts of money from the county every year starting in 1985. In recent years, the annual payment made to each judge was in excess of $57,000. These annual payments were in addition to the regular salary paid to the judges by the state of California. Los Angeles County officials claimed that the purpose for the payments was to attract and retain high quality people to work as judges. However, another purpose – an illegal purpose – has been revealed. [1]

Dr. Fine showed that these payments were illegal, and fostered judicial corruption among Los Angeles County judges. The payments did not attract and retain judges, rather, they became a source of corruption. A very different word can now be used to describe the intent of these payments. [2]

Judges and Court Decisions Affected by Bribe Money

Judge Striking Gavel While Holding Scale With Money

As will be explained by Dr. Fine, these payments can be called bribe money, because the decisions made by these judges followed a very predictable pattern, which benefited Los Angeles County. In cases involving the county of Los Angeles, the county almost always won the cases brought before these judges. This pattern of decision making is evidence that the payments to judges were functioning as bribes.

I had the pleasure of speaking with Dr. Fine at the end of 2015. He was the first attorney to challenge the system of judicial corruption in California and the first to expose it to public view. He told me how the judges conspired to attack him and bring him down once he started to reveal the corruption.

Los Angeles judges denied him the payment of fees for work he had done. They imprisoned him for 18 months. They took his law license. Even after it was proven that corruption did in fact exist, and he did nothing wrong by exposing it, the California Supreme Court still refused to restore his license.

But before I get into more details about the betrayal of trust that Dr. Fine experienced, I want to introduce you to this remarkable man.

Dr. Richard Fine is a Man of Persistence and Courage

I spoke with Dr. Richard I. Fine, Ph.D.; JD, on December 29, 2015. The information in this article came from this conversation and from his presentations and interviews that have been archived on the internet.

Dr. Fine is a recognized leader in exposing governmental and judicial corruption. He is working hard to create a more just global society by providing expertise on issues relating to abuses of power, governance, international and comparative law, human rights and litigation oversight. Professionally, he is now working as a Strategic Consultant, and a Certified Mediator. He is the Chairman and Founder of the Campaign for Judicial Integrity, a grassroots movement dedicated to ending judicial corruption, reforming the judicial system and restoring our constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial. He also is the Co-Chairperson of the Judicial Reform Committee of DivorceCorp.

The educational background of Dr. Richard I. Fine is extensive. He earned a Ph.D. in Law with a specialty in International Law from the London School of Economics and Political Science (1967). He earned a Doctor of Law (JD) degree from the University of Chicago Law School (1964). After completing his Ph.D. he obtained a Certificate of Public International Law and a Certificate of Private International Law from the Hague Academy of International Law, a Certificate of Comparative Law from the International University of Comparative Science in Luxembourg, and obtained a Higher Diploma of Comparative Law from the International Faculty for the Teaching of Comparative Law, Strasbourg, France.

Dr. Fine pursued a wide range of studies in college. His major was psychology. He had a heavy emphasis in pre-med courses and actually took more courses in economics than in his major. He also accumulated credits toward a master’s degree in labor.

The combination of his education and professional training gave him an unusually broad view of how the legal system, the political system, and the personal ambition and self-interest of leaders come together to shape the systems that manage life in our society.

Dr. Fine described himself. He stated:

I am a broad thinker. Lawyers aren’t that. Many weren’t that even when I was practicing law, because so many lawyers began developing into the specialties. Lawyers look to solve the problem within the confines of their expertise and that doesn’t necessarily solve the problem. [3]

Dr. Fine’s Outstanding Legal Career

Dr. Fine was a member of the state bar association in at least one state from 1964 through 2011. Early in his career, he worked in the U.S. Department of Justice, Anti-Trust Division. He was the founder and chief of the first municipal anti-trust division in the United States for the Los Angeles City attorney’s office. In 1974 he founded the law offices of Richard I. Fine and associates.

A few highlights of his career include: the indicting and prosecuting of General Motors and Ford for price fixing, the Investigation of the Pulp Paper and Newsprint International Cartel for international price fixing, and the representation of the Department of Justice in its first appearance before the Tariff Commission, which later became the International Trade Commission. He litigated the case of IAM versus OPEC, which was the case against OPEC nations for manipulating U.S. gas prices. He changed the way United Way functions by requiring it to allow donors to designate the charities where their donations would go. He forced local governments in California to return a billion dollars of illegally used funds to California taxpayers. He closed down the California State Government and required it to have authorization before paying anyone including the Governor, state legislators, and judges. The action he took against the State of California in 1998 regarding its spending practices ended 26 years of political budget crises.

Dr. Fine received various certificates of special recognition such as the California State Assembly Certificate of recognition, and was honored as the lawyer of the decade and champion of court reform.

From the abbreviated list of accomplishments and honors mentioned above, it is clear that Dr. Fine was, and continues to be, an outstanding advocate for justice in America.

His Ordeal Began when He Sued Los Angeles County for Wrongdoing

In 1999 Dr. Fine sued the county of Los Angeles three times. The first suit challenged the county’s diversion of 250 million dollars of transportation monies to solve a problem in its hospital system. The second case involved the diversion of 45 million dollars of fees paid to the county. The fees were designated for environmental purposes, but were being diverted to the county’s general fund. The third case involved 14 million dollars of child support payments that were being illegally held by the district attorney and which were not being paid to women and children.

Dr. Fine won these cases, and the county suddenly had a 314 million dollar budget hole to fill, because they couldn’t use these funds as they had planned.

According to Dr. Fine,

The county was now on the hook for 314 million dollars. They wanted to do something, and what was that something going to be? That something was, to use the judges they were paying to go against me. [4]

Responding to Judicial Corruption Lands Dr. Fine in Jail Without Even a Warrant

Supreme Court Justice Also Questions the Legality of Payments to Judges

Dr. Fine’s life unexpectedly began to change on September 15, 2000, when he read a quotation in the Metropolitan News from Ronald M. George, the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court. Justice George had spoken to judges attending the annual Meeting of the California Judges Association. Dr. Fine explained that Justice George told the judges that he thought the payments to judges were wrong and maybe unconstitutional. It was through this newspaper article that Dr. Fine found out about the existence of payments made to judges by the counties, and began to consider the implications.

Dr. Fine’s law license has not been restored and I guess we will know when judicial reform has made progress, when myself, Dr. Fine, Ken Ditkowsky, Lanre Amu, Andy Ostrowski and the other lawyers on my “wrongfully disciplined lawyers” list have had their licenses reinstated. We have all taken our oaths as lawyers seriously and fought against corruption, now where are the rest?

From Ken Dikowsky –Larkin’s employing unlicensed court reporters is not unnoticed

Posted on June 12, 2016 by Joanne M Denison

From: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>

To: “jelarkin@iardc.org” <jelarkin@iardc.org>, FBI and states attorneys

Subject: Jerome Larkin cover-up of 18 USCA 4 violations and obstruction of Justice

Date: Jun 12, 2016 12:38 PM

Mr. Larkin,

I trust you and your comrades 18 USCA 371 have noted that the attempt to silence JoAnne Denison’s blog not only was unsuccessful, but, has exposed in great detail the cover-up and violations of the law by not only you, Jerome Larkin, but all who acted with you. The engaging unlicensed professionals is only the tip of the iceberg.

Previously, I called upon you, Jerome Larkin to resign and surrender your law license. I did this because your miscreant behavior has not only been demonstrated by your outrageous intellectually dishonest publications, your filings before the Illinois Supreme Court, by your kangaroo panels, but, the absolutely wrongful action of engaging unlicensed court reporters and then using their equally wrongful billings to try to intimidate and punish JoAnne Denison. Such action is intolerable. It is also an assault on the Constitution and Federal Law.

For the record, Ms. Denison has posted on her website that you refer to as akin to yelling fire in a crowded theater the Court Reporter statutes that you participated in violating. For a disciplinary commission to aid unlicensed professionals to violation consumer protection licensing laws is not only outrageous but of such an unethical nexus as to require your resignation. Of course, I assume that you personally will reimburse the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission the funds illegally paid to the unlicensed practitioners you unlawfully engaged.

If you engaged other unlicensed professionals (in other situations) I assume that you will personally reimburse the IARDC and any attorneys who were required to pay costs for the illegal charges. As it appears that this tactic was not performed for the First Time in the JoAnne Denison case the States Attorney and the United States Attorney should look into whether or not the deception by you, Jerome Larkin, has been common.

An entity that regulates the ethical behavior of others should have the moral standards of Caesar’s wife, not Al Capone.

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

To Stop Bad Prosecutors–call the feds–NY Times Ed. Board

Posted on June 12, 2016 by Joanne M Denison

Now this just isn’t on person writing to the New York Times, this is their editorial Board

Read on:

Prosecutors are the most powerful players in the American criminal justice system. Their decisions — like whom to charge with a crime, and what sentence to seek — have profound consequences.

So why is it so hard to keep them from breaking the law or violating the Constitution?

The short answer is that they are almost never held accountable for misconduct, even when it results in wrongful convictions. It is time for a new approach to ending this behavior: federal oversight of prosecutors’ offices that repeatedly ignore defendants’ legal and constitutional rights. There is a successful model for this in the Justice Department’s monitoring of police departments with histories of misconduct.

Among the most serious prosecutorial violations is the withholding of evidence that could help a defendant prove his or her innocence or get a reduced sentence — a practice so widespread that one federal judge called it an “epidemic.” Under the 1963 landmark Supreme Court case Brady v. Maryland, prosecutors are required to turn over any exculpatory evidence to a defendant that could materially affect a verdict or sentence. Yet in many district attorneys’ offices, the Brady rule is considered nothing more than a suggestion, with prosecutors routinely holding back such evidence to win their cases.

Nowhere is this situation worse than in Louisiana, where prosecutors seem to believe they are unconstrained by the Constitution.

This month, the Supreme Court will consider the latest challenge to prosecutorial misconduct in Louisiana in the case of David Brown, who was one of five men charged in the 1999 murder of a prison guard. Mr. Brown said he did not commit the murder, but he was convicted and sentenced to death anyway. Only later did his lawyers discover that prosecutors had withheld the transcript of an interview with another prisoner directly implicating two other men — and only those men — in the murder.

This is about as blatant a Brady violation as can be found, and the judge who presided over Mr. Brown’s trial agreed, throwing out his death penalty and ordering a new sentencing. But the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed that decision, ruling that the new evidence would not have made a difference in the jury’s sentence.

David Brown’s case is a good example of how every part of the justice system bears some responsibility for not fighting prosecutorial misconduct. State courts often fail to hold prosecutors accountable, even when their wrongdoing is clear. Professional ethics boards rarely discipline them. And individual prosecutors are protected from civil lawsuits, while criminal punishment is virtually unheard of. Money damages levied against a prosecutor’s office could deter some misconduct, but the Supreme Court has made it extremely difficult for wrongfully convicted citizens to win such claims.

This maddening situation has long resisted a solution. What would make good sense is to have the federal government step in to monitor some of the worst actors, increasing the chance of catching misconduct before it ruins peoples’ lives. The Justice Department is already authorized to do this by a 1994 federal law prohibiting any “pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers” that deprives a person of legal or constitutional rights.

The department has used this power to monitor police departments in Los Angeles, New Orleans, Detroit and Seattle, among other municipalities with a history of brutality, wrongful arrests, shootings of unarmed civilians and other illegal or unconstitutional practices. For the most part, the results have been positive. Since prosecutors are also “law enforcement officers,” there is no reason they and their offices should be immune from federal oversight.

Of course, many district attorneys’ offices will balk at being put under a federal microscope. But nothing else has worked to prevent misconduct by prosecutors, and the Justice Department is uniquely equipped to ferret out the worst actors and expose their repeated disregard for the law and the Constitution.

Illinois Certified Shorthand Reports Act

Posted on June 12, 2016 by Joanne M Denison

PROFESSIONS, OCCUPATIONS, AND BUSINESS OPERATIONS
(225 ILCS 415/) Illinois Certified Shorthand Reporters Act of 1984.

    (225 ILCS 415/1) (from Ch. 111, par. 6201)
    (Section scheduled to be repealed on January 1, 2024)
    Sec. 1.

The practice of shorthand reporting in the State of Illinois is hereby declared to affect the public health, safety and welfare and to be subject to regulation and control in the public interest. This Act is designed to encourage proficiency in the practice of shorthand reporting as a profession; to promote efficiency in court and general reporting; and to extend to the public the protection afforded by a standardized profession by establishing a standard of competency for certified shorthand reporters. It is further declared that, in order for the practice of shorthand reporting as defined in this Act to merit and receive the confidence of the public, only qualified persons shall be authorized to practice shorthand reporting in the State of Illinois. This Act shall be liberally construed to best carry out these subjects and purposes.

(Source: P.A. 83-73.)

    (225 ILCS 415/2) (from Ch. 111, par. 6202)
    (Section scheduled to be repealed on January 1, 2024)
    Sec. 2. This Act may be cited as the Illinois Certified Shorthand Reporters Act of 1984.
(Source: P.A. 87-481.)

    (225 ILCS 415/3) (from Ch. 111, par. 6203)
    (Section scheduled to be repealed on January 1, 2024)
    Sec. 3. License required.

No person may practice shorthand reporting on a temporary or permanent basis in this State without being certified under this Act. This Act does not prohibit any non-resident practicing shorthand reporter from practicing shorthand reporting in this State as to one single proceeding.

(Source: P.A. 98-445, eff. 12-31-13.)

    (225 ILCS 415/3.5)
    (Section scheduled to be repealed on January 1, 2024)
    Sec. 3.5. Uncertified practice; violation; civil penalty.

(a) Any person who practices, offers to practice, attempts to practice, or holds oneself out to practice as a shorthand reporter without being certified under this Act shall, in addition to any other penalty provided by law, pay a civil penalty to the Department in an amount not to exceed $10,000 for each offense as determined by the Department and the assessment of costs as provided under Section 23.3 of this Act. The civil penalty shall be assessed by the Department after a hearing is held in accordance with the provisions set forth in this Act regarding the provision of a hearing for the discipline of a licensee.

(b) The Department has the authority and power to investigate any and all unlicensed activity.

(c) The civil penalty shall be paid within 60 days after the effective date of the order imposing the civil penalty. The order shall constitute a judgment and may be filed and execution had thereon in the same manner as any judgment from any court of record.

(d) All moneys collected under this Section shall be deposited into the General Professions Dedicated Fund.
(Source: P.A. 98-445, eff. 12-31-13.)

(225 ILCS 415/23) (from Ch. 111, par. 6223)
    (Section scheduled to be repealed on January 1, 2024)
    Sec. 23. Grounds for disciplinary action.
    (a) The Department may refuse to issue or renew, or may revoke, suspend, place on probation, reprimand or take other disciplinary or non-disciplinary action as the Department may deem appropriate, including imposing fines not to exceed $10,000 for each violation and the assessment of costs as provided for in Section 23.3 of this Act, with regard to any license for any one or combination of the following:

(11) Charging for professional services not rendered,

including filing false statements for the collection of fees for which services were not rendered, or giving, directly or indirectly, any gift or anything of value to attorneys or their staff or any other persons or entities associated with any litigation, that exceeds $100 total per year; for the purposes of this Section, pro bono services, as defined by State law, are permissible in any amount;

(13) Willfully making or filing false records or

reports in the practice of shorthand reporting, including but not limited to false records filed with State agencies or departments;

Rules of Conduct for Certified Short Reporters and

Posted on June 12, 2016 by Joanne M Denison

http://www.ilcra.org/sitepage.asp?page=Code-of-Ethics

CODE OF ETHICS

Illinois Court Reporters Association

Code of Professional Ethics

Adopted February 8, 1997

PREAMBLE

This Code of Professional Ethics is incorporated by reference in the Bylaws as Article XI. It includes the Guidelines for Professional Practice, Sections I, II, III, and IV. Section I covers the guidelines for the reporter making the official record; Section II covers the guidelines for the realtime reporter in legal and non-legal proceedings; Section III covers the guidelines for the realtime educational reporter; and Section IV covers guidelines on providing uncertified rough draft transcripts. In addition, the Code now includes Complaint Procedures.

5-2

CODE OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS

A Member Shall:

1. Be fair and impartial toward each participant in all aspects of reported proceedings and always offer to provide comparable services to all parties in a proceeding.

2. Be alert to situations that are conflicts of interest or that may give the appearance of a conflict of interest. If a conflict or a potential conflict arises, the Member shall disclose that conflict or potential conflict.

3. Guard against not only impropriety, but the appearance of impropriety.

4. Preserve the confidentiality and ensure the security of information, oral or written, entrusted to the Member by any of the parties in a proceeding.

5. Be truthful and accurate when making public statements or when advertising the Member’s qualifications or the services provided.

6. Refrain, as an official reporter, from freelance reporting activities that interfere with official duties and obligations.

7. Determine fees independently, except when established by statute or court order, entering into no unlawful agreements with other reporters on the fees to any user.

8. Refrain from giving, directly or indirectly, any gift or anything of value to attorneys or their staff, other clients or their staff, or any persons or entities associated with any litigation, which exceeds $100 in the aggregate per recipient each year. Nothing offered in exchange for future work is permissible, regardless of its value. Pro bono services as defined by NCRA’s Guidelines for Professional Practice or by applicable state and local laws, rules and regulations are permissible in any amount.

9. Maintain the integrity of the reporting profession.

10. Abide by the ILCRA Bylaws.

5-3

GUIDELINES FOR PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

Section I

Court Reporter

Common sense and professional courtesy should guide the Member in applying the following Guidelines.

In making the official record, a Member should:

A. Accept only those assignments when the Member’s level of competence will result in the preparation of an accurate transcript. The Member should remove himself from an assignment when the Member believes the Member’s abilities are inadequate, recommending or assigning another reporter only if such reporter has the competence required for such assignment.

B. Prepare the record in accordance with the transcript-preparation guidelines established by statute or court order, by local custom and usage, or when not so established in accordance with the NCRA’s recommended Transcript format guidelines.

C. Notify whenever possible, the parties engaging the Member if a substitute reporter, equally qualified, will be assigned to report the proceedings.

D. Preserve the shorthand notes in accordance with statute or court order, for a period of no less than five (5) years through storage of the original paper notes or an electronic copy of either the shorthand notes or the English transcript of the notes on computer disks, cassettes, backup tape systems, or optical or laser disk systems.

E. Meet promised delivery dates whenever possible, make timely delivery of transcripts when no date is specified, and provide immediate notification of delays.

F. Strive to become and remain proficient in the Member’s professional skills.

G. Keep abreast of current literature, technological advances and developments, and participate in continuing-education programs.

H. Assist in improving the reporting profession by participating in national, state, and local association activities that advance the quality and standards of the reporting profession.

I. Cooperate with the bench and bar for the improvement of the administration of justice.

J. Cooperate with qualified legal assistance organizations providing free legal services to the indigent, as part of the shorthand reporting profession’s commitment to the principle that reporting services should be available to all. Such participation should be in accordance with the basic tenets of the profession: impartiality, competence, and integrity.

5-4

Section II

Realtime Reporter as Assistive Technology in Legal and Non-Legal Proceeding

A realtime reporter in this setting is a court reporter using realtime skills an equipment to provide on-screen translation. Understanding of the realtime reporter’s role is necessary among all parties to the proceeding.

Common sense and professional courtesy should guide the Member in applying the following Guidelines. A Member acting as a realtime reporter with assistive technology should:

A. In legal proceedings, establish before beginning realtime reporting a clear understanding of who has hired the reporter, what is to be reported, and whether the realtime is to be used as assistive technology or if a verbatim record is required in addition to the assistance being provided.

B. In legal proceedings, establish before beginning realtime reporting a clear understanding with all parties as to who owns the residual computer note file and who, if anyone, has access to sell and/or distribute the same and to whom, if anyone. Each situation will be unique.

C. Keep all assignment-related information strictly confidential.

D. If realtime is used as assistive technology and a verbatim record is not required, render as near a verbatim translation as possible, always conveying the content and spirit of the speaker, using substitute language which is computer-translatable when necessary to be understood by the person being served. Use parentheticals to describe sounds, laughter, anything that detracts attention from the proceedings to explain to the nonhearing participant what is going on.

E. Not counsel, advise, or interject personal opinions.

F. Accept assignments using discretion with regard to skill, setting, and the consumers involved, and shall accurately represent their qualifications for realtime reporting.

G. Know the software and hardware system used and be able to do simple troubleshooting.

H. Strive to further their knowledge and skill through participation in workshops, professional meetings, interaction with professional colleagues and reading of current literature in the field, and to achieve realtime certification on a state or national level.

I. Save hard copy or disk of actual translation as it was seen on screen before editing the file in any way. Job defines can be added as the day goes on so long as they don’t alter what was seen on screen earlier. In legal proceedings, the actual record as seen by the deaf party or juror should be saved.

J. Be aware that special questions are raised when realtime reporting for a deaf juror, and some understanding needs to be reached by all parties before translation begins.

5-5

Section III

Realtime Educational Reporter

The Realtime Education Reporter will be assigned to one or more students for a particular class or classes for the term of each class. This reporter will accompany the student(s) to each class. Through the use of realtime translation, the reporter will write the teacher’s spoken words; the text of this lecture will display on a computer monitor or other display device in English for the deaf or hard-of-hearing student(s) to read. At the conclusion of each class, the reporter will provide the student(s) with a copy of the lecture text from the realtime translation either in the format of an unedited ASCII file on a diskette or a printed copy of the edited text.

The Realtime Educational Reporter should:

A. Work with the instructor for each assigned class to assure that all the technical terminology for that particular class will be provided in advance so that it can be entered into the reporter’s computer dictionary. This will help the reporter maintain a high translation rate, which is advantageous for both the reporter and the student(s).

B. Keep all assignments strictly confidential.

C. Not participate in class discussion or provide any advice to the student whom the reporter is assisting. The reporter is there only to facilitate communication between the student, the instructor, and the student’s classmates. The reporter will “Realtime” lectures and classroom activities including orally presented assignments.

D. Arrange equipment so that the student being assisted is able to watch the reporter’s computer screen and the speaker at the same time. The translation and text display are usually one to four seconds behind the speaker, and for this reason it may take the student a few seconds longer to respond. If at all possible, the instructor must limit the class discussion to one person speaking at a time.

E. Follow the intent of the speaker at all times. The reporter shall render as near a verbatim translation as possible, always conveying the content and spirit of the speaker. If a new term is introduced that will not translate properly, the reporter may use substitute language that is computer-translatable when necessary to be understood by the student.

F. Reflect in the text on the reporter’s screen everything going on in the environment including environmental sounds and speaker identifiers.

Examples include:

INSTRUCTOR:

MALE STUDENT:

FEMALE STUDENT:

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

(BELL RINGING)

G. Inform the student(s) being assisted that the student is responsible for recording all nonspoken information, such as material presented on the chalkboard.

H. Accept assignments using discretion with regard to skill, setting, and the consumers involved, and accurately represent his or her credentials for realtime reporting.

I. Work with instructors and all students in each class to secure cooperation.

J. Have a backup reporter to take over the class in case of illness.

5-6

Section IV

Guidelines on Providing Uncertified Rough Draft Transcripts

The Illinois Court Reporters Association and the National Court Reporters Association realize that in some cases, court reporters are providing uncertified rough draft transcripts, in either paper or ASCII form, to parties involved in litigation either in the courtroom or deposition setting. The Illinois Court Reporters Association and the National Court Reporters Association suggest the following guidelines be used when providing such services. These guidelines are intended to aid a court reporter when providing uncertified rough draft transcripts. Generally speaking, uncertified rough draft transcripts are provided by court reporters who use realtime translation, but other court reporters are also providing uncertified rough draft transcripts as well. These are not mandates, but rather guidelines by which a court reporter may determine the propriety of his or her conduct in relation to the litigants, their counsel, the court, allied professions and the public.

The principal objective when a court reporter provides an uncertified rough draft transcript of proceedings is to aid in the administration of justice by rendering a valuable service to the litigants, their counsel, and the court.

A. A court reporter providing an uncertified rough draft transcript should perform the task ‘ undertaken by him or her in a professional manner.

B. A court reporter providing an uncertified rough draft transcript should keep informed of technological and other advances and improvements in the skills and methods of his or her profession and strive constantly for self-improvement.

C. A court reporter providing an uncertified rough draft transcript should not perform any service under terms or conditions which will compromise in any way, his or her impartiality or the exercise of good judgment and skill, or which will adversely affect the fair and impartial portrayal of the proceeding. Court reporters should offer comparable services to all parties in a litigation proceeding.

D. An uncertified rough draft transcript should not include a title page, appearance page, certificate page, any mention of the swearing in of a witness (in depositions), footer with firm name or reporter name or CSR#, index page, line numbers starting with 1 for each page, borders around the text on each page, or time stamping.

E. An uncertified rough draft transcript should include a header or footer on each page stating “Computer uncertified rough draft transcript only.” A brief disclaimer such as “uncertified rough draft transcript” should be included in the body of the text occasionally. An uncertified rough draft transcript provided on paper should be printed on colored paper, with the words “”uncertified rough draft transcript” hand stamped on each page. If provided on diskette, the diskette label should be similarly hand stamped, and the label should be a different color than those used on diskettes containing the text of certified transcripts. Uncertified rough draft transcripts should be provided in condensed format only. Page numbers may be included, but line numbers should be absolute, not starting with 1 for each page.

F. A disclaimer and/or order form should be transmitted as a cover sheet or cover sheets with each uncertified rough draft transcript stating that the uncertified rough draft transcript cannot be quoted in any pleading or for any other purpose and may not be filed with any court. A copy of the disclaimer and/or order form should be retained by the court reporter.

G. Where possible, all untranslated steno strokes and conflicts should be resolved before an uncertified rough draft transcript is provided to any party. An unedited transcript should not be provided without resolving untranslated steno strokes and conflicts if the untranslated rate is 1.0% or higher.

H. Only court reporters who possess the capability of providing a substantially readable transcript should attempt to provide an uncertified rough draft transcript.

5-7

I. Minimum writing skills: conflict-free writing (software with automatic conflict resolution is recommended); untranslates of one percent or less; standard punctuation included; and speaker identification defined.

These are suggested guidelines. If your current writing skills do not meet these guidelines, don’t let it stop you. Remember, you have a chance during breaks or on-the-fly to define untranslates and resolve conflicts. It is recommended that you not supply counsel with a rough draft ASCII disk or printed transcript until these minimum standards are met. However, you may be able to provide the disk or uncertified transcript to them later that day or the next day.

5-8

COMPLAINT PROCEDURES

The following procedures shall be followed in instituting and resolving complaints that any Member of the Association has violated the Code of Professional Ethics (CODE) and/or Bylaws of the Association.

A. Filing and Investigation of Complaints

1. Any person may file a complaint against a Member of the Association. All complaints must be in writing, signed by the person making the complaint, and addressed to the Executive Director of the Association. All complaints must contain the name and address of the Member complained against, a description of the conduct complained of, and references to the specific provisions of the Code and/or Bylaws involved in the complaint. All complaints must be accompanied by a written verified affidavit whereby the complainant affirms that the facts stated in the complaint are true and accurate to the best of the complainant’s knowledge and belief. The verified affidavit also must contain the complainant’s authorization of the Association to disclose the contents of the complaint to the Member complained against, the member of the Ethics Committee, and Association officers.

2. The Executive Director shall promptly acknowledge receipt of all complaints and shall provide a copy of these complaint procedures to the person making the complaint. If the complaint does not contain all the required information, the Executive Director shall advise the person making the complaint that further information must be provided before any further action can be taken, and shall specify what further information is required. No action shall be taken until all required information has been provided.

3. The Executive Director shall forward a copy of the complaint to the Member complained against, along with a copy of these complaint procedures, and a copy of the Code of Professional Ethics and request that the Member respond to the complaint in writing within thirty (30) days.

4. In the event that any circumstances may come to the attention of the President that involve a potential violation of the Code and/or Bylaws, the President may appoint the most recent past Chairman of the Ethics Committee, who is willing and able to serve, to investigate and, if appropriate, file a complaint. The Executive Director shall treat any such complaint in accordance with the same procedures as if filed by any other person.

B. Proceedings by the Ethics Committee

1. When the thirty-day (30) period has elapsed, the Executive Director shall forward the complaint, and the response, if any, to the Ethics Committee. The Ethics Committee may reach its decision based on the complaint and the response, if any, or may ask the Executive Director to obtain additional information. The Committee may also grant an opportunity for the person making the complaint and the Member complained of to be heard either in person, through legal counsel, or in a format agreed to by all parties. If the Committee determines there are disputed issues of fact that are material to its decision, it shall grant either party an opportunity to present relevant information, including documents and witnesses, and an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses called by the other party. The committee shall be the judge of the relevance and materiality of any information offered, and conformity to legal rules of evidence shall not be necessary.

2. The Committee shall thereafter prepare a written decision containing its findings of fact and conclusions. It may issue a cautionary letter, warning or statement of advice to the Member. Alternatively, the Committee may recommend to the Executive Board that the Member be expelled or suspended (up to one (1) year) from the Association, or may order that the Member be reprimanded. No expulsion or suspension shall become effective unless sustained by the Executive Board in accordance with the Bylaws (which requires a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the Executive Board.)

5-9

3. The Committee shall render its decision based on the complaint and the response, if any, or schedule a hearing date, within ninety (90) days after the case is initially received from the Executive Director. If a hearing is scheduled, the Committee shall render its decision within sixty (60) days after the hearing is completed.

C. Appeals

1. The Executive Director shall promptly send a copy of the decision of the Ethics Committee to the person making the complaint and the Member complained against, and advise them that the Committee’s decision will become final (except for recommendations regarding expulsion or suspension) unless either party appeals to the Executive Board within thirty (30) days, in writing, specifying the grounds upon which the party contends the Committee’s decision is erroneous and should be revised.

2. If no appeal is taken within the thirty-day (30) period from a decision by the Ethics Committee, the Executive Director shall forward to the Executive Board the record before the Committee and the Committee’s decision. In such cases, the Board shall decide on the record before the Committee whether to sustain the Committee’s recommendation.

3. Upon receipt of an appeal within the thirty-day (30) period, the Executive Director shall forward it to the other parties to the proceeding. Any other party to the proceeding may respond to the appeal within ten (10) days of receipt. When the ten-day (10) period has elapsed, the Executive Director shall forward to the Executive Board the appeal, any response, and all other papers relating to the matter. The Board may decide the appeal on the basis of these papers, or may grant a request for oral argument made by any party, in person or through their attorney. The Board may affirm, reverse, or modify the decision of the Ethics Committee provided, however, that no greater sanction can be imposed than that recommended by the Ethics Committee.

D. Costs and Expenses

Each party shall bear his or her own costs and expenses with respect to any proceeding.

E. Final Actions

At the Executive Board’s discretion, a final action may be published in the Ad Infinitum for the edification of the Membership provided that all identifying information about the Member complained against and the complaining party is deleted.

Request for funding to go to Washington DC this Wednesday

Posted on June 11, 2016 by Joanne M Denison

Right now we are raising funds for airfare or an airline ticket so I can go to Washington and talk to the Senate Subcommittee on Aging on Wed, June 15, 2016 at 2pm to help corruption victims who have experienced a loss of a loved one in Probate or Custody through corruption (lack of jurisdiction, changed transcripts, lying in court, false evidence, lying shrinks and courtroom vendors. I want to ask this Subcommittee to appoint a special investigator and return the loved ones to their families with a POA and an Elder Assistant volunteer who meets with the elder once per week and helps them pay bills and make decisions. Also, all monies taken from fraudulent proceedings, the attorneys, nursing homes and court vendors will be returned to the loved one and their family members.

Most of you are familiar with the work we do and how we help everyone and do not turn anyone away.

Currently, we are working on my taking cases in courtroom corruption in Probate to the Senate Subcommitte on the judiciary and demanding they appoint a special investigator and investigating all the corrupt cases were seniors and the disableds are at high risk of the procedure of “target, isolate, medicate, drain the estate, eliminate and cremate” as well as custody corruption where parents are denied co parenting due to corruption in the court room (no service of pleadings, no due process, evaluation reports ignored, lying shrinks, etc.) We will be taking cases to the Senate Subcommittee on the judiciary and demanding a special investigator.

All our work is important. We return loved ones and their monies to their families.

No donation is too small. Everyone who request will be put on my prayer list if you do not have the funds to donate, just let me know.

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.

We do not have any government funding as yet 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, etc.)

If I can’t raise the funds as yet, I will ask to appear by Skype and I’m faxing the subcommittee today.

thank you for reading this

joanne

Exciting new blog–Rockford Fraud by John Bystrom

Posted on June 10, 2016 by Joanne M Denison

John Bystrom has been very active in uncovering fraud and corruption in Rockford–the type of news mega media just won’t print, but everyone in town knows it is going on and on and on. The state’s attorneys won’t touch it, the FBI in Rockford won’t touch it, but John Bystrom has been investigating and publishing and now has his own blog–a blog for sure you won’t want to miss.

go sign up for his new blog at: https://rockfordfraud.wordpress.com/

Rockford fraud exposed

My name is Jonathan Bystrom. I am from Rockford, Illinois. The frauds of Rockford have become so numerous, I am forced to excercise my First Amendment rights for my protection. I hope this effort helps myself, as well as others, who have found themselves on the receiving end of Rockford’s frauds.

In the coming months, I will inform you of what I have witnessed in what I refer to as Rockford Fraud’s Greatest Hits.

In the meantime, please visit http://www.MaryGSykes.com. You’ll find that in Illinois real estate is the currency for the con-artists who run the courts and everything they can get their filthy paws on in this state. It is no wonder why people are leaving Rockford and this state in record numbers.

The local illicit cartel in Rockford has been protected by Jerome Larkin at the Attorney Registration & Diciplinary Commission. Attys. JoAnne Denison and Ken Ditkowsky had their law licenses suspended for blogging the truth of the quid pro quo in Chicago Probate Court. Their revelations are no less than shocking and heartbreaking. They are heroes of the first caliber. Their courageous efforts are of the most noble of the Human Race.

A Supreme example in ancient times said, “In as much as ye have done it unto the least of these my brethren (and sisters), ye have done it unto Me.” Same goes for the evil doers.

The local political crooks in Rockford stole more than $500,000 by fraud upon the court, while “they” had me in their filthy arena. Even though I am an investor in The Rock River Times, and was the first Assistant Editor for the paper, my rights could not have been violated any worse.

Framing innocent people, like me, is sport to the criminals we call public officials. As a taxpayer of Rockford and Winnebago County, you should be more than concerned for the way these agents of the court use your tax dollars to steal millions from the innocent.

The above photograph was taken in 1982 in Corrientes, Argentina. The bridge in the background is the Belgrano Bridge, spanning the Parana River. Just up the Paraguay River, which runs into the Parana, is Bolivia. In that same year, I was told by a most reliable source, that the intelligence agencies of the surrounding countries had taken over Bolivia for the international drug traffickers, to fund the covert operations and dirty tricks that are seldom prosecuted.

According to former DEA Agent Michael Levine in his book “White Lies,” the “Butcher of Lyon” Nazi Klaus Barbie, who murdered hundreds of children in Lyon, France during WWII, ran the operation for the CIA.

According to Ambrose Evans Pritchard’s book, “The Secret Life of Bill Clinton,” Arkansas was the drop-off point for more than $6 billion in cocaine shipments during his governorship. Wall Street Journal Columnist Micah Morrison wrote many articles in the 1990s about the murder of two boys from Saline County, Arkansas. Don Henry and Kevin Ives stumbled upon the cocaine drops and were killed by the very people the Saline County taxpayers paid to protect their rights. A 19-year-old female courier drove the drugs to its end destination–Rockford, Illinois.

The unprosecuted murderers went free. It became known as, “The Most Famous Murder Mystery in America.

As a missionary in Argentina I risked my life everyday. In Rockford, Illinois I do the same. For the past 38 years, I have been at the mercy of the sociopaths who are paid to protect yours and my rights in Rockford. We don’t get very good protection. In fact, many have no protection at all.

After digesting the content of http://www.MaryGSykes.com, you will not have to wonder “how” they get away with endless frauds upon us.

My great-grandmother Katherine Weinberg from Hamburg, Germany used to say, “Know the Truth, and the Truth shall set you free.” Can you handle the Truth?

I am free and have every intention to remain so. If you don’t already know the truth, my suggested reading above should begin to set you free also.

Please stay tuned!

Jonathan Bystrom

published with permission of the author, he’s my friend.

Psychotropic Drugs worse than previously thought

Posted on June 10, 2016 by Joanne M Denison

Antipsychotic drugs are riskier for older dementia patients than previously thought, study finds

By Susan Perry | 03/19/15

U.S. Government Accountability Office

Physicians often prescribe antipsychotic drugs to older people with dementia to control non-memory related behavioral symptoms, including agitation, aggressiveness, delusions and hallucinations.

But officials at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have never approved antipsychotic medications — such as haloperidol (Haldol), risperidone (Risperdal),olanzapine (Zyprexa) and quetiapine (Seroquel) — for that purpose. Indeed, these medicines come with a “black box” FDA warning that their use to control behavioral disturbances in people with dementia is associated with an increased risk of premature death.

Many physicians have continued to prescribe the drugs to their patients with dementia anyway, believing that the benefits — primarily protecting patients from harming themselves or others — outweigh the risks.

A study published Wednesday in the journalJAMA Psychiatry, however, presents troubling new evidence that those risks are significantly higher than previously reported.

A VA database

For the study, researchers from the University of Michigan, the University of Southern California and the Veterans Administration analyzed medical data of almost 91,000 U.S. veterans (mostly men) aged 65 and older with diagnosed dementia. Approximately half the patients had been treated for behavioral problems with an antipsychotic, anticonvulsant (valproic acid) or antidepressant medication; the other half didn’t receive any of these drugs.

After crunching the data, the researchers found that veterans who were given antipsychotic medications had a risk of dying significantly higher than those not taking the medications. For example, 20.7 percent of the patients taking haloperidol died within six months — 3.8 percent more than the non-users. Among the patients taking quetiapine, 11.8 percent died within six months — 2.0 percent more than the non-users. The increased risk of death for the olanzapine and risperidone patients fell somewhere between.

These risks are two to four times higher than previously cited in the medical literature, the study’s authors point out.

The new analysis also revealed that the higher the dose of an antipsychotic medication, the greater the risk of premature death.

Another troubling finding was that people prescribed haloperidol — the riskiest of the drugs — were more likely to be unmarried, African-American or living in facilities with fewer beds for patients.

As for the two other types of drugs used to treat behavioral problems in people with dementia — valproic acid and antidepressants — the researchers found that the increased risk of premature death associated with the anticonvulsants was not statistically significant and the increased risk associated with the antidepressants was only slightly higher than for non-users.

Number needed to harm

Another way of assessing the risk from the antipsychotic medications is with an epidemiological measurement tool known as the “number needed to harm” (NNH). In this study, the NNH reflects the number of older adults with dementia who would have to be taking a particular drug for one of them to die within six months.

For the haloperidol users in the study, the NNH was 26. In other words, for every 26 patients with dementia taking haloperidol, one would be expected to die within half a year. Risperidone was only slightly less risky, with an NNH of 27. For olanzapine the NNH was 40, and for quetiapine it was 50.

By comparison, the NNH in this study for antidepressant use was 166. (There’s little evidence, however, that antidepressants are effective for patients with dementia.)

Time to raise the threshold

Earlier this month, federal investigators with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report in which they cited evidence of the widespread overuse of psychiatric drugs in older Americans with dementia.

In 2012, about one-third of older adults with dementia who spent at least 100 days in long-term nursing home and about 14 percent of those living outside a nursing home were prescribed an antipsychotic medication, the report noted.

“The harms associated with using these drugs in dementia patients are clear, yet clinicians continue to use them,” said Dr. Donovan Maust, the lead author of the JAMA Psychiatry study and a geriatric psychiatrist at the University of Michigan and the VA Center for Clinical Management Research, in a released statement.

“That’s likely because the symptoms are so distressing,” he added.“These results should raise the threshold for prescribing further.”

Maust says the emphasis on treating behavioral problems in older people with dementia should focus on non-drug strategies first. But, of course, those strategies take more time and are not always fully reimbursed by Medicare or private health insurance.

“Non-pharmacologic approaches will only succeed if we as a society agree to pay front-line providers for the time needed to ‘do the right thing,’ ” said one of Mast’s co-authors,Dr. Helen Kales, in the released statement.

Unfortunately, the JAMA Psychiatry study is behind a firewall at the journal’s website, despite the fact that it was funded in large part by taxpayer money through the National Institute of Mental Health and the National Institute on Aging.

You can read the GAO report on the overprescribing of antipsychotic medications at that agency’s website.

Time for Jerome Larkin to Resign and Surrender his law license

Posted on June 10, 2016 by Joanne M Denison

And all the other lawyers involved in running a trial with unlicensed court reporters for SIX DAYS!–Opryszek, Smart, Sang Yul Lee and Ziad Alnaqib–all involved. The Review Board should also be required to resign for not letting my court reporter set up also. Why was she told not to set up? It’s a violation of my due process rights.

I am now reviewing all my transcripts for unlicensed court reporters over the past few years, and with the exception of the ARDC, I can’t find a single one!

Amazing. Only the ARDC uses unlicensed court reporters.

I want everyone to check their transcripts and give me a report on how many they find that are unlicensed.

joanne

From: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
To: JoAnne M Denison <JoAnne@justice4every1.com>; jonathan bystrom <jonbystrom@yahoo.com>
Cc:
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 6:24 AM
Subject: Everyone is entitled to a fair hearing – the Kangaroo System of Justice does not work. Larkin for promoting it should be subject to an Honest Investigation and if found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt appropriately punished.

   (705 ILCS 205/4) (from Ch. 13, par. 4)
     Sec. 4. Every person admitted to practice as an attorney and counsellor at law shall, before his name is entered upon the roll to be kept as hereinafter provided, take and subscribe an oath, substantially in the following form:
     I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be), that I will support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Illinois, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of attorney and counselor at law to the best of my ability.
(Source: R.S. 1874, p. 169 .)

The foregoing is the oath that every lawyer takes before being admitted to the bar. Supporting the Constitution has a simple meaning but creates an affirmative duty. This duty is to see that innocent people are not railroaded into guardianships for profit, elder cleansing situations, or other illegal scams. It imposes a double affirmative duty on public officials who are attorneys = not to openly and notorious obstruct justice by doing the very acts that have been documents in the Probate Sharks, MaryGSykes, NASGA, AAAPG Blog, Probate Sharks **** blogs.

The subordination of perjury that Jerome Larkin and his 18 USCA 371 co-conspirators have promulgated in disciplinary proceedings against Lawyers exposing corruption is untenable with the oath or with American citizenship. (these charges have been documented and therefore are entitled to an HONEST AND COMPLETE INVESTIGATION.

Every day more charges of corruption pile up against Jerome Larkin and his cronies and every day they are routinely swept under the rug. Unfortunately many of the charges made are TRUE AND ACCURATE, though some are quite similar to the charges brought by the Larkin conspiracy. However, all must be investigated! Judicial corruption (and Political corruption) are serious cancers. A dishonest public official is a non-Muslim ISIS warrior spreading terror over a large segment of the population and accomplishing the destruction of America and her core values.

The current concept of an honest political figure as that of a pol who when bribed stays bribed is not one of our core values. The approach of many that the enemy of my enemy is my friend also falls short. Every individual is entitled to the presumption of innocence and the right to due process. That even includes scumbag political and judicial officials who we know to be dishonest disreputable crooks. the fact that our judicial system has fallen down and is unwilling or unable to perform it obligation does not mean that we are immune or can impose lynch law.

This is the distinction between US and them! DEMAND IS MADE FOR AN HONEST, COMPREHENSIVE AND COMPLETE INVESTIGATION of the Elder Cleansing scandal and the 18 USCA 371/18 USC 241/242 cover-up by Jerome Larkin, the Illinois Supreme Court, the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, the Florida Bar *******.

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

Time to come clean and clean up the IARDC

Posted on June 9, 2016 by Joanne M Denison

Mr. Larkin,

The affidavit that accompanies the motion that discusses the use of unlicensed professionals by the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission creates such an appearance of impropriety that the person who wrote the affidavit as well as all who were consulted in reference thereto surrender their law licenses as severe dangers to the public.

You are aware that professional licensing is the chosen method by which the State protects consumers. Use of unlicensed people by the Attorney Disciplinary Commission (IARDC) is beyond contempt. However, it is consistent with everything that went on in my case, JoAnne Denison’s case, Lanre Amu’s case ***** and the racial insult heaped upon an Icon of the Civil Rights movement (Diane Nash). Just focusing on the JoAnne Denison case you at this point in time know that the charges made against Ms. Denison (and myself) were totally false and even had they been true they were protected by the Constitution of the United States and the Illinois Constitution. You however told the Supreme Court that the disclosures of judicial corruption was akin to yelling fire in a crowded theater. You further ignored the fact that on page 91 of Judge Connor’s deposition she admitted to being ‘fixed’/’wired’ Of course you before you filed the charges was aware that due process – i.e. notice and hearing were denied Mary Sykes and that one of your panels use clairvoyance instead of evidence to reach its decision. It is also no secret to you that Rulings of the Supreme Court of Illinois were misrepresented and falsely characterized. I trust you have now read the Sawyer and the Alvarez cases.

Naturally you have not apologized or retracted the inappropriate pleadings and documents that you filed. We did not expect the same as we were detailing for the FBI, IRS, IDPR and DOJ the fact that your action was intentional. (Had it been an error the same type of misconduct would not have continued unabated until culminated in the attempted intimidation of Attorney Denison and the outlandish fraud of presenting an ex-parte petition for costs that included illegal charges.

It is time, Mr. Larkin, for you to resign and surrender your law license. The damage you are doing to the reputation of the legal profession is horrendous. Few legal practitioners have heaped so much disrepute on the 2nd oldest profession as you. Dishonesty has become the expected norm based upon your total disregard for the oath you took to become the administrator of the IARDC and to become an attorney. How can you explain claiming that Lanre Amu was not telling the truth when independently Crains Chicago Business made the very same averments concerning Judge Egan. How can explain your inaction in the Alice Gore case? Justice Jackson sentenced Nazis to death for what was done to Mrs. Gore yet you would not even investigate. How do you explain prosecutions of Ms. Dension and myself for demanding an HONEST INVESTIGATION?

Mr. Amu, Ms Dension, and yours truly are not naive, nor did we just fall off the turnip truck. We all knew from day one that a fair hearing before the IARDC was impossible and that the ‘fix’ was in. It is/was sad, but a fact of life. Today, you have crossed the line. There is no going back. By your acting as defined in 18 UsCA 371 you are a co-conspirator. By your thwarting 18 USCA 4 (and a death occurred) you have violated 18 USCA 241 and 242. These violations are felonies. As you used the mails to communicate *******.

Do the right thing Mr. Larkin! You and I both went to the same law school – do not disgrace it and yourself further by not owning up to the obstruction of justice and other perfidy that you have committed.

To the IARDC, even though the request of an HONEST INVESTIGATION is offensive to the management of the IARDC, Attorney Cynthia Farenga ***** DEMAND IS MADE PURSUANT TO aba RULE 8.3 FOR AN HONEST INVESTIGATION OF THE CRIMINAL CONDUCT OF JEROME LARKIN AND EVERY ATTORNEY DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THE MARY SYKES CASE, THE ALICE GORE CASE, CAROLYN WYMAN CASE and other elder cleansing cases. As Mr. Larkin and others associated with the IARDC are intimidatingly involved in the alleged judicial corruption, I call for an independent law enforcement organization be requested to conduct the investigation.

Ken Ditkowsky
http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

Subject: Re: breach of the pubic trust is a taxable event

The problem that is to be faced is no one gives a damn about the murders! These murders echoed the holocaust and in the Alice Gore case even demonstrated the stealing of the gold from the teeth of the victims.

Every day, most of us write e-mails up the gazoo to law enforcement, civil rights organizations, and anyone who will accept them – How many guardians do you see even being investigated for their felonies? Routinely I copy the FBI, the Justice Department, and local law enforcement authorities on my e-mails – I leave to you to ascertain what if any result that has had. (It has had some – that I was able to confirm, however, public officials are afraid.)

Let’s take the case of the Judge who sentenced that Stanford swimmer to six months in jail for a rape. We all are adults – we know what happened. The Judge got a telephone call from on to the political people he owes a favor. The caller told him the terms and conditions of the collection effort and when it came time to sentence the miscreant the Judge did as he was told. Some deviant (like you or I) found out about the incident and blew the whistle. As some event was the news of the day was unfavorable to on of the Presidential candidates and a distraction was needed the judge was the diversion. (Hillary’s stop staff members were taking the 5th amendment). Bingo **** you know the rest.

Like DONALD TRUMP’S admission that he bribed William and Hillary Clinton the murder of hundreds (if not thousands ) of senior citizens in corrupt guardianship situations is not going to get much media attention. Trump may feel that an honest political operator is one who when bribed stays bribed, but that is not one of his credos that either side of the isle wants the great unwashed to dwell upon. He bribed the Clintons! How would it look for the New York Times to endorse a political figure who was bribed by her opponent? How would it look for the ****** (I could not find a newspaper backing Trump) to endorse a political figure who bribed another political figure?

I read this morning that we are going to forget about Truth, Justice, and the American way – we are instead going to worry about the definition if the word: “is!” Donald Trump is expected to announce a new definition of the word: “honest”. An Honest politician is one who when bribed stays bribed!

Now Mr. Bernstein – why have I suggested that we push the fact that the miscreants are not paying the taxes due on the bootty .

The public (electorate) is interested in putting food on the table and purchasing a new car. A few elderly people dying does not mean anything to them; however, government increasing taxes is a prime concern. You, me and other members of the great unwashed have made it very clear – we do not to pay more taxes! How do you legally avoid paying taxes? Have no more taxes assessed is one answer, but we also want all kind of services from government and we have to pay the bill. Answer number 2 – tax someone else. The most attractive people to tax are the political elite. They live high on the hog and get paid more money that we are for doing much much less. They also get paid after they retire. They have generous pensions.

Some of the political elite are not nice people. The most not nice of the political elite are the corrupt judges, corrupt lawyers, corrupt guardians, and the 18 USCA 371 group. Taxing them is attractive! Legislature cannot single out Jerome Larkin for addition taxation – such would be unconstitutional; however, the taxman can single out Larkin for audit and in particular to determine if he reported on his 1040 the remuneration that he received for his cover-up of the Sykes case, Gore case *****. By his cover-up he became an 18 USCA 371 co conspirator and therefore he has joint and several liability for the taxes due.

Yes, Mr. Bernstein and fellow members of the Great Unwashed we are not directly punishing Mr. Larkin for the crime that he committed against Alice Gore and Mary Sykes. BUT this is probably the only remedy the general public will have. Do you have any confidence that someone close to Mr. Larkin will not call the judge who is assigned to Mr. Larkin’s criminal hearing and cash in a favor! Judge Connors who admitted on page 91 of her evidence deposition that she was ‘touched’ and thus ignored the lack jurisdiction, her duties as judge and due process. Her punishment was being elevated to the Appellate Court.

Look at the Clinton e-mail scandal! People with a heck of lot more clout than you and me want to see Hillary receive the very same level of justice that General P received and just as currently. Do you have any doubt that behind the scenes the wheels are turning so that the ‘fix’ can be accomplished! On the other side of the coin, Donald Trump admitted that he bribed the Clintons. Do you expect Trump or Clinton to be even investigated for the alleged bribes?

Indeed – I would settle for civil tax collection as it many be all that we get. It also will take the profit out elder cleansing and judicial corruption.

Ken Ditkowsky
http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com
from Ken Ditkowsky:

From: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>

To:

Subject: Affidavit in support of motion by IARDC for more time

Date: Jun 9, 2016 3:18 PM

The affidavit filed by Larkin 18 UsCA 371 co-conspirator and employee is amazing. She does no know what the ramifications are for 1) a State entity or Public entity using in their professional capacity persons not licensed by the State of Illinois Department of Professional Regulation? and 2) she indeed did use such persons and filed with the Court documents seeking assessment of costs based upon what literally amounts to fraudulent charges – it is axiomatic that if you are required to have a professional license and do not have it, you cannot charge for those services. An employee of an agency regulating such activities should be knowledgeable of said fact.

Thus comes the question – why was a petition submitted to the Illinois Supreme Court that had charges on it emanating from entities that were not licensed to perform professional services? The answer is quite simple. The Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission routinely acts in an improper manner and a case of deliberate fraud and misconduct has been demonstrated in the Petitions filed by the IARDC before the Supreme Court of Illinois.

This particular activity by Larkin and his 18 USCA 371 co-conspirators in light of their other obvious infractions cannot be overlooked or swept under the rug.

I am calling on Mr. Larkin to resign and because of his perfidy surrender his law license. The exclusion of Diane Nash from the open kangaroo hearing as to JoAnne Denison should have been immediately apologized for if there was any part of it that was not intentional. The fact the Larkin in the wake of the Amu case (Practicing Law while Black) failed even make one of those generic apologies is inexcusable and racist.

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

I completely agree with Ken, it’s time for the ARDC to stop covering upon felonious actions by judges and lawyers, or resign and refund the money they have taken from the State of Illinois trust fund to protect the public from unscrupulous lawyers and judges.

This cannot go on. It’s a fictitious house of cards that will not stand. The public is outraged. The ARDC ignores open and obvious corruption and prosecutes and persecutes and oppresses/suppresses the First Amendment rights of honest, ethical lawyers and their blogs and their communications to do justice in Illinois.

It’s time to end this charade and empty the ARDC of any lawyer who has suppressed First Amendment rights, ignored valid grievances about lawyers and judges that steal from, abuse and murder innocent elders and disabled persons.

The California bar is now undergoing a civil war within itself and appears to be imploding with out and out war declared on do nothing staff lawyers that ignore and cover up corruption, vs. one past president who is now a whistle blower and wants to sincerely protect the public.

Either these miscreant lawyers can do the right thing right now and leave, or they can wait for the orange jumpsuits and silver bracelets to become their adornment for the decades to come.

It’s their choice.

JoAnne

From Ken Ditkowsky — obscene out of control corruption

Posted on June 7, 2016 by Joanne M Denison

THIS IS A CALL FOR THE IMMEDIATE TERMINATION/RESIGNATION OF ARDC ATTORNEYS AND CONNECTED ATTORNEYS SANG YUL LEE, JEROME LARKIN, SHARON OPRYSZEK, MELISSA SMART, JESSICA HASPEL and ZIAD ALNAQIB. ALL HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THE HIRING, USE AND THE FILING OF FRAUDULENT MOTIONS FOR UNLICENSED COURT REPORTERS, FOR A FRAUDULENT BILL/JUDGEMENT IN EXCESS OF $18,500+ AND ALTERED TRANSCRIPTS TO WRONGFULLY REMOVE THE LICENSE OF ATTORNEY JOANNE DENISON for blogging about court corruption under the First Amendment

From: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>

To: Ken’s email list

Subject: MISCONDUCT AT THE IARDC -racism and sexism? or Just obscene corruption

Date: Jun 7, 2016 5:43 PM

On today’s Probate Sharks blog is an article concerning the failings of the California lawyer disciplinary commission. It seems that they run a backlog as to favorite lawyers – they just do not get around to investigate. Ditto for Illinois. Seth Gillman steals $100 million dollars (according to the FBI complaint against him; however it is estimated by some at a billion dollars) as they relate to Hospice services. Even after Gillman pleads guilty in Federal Court to massive Medicare Fraud, Medicaid Fraud, State of Illinois Health Care Fund Fraud, the IARDC does not act; however, as some of us wrote the IARDC just about every day calling out the fact that they were following their program of protecting criminals in judge’s robes who were stealing from the elderly and disabled they reluctantly on their web site indicated an investigation. However, not only is Gillman free to continue to practice law, but from the delay he had the tacit approval of Jerome Larkin and other officials charged with protecting the public. Using this delay, he evidently swiped hundreds of thousands of employee trust funds for tax liability and health care insurance, leaving scores of employee without health care insurance for over 6 months.

Of course as to JoAnne Denison, an attorney who has a blog (MaryGSykes) dedicated to exposing corruption such as the Gillman type it was a different story. It also was a different story as to Lanre Amu. Mr. Amu was suspended for practicing law while black! He and Crains Chicago Business both independly exposed a judge who was on the board of a Defendant whose case was assigned to her courtroom (and he brother was an attorney for the defendant). Larkin was incensed and outraged! No he was not concerned about the public, his concern and that of the attorneys who acted with him (18 USCA 371) was the fact that Amu had the audacity to comply with Rule 8.3 and 18 USCA 4 and reported the corruption of Judge Egan and her brother. For this crime (practicing law while being an uppy N***) Amu was immediately suspended from practice and later on received a long suspension from the practice of law. The fact that his statements were true did not matter — Larkin and his cohorts had deemed them to be false even though anyone who did a scintilla of basic Google online research would find that his statements were 100% true. Do not confuse me with the facts = I’ve made up my mind is the lawyer disciplinary commission’s Standard Operating Position.

JoAnne indicates that besides Larkin the following attorneys are known to be culpable and this e-mail is a official complaint against each, to wit:

Sang Yul Lee, Ziad Alnaqib Sharon Opryszek, Jessica Haspel, Melissa Smart and Leah Guiterrez Black were all on my case and presumably all knew or should have know about using unlicensed court reporters. The transcripts are no good. They are replete with errors and changes–mostly in favor of the ARDC. Imagine that. No one stopped this and Sang Yul Lee actually blocked me from obtaining a copy of the audio for the trial and having accurate transcripts rendered. His response? Go file some errata sheets!

In JoAnne Denison’s case we have not only spoliation of evidence, perjury, subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice, repeated misrepresentations to the Supreme Court of Illinois of the Rule of Law – i.e. the Sawyer and Alvarez cases, but now an agency of the Supreme Court of Illinois using allegedly unlicensed Court Reporters and knowing that:

An entity that is unlicensed is not entitled to compensation for services in the unlicensed field of endeavor, and
A public official seeking reimbursement in any form for the wrongful expenditure is per se committing a fraud on the public and reaching for funds held in trust for the public good.

As this alleged fraud is being committed by attorneys acting as disciplinarians of the legal profession – who should know better, immediate termination and prosecution should be considered for each of the attorneys engaged in this fraud as well as Mr. Larkin.

Let us get down to brass tacks – The IARDC has not covered itself with glory in the last half century. In Greylord its conduct was a unfettered disgrace. In the elder cleansing cases it has openly and notorious aided and abetted the isolation of senior citizens so that they could be exploited, abused and robbed of their liberty, property, and human rights prior to being subjected to INVOLUNTARY assisted suicide. The intimidation aimed at lawyers and others who sought to expose the felonies of elder cleansing has been despicable and an assault on both the Illinois Constitution and the United States Constitution. (As minor note, it also has been a violation of title 18 of the US code and the Illinois Criminal Code). Such activity cannot be tolerated or condoned any longer.

It may not be politically correct for any lawyer to complain concerning the criminal activities of Jerome Larkin and his 18 UsCA 371 co-conspirators, but, every lawyer took an oath. Some of us take that oath seriously whether it is politically correct or not. Strong words that are not politically correct are called for! Something has to motivate the media and our government to protect grandma from the ‘rape’ of elder cleansing! Grandma has to be safe from judicial officials who have so little concern for America’s core principles that they would openly and notoriously prospect in her mouth for gold, and when they recovered a few grains not have the decency to inventory it. The Alice Gore case is such as travesty and so horrendous in its infamy that *****.

I urge pursuant to Rule 8.3 that the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission petition to the appropriate Federal agency to do an Honest investigation of its violations of 18 USCA 371 ***** and in particular the lawyers mentioned herein plus all the lawyers involved in the ‘cover up’ of the elder cleansing cases. I also urge the Illinois Department of Revenue to collect from the miscreant lawyers the State Income taxes owed as the result of their conspiracy with the lawyers in the numerous elder cleansing cases including but not limited to Sykes (09 P4585), Gore, Wyman, Tyler ******.

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

Unbelievable–the ARDC response to my Motion to Vacate a False and Fraudulent Order

Posted on June 7, 2016 by Joanne M Denison

See below pleadings:

Motion for Leave to Supplement Pleadings

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwU01BT2cyRnVaSDg

Motion to Supplement Pleadings

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwclludTBhTlVjU28

Exhibits:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocweGZCXzI2eE9vTmM

Here is my Motion to Vacate:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwckJkZ3A4MXJoZHc

Now here is the ARDC response:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwWFc4YmVVcXJsYzQ

This is absolutely unbelievable. The ARDC offers no explanation or response to why they are using unlicensed court reporters from unlicensed agencies that list corporate names on their transcripts that are either inactive, expired or non existent corporations!

They have painted themselves into a corner. Either a license is important and a court reporter or attorney must have it, or the license is not important and a court reporter or attorney does not have to have it but they can still act as one, file affidavits as one, and even appear in court as one and pretend to be one! What is good for the goose, is good for the gander.

The ARDC has painted itself in a corner. It has offered no apology and no remorse for what it does.

This goes to show everyone that corruption is just a house of cards. No good will ever come from covering up crimes and felonies. It all falls apart one day.

Today is the day for the ARDC. It looks like they need 2 more weeks for “damage control”.

Sharon Opryszek and Melissa Smart and Leah Guiterrez Black were all on my case and presumably all knew or should have know about using unlicensed court reporters. The transcripts are no good. Period. And they are full of errors and I told the Tribunal that at trial, asked for the audio copies and Sang Yul Lee just responded, “file an errata sheet.”

Was he kidding? Was he part of it too? The FBI for sure should investigate the situation and remove the liars and courtroom thugs that do this.

Those audio tape copies do not belong to SYL or the court reporters or to anyone personally. Those tapes and transcripts belong to the people of the State of Illinois who have a right to them (they might have to pay for them).

The ARDC made numerous copies of my blog and distributed them everywhere, violating tons of copyrights. They employed “Nextpoint” which is nothing other than a copyright infringement firm, to copy my blog. That was ridiculous.

Now, when I ask for the audio of the transcripts, the ARDC refuses me, even when it is clear the transcripts are corrupted and inaccurate in many places.

Obviously they hire unlicensed court reporters to control the transcripts. That way they can go to the court reporter and demand she change transcripts or they will report her to the authorities for spoliation of evidence, filing false and fraudulent evidence, perjury, obstruction of justice, etc. And she will happily comply.

I don’t know why the ARDC needs 2 weeks to think about the “effect of an unlicensed court reporter.” It seems pretty obvious to me and to my readers. They are false and fraudulent and void ab initio.

As many of you have stated to me over and over, the ARDC has wasted a ton of publicly owned money on my case and Ken’s case and Lanre Amu’s case. This is not money they own personally. It was taken by attorneys in yearly registration fees to protect you, the public, from unscrupulous attorneys. That is the only reason the ARDC exists. However, they have turned this all around. They refuse to file Ethics Reports and they openlly defy the Ethics Reporting law of 2009, they go after whistle blowing attorneys and ruin their lives when the news media picks up on the story and does additional exposes of the fraud and corruption, as well the media should.

Whistleblowing attorneys should be protected, period.

The ARDC should only exist to protect the public from unscrupulous lawyers.

What I find time after time, is that the ARDC fails to investigate valid consumer complaints on a regular basis, while going after whistleblowers and then protecting wise guy attorneys for years, most notably Seth Gillman, who still shows no discipline on his record, yet he was convicted of bilking the US Government of over $100 million in Medicare and Medicaid and State of Illinois Health Care Fraud. He promised restitution of $10 million, but he has way more taxes to pay to the IRS. This has gone on for 2 years now with no action in sight by the ARDC. In the meantime, apparently he ran off with hundreds of thousands of dollars in employee tax trust funds and health care trust funds so the employees now have to pay those amounts and unbeknownst to them, they had no health care for 6 months or longer. The ARDC let this happen, basically saying, “so what?” and thumbing their noses at both Gillman’s employees and the public.

You just couldnt’ make this stuff up in a million years, with a million monkeys typing a million pages

Joanne

Lanre Amu told the truth while the ARDC lies about him for years

Posted on June 7, 2016 by Joanne M Denison

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20140301/ISSUE01/303019979/judge-sits-on-hospital-board-while-her-brother-represents-it-in-court

Judge sits on hospital board while her brother represents it in court

Comments Email Print

By KRISTEN SCHORSCH

and ANDREW L. WANG

For at least 15 years, Cook County Circuit Court Judge Lynn Egan has sat on the boards governing a south suburban hospital while it regularly has hired her brother’s law firm.
Chicago-based Pretzel & Stouffer has represented Palos Community Hospital in almost half of the 170 cases involving the hospital filed over that period in the law division of the circuit court, according to a Crain’s review of court record s. From 2011 to 2013, Matthew Egan, a partner in the firm, represented Palos in at least 15 cases before his sister’s judicial colleagues, most of them involving medical malpractice or personal injury.
The nonprofit hospital did not disclose the financial relationship with Mr. Egan in forms filed with the IRS between 1999 and 2011, the latest year for which records are publicly available. It did disclose a separate sibling relationship: payments totaling nearly $56,000 to the sister of its former CEO in 2011.
In a response to questions from Crain’s, the hospital says it plans to review its procedures.
“As it pertains to contracted legal services, we believe all of the required board disclosures have been made,” Palos board Chairman Edward Mulcahy says in a statement. “However, as a precaution, we will again review our internal processes.” Mr. Mulcahy says the administration, not board members, hire vendors.

SHAKEUP

The independent, 362-bed community hospital in Palos Heights is in the midst of a leadership shakeup. After roughly 30 years under CEO Sister Margaret Wright, who retired in 2013, the board hired Edgardo Tenreiro, chief operating officer at a Baton Rouge, La., hospital system. But with no public explanation, he departed three weeks ago after less than three months on the job.
Greg Paetow, a board member for three years, says he quit for “personal reasons” on Feb. 12, the same day Mr. Tenreiro left. A second person on the 12-member hospital board also resigned in February, as did Thomas Barcelona, chairman of the board of parent company St. George Corp., which solicits donations for the hospital.

Ms. Egan (at right), who also serves on St. George’s board and is on the Palos hospital board’s executive committee, says she disclosed Mr. Egan’s representation of Palos on an annual conflict statement available to the hospital’s auditors and tax preparers.
“I believe that I have performed my service as a jurist and volunteer PCH board member in a responsible and ethical manner,” she says in a statement. “Any suggestion to the contrary is false.”
Ms. Egan did not respond to a request to provide the document. Disclosure statements she filed with the Illinois Supreme Court from 2011 to 2013 do not mention her brother or his law firm.
Mr. Egan says in an email that “no attorney in our firm has ever appeared before Judge Egan in any matter on behalf of Palos Community Hospital.” Notions of a potential conflict of interest are “false, indeed reckless,” he adds.
Even if Pretzel & Stouffer were the best firm for the job, experts say the lack of transparency raises questions.
“I would think in this case you would want to bend over backwards to disclose the conflict to make sure no one makes assumptions,” says David Becher, an associate professor of finance at Drexel University in Philadelphia.

quote|David Becher, professor, Drexel University

I would think in this case you would want to bend over backwards to disclose the conflict to make sure no one makes assumptions.

During Ms. Egan’s tenure on the board, Pretzel & Stouffer has been named only once in the hospital’s available tax returns, as one of the five highest-paid vendors in 2002, making about $163,000. Nonprofits generally must disclose employees who are board members’ relatives if they make more than $10,000 a year, says David Lowenthal, a Chicago-based senior manager at accounting firm Plante & Moran PLLC.
The hospital has disclosed the compensation of board members Thomas Courtney, a lawyer who processes third-party liens for patient bills; Dr. Mark Sinibaldi, the medical director of the psychiatric unit; and Ms. Wright’s sister, who also worked at the hospital.

CODE OF CONDUCT

Having Ms. Egan and fellow law division Judge Deborah Dooling on the hospital board raises other questions. The Illinois Supreme Court’s Code of Judicial Conduct allows judges to serve on charitable boards so long as the service doesn’t interfere with their duties.
The code, however, warns that a judge should not serve if the organization is “regularly engaged in adversary proceedings in any court” and singles out hospitals as a potential trouble spot.
Ms. Egan says she “carefully considered whether my service on the board was permissible” and, after consulting the Illinois Judicial Ethics Committee, concluded there was no issue. Ms. Dooling did not return messages.
One past chair of the ethics committee says he would caution judges against serving on a hospital board because hospitals are frequently named in malpractice litigation.
“The fact that Dooling and Egan sit in the law division makes it more obvious that they should not be on the board,” says Warren Lupel, special counsel at Chicago firm Much Shelist PC. “If (cases are) frequent, it’s ‘regularly engaged,’ and certainly for a hospital, it is frequent.”

For complete coverage of Chicago-area health care news, visit ChicagoHealthCareDaily.com.

From Ken Ditkowsky

At hearings involving Mr. Amu’s kangaroo processed ARDC hearings Judge Egan and/or her brother were not required to appear and testify to refute the 8.3 complaint that Mr. Amu made – By Clairvoyance Larkin, his kangaroo panels, and the Illinois Supreme Court determined that Mr. Amu was lying and a danger to the public by his exposure of corruption.

Unfortunately, in an effort to ‘cover-up’ corruption in Illinois Larkin and his 18 USCA 371 co-conspirators regularly violate their public trust and use their position to protect corrupt judges and lawyers who prey on the public. Accusing lawyers who take their responsibility and oath to defend the Constitution and the Rule of Law seriously are defamed, intimidated and if they stand up for the core values of America suspended from the practice of law. Illinois is only one of the States in which this cover-up of corruption is prevalent.

Jerome Larkin teaching Ethics is an oxymoron and about as disingenuous as can be imagined! Even confronted with the fact that he has not told the TRUTH under oath, Larkin is not ashamed to continue to draw his unearned salary = paid by public funds = and to pollute the environment with his perfidy. The public has lost confidence in our leadership – with good reason. The Courts do not command respect, as respect has to be earned and it is not earned when one judge after another is exposed as dishonest. The Judge in the Mary Sykes case 09 P 4585 (Cook County) on page 91 of her evidence deposition admitted that the result of hearings if held would be pre-determined to find Mary Sykes in need of a guardian. We call this “wired!” The public got an excellent lesson as to what happens when a judge admits that she was “fixed,”wired, “etc. She was elevated to the Appellate Court of Illinois. Jerome Larkin who had the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence had an easy solution to the problem. Keep the file out of evidence in disciplinary proceedings so that the lack of jurisdiction could not be part of the record – and the lack of hearing could be cemented over. If the judge under oath made a fatal admission, the remedy was equally simple – expunge the admission! The ex-part expungement is accomplished by a simple method – the court reporter just alters her notes and transcript.

Indeed, Jerome Larkin, Illinois paragon of ethics, administers the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary commission in his own image, aided and abetted by the Supreme Court of Illinois. It is no wonder that Illinois is known nationally as one of the most corrupt States in the Union. It is no wonder that the State is on the verge of Bankruptcy.

What is to be done? We need HONEST investigations of the criminal activity emanating from our Courts and we need HONEST prosecutions of all the miscreants. As a first step we need to send a message to Mr. Larkin and all his 18 USCA 371 co-conspirators. This message should come from the tax man. Larkin and all his co-conspirators are not engaging in corruption because they have a dislike for America – they are engaging in the avarice for profit. We know from the Chicago Tribune articles by John Kass of the payoff to the political establishment that occurs as a condition precedent to becoming a judge, and we know the massive amounts of money generated by the dishonest elements of the health care industry. The dishonest elements of the health care industry are paying out to the dishonest judicial, political and public official’s large sums of money for their greasing the path of the billions of dollars of illegal health care profits. (Seth Gillman is reputed to have stolen millions – if not billions – in his hospice operation. The Illinois ARDC for years looked the other way, did no investigation (honest or otherwise) and until JoAnn Denison’s blog (MaryGSykes) called it to the attention of the public, Larkin totally ignored the theft of public funds. Apparently according to Ethic’s professor Larkin theft by an attorney is acceptable conduct – the 8.4 reporting is akin to yelling fire in a crowded theater. (I am not making this up – those were the words of Larkin to the Illinois Supreme Court concerning the MaryGSykes blog.

Thus – it is urged that as Larkin is a co-conspirator pursuant to 18 USCA 371 with the miscreants that he gives cover by the misuse of his office, he has joint and several liability for the reporting and the paying of the Federal and State Income taxes incurred. He therefore should be pursued by the Illinois Department of Revenue and the US Department of the Treasury for the hundreds of millions of dollars of unpaid taxes, interest and penalties that have profited the cottage industry of corruption in Illinois by lawyers, judges, **** under the protection of the IARDC and the Illinois Supreme Court.

Please allow me to make one more point. Public service is a public trust. No one forced Larkin and his ilk to take public jobs and public salaries. They actively sought these positions and affirmatively sworn to serve the Law and the Constitution honestly and faithfully. By Larkin’s racism (Amu) and his venality he has disgraced the legal profession irrevocably. At the very least he should pay the taxes due, plus interest and penalties.

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

Still in need of $50 for phone services!

Posted on June 6, 2016 by Joanne M Denison

You all did great in coming to my need in times of trouble. My services are back on but I still need another $50 by Wednesday.

So if anyone can manage that, it would be wonderful

You can text me a check to 773-255-7608 or email me one to joanne@denisonlaw.com

We are getting there and I am in the process of applying for a grant to help elder abuse victims, which is what I already do. The mantra of “target, guardianize, isolaate, medicate, drain the estate, narcotize to death and cremate” has got to end. Too many elders have been murdered (Baker, Sykes, Drabik, Tyler) and too many are still at risk (Frake, Stone, Belanger, etc.) and we have to end this now.

I appreciate everyone for all your help, I really do.

I send you all peace and love and many, many blessings.

JoAnne

Pleased to Announce–Tim Lahrman is a free man!

Posted on June 5, 2016 by Joanne M Denison

He just emailed all of us and our prayers have been answered. He is free and at home resting.

I think we’re all taking bets on how many days it is before he sues for his completely false arrest and imprisonment in Indiana Federal District Court, Northern Division.

Summary: approx. 17 years ago, Tim Lahrman was arrested for a joint stub found in his boss’ car and a loose license plate holder. Not the crime of the century. He promptly filed numerous motions objecting to his arrest and any trial, because he has been adjudicated a disabled adult.

The US Supreme Court law is clear on this issue. Mentally ill people cannot be tried until it is shown they have the capacity to participate in a trial and assist in their own defense. If they cannot do this, they must be released to the public or a mental institution, those are the court’s only choices.

So what did this brilliant Indiana judge do? Hold a trial in abstentia, and of course no one notified Tim. The jury convicted him of each count and the court sentenced him to 1 year, served consecutively on each charge. No one seemed to care–none of the attorneys in the courtroom or the judge that Tim had filed numerous notices (published elsewhere on this blog) that he had been declared disabled and could not be subject to criminal proceedings.

Next, arrest warrants are only good for a year, and they expire after that, unless motioned up before the court again. With no activity on his case, and after 17 years, suddenly an arrest warrant rises from the ashes like a Phoenix bird. Interesting. This just happened to coincide with a appeal of various issues he filed with the 7th circuit. Now Tim only advocates for the rights of the little guy, so this means someone really, really did not want him to win this appeal.

We will keep you updated on his case. But for now, thanks for all the prayers and assistance.

We need to protect and preserve our tireless advocates for human and civil rights. Tim is nothing but a saint on earth for doing all of this for so many people.

JoAnne

The Truth about Judge Lynn Egan, Jerome Larkin and Lanre Amu

Posted on June 4, 2016 by Joanne M Denison

Summary: Lanre Amu is suspended 4 years when he files a complaint about several judges to the Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board that (99.9%) of the time never disciplines a judge, no matter how badly they act or how many rules they flagrantly violate. He complains that Judge Egan has a brother and this brother has a law firm and this law firm and/or her brother appear before Judge Egan on a regular basis and she always rules for her brother. Of course, she rules for her brother, because in the words of Mayor Daley, “if you can’t take care of your own family, then who will?”

Accordingly, instead of the Illinois Supreme Court protecting Lanre Amu, Ken Ditkowsky and myself as whistle blowers, they go right after us and continue to cover up scores of valid citizen complaints, particularly in probate where the money flows left and right and up and down, and there are secret lists and secret meetings of which attorneys and which Chicago law firms will be on the receiving end–all the while, grandma and grandpa and the disableds with money are subject to “target, isolate, medicate with chemical restraints, drain the estate, narcotize and eliminate, and then cremate.” And Larkin/Grogin and his crew of letter tossing bureaucrats do not even acknowledge the problem exists. Meanwhile, Mary G Sykes, after numerous valid citizen complaints and 8 days of trial going after Ditkowsky/Denison to cover up the crimes committed against her, is narcotized to death on May 23, 2015 and she is whisked off to be entombed without any obituary, funeral or public announcement other than this blog.

Ken wants to know who is paying the taxes on the $3,000,000 that is missing from the Sykes estate, why no discovery was ever served on Carolyn Toerpe, even though she illegally drilled out a safe deposit box with Gloria’s name on it without a court order, why Mary and her sisters were never served, why all discovery was blocked, why Gloria’s POA was suddenly terminated without notice or hearing, why Carolyn did not have to ever provide a Trust Accounting to Gloria, and the list goes on and on and on.

A lot to cover up and keep track of.

So what does Larkin do? He holds a kangaroo hearing to terrorize me and this blog and suspends my license based upon changed transcripts made by unlicensed court reporters from unlicensed agencies using inactive or non existent corporate names. Then he sends out a fake bill for $18,000+ in “court reporter” services and gets the Illinois Supreme Court to rubber stamp that.

More annoying cover up to keep track of.

But you have to admit, Ms. Karma, a lady of strength and determination is not deterred by ARDC flotsam. She just charges on ahead and reveals that the ARDC uses unlicensed court reporters, and then they ban licensed ones from their hearing rooms (Real-Time reporters tried to set up for me on April 10, 2015 during my oral argument, and they were told “don’t set up, we don’t do that here.” Too funny. Only non licensed court reporters allowed in ARDC hearing rooms.

The Karma? Either licenses in Illinois are important and the fact the court reporters in my case were unlicensed and must be stricken from the record and they have to reinstate my license, or they’re not, which means I can practice law without a license because a license means nothing in Illinois. They’re optional. Way tooo funny. Regardless, the cases say that either all parties have to agree to the transcripts, or they are struck. I looked over the transcripts and there are tons of changes from what I remember, most notably, Judge Stuart denying Gloria was chained in her ante room and Gloria’s pets threatened with euthanization, and then later she says that was the first ti–and asks to change her testimony. Nope, that dog don’t hunt and I’m not agreeing. It was all a pretext in a cover up operation.

Larkin and Grogin had their chance to help Mary. They blew it. Instead they used tons of public funds entrusted to them by the State of Illinois to go after myself and Ken Ditkowsky in an obvious breach of fiduciary duty. Where are the taxes they paid on that waste of money? IRS form 3849 to be sure needs to be filled out for the time billed to the state on that waste of money proceeding. All of Sylvia Rudek, Bev Cooper, Ken Cooper–all experts in journalism, blogging and corruption in Illinois agreed, this was a cover up and waste of time and resources. Mary’s estate was looted and then she was killed off. Narcotized to death when the money ran out just as Ken and I predicted–actually we all predicted would happen.

Then we find out that Ald. “Fast Eddie” Burke channels all judgeships through him, that blogger Russ Stewart says it now costs $150,000 to get a a “crook” county Judgeship. And the list goes on and on and on and on.

Recently we find out the City has to settle yet another whistle blower case (What is with the whistle blowers, demanding the government comply with all state, federal and local laws?) This time, either the Mayor RE had to testify or settle. He chose settlement.

But even the city is apparently tired of paying out massive settlements in order to cover up crime by politicos:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-police-videos-met-20160603-story.html

In one video, a beautiful young Polish lady is viciously beaten, choked and kicked to the ground behind the bar by a Chicago Police Officer when she refuses to overserve him. Says the Tribune:

In a landmark verdict in 2012, a federal jury awarded [bartender] Obrycka $850,000 and found that a widespread code of silence had emboldened [police officer] Abbate to beat her because he knew he would not be punished.

The Independent Police Review Authority, which investigates alleged abuses by police, designed a user-friendly website for the public at www.iprachicago.org, making information searchable by incident date, type of case and complainant’s name.

Apparently things are changing. None too soon.

JoAnne

From Ken Ditkowsky

Arrogant and corrupt public servants such as Jerome Larkin, the administrator of the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, teaches Continuing Legal Education courses to lawyers on Ethics and appears to be associated with the following, to wit:

Ethics

As we all know, the particular circumstances surrounding an event play a significant role in determining whether the action in question is ethical or not. However, being ethical is not the same as following the law. The law often incorporates ethical standards to which most citizens subscribe. But laws, like feelings, can deviate from what is ethical, such as in pre-Civil War slavery laws.

Likewise, being ethical is not the same as doing “whatever society accepts.” In any society, most people accept standards that are, in fact, ethical. But standards of behavior in society can deviate from what is ethical, such as happened in Nazi Germany.

For the sake of argument, we’ll define ethics as the well-founded standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to do in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to society, fairness, or specific virtues; the study and development of one’s standards and beliefs to ensure they’re reasonable and well-founded; and striving to ensure that we, and the institutions we help to shape, live up to standards that are reasonable and solidly-based.

Legal ethics is a term used to describe a code of conduct governing proper professional behavior, which establishes the nature of obligations owed to individuals and to society. In order to maintain a license to practice law, attorneys agree to uphold the Rules of Professional Conduct .

I have underlined Mr. Larkin’s points. We all understand that ‘talk’ is cheap and hypocrisy is even cheaper. Larkin, by his obvious and overt violations of Federal and State law and his assaults on the core values of America illustrates a fantastic example of the type of breach of the public trust of which he is guilty. Few public officials have the opportunity to demonstrate their unfitness for any public office, but Larkin has excelled in such an endeavor when his criminal endeavor (the IARDC) went beyond the call in its 18 USCA 4 obstruction of justice and violations of 18 USCA 241 and 242. Knowing the SCOTUS had made it very clear that all citizens were entitled to speak their minds without government censorship of any king as to political and content related matters, not only did Larkin in legal documents misrepresent the law, but, he unilaterally used his public position to abrogate it as to the crimes of elder cleansings.

A key case in the saga is the Lanre Amu fiasco is an obscene example. Lanre complained pursuant to Rule 8.3 that Judge Egan had a conflict of interest and refused to recuse herself. It appeared that she was on the Board of Directors of the defendant and her brother was an attorney for the defendant. Even though neither Judge Egan or her brother denied the averment and the averment was the essence of conflict of interest not only did Larkin and the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (IARDC) and the Illinois Supreme Court determine that Mr. Amu was lying, but that he was a danger to the public and Amu received an interim suspension of his law license.

Fortuitously, Crain’s Chicago Business, a respected business publication in Chicago independently published the following, to wit:

March 01, 2014

Judge sits on hospital board while her brother represents it in court

Comments Email Print

By KRISTEN SCHORSCH

and ANDREW L. WANG

For at least 15 years, Cook County Circuit Court Judge Lynn Egan has sat on the boards governing a south suburban hospital while it regularly has hired her brother’s law firm.
Chicago-based Pretzel & Stouffer has represented Palos Community Hospital in almost half of the 170 cases involving the hospital filed over that period in the law division of the circuit court, according to a Crain’s review of court record s. From 2011 to 2013, Matthew Egan, a partner in the firm, represented Palos in at least 15 cases before his sister’s judicial colleagues, most of them involving medical malpractice or personal injury.
The nonprofit hospital did not disclose the financial relationship with Mr. Egan in forms filed with the IRS between 1999 and 2011, the latest year for which records are publicly available. It did disclose a separate sibling relationship: payments totaling nearly $56,000 to the sister of its former CEO in 2011.
In a response to questions from Crain’s, the hospital says it plans to review its procedures.
“As it pertains to contracted legal services, we believe all of the required board disclosures have been made,” Palos board Chairman Edward Mulcahy says in a statement. “However, as a precaution, we will again review our internal processes.” Mr. Mulcahy says the administration, not board members, hire vendors.

SHAKEUP

The independent, 362-bed community hospital in Palos Heights is in the midst of a leadership shakeup. After roughly 30 years under CEO Sister Margaret Wright, who retired in 2013, the board hired Edgardo Tenreiro, chief operating officer at a Baton Rouge, La., hospital system. But with no public explanation, he departed three weeks ago after less than three months on the job.
Greg Paetow, a board member for three years, says he quit for “personal reasons” on Feb. 12, the same day Mr. Tenreiro left. A second person on the 12-member hospital board also resigned in February, as did Thomas Barcelona, chairman of the board of parent company St. George Corp., which solicits donations for the hospital.

Ms. Egan (at right), who also serves on St. George’s board and is on the Palos hospital board’s executive committee, says she disclosed Mr. Egan’s representation of Palos on an annual conflict statement available to the hospital’s auditors and tax preparers.
“I believe that I have performed my service as a jurist and volunteer PCH board member in a responsible and ethical manner,” she says in a statement. “Any suggestion to the contrary is false.”
Ms. Egan did not respond to a request to provide the document. Disclosure statements she filed with the Illinois Supreme Court from 2011 to 2013 do not mention her brother or his law firm.
Mr. Egan says in an email that “no attorney in our firm has ever appeared before Judge Egan in any matter on behalf of Palos Community Hospital.” Notions of a potential conflict of interest are “false, indeed reckless,” he adds.
Even if Pretzel & Stouffer were the best firm for the job, experts say the lack of transparency raises questions.
“I would think in this case you would want to bend over backwards to disclose the conflict to make sure no one makes assumptions,” says David Becher, an associate professor of finance at Drexel University in Philadelphia.

quote|David Becher, professor, Drexel University

I would think in this case you would want to bend over backwards to disclose the conflict to make sure no one makes assumptions.

CODE OF CONDUCT

Having Ms. Egan and fellow law division Judge Deborah Dooling on the hospital board raises other questions. The Illinois Supreme Court’s Code of Judicial Conduct allows judges to serve on charitable boards so long as the service doesn’t interfere with their duties.
The code, however, warns that a judge should not serve if the organization is “regularly engaged in adversary proceedings in any court” and singles out hospitals as a potential trouble spot.
Ms. Egan says she “carefully considered whether my service on the board was permissible” and, after consulting the Illinois Judicial Ethics Committee, concluded there was no issue. Ms. Dooling did not return messages.
One past chair of the ethics committee says he would caution judges against serving on a hospital board because hospitals are frequently named in malpractice litigation.
“The fact that Dooling and Egan sit in the law division makes it more obvious that they should not be on the board,” says Warren Lupel, special counsel at Chicago firm Much Shelist PC. “If (cases are) frequent, it’s ‘regularly engaged,’ and certainly for a hospital, it is frequent.”

For complete coverage of Chicago-area health care news, visit ChicagoHealthCareDaily.com.

Jerome Larkin teaching Ethics is an oxymoron and about as disingenuous as can be imagined! Even confronted with the fact that he has not told the TRUTH under oath, Larkin is not ashamed to continue to draw his unearned salary = paid by public funds = and to pollute the environment with his perfidy. The public has lost confidence in our leadership – with good reason. The Courts do not command respect, as respect has to be earned and it is not earned when one judge after another is exposed as dishonest. The Judge in the Mary Sykes case 09 P 4585 (Cook County) on page 91 of her evidence deposition admitted that the result of hearings if held would be pre-determined to find Mary Sykes in need of a guardian. We call this “wired!” The public got an excellent lesson as to what happens when a judge admits that she was “fixed,”wired, “etc. She was elevated to the Appellate Court of Illinois. Jerome Larkin who had the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence had an easy solution to the problem. Keep the file out of evidence in disciplinary proceedings so that the lack of jurisdiction could not be part of the record – and the lack of hearing could be cemented over. If the judge under oath made a fatal admission, the remedy was equally simple – expunge the admission! The ex-part expungment is accomplished by a simple method – the court reporter just alters her notes and transcript.

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

Challenge to Jerome Larkin–just do your job!

Posted on June 4, 2016 by Joanne M Denison

Challenge to Jerome Larkin, Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary commission (IARDC) Administrator Re; Elder Abuse

To: Jerome Larkin, individually and as Administrator of the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary commission (IARDC) and the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary commission.

From: Kenneth Ditkowsky

Date: May 28, 2016

Subject: Challenge to you to tell demonstrate that a public office is a public trust, and formal complaint concerning your ethically challenged and illegal conduct.

Cc: All interested parties, Honorable L. Lynch, Attorney General of the United States, Justice Department of the United States, Attorney JoAnne Denison, States Attorney of Cook County,

Dear Mr. Larkin, and the IARDC Commission,

With the pending scandals that are about to unfold in Washington concerning the participants in the current Presidential race, the public is going need an affirmation of the principle that a public office is a public trust. I understand that you are the last people to be considered to demonstrate that principle. Mr. Larkin’s conduct in violation of 18 USCA 4, 241,242, 371, 1341 etc. is a cornucopia of deceit, and perfidy. Subordination of perjury, perjury, conspiracy, and outright theft are the cornerstones of IARDC procedure and purpose. Few openly nefarious ‘cover-ups’, obstruction of justice, and spoliation of evidence are notoriously exhibited to the public.

Infamy will preserve the analogy of Ms. Denison’s blog to yelling fire in a crowded theater, and the intentional misrepresentation by IARDC lawyers in the name of Mr. Larkin of the holdings in Sawyer and Alvarez. The assaults on the First Amendment by the IARDC and Larkin are akin to ISIS terrorism, however, the ability to marshal the cover-up of the corruption evident in the Mary Sykes case 09 P 4585 (Circuit Court of Cook County) is beyond the pale. Knowing that guardianships were limited in scope because of Illinois and USA Constitutional core values, co-conspirator attorneys Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga, Peter Schmiedel and others used the Illinois guardianship act to openly and notorious isolate Mary Sykes so that her estate could be looted. (I’ve estimated the booty at $3,000,000 dollars).

Mr. Larkin, Ms. Black, et al have accused me of not telling the truth concerning the Mary Sykes case. The allegation while unspecific accused me of defaming a group of judges claiming that they acted without jurisdiction and without following the law. Similar averments were made concerning Ms. Denison; however, the Commission added the offense of publishing the corruption in her blog entitled MaryGSykes. After my kangaroo trial (and during the kangaroo hearing concerning Ms. Denison) a letter surfaced authored by Cynthia Farenga complaining that our averments of corruption had been published in the Probate Sharks blog. Disciplinary proceeding followed. Exculpating evidence was barred, and requirement of clear and convincing proof was modified to mean – Larkin clairvoyance! The Subpoena of the Mary Sykes file, which verifies the truth of every averment made by Ms. Denison and myself was exclude from the evidence. The rationale was obvious – the ‘fix’ was in and therefore exculpating evidence had to be kept out of the record.

Unfortunately, the Judges whose corruption was being protected could not be totally orchestrated. (Subordination of perjury). Judge Connors admitted at page 91 of her deposition that she was ‘wired’ (and/or ‘fixed’). She testified that had she known of the jurisdictional deficiencies she would have stopped the proceedings, fixed the problem, however, the same result would have occurred. Judge Stuart outright lied. First she denied chaining Gloria Sykes (the daughter of Mary Sykes) in her courtroom – in an effort to torture from her the location of her (Gloria’s) assets, and then she (under cross examination) admitted the same. Larkin solved this problem by attorning to a slight modification of the hearing transcript to eliminate the perjury. Such spoliation of evidence appears to be quite common in lawyer disciplinary actions[1].

By way of background, as it appears that the IARDC and lawyer disciplinary commissions have during the relevant time period had the policy of interpreting the guardianship statute to not being an accommodation as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act, butas a forfeiture of all human and civil rights. Interestingly enough the Illinois legislature (as well as the legislatures of most of the States of the union) make it abundantly clear that:

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

755 ILCS 5/11a – 3b

To make certain that senior citizens such as Mary Sykes, Alice Gore, **** are not exploited (as actually occurred) the person seeking a guardianship must prove not only the incompetency but the degree of incompetency by CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE. (This is the same standard that is applicable to the IARDC disciplinary proceedings) It is respectfully suggested that in neither proceeding is even the lowest standard of evidence (burden of proof) required. (See page 91 of Maureen Connors evidence deposition)

Of course, in kangaroo proceedings the result desired by the 18 USCA 371 cover-up is achieved. It is achieved with or without a scintilla of evidence. The orchestration of such is the subject of this letter of complaint. Rule 8.3 and 18 USCA 4 required both JoAnne Denison and myself to offend Ms. Farenga, Ms. Black, Mr. Stern, Mr. Larkin, Ms. Sharp, ***** and all the other attorneys who have participated in the actual miscreant conduct or its cover-up. As for Ms. Denison, Mr. Lanre Amu, ***** (including myself) to not offend Mr. Larkin and his 18 USCA 371 cover- conspirators we also would be subject to possible obstruction of justice averments. We however stood up to be counted and continue every day to demand Honest investigations, collection of the Federal and State income taxes (including interest and penalties) from the 18 USCA 241,242,371 co-conspirators, and abrogation of the cover-up. NB. It is my calculation that each conspirator jointly and severally owes very substantial taxes to the USA and the State of Illinois. For instance, in Sykes @$3 million dollars is due; in Gore $1.5 million, Tyler 8 million *******. [2]

My challenge. It appears at this point in time that Jerome Larkin and his 18 USCA 371 co-conspirators are not going to get away with their perfidy. The term “cover up” is going to be a very serious charge and the ‘great unwashed’ are not going to be led by the corrupt political and judicial machines in a euphoria of procrastination, deception, ******.

Therefore, let us get right to the chase. While Larkin has consistently refused to detail the charges made against either JoAnne or myself, it is clear that each charge has to do with the Sykes case and the issue of judicial propriety. Being more specific each charge has to do with whether a corrupt judge ignored a lack of jurisdiction to effectuate the elder cleansing of Mary Sykes. All the evidence is in the Mary Sykes file 09 P 4585. This file will unequivocally determine:

1. Jurisdiction

2. Whether safeguards of the Constitution were complied with

3. Whether a wrongful forfeiture occurred as to Mary’s liberty and property rights.

My challenge is for Mr. Larkin or any of the accused miscreants to produce out of the original file 09 P 4585 (Mary Sykes) the following documents. If the documents are not produced, honor requires Mr. Larkin and each of his co-conspirators as well as each of appointed guardian ad litem to surrender their law licenses and confess to the United States of America their part in the elder cleansing of Mary Sykes. Simply put – let us put this matter to rest right now!

1) Jurisdiction. In order for a person – disabled or not, the court must meet the due process standard of notice and hearing. The person who is to be adjudicated must be personally served with summons. The Summons must meet the criteria of the statute 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10, which is very specific and the criterion procrustean as there may be a taking of constitutionally protected Rights, privileges and immunities. In addition, there may be a stranger having control over another person’s property.

a. Challenge: Produce a copy of a summons that was actually personally served on Mary Sykes prior to any hearing on her competency that sought to ascertain the extent and nature, if any, of any disability that Mary Sykes might have actually suffered from 755 ILCS 5/11a -3b This is important as the legislature wanted in writing appropriate warnings so that the rights of the alleged disabled person were protected[3].

b. Challenge: Produce a Sheriff’s return of Summons in proper form attesting to actual service on Mary Sykes and the compliance with the Statute... This is particularly important as oral information must be given the alleged disabled person[4].

c. Challenge: Produce affidavits of notice being given to next of kin (close relatives, near relatives) prior to any hearing that was intended to obtain the information required by 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3b. This is jurisdictional pursuant to 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10.[5] The people who should have received the prior notice include both of Mary’s sisters and Gloria Sykes.

2) Constitutional Safeguards. As human and civil rights are subject to forfeiture notice and hearing are prime requirements of due process. The statute is very clear, to wit:

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

Thus it is apparent that this is a very serious hearing and cannot be obviated by agreements of the two guardian ad litem and the attorney for the petitioner. Actual evidence must be presented that is clear and convincing that the alleged incompetent is in fact incompetent. Actual evidence must be presented as to the extent of the disability and how a reasonable accommodation must be obtained.

Challenge: produce a transcript of the proceedings in which a 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3b hearing was indeed conducted as to the competency and extent thereof of MARY SYKES. As the Court provides a court reporter for these very serious hearings the official court reporters office should have either filed or have available for transcription such a hearing[6].

As Mr. Larkin and the IARDC had the burden of proof to prove disciplinary breaches by both Denison and Ditkowsky if the IARDC can not produce the appropriate materials referred to supra, Larkin and every attorney involved directly or indirectly should resign his/her position immediately and surrender his/her law license as each is a participant in a very serious FRAUD.

If the IARDC and the miscreants can produce from the original file, either in its present form or the sanitized version that has evolved each of the Challenged items both JoAnne and yours truly deserve the punishment meted out plus and I will publicly acknowledge that fact and make a formal apology. HOWEVER if the IARDC, Larkin, Farenga, Black, Smart, **** cannot produce the appropriate returns of service from the Sheriff of Cook County, the affidavits of prior notice of the hearing required by 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3b, and a transcript of that hearing each of the attorneys, including the 18 USCA 371 IARDC attorney/attorneys should resign and surrender his/her license to practice law[7].

This ‘elder cleansing’ is a very serious business. Core Rights of citizens are being violated and confiscated along with their life savings and quality of life. In the 1930s and 1940s when the Nazi hordes were systematically prospecting in their victims mouths of the gold in their teeth were shocked and outraged; however, when **** orchestrated a similar scenario not only is not a word of protest forthcoming, but the Illinois Supreme Court and the IARDC join in a massive cover-up and attornment.

The gantlet has been thrown. Are we willing to accept less than HONESTY and Honor from our public officials? If so, WHY? A public office is a public trust. As Americans we are entitled to HONEST public officials who have actual integrity – not the nadir of society and our population. Larkin – put up or shut up!

Let me suggest that if you cannot produce a majority of the items demanded supra you are admitting to some very serious felonies that not only diminish you but all around you. Everyone makes errors and thus Americans are universally forgiving. Intentionally preying on the elderly is one of sins that cannot be forgiven! Your failure to either produce the items demanded or make restitution for your crimes against the ‘great unwashed’ is unacceptable.

Demand is made to the IARDC and the Illinois Supreme Court to enforce the Rule of Law equally and if Larkin and the miscreants who have acted in concert with him cannot produce the evidence required by this complaint appropriate punishment be handed out to Larkin and his 18 USCA 371 co-conspirators.

Respectfully submitted,

[1] It should be noted that the affidavits of Gloria Sykes, Scott Evans et al verify every statement that either Denison or yours truly makes concerning these cases. In the Alice Gore case, which does not appear to part of the original charges the offending Guardian ad Litem was accused by the Florida Attorney General of fraud – she was noted to have filed a claim as an heir to an estate that she was a stranger. (See Probate Sharks blog). Her benefactor, a large nursing home operator, has been fined by the USA and others for various Medicare, Medicaid **** frauds. The Gore Estate is reported to have extreme irregularities attorned to by the presiding judge**** The Holocaust becomes quite relevant to the Gore case as it was disclosed that the avarice of the judicial officials including prospecting his Mrs. Gore’s mouth for the gold in her teeth. Naturally, Mr. Larkin could find nothing amiss with the collecting of gold from the teeth of elder cleansing victims.

[2] As Illinois is on the verge of Bankruptcy and the legislature want to increase the taxpayer burden, it is now quite appropriate to collect from each of the miscreants their joint and several liability. It is my supposition that each of the lawyer defendants is guilty of not reporting the tax liability on his/her 1040 Tax return. Had they done so *****.

[3] This will be interesting as the Clerk of the Circuit Court has admitted that she did not even have such a form printed at the time of the Mary Sykes scenario was unfolding. The form summons thus had to be specifically drafted by the attorney representing the petitioner. It does appear that the wrong form summons were presented to the Sheriff of Cook County. These summons were not served because Mary was not a resident of Cook County – she had been abducted and removed to DuPage County. This bit of legerdemain suggested FRAUD was evident on day one.

[4] The Sheriff of Cook County wrote a letter denying any return of summons, however, Mr. Schmiedel claims a bench service. He does not claim that the 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10 form summons was ever served, nor has he claimed that the procedure required as followed.

[5] No prior notice has ever been claimed to have been given to Gloria Sykes (daughter), or two either of the two sisters of Mary. Even the kangaroo panel could not ‘find’ that notice was given, they instead said that the two sister had knowledge of some hearing.

[6] Interestingly Adam Stern wrote to Gloria Sykes an e-mail in which he disclosed that no such hearing had been had. The incompetency was determined by the two guardian ad litem meeting with the Attorney for the petitioner and the judge signing the order presented. If the e-mail is accurate, a key element of due process is missing (along with notice) and the proceedings are so tainted that gross criminal conduct has occurred in the Circuit Court of Cook County and not only must the offending judges be removed from office, but they are the attorneys attorning to such procedures must be subjected to serious disciplinary proceedings that include disbarment. Contrary to Mr. Larkin’s assertion – this offense against the Constitution of the State of Illinois and the United States of America is so obscene as to warrant criminal prosecution of the offending attorneys. Each of the attorneys and each of the judges involved knew of should have known that 18 USCA 241, 242 and 42 USCA 1983 were openly and notoriously violated. This lack of propriety coupled with the theft of a million dollars in Gold Coins (see Gloria Sykes affidavit on file in both the Ditkowsky and Denison disciplinary files) suggests some additional felonies! Exactly how the IARDC can ignore Ms. Sykes’ affidavit and the lack of due process is a mystery that suggest felonies galore!

[7] The attorneys on the various panels who were not independent enough to object to the kangaroo proceedings in the Denison and Ditkowsky proceedings are not being given a pass – they also are co-conspirators and wrongdoers as they rubber=stamped the cover=up in the Sykes case. Attorneys take an oath to uphold the Constitution. Upholding the constitution is not consistent with attempting to silence the exposure of judicial (or political) corruption.

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

Emergency need for funds for comcast — $511–only $200 left to go

Posted on June 3, 2016 by Joanne M Denison

I don’t do fundraisers unless I have to, but right now our phones and internet are out and people are right now trying to fax me corruption information.

If you can possibly spare some kind of money to help us out, that will be great. I know the people I serve have already paid other lawyers hundreds of dollars, thousands of dollars, even hundreds of thousands of dollars, only to have their own attorneys do nothing, or at worst, they threw them under the bus when all the money was gone.

I do understand and empathize. And I hate to ask. But we do not have any grants or funds or donations from anyone other than courtroom victims.

The bad news is, I always scrape by. The good news is that you can rest assured I will not turn on your or defame or libel you as you have frequently encountered in the past. I am not being paid by anyone except donations at this time.

You can text or email me a check made out to my name for phones and internet. Anything in excess of what we have to pay will not be cashed. Email me at joanne@denisonlaw.com, or text me a check to 773-255-7608. You can also use the facebook money transfer system to “joanne marie denison.” donations made to justice for every 1 are not tax deductible because we do publish suggested changes to legislation and that makes us a 501-c-4 and not a tax deductible 501-c-3. We abide by the IRS rules for charitable corporations

I am currently working on going to Washington with all your cases and if you have forms to fill out still, do them now please.

And if anyone wants to volunteer at the office, I have a lot of projects that involve research and analyzing data to spot corruption.

Please post and cross post.

Ukranians Throw their Corrupt Politicians into Dumpsters

Posted on June 3, 2016 by Joanne M Denison

and wheel them away. Well, that’s one solution.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/11145381/Up-to-a-dozen-Ukraine-officials-dumped-in-wheelie-bins.html

—– Forwarded Message —–
From: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>

Sent: Friday, June 3, 2016 5:31 AM
Subject: Re: Ukranians throw corrupt politicians into dumpsters

The Shame of the Elder Cleansing scandal lies heavily on the corruption political and judicial criminals who are preying on our elderly but it also lies heavily on those of us who are not actively pursuing HONEST INVESTIGATIONS and prosecutions of the miscreants.

The Kitty Genovese case still remains one of those situations that haunts so many of us. For your convenience I’ve copied from the on-line edition of the Wall Street Journal the film review of a movie that should remind us our shame.

How in America can the kidnapping of grandma be condoned, or tolerated? How in America can grandma’s mouth become a gold prospecting site? How in America can an American who immigrated from Africa be deprived of his law license by a public official who is frugal with the truth and who exhibits overt racial discrimination? How in America and calls for an HONEST INVESTIGATION of corruption be grounds for suspension of law licenses?

It is occurring and Jerome Larkin has not been fired from his public position – HE TEACHES ETHICS TO LAWYERS!

‘The Witness’ Review: Searching for the Truth About Kitty Genovese

More than 50 years after a murder shocked the nation, the victim’s brother revisits the supposed facts of the crime

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/03/movies/the-witness-review-kitty-genovese.html?

I have no idea what Jerome Larkin was thinking when he went after myself, Ken Ditkowsky and Lanre Amu for telling the truth and then running kangaroo proceedings against us, for certain my website is legendary in the cover up of corruption by government officials.

Cynthia Farenga Harvey Waller, Peter Schmeidel, Adam Stern and Deborah Jo Soehlig should all have been severely disciplined or disbarred for running a guardianship without jurisdiction, without notice to Mary, her elderly sisters, and in derogation of Mary’s Last Power of Attorney naming Gloria Guardian. Mary wanted to live at home and not in a nursing home. Soon as Carolyn sold Mary’s house, Mary went into a string of nursing homes where she was isolated from 20+ former friends and family and eventually drugged to death.

Even today, when you go to nursing homes, everyone wants to go home. No one wants to be there. But there is no mention of having anyone investigate these pleas and let seniors go home.

Here’s an interesting idea posted on Facebook:

Seems to me, this is the perfect solution. Cruise ships would benefit greatly by simply taking on the elderly where food, accommodations and friends are overflowing. People are entertained nightly with great shows. And best of all, no guardianship court and no courtroom appointed leaches to drain the estate.

This lady has the perfect solution.

Maybe you should changed your POA to your favorite cruise line to be your guardian in the final years.

Nigerian Lawyer Suspended for Practicing Law While Black

Posted on June 2, 2016 by Joanne M Denison

Bottom of Form

Posted By: Adeola Oladele-Fayehunon: July 29, 2014In: Featured, News 5 Comments

Print Email

Share 1

Tweet 0

For several months, a Nigerian lawyer in Chicago, Illinois, United States, Mr Lanre Amu, tried to get the attention of the American media but no one was willing to tell his story or help him get his law licence back.

Amu moved to the U.S in 1982 with the hope of living the American dream. At the beginning, he enjoyed this dream, earning Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in Civil Engineering with distinction. He worked as an engineer in Illinois.

Later, he attended the John Marshall Law School in Chicago and became a popular lawyer, representing minority immigrants, especially those not educated in America. After 16 years of practice, his American dream became a nightmare in August 2013. Amu got a phone call that his licence had been suspended for three years until an order of the court.

“I got a phone call that I was suspended from the practice of law immediately. I couldn’t believe it. They said I defamed four judges because of the complaints I filed against them over nine years,” he said.

The call came after his long battle with four judges he accused of corruption. Between 2004 and 2011, Amu filed complaints about four Cook County Circuit Court judges he alleged had compromised in their verdicts against his clients but in favour of rich insurance companies.

The judges are: Lynn M. Egan, Irwin S. Solganick, Francis J. Dolan, and Thomas R. Chiola.

His first complaint in 2004 was against Judge Dolan, who barred witnesses from testifying against a company Amu’s clients had sued.

Amu also accused Judge Egan of racial discrimination and corruption after she vacated a default judgment against his client in a personal injury case against a food store.

The lawyer insisted that the case was fixed, alleging that the judge’s brother worked at a law firm hired by the store’s insurance company to defend it against the suit.

In 2011, Amu’s accusations were ruled as “false”, “unfounded”, “baseless,” and in violation of Illinois Supreme Court rules by the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC), an agency of the Illinois Supreme Court.

A hearing followed and the ARDC administrator advised the Hearing Board to recommend that Amu be disbarred from law practice. But the panel recommended a three-year suspension.

The case proceeded to the Supreme Court and, after several months, Amu was officially suspended in 2013 for three years until further order of the court.

The lawyer said none of the judges testified against him while the battle was going on. Yet, he was suspended. He believes as an African immigrant and a minority black lawyer, he is a victim of racial discrimination.

When The Nation contacted the ARDC about his story, we received an email from their media representative, who said the ARDC does not comment on past or pending cases, except to give background information.

“The Court declined to take Mr. Amu’s exceptions (an appeal) from an earlier board’s recommendation that he be suspended for three years and until further order of the court,” said James J. Grogan, the media representative for the ARDC.

“The provision of a suspension ‘until further order of the court’ is significant because, at the end of the suspension period, the lawyer suspended must file a petition for reinstatement and establish rehabilitation after a hearing.”

Also, Amu, who once represented hundreds of minority clients, said he was left to find other means of survival.

“Things have been difficult financially, as you would expect once a person’s means of livelihood is interrupted,” he said.

One of his clients, Koami Agbezouhlon from Togo, told The Nation that Amu is the top black lawyer he knows that defends minorities in Chicago area. He said the lawyer’s suspension also affected a lot of minority immigrants.

“This is injustice. They knew that Amu was defending the innocent people like me. But now, judges are lying, and it’s not fair. The system is corrupted; something must be done.

“This is a sensitive issue because it involves judges. But somebody must hear his side of the story and do proper investigation. He feels completely cheated, and something should be done,” said another client of the lawyer from Ghana, who spoke in confidence.

In a YouTube to hope for justice.video, titled: Judicial Corruption in IL., Amu was granted his first interview by a cable station. There, he details the events leading to his suspension.

He hoped thousands would watch it and know there is corruption even in the American judicial system.

Amu continues

See Lanre’s Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTPSZNh4wj4

And From Ken Ditkowsky:

What was was interesting to note, that while Jerome Larkin was wrongfully and in an ethically challenged manner claiming to the Supreme Court of Illinois that Mr. Amu was lying, not telling the truth, defaming judges etc Crain’s Chicago Business was making the same averments against one of the protected judges. In fact Crain’s pointed out that this paragon of judicial integrity was so corrupt as to even be a board member of the defendant corporation and her bother was the attorney for the defendant corporation.

Practicing law while Black is not a new crime in Illinois, but it certainly warrants the attention of our political leaders who claim to be champions of Civil Rights! How does any candidate claim to be a champion of Civil Rights and ignore this patently outrageous conduct by public officials? It is submitted that many of our champions of Civil and Human rights are nothing more than garden variety champions of hyprocracy and slight of hand!

We the great unwashed realize that we are the flotsam of America and we count only when the political elite and judicial elite need the facade of an election to justify their unjust enrichment at our expense; however, to keep us happy the government has to give us something to rationalize the fact that we are fast losing our heritage and the core values of democracy – most of us would be happy to see the enforcement of 18 USCA 371 (conspiracy) and the criminals who are promulgating the cover up of ‘elder cleansing’ at least paying the taxes, interest, and penalties on their booty.

It is too much to hope for an HONEST INVESTIGATION and the subsequent prosecution of the miscreants – but, as Illinois is on the verge of Bankruptcy seeing the ‘little guys’ get paid would be most gratifying. Indeed, the taxes, interest and penalties that are due from the miscreants and their co-conspirator Jerome larkin is substantial. Three million dollars is unaccounted for in the Sykes case 09 P 4585, One Million five hundred is unaccounted for the Gore case *****. It is calculated that over a billion dollars has disappeared and little effort has been made to collect the taxes from those who are actively working at ‘covering up’ the criminal tax evasion. Civil collection activities place the burden of proof on the taxpayer. [Larkin knew or should have known that his charges against Amu were false, yet he persists in his punishment of Amu for practicing law while Black — whatever benefits Larkin obtained as the result of his wrongful conduct is taxable income! – we are no naive as to believe he acted without a pecuniary rationale}

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

from yet another article:

http://cookcountyrecord.com/stories/510577788-panel-affirms-dismissal-of-defamation-suit-against-cook-county-judge

Panel affirms dismissal of defamation suit against Cook County judge

Bethany Krajelis Feb. 24, 2014, 4:32pm

The First District Appellate Court has upheld the dismissal of a defamation suit that a since-suspended attorney brought against Cook County Associate Judge James E. Snyder in 2012.

In an unpublished order handed down Friday, the appeals panel affirmed Circuit Judge James N. O’Hara’s decision to dismiss ‘Lanre O. Amu’s suit that accused the judge of “maliciously” calling him “a flim flam attorney” at a court hearing.

Interestingly enough, the Kids for Cash 3rd circuit case granting NO immunity to Ciavarella or Conaghan in their roles for “finder’s fees” or “placement fees” for putting all kids–even if no crime occurred in to a for-profit juvenile detention center. They rules such activities to be administrative in nature for which no judicial immunity attaches. I submit calling an attorney that serves the poor and minorities “flam flam” and other derogatory terms is the same thing–not at all within the job description of a judge and purely administrative and not subject to any sort of immunity. If a judge wants immunity, s/he should act like a judge and not name call in the courtroom.

“[W]e conclude the circuit court properly found it lacked jurisdiction to hear this suit based on sovereign immunity principles and affirm the dismissal,” the panel held. “Moreover, even if the circuit court did have jurisdiction, we would find the circuit court also properly concluded defendant was protected by judicial immunity.”

Justice Mary K. Rochford delivered the court’s 11-page order, in which Justices Bertina E. Lampkin and Jesse Reyes concurred.

In his suit against Snyder, Amu claimed the judge, in allegedly making the statement he was a “flim flam attorney,” intended to mean he was “a fraudulent attorney, a swindler — an attorney who takes money from people by fraud or deceit, and a criminal.”

Amu –who the Illinois Supreme Court suspended on an interim basis in August pending the outcome of his disciplinary proceedings–accused Snyder of making the purported statement at a January 2012 hearing in the case of Allen Henderson v. World Hyundai Motors of Matteson, et al.

He was not involved in any proceeding before the judge at the time he allegedly made the statement, according to the panel’s order that notes Amu claimed Snyder made the “flim flam” statement to or in front of at least three people, including one lawyer.

In his suit, Amu asserted Snyder’s alleged defamation was “part and parcel of a well-orchestrated scheme by the defendant and his company, motivated solely by personal animosity and personal vendetta.”

The scheme, he claimed, was based, in part, on a disagreement he had with Snyder’s friends, one of whom was retired Cook County Circuit Judge Thomas Chiola, as well his alleged desire to “oppress …rubbish… bankrupt … and totally destroy” him.

Representing Snyder in the defamation suit, the office of the Illinois Attorney General moved for dismissal, arguing that the court didn’t have jurisdiction to hear Amu’s suit based on sovereign immunity and that Snyder was further protected by judicial immunity.

In an affidavit, Snyder asserted that any statements he may have made in the Henderson case “were made during court proceedings,” and that he never acted outside his official capacity as an associate judge, according to the panel’s order.

O’Hara, the circuit judge, granted Snyder’s motion to dismiss after finding he did not have jurisdiction to hear that case. In his three-page dismissal order, he went on to say that even if he had jurisdiction, judicial immunity fully protected Snyder from the suit.

Amu appealed, arguing that O’Hara was wrong to dismiss the matter because Snyder was acting in a personal capacity when he made the purported statement, which took sovereign and judicial immunity off the table.

Like the lower court, the appeals panel rejected Amu’s argument and determined the immunity doctrines protected Snyder.

In the panel’s order, Rochford explained that she and her colleagues applied the three-factor test courts use to determine if actions against a state employee are actually against the state. She wrote no one disputes that as an associate judge, Snyder is a state employee.

The three factors, she notes, are whether the “1) whether the official allegedly acted beyond the scope of his authority; (2) whether the duty the official allegedly breached is owed solely by virtue of State employment; and (3) whether the action of the official allegedly took involved matter within his normal and official functions.”

Now how anyone in his or her right mind can possibly content this is a matter within his (or her) normal and official functions to name call anyone is beyond me. That is more like kids on the playground rather than adults in court–adults with many years of college and doctorate degrees.

Rochford wrote that in his amended complaint, Amu claimed Snyder was acting in his personal capacity, but identified him as an associate judge. She also notes that Amu sought information about Snyder’s personal and professional relationships in his interrogatories.

“Despite plaintiff’s protestations that his suit deals with defendant in his personal capacity, the amended complaint is crafted to veil the fact plaintiff believed he was defamed by defendant in his capacity as an associate judge and defendant was acting as part of a broader court-based scheme against him,” Rochford wrote.

“Plaintiff,” she added, “cannot avoid sovereign immunity by merely identifying his suit as one brought against defendant in his personal capacity.”

The panel went on to determine that Snyder’s affidavit satisfied the first two criteria of the three-part test and in regards to the third factor, found that Amu did not allege Snyder “owed him a duty independent of his state employment.”

And even if the three-part test wasn’t met, the appeals panel held it still had to “consider whether a judgment for plaintiff would operate to control the actions of the State.”

“We find a judgment for plaintiff would have an adverse impact against the State,” Rochford wrote. “Such a judgment would invade the provinces of the judiciary and impede defendant’s ability, as an associate judge and an employee of the State’s judicial system, to control his docket and preside over his cases without fear of suit.”

She added, “Again, it is clear this suit is one which, under sovereign immunity principles, must be considered to have been brought against the State.”

In a footnote, Rochford noted that on appeal, Snyder asked the panel to take judicial notice that the Supreme Court suspended Amu’s law license pending the outcome of his disciplinary matter.

Amu, the footnote states, objected to the request, saying his interim suspension was irrelevant to his appeal. Rochford wrote the panel didn’t need to consider his interim suspension because it resolved the matter “on grounds wholly independent of the disciplinary proceedings.”

The disciplinary case the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC) brought against Amu in 2011 remains pending.

In its four-count complaint, the ARDC accused Amu of misconduct for making statements that challenged “the integrity and fairness” of Chiola, as well as fellow Cook County judges Irwin S. Solganick, Francis J. Dolan and Lynn M. Egan.

The commission asserts in its complaint that Amu knew the statements he made about these judges were “false,” “unfounded” and “baseless” in violation of Supreme Court rules.

According to the ARDC complaint, the statements Amu allegedly made about the four judges stem from adverse rulings rendered against his clients in various cases between 2004 and 2011.

In 2004, for example, the commission alleges that Amu called Dolan “a very sophisticated scam artist judge” and “a henchman for the defendant insurance company” after she barred witnesses from testifying against a business that Amu’s clients were suing.

The ARDC further claims that in 2011, Amu posted a 23-page document on his law firm’s website titled “An Open Letter to the Illinois Appellate Court,” in which he accused Egan of racial bias and corruption.

The commission’s Hearing Board found these and other statements Amu is accused of making about the judges to be “so reckless as to be considered a knowing misrepresentation.”

Before the Hearing Board, Amu stood by his statements and argued they should be held to be true as none of the judges opted to testify in the matter. He argued his statements were constitutionally protected speech and maintained that he, as an African immigrant, was a victim of racial discrimination.

Although the ARDC administrator urged the Hearing Board to recommend Amu be disbarred from the practice of law, both the Hearing and Review boards have recommended a three-year suspension.

The Supreme Court, which has the final say in disciplining attorneys, has not issued an order in Amu’s ARDC matter.

Court records show Amu filed libel/slander lawsuits against the Chicago Tribune and the Law Office of Kevin Rogers earlier this month and one against Circuit Judge Mary Eileen Brewer in March 2013.

It appears he is representing himself in these three suits and that they remain pending.

From Ken Ditkowsky

Posted on June 1, 2016 by Joanne M Denison

From: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>

To: Cynthia Stephens <cynthiastphns@gmail.com>, ………

Subject: Fw: What happens when a ethically challenged Attorney Disciplinary Commission is caught communicating ex-parte with the Supreme Court and commits fraud.

Date: Jun 1, 2016 1:18 PM

The actions of the IARDC are so repulsive and anti-American that a concerted effort has to be made to address them. Every principle of America and Americana is being violated by these political types.

At first I believed that Larkin was just another lazy political appointee with his head in the sand who was appointed for the purpose of going to jail; however, when I read the Amu papers and watched the Diane Nash fiasco play out I realized that full extent of the ‘one act’ play that we were experiencing. It does not matter if Larkin is Casmer Milktoast or public enemy number 1. The Cancer that he is spreading is class 4 and as dangerous as ISIS.

Larkin and this counterparts are committing the genocide on our elderly and disabled by their cover-up of elder cleansing. The most effective manner of dealing with the problem is to strictly enforce the Civil Tax code. In particular = collect the income taxes on the stolen monies! 18 USCA 371 labels Larkin as a co-conspirator and as such he has joint and several liability. Thus, when the guardian in 2009 broke into Mary’s and Gloria safety deposit box and stole a million dollars in gold coins Larkin by his cover-up became a co conspirator and liable for all the income taxes, interest, and penalties due. Ditto for the balance and the Gore estate. Ditto for Lea Black, *****. Civil Tax collection places the burden of proof on the taxpayer – i.e. Larkin.

To avoid this situation all Larkin had to do was do his job. When Gloria Sykes called for an investigation all he had to do was make a reference to law enforcement and asked for the investigation. JoAnne and I would not have had to call for an HONEST INVESTIGATION as one would have been underway. Cynthia Farenga’s letter to Lea Black would have been tossed as the FBI would have gone to the bank and noted the theft! A referral to the IRS would have been directed to just the guardian. The ‘fix’ of Judge Connors could have been addressed by the Judicial Inquiry Board and Larkin *****. In fact at any time after that Larkin could have escaped by just doing his job. Now he has to rely upon his clout!

Here in Illinois (and in most States) the corruption has reached critical mass. I suggest that Larkin and his counterparts are great scapegoats! They are not doing their jobs, but are carrying on vast cover-up operations. As you can see by the support that **** and **** have garnered Americans are getting ready to rear up and tar and feather the political people who are not doing their jobs. Yes, the current administration may consider the great unwashed as stupid and ignorant, but it does not take much in the way of brains to get out the tar and feathers!

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

From Ken Ditkowsky–Open Letter to Gov. Rauner

Posted on May 31, 2016 by Joanne M Denison

From: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com> [Edit Address Book]

To: Chicago Sun-Times <re-2JCP-S5BS-4225VU-C0412@suntimesmail.com>, illinoisgov <gov.goca@illinois.gov>,and 50 others

Subject: The biggest ‘little secret’ = An open letter to Illinois Gov Rauner.

Date: May 31, 2016 9:07 AM

Dear Gov Rauner,

Illinois is on the verge of bankruptcy and from this spectator view you are that little boy who is standing in a puddle of water with a finger in the dike as all the people who will drown if you take you finger out of the dike jeer your efforts. Why this metaphor? That is exactly how most of the family and friends of the victims of elder cleansing feel! We know just how frustrating it feels when the ‘fix’ is in , the miscreants admit it, and every one else tells you that you are crazy.

To define terms, ‘elder cleansing’ is the systematic isolation and guardianship of targeted senior citizens (who usually have a little life savings) for the purposes of abuse, exploitation, deprivation of civil and human rights, robbery of life savings, and finally assisted involuntary suicide. If you wish further details they are available in four Government Accounting Office reports to congress, on the Blogs: MaryGSykes.com, Probate Sharks.com, NASGA (stopguardianabuse.org), AAApg.com, *****. The NASGA blog has a link to the four GAO reports (as does this blog) https://marygsykes.com/2016/02/01/from-ken-ditkowsky-60-minutes-and-gao-reports-being-ignored/. If you desire specific examples let me refer you to two Cook County cases – In re: Mary Sykes 09 P 4585, and Alice Gore. (The Alice Gore case is distinctive as it demonstrates the total avarice of the corrupt judicial officials = these miscreants pulled 29 teeth from grandma’s mouth so as to recover ever speck of gold she possessed!

Complaints to the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, the Judicial Inquiry Board, law enforcement ***** have yielded absolute frustration . The ARDC for example pulled out all the stops to prevent inquiry or exposure. They unilaterally over-ruled the Supreme Court of the United States by misrepresenting its decisions and referring to the blog MaryGSykes as yelling fire in a crowded theater. They even rejected calls for an HONEST INVESTIGATION! No investigation occurred and ******.

Illinois has the distinction of being rated one of the most corrupt States in the Union. We hold a strong lead in populating the Federal Penitentiaries and even had two “former” Governors in jail at the very same time. The dirty little secret: CORRUPTION PAYS!

Corruption pays at every level, and especially pays in the Probate Courts. Dead people tell no tales! It is no secret that many of the guardianship cases were wired. In the Mary Sykes case the presiding judge on page 91 of her evidence deposition actually admitted the same. Of course, Mr. Larkin of the IARDC and his 18 USCA 371 minions ‘covered it up.’

My Point! Let’s take the profit out of Judicial corruption in the probate court. How do we do this? Very simple let’s collect the taxes due from all the miscreants. Illinois should make it unprofitable for a Judge or other public officials to not diligently and honestly comply with his/her oath to uphold the Constitution.

Let me explain. Each guardianship creates a fiduciary relationship. This fiduciary relationship occurs even when the Court wrongfully assumes jurisdiction – as in Sykes 09 P 4585. A fiduciary relationship imparts the highest degree of fidelity on the guardians as possible and when a dollar is stolen all hell is supposed to break loose. We all know that this happening in Illinois is almost unheard of as all themiscreants will close ranks to protect the guardian who has breached his/her fiduciary responsibility and Mr. Larkin and the IARDC will be johnny on the spot to punish all who might desire an Honest Investigation.

HOWEVER, THE LAW IS CLEAR. The theft is a TAXABLE EVENT and therefore the Illinois Department of Revenue has a duty to collect the taxes due for the theft from the Court appointed fiduciary. Under the doctrine of Constructive Receipt when theft one occurs taxes are due on the entire fund. Thus, the theft of a dollar creates a tax liability on the million dollars in the fund. Of course, restitution creates a deduction, but it must be claimed on the tax return (1040). The tax liability attaches to not only the miscreant offender but his co-conspirators as defined by 18 USCA 371. Thus, when guardian x steals $10.00 from Mary Sykes, everyone who has the public trust to report the crime (ABA Rule 8.3 and 18 USCA 4) incurs liability for the taxes, interest, and penalties from the date of the initial theft. Jerome Larkin in promulgating his cover-up of the three million dollars in theft from the Mary Sykes case owes taxes, interest, and penalties to the State of Illinois (and the USA). His liability is joint and several.

As an Illinois citizen I want to know why this tax liability is being ignored? Getting back to our original metaphor, Illinois citizens are tired of being lied to! When the Income tax was enacted the excuse was = the schools need funding. Of course the taxes went for other purposes and the political elite feathered their nest by enacting genereous pensions for themselves. Of course when more money was needed, Illinois enacted the lottery! Those funds ***** – they went to feed the fast growing corruption that you are fighting. Now a graduated Income tax (tax the wealthy) is being proposed; HOWEVER NO ONE IS PROPOSING COLLECTING THE TAXES GENERATED BY OFFICIAL CORRUPTION! Why not – government is being run for the benefit of political and judicial elite and not for the people.

The time for reform should start right this minute. It should start with the Illinois Department of Revenue calling on the public officials who are profiting by the elder cleansing in the Mary Sykes, Alice Gore **** cases and hitting them with tax liens and collection demands for all taxes, interest and penalties. We cannot restore to Alice Gore the gold that was taken from her mouth, but we can tax each miscreant who took the gold or aided and abetted in its removal.

corruption must be taxed! It is the untapped source of government revenue that is available and need to restore faith in Illinois democracy. Corruption is not limited to just elder cleansing – it is across the board. For instance, when Mary Sykes home (valued at close to a million dollars) was sold a judicial sale for a little over $200,000.00 the Estate should not have to incur a tax liability — each of the miscreants (including those who act in concert with the miscreants) should be taxed on the total value as ordinary income.

Similarly when Congressman x gets a campaign contribution from businessman y and there is a relationship between the contribution and favors that businessman y desires from congressman x such is not a political contribution, but a bribe (payment for special services) and taxable.

The legislature has to fund the pensions that the State of Illinois is about to default upon – as Governor we urge you to assist them by joining with us in demanding that the political and judicial elite pay their fair share and pay taxes on the graft and bribes that they receive.

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

From: Chicago Sun-Times <reply@suntimesmail.com>
To: “kenditkowsky@yahoo.com” <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 6:07 AM
Subject: Morning Edition: Rahm wins big over Rauner

http://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/senate-overrides-rauner-veto-of-police-and-fire-pension-bill/

And don’t forget the City’s Code of Silence trial begins today. I hope that Jerome Larkin can make a cameo appearance and explain the ARDC role in all of this.

http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/code-of-silence-trial-could-put-mayor-emanuel-on-the-stand/

Today we remember all the attorneys that lost their license by protecting your First Amendment rights and the disableds

Posted on May 30, 2016 by Joanne M Denison

Lawyers have taken an oath to uphold the constitutions of the US and their own state. We don’t “take up arms” because we know that the only time there is a win for a democracy it is done in a legislature or in a courtroom, generally a Federal District Courtroom, and yet the small person has been banned for most suits in Federal District Court.

Something has to change. We spend $2 billion per day on the Pentagon, while our rights are being slowly eroded away in the US and State courtrooms. I recall when the judges were very interested in justice and would brag about how they helped the common guy. Now the judges to your face brag about how they next have a $50 million case up next before them and your damages are pennies, so please get out of the way.

What happened? Well I think I can tell you what happened. It has now been one year since I have been suspended and 2 years since Ken has been suspended trying to protect YOUR first amendment rights. There is no public outcry, there is no stream of letters to anyone who care about 2 attorneys who served the public and the little guy without hope.

This tells me a lot about what is need in the practice of law and for the people, and that is pretty much nothing.

Most of you know that I am in need of money for rent ($18,000), now money for my office phones ($500), they are shut off. Now all I do is blog about cases and write books, but it seems like that isn’t important work. I do understand that other lawyers took your money, not me. I understand that the probate court seized assets of the innocent trying to protect the innocent, but there is no public outcry for you or for me or the elderly and disabled. Ken and I and Mr. Amu are pretty much it. Bev and Ken Cooper do some great work too.

I understand the Jesus healed 10 people, only one went back to pay him and there was no mention of payment out of gratitude. People have a long way to go, and I appreciate it. I really do.

So, those of you that care, keep on praying. But for now, everything waits until I get in my motion for Sanctions.

And then I promise that you, the little guy, will be at the top of my list. Not some mega corp always trying to screw us all over to make a few bucks and then have the courts rubber stamp their string of thefts from our bank accounts.

I want to protect the elderly and disabled and blog about it and perhaps represent some really, really bad cases and I want to do discovery and send out pleadings so people can represent themselves the world.

Please continue to send me you guardianship and custody horror stories. I do want to take these to the Senate and House and demand they both do something about the lack of accountability in our court systems and lack of justice.

JoAnne

Watch the show where a daughter reveals how the Probate Court in “crook” county pulled 29 gold teeth. Real live testimony!

Posted on May 29, 2016 by Joanne M Denison

start at 8 minutes into this show.

Horrifying. The ARDC, the states attorneys (Madigan, Alvarez and Saltoun) were alerted and no one did anything about this. The FBI was alerted and did nothing.

Join in a public outcry for abuses done to the elderly and disabled.

From Ken Ditkowsky–Time to be honest, Mr. Larkin of the ARDC

Posted on May 28, 2016 by Joanne M Denison

From: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com> [Edit Address Book]

To: “Dr. Sam Sugar” <ssugarmd@msn.com>, Kevin Pizzarello <kev_pizz@hotmail.com>

Cc: Cindy_Burke Kirk <cindy_burke@kirk.senate.gov>, This e-mail is a serious challenge to Larkin and his co-conspirators to either put up or give up their law licenses

Date: May 28, 2016 12:45 PM

To: Jerome Larkin, individually and as Administrator of the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary commission (IARDC) and the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary commission.

From: Kenneth Ditkowsky

Date: May 28, 2016

Subject: Challenge to you to tell demonstrate that a public office is a public trust, and formal complaint concerning your ethically challenged and illegal conduct.

Cc: All interested parties, Honorable L. Lynch, Attorney General of the United States, Justice Department of the United States, Attorney JoAnne Denison, States Attorney of Cook County,

Dear Mr. Larkin, and the IARDC Commission,

Infamy will preserve the analogy of Ms. Denison’s blog to yelling fire in a crowded theater, and the intentional misrepresentation by IARDC lawyers in the name of Mr. Larkin of the holdings in Sawyer and Alvarez. The assaults on the First Amendment by the IARDC and Larkin are akin to ISIS terrorism, however, the ability to marshal the cover-up of the corruption evident in the Mary Sykes case 09 P 4585 (Circuit Court of Cook County) is beyond the pale. Knowing that guardianships were limited in scope because of Illinois and USA Constitutional core values, co-conspirator attorneys Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga, Peter Schmiedel and others used the Illinois guardianship act to openly and notorious isolate Mary Sykes so that her estate could be looted. (I’ve estimated the booty at $3,000,000 dollars).

By way of background, as it appears that the IARDC and lawyer disciplinary commissions have during the relevant time period had the policy of interpreting the guardianship statute to not being an accommodation as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act, but as a forfeiture of all human and civil rights. Interestingly enough the Illinois legislature (as well as the legislatures of most of the States of the union) make it abundantly clear that:

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

755 ILCS 5/11a – 3b

1. Jurisdiction

2. Whether safeguards of the Constitution were complied with

3. Whether a wrongful forfeiture occurred as to Mary’s liberty and property rights.

a. Challenge: Produce a copy of a summons that was actually personally served on Mary Sykes prior to any hearingon her competency that sought to ascertain the extent and nature, if any, of any disability that Mary Sykes might have actually suffered from 755 ILCS 5/11a -3b This is important as the legislature wanted in writing appropriate warnings so that the rights of the alleged disabled person were protected [3].

c. Challenge: Produce affidavits of notice being given to next of kin (close relatives, near relatives) prior to any hearing that was intended to obtain the information required by 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3b. This is jurisdictional pursuant to 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10. [5] The people who should have received the prior notice include both of Mary’s sisters and Gloria Sykes.

2) Constitutional Safeguards. As human and civil rights are subject to forfeiture notice and hearing are prime requirements of due process. The statute is very clear, to wit:

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

Respectfully submitted,

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

Woman of the Year Brenda Powell of Dreamcatchers

Posted on May 28, 2016 by Joanne M Denison

okay, I voted her that, but I know she helps other women who have been through the worst–and that is prostitution. A crime that no one does anything about where in the US we have the most trafficked women, girls and boys.

I have had contact with trafficked women in Chicago, and believe me, no one helps. I faxed the FBI, the states attorneys (Madigan, Alvarez, etc.), the Chicago police department and no one responded.

For that, I am giving Brenda Powell my vote and this blog’s vote for Woman of the Year.

Keep on going, Brenda!

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33113238?SThisFB

My 25 years as a prostitute

Brenda Myers-Powell was just a child when she became a prostitute in the early 1970s. Here she describes how she was pulled into working on the streets and why, three decades later, she devoted her life to making sure other girls don’t fall into the same trap. Some people will find Brenda’s account upsetting.

Right from the start life was handing me lemons, but I’ve always tried to make the best lemonade I can.

I grew up in the 1960s on the West Side of Chicago. My mother died when I was six months old. She was only 16 and I never learned what it was that she died from – my grandmother, who drank more than most, couldn’t tell me later on. The official explanation is that it was “natural causes”.

I don’t believe that. Who dies at 16 from natural causes? I like to think that God was just ready for her. I heard stories that she was beautiful and had a great sense of humour. I know that’s true because I have one also.

It was my grandmother that took care of me. And she wasn’t a bad person – in fact she had a side to her that was so wonderful. She read to me, baked me stuff and cooked the best sweet potatoes. She just had this drinking problem. She would bring drinking partners home from the bar and after she got intoxicated and passed out these men would do things to me. It started when I was four or five years old and it became a regular occurrence. I’m certain my grandmother didn’t know anything about it.

She worked as a domestic in the suburbs. It took her two hours to get to work and two hours to get home. So I was a latch-key kid – I wore a key around my neck and I would take myself to kindergarten and let myself back in at the end of the day. And the molesters knew about that, and they took advantage of it.

I would watch women with big glamorous hair and sparkly dresses standing on the street outside our house. I had no idea what they were up to; I just thought they were shiny. As a little girl, all I ever wanted was to be shiny.

One day I asked my grandmother what the women were doing and she said, “Those women take their panties off and men give them money.” And I remember saying to myself, “I’ll probably do that” because men had already been taking my panties off.

To look back now, I dealt with it all amazingly well. Alone in that house, I had imaginary friends to keep me company that I would sing and dance around with – an imaginary Elvis Presley, an imaginary Diana Ross and the Supremes. I think that helped me deal with things. I was a really outgoing girl – I used to laugh a lot.

At the same time, I was afraid, always afraid. I didn’t know if what was happening was my fault or not. I thought perhaps something was wrong with me. Even though I was a smart kid, I disconnected from school. Going into the 1970s, I became the kind of girl who didn’t know how to say “no” – if the little boys in the community told me that they liked me or treated me nice, they could basically have their way with me.

By the time I was 14, I’d had two children with boys in the community, two baby girls. My grandmother started to say that I needed to bring in some money to pay for these kids, because there was no food in the house, we had nothing.

So, one evening – it was actually Good Friday – I went along to the corner of Division Street and Clark Street and stood in front of the Mark Twain hotel. I was wearing a two-piece dress costing $3.99, cheap plastic shoes, and some orange lipstick which I thought might make me look older.

I was 14 years old and I cried through everything. But I did it. I didn’t like it, but the five men who dated me that night showed me what to do. They knew I was young and it was almost as if they were excited by it.

I made $400 but I didn’t get a cab home that night. I went home by train and I gave most of that money to my grandmother, who didn’t ask me where it came from.

The following weekend I returned to Division and Clark, and it seemed like my grandmother was happy when I brought the money home.

But the third time I went down there, a couple of guys pistol-whipped me and put me in the trunk of their car. They had approached me before because I was, as they called it, “unrepresented” on the street. All I knew was the light in the trunk of the car and then the faces of these two guys with their pistol. First they took me to a cornfield out in the middle of nowhere and raped me. Then they took me to a hotel room and locked me in the closet.

That’s the kind of thing pimps will do to break a girl’s spirits. They kept me in there for a long time. I was begging them to let me out because I was hungry, but they would only allow me out of the closet if I agreed to work for them.

They pimped me for a while, six months or so. I wasn’t able to go home. I tried to get away but they caught me, and when they caught me they hurt me so bad. Later on, I was trafficked by other men. The physical abuse was horrible, but the real abuse was the mental abuse – the things they would say that would just stick and which you could never get from under.

Pimps are very good at torture, they’re very good at manipulation. Some of them will do things like wake you in the middle of the night with a gun to your head. Others will pretend that they value you, and you feel like, “I’m Cinderella, and here comes my Prince Charming”. They seem so sweet and so charming and they tell you: “You just have to do this one thing for me and then you’ll get to the good part.” And you think, “My life has already been so hard, what’s a little bit more?” But you never ever do get to the good part.

When people describe prostitution as being something that is glamorous, elegant, like in the story of Pretty Woman, well that doesn’t come close to it. A prostitute might sleep with five strangers a day. Across a year, that’s more than 1,800 men she’s having sexual intercourse or oral sex with. These are not relationships, no-one’s bringing me any flowers here, trust me on that. They’re using my body like a toilet.

And the johns – the clients – are violent. I’ve been shot five times, stabbed 13 times. I don’t know why those men attacked me, all I know is that society made it comfortable for them to do so. They brought their anger or mental illness or whatever it was and they decided to wreak havoc on a prostitute, knowing I couldn’t go to the police and if I did I wouldn’t be taken seriously.

I actually count myself very lucky. I knew some beautiful girls who were murdered out there on the streets.

I prostituted for 14 or 15 years before I did any drugs. But after a while, after you’ve turned as many tricks as you can, after you’ve been strangled, after someone’s put a knife to your throat or someone’s put a pillow over your head, you need something to put a bit of courage in your system.

I was a prostitute for 25 years, and in all that time I never once saw a way out. But on 1 April 1997, when I was nearly 40 years old, a customer threw me out of his car. My dress got caught in the door and he dragged me six blocks along the ground, tearing all the skin off my face and the side of my body.

I went to the County Hospital in Chicago and they immediately took me to the emergency room. Because of the condition I was in, they called in a police officer, who looked me over and said: “Oh I know her. She’s just a hooker. She probably beat some guy and took his money and got what she deserved.” And I could hear the nurse laughing along with him. They pushed me out into the waiting room as if I wasn’t worth anything, as if I didn’t deserve the services of the emergency room after all.

And it was at that moment, while I was waiting for the next shift to start and for someone to attend to my injuries, that I began to think about everything that had happened in my life. Up until that point I had always had some idea of what to do, where to go, how to pick myself up again. Suddenly it was like I had run out of bright ideas. I remember looking up and saying to God, “These people don’t care about me. Could you please help me?”

Find out more

Brenda Myers-Powell spoke to Outlook on the BBC World Service
Listen to the interview on iPlayer
Dreamcatcher, a film about Brenda directed by Kim Longinotto, will be shown in the BBC’s Storyville strand in the UK later this year

God worked real fast. A doctor came and took care of me and she asked me to go and see social services in the hospital. What I knew about social services was they were anything but social. But they gave me a bus pass to go to a place called Genesis House, which was run by an awesome Englishwoman named Edwina Gateley, who became a great hero and mentor for me. She helped me turn my life around.

It was a safe house, and I had everything that I needed there. I didn’t have to worry about paying for clothes, food, getting a job. They told me to take my time and stay as long as I needed – and I stayed almost two years. My face healed, my soul healed. I got Brenda back.

Through Edwina Gateley, I learned the value of that deep connection that can occur between women, the circle of trust and love and support that a group of women can give one another.

Usually, when a woman gets out of prostitution, she doesn’t want to talk about it. What man will accept her as a wife? What person will hire her in their employment? And to begin with, after I left Genesis House, that was me too. I just wanted to get a job, pay my taxes and be like everybody else.

But I started to do some volunteering with sex workers and to help a university researcher with her fieldwork. After a while I realised that nobody was helping these young ladies. Nobody was going back and saying, “That’s who I was, that’s where I was. This is who I am now. You can change too, you can heal too.”

So in 2008, together with Stephanie Daniels-Wilson, we founded theDreamcatcher Foundation. A dreamcatcher is a Native American object that you hang near a child’s cot. It is supposed to chase away children’s nightmares. That’s what we want to do – we want to chase away those bad dreams, those bad things that happen to young girls and women.

The recent documentary film Dreamcatcher, directed by Kim Longinotto, showed the work that we do. We meet up with women who are still working on the street and we tell them, “There is a way out, we’re ready to help you when you’re ready to be helped.” We try to get through that brainwashing that says, “You’re born to do this, there’s nothing else for you.”

Media captionA clip from Dreamcatcher, directed by Kim Longinotto

I also run after-school clubs with young girls who are exactly like I was in the 1970s. I can tell as soon as I meet a girl if she is in danger, but there is no fixed pattern. You might have one girl who’s quiet and introverted and doesn’t make eye contact. Then there might be another who’s loud and obnoxious and always getting in trouble. They’re both suffering abuse at home but they’re dealing with it in different ways – the only thing they have in common is that they are not going to talk about it. But in time they understand that I have been through what they’re going through, and then they talk to me about it.

So far, we have 13 girls who have graduated from high school and are now in city colleges or have gotten full scholarships to go to other colleges. They came to us 11, 12, 13 years old, totally damaged. And now they’re reaching for the stars.

Besides my outreach work, I attend conferences and contribute to academic work on prostitution. I’ve had people say to me, “Brenda, come and meet Professor so-and-so from such-and-such university. He’s an expert on prostitution.” And I look at him and I want to say: “Really? Where did you get your credentials? What do you really know about prostitution? The expert is standing in front of you.”

I know I belong in that room but sometimes I have to let them know I belong there. And I think it’s ridiculous that there are organisations that campaign against human trafficking, that do not employ a single person who has been trafficked.

Brenda Myers-Powell counselling a client

People say different things about prostitution. Some people think that it would actually help sex workers more if it were decriminalised. I think it’s true to say that every woman has her own story. It may be OK for this girl, who is paying her way through law school, but not for this girl, who was molested as a child, who never knew she had another choice, who was just trying to get money to eat.

But let me ask you a question. How many people would you encourage to quit their jobs to become prostitutes? Would you say to any of your close friends or female relatives, “Hey, have you thought of this? I think this would be a really great move for you!”

And let me say this too. However the situation starts off for a girl, that’s not how the situation will end up. It might look OK now, the girl in law school might say she only has high-end clients that come to her through an agency, that she doesn’t work on the streets but arranges to meet people in hotel rooms, but the first time that someone hurts her, that’s when she really sees her situation for what it is. You always get that crazy guy slipping through and he has three or four guys behind him, and they force their way into your room and gang rape you, and take your phone and all your money. And suddenly you have no means to make a living and you’re beaten up too. That is the reality of prostitution.

Three years ago, I became the first woman in the state of Illinois to have her convictions for prostitution wiped from her record. It was after a new law was brought in, following lobbying from the Chicago Alliance Against Sexual Exploitation, a group that seeks to shift the criminal burden away from the victims of sexual trafficking. Women who have been tortured, manipulated and brainwashed should be treated as survivors, not criminals.

Brenda Myers-Powell watching a football game

There are good women in this world and also bad women. There are bad men and also good men.

Following my time as a prostitute, I simply wasn’t ready for another relationship. But after three years of healing and abstinence, I met an extraordinary man. I was very picky – he likes to joke that I asked him more questions than the parole board. He didn’t judge me for any of the things that had happened before we met. When he looked at me he didn’t even see those things – he says all he saw was a girl with a pretty smile that he wanted to be a part of his life. I sure wanted to be a part of his too. He supports me in everything I do, and we celebrated 10 years of marriage last year.

My daughters, who were raised by my aunt in the suburbs, grew up to be awesome young ladies. One is a doctor and one works in criminal justice. Now my husband and I have adopted my little nephew – and here I am, 58 years old, a football mum.

So I am here to tell you – there is life after so much damage, there is life after so much trauma. There is life after people have told you that you are nothing, that you are worthless and that you will never amount to anything. There is life – and I’m not just talking about a little bit of life. There is a lot of life.

Brenda Myers-Powell appeared on Outlook on the BBC World Service. Listen again to the interview on iPlayer or get the Outlook podcast. The documentary Dreamcatcher, directed by Kim Longinotto, will be broadcast in the UK as part of the BBC’s Storyville strand in October. Production by William Kremer.

From the New Yorker, why Edward Snowden is a Hero of the US Constitution

Posted on May 27, 2016 by Joanne M Denison

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/why-edward-snowden-is-a-hero

Is Edward Snowden, the twenty-nine-year-old N.S.A. whistle-blower who was last said to be hiding in Hong Kong awaiting his fate, a hero or a traitor? He is a hero. (My colleague Jeffrey Toobin disagrees.) In revealing the colossal scale of the U.S. government’s eavesdropping on Americans and other people around the world, he has performed a great public service that more than outweighs any breach of trust he may have committed. Like Daniel Ellsberg, the former Defense Department official who released the Pentagon Papers, and Mordechai Vanunu, the Israeli nuclear technician who revealed the existence of Israel’s weapons program, before him, Snowden has brought to light important information that deserved to be in the public domain, while doing no lasting harm to the national security of his country.

Doubtless, many people inside the U.S. power structure—President Obama included—and some of its apologists in the media will see things differently. When Snowden told the Guardian that “nothing good” was going to happen to him, he was almost certainly right. In fleeing to Hong Kong, he may have overlooked the existence of its extradition pact with the United States, which the U.S. authorities will most certainly seek to invoke. The National Security Agency has already referred the case to the Justice Department, and James Clapper, Obama’s director of National Intelligence, has said that Snowden’s leaks have done “huge, grave damage” to “our intelligence capabilities.”

Before accepting such claims at face value, let’s remind ourselves of what the leaks so far have not contained. They didn’t reveal anything about the algorithms that the N.S.A. uses, the groups or individuals that the agency targets, or the identities of U.S. agents. They didn’t contain the contents of any U.S. military plans, or of any conversations between U.S. or foreign officials. As Glenn Greenwald, one of the journalists who broke the story, pointed out on “Morning Joe” today, this wasn’t a WikiLeaks-style data dump. “[Snowden] spent months meticulously studying every document,” Greenwald said. “He didn’t just upload them to the Internet.”

So, what did the leaks tell us? First, they confirmed that the U.S. government, without obtaining any court warrants, routinely collects the phone logs of tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, of Americans, who have no links to terrorism whatsoever. If the publicity prompts Congress to prevent phone companies such as Verizon and A.T. & T. from acting as information-gathering subsidiaries of the spying agencies, it won’t hamper legitimate domestic-surveillance operations—the N.S.A. can always go to court to obtain a wiretap or search warrant—and it will be a very good thing for the country.

The second revelation in the leaks was that the N.S.A., in targeting foreign suspects, has the capacity to access vast amounts of user data from U.S.-based Internet companies such as Facebook, Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, and Skype. Exactly how this is done remains a bit murky. But it’s clear that, in the process of monitoring the communications of overseas militants and officials and the people who communicate with them, the N.S.A. sweeps up a great deal of online data about Americans, and keeps it locked away—seemingly forever.

Conceivably, the fact that Uncle Sam is watching their Facebook and Google accounts could come as news to some dimwit would-be jihadis in foreign locales, prompting them to communicate in ways that are harder for the N.S.A. to track. But it will hardly surprise the organized terrorist groups, which already go to great lengths to avoid being monitored. Not for nothing did Osama bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad go without a phone or Internet connection.

Another Snowden leak, which Greenwald and the Guardian published over the weekend, was a set of documents concerning another secret N.S.A. tracking program with an Orwellian name: “Boundless Informant.” Apparently designed to keep Snowden’s former bosses abreast of what sorts of data it was collecting around the world, the program unveiled the vast reach of the N.S.A.’s activities. In March, 2013, alone, the Guardian reported, the N.S.A. collected ninety-seven billion pieces of information from computer networks worldwide, and three billion of those pieces came from U.S.-based networks.

It’s hardly surprising that the main targets for the N.S.A.’s data collection were Iran (fourteen billion pieces in that period) and Pakistan (more than thirteen billion), but countries such as Jordan, India, and Egypt, American allies all, may be a bit surprised to find themselves so high on the list. “We hack everyone everywhere,” Snowden told the Guardian. “We like to make a distinction between us and the others. But we are in almost every country in the world. We are not at war with these countries.”

For most Americans, the main concern will be domestic spying, and the chronic lack of oversight that Snowden’s leaks have highlighted. In the years since 9/11, the spying agencies have been given great leeway to expand their activities, with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court, which deals with legal requests from the agencies, and the congressional intelligence committees, which nominally oversees all of their activities, all too often acting as rubber stamps rather than proper watchdogs.

Partly, that was due to lack of gumption and an eagerness to look tough on issues of counterterrorism. But it also reflected a lack of information. Just a couple of months ago, at a Senate hearing, Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden, one of the few legislators to sound any misgivings over the activities of the intelligence agencies, asked Clapper, “Does the N.S.A. collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?” To which Clapper replied: “No, sir.” (He added, “Not wittingly.”) At another hearing, General Keith Alexander, the director of the N.S.A., denied fourteen times that the agency had the technical capability to intercept e-mails and other online communications in the United States.

Thanks to Snowden, and what he told the Guardian and the Washington Post, we now have cause to doubt the truth of this testimony. In Snowden’s words: “The N.S.A. has built an infrastructure that allows it to intercept almost everything. With this capability, the vast majority of human communications are automatically ingested without targeting. If I wanted to see your emails or your wife’s phone, all I have to do is use intercepts. I can get your emails, passwords, phone records, credit cards.”

Were Clapper and Alexander deliberately lying? If so, perhaps Snowden should be extradited to the United States and dragged into court—but only as part of a proceeding in which the two spymasters face charges of misleading Congress. I suppose you could make the argument that he is a naïve young man who didn’t fully understand the dangerous nature of the world in which we live. You could question his motives, and call him a publicity seeker, or an idiot. (Fleeing to Hong Kong wasn’t very smart.) But he doesn’t sound like an airhead; he sounds like that most awkward and infuriating of creatures—a man of conscience. “I don’t want to live in a society that does these sort of things,” he told Greenwald. “I do not want to live in a world where everything I do and say is recorded. That is not something I am willing to support or live under.”

So what is Snowden’s real crime? Like Ellsberg, Vanunu, and Bradley Manning before him, he uncovered questionable activities that those in power would rather have kept secret. That’s the valuable role that whistle-blowers play in a free society, and it’s one that, in each individual case, should be weighed against the breach of trust they commit, and the potential harm their revelations can cause. In some instances, conceivably, the interests of the state should prevail. Here, though, the scales are clearly tipped in Snowden’s favor.

I’ll leave the last word to Ellsberg, who, for revealing to the world that that Pentagon knew early on that the war in Vietnam was unwinnable, was described in some quarters as a communist and a traitor: “Snowden did what he did because he recognised the NSA’s surveillance programs for what they are: dangerous, unconstitutional activity. This wholesale invasion of Americans’ and foreign citizens’ privacy does not contribute to our security; it puts in danger the very liberties we’re trying to protect.”

Most people in the US do not know who Edward Snowden is or what he has accomplished. Further, they think he is similar to Julian Assange which just dumped tons of data–mostly old information about how the Vietnam war was a farce and the US Govt knew it and wasted billions of dollars on it and killed tens of thousands of young US men. It was murder without bounds.

So I hope this article clears up the confusion. Snowden carefully leaked the unconstitutional aspects of the US Govt’s massive spying system, with out providing the underlying information of the secrets of US Citizens or the US government. He just stated the extent of spying on US citizens and explained why it was unconsitutional. He also revealed enough information on how the NSA works so that this information can show that NSA officials routinely went to Congressional hearings and just plain lied about what the NSA was doing.

Edward Snowden leaked the system and not the contents, for the most part. His information was crucial for Congress to know it had been substantially lied to over the years. He was a man of conscience.

Julian Assange does something similar but his activites appear to center on old data dumps and whisteblower type activites where he posts what other leak.