And while the Probate courts are stuck on Strunk–a decision that says a Guardian can limit the ward from dangerous persons and has descretion in the matter, and which is always cited when the Guardian or GAL wan to isolate and drain in those funny business cases (read Sykes, Gore, etc.)  comes a much more reasoned decision from the 2nd circuit court of appeals.

The case is very interesting for those of you out there (Barbara Stone, Dom Spera, etc. who cannot see or are limited from seeing a loved one) and it helps court abuse victims like Roseanna Miller who wants a habeus corpus.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6066286202479918547&q=%22Gross+v+Rell%22&hl=en&as_sdt=4,75,99,107,122,138,162,286,287,288,289,349,350,351,352,380

Good case quotes:

For nearly a year beginning in 2005, Daniel Gross, an octogenarian, had a conservatorship imposed for his estate and person against his will. He was kept in a nursing home for ten months, until a Superior Court judge in Connecticut, citing “a terrible miscarriage of justice,” granted his petition for a writ of habeas corpus and ordered him released. This lawsuit stems from that unfortunate series of events.

It is alleged that a probate court judge signed a facially impossible order that did not comply with the law; the court-appointed attorney disregarded Gross’s wishes to return to his home in New York; the court-appointed conservator forcibly kept Gross in a nursing home, against medical advice; and a nursing home housed Gross with a violent roommate who attacked him. The complaint further alleges that defendant Maggie Ewald, Connecticut’s Long-Term Care Ombudsman at the time, did not act on complaints about Gross’s treatment at the nursing home because of concerns about adverse publicity.

These allegations, if true, might make out a case against the defendants. However, Judge Thomas P. Brunnock, Conservator Kathleen Donovan, Attorney Jonathan Newman, and Grove Manor Nursing Home, Inc. (“Grove Manor”) have asserted absolute immunity to suit: Brunnock has asserted judicial immunity and the other three have asserted quasi-judicial immunity. The District Court agreed and dismissed all claims against those defendants.

The federal common law defense of quasi-judicial immunity applies to Gross’s federal claims, and the similar but distinct state common law defense of quasi-judicial immunity applies to Gross’s state law claims. Connecticut state law is unsettled as to quasi-judicial immunity. Therefore, we certify questions to the Connecticut Supreme Court on the state law claims.

On the federal law claims, we apply the multi-factor test for quasi-judicial immunity set forth by the Supreme Court. However, in this case, application of those factors involves unsettled questions of Connecticut state statutory and common law. Therefore, we ask the Connecticut Supreme Court for its guidance as to these factors. Upon receiving its response, we will decide the federal claims.

Quasi-judicial immunity applies only to Donovan, Newman, and Grove Manor. We affirm the grant of judicial immunity as to Brunnock

The pertinent statute requires the probate court, as a threshold matter, to give the respondent seven days’ notice in any application for an involuntary conservatorship. CONN. GEN.STAT. ANN. § 45a-649(a).^[2] In addition, the notice must be served on the respondent or, if doing so “would be detrimental to the health or welfare of the respondent,” his attorney. Id. § 45a-649 (a)(1)(A). The statute makes no provision for giving notice to the respondent other than by personal service or service upon his attorney.

On August 25, 2005, Judge Thomas P. Brunnock issued an order of notice of a hearing to be held on September 1, 2005, in connection with Limauro’s application. On August 30, 2005, the notice was served on Limauro. However, as the Connecticut Superior Court pointed out in the subsequent habeas proceeding, there was no indication that Gross himself ever received notice of the September 1 proceeding. The parties do not dispute that (1) Gross was entitled to notice of the hearing, (2) he should have been given at least seven days’ notice, pursuant to Section 45a-649(a), and (3) the order dated August 25, 2005, specified that Gross should be served by August 24.

A Superior Court judge would later say that Newman’s conclusion that there was no legal basis for objecting to the involuntary conservatorship “completely blows my mind,” that there was “[n]o support for it,” and that “it just defies imagination…. This was counsel for Mr. Gross and it is obvious to me that he grossly under and misrepresented Mr. Gross at the time.” J.A. 115.

On September 1, 2005, Brunnock appointed Kathleen Donovan as conservator to manage Gross’s person and estate. Connecticut state law provides that the probate court must require a probate bond and, “if it deems it necessary for the protection of the respondent, [it may] require a bond of any conservator” as well. CONN. GEN.STAT. ANN. § 45a-650(g). Donovan never posted a bond.

In April of 2006, Gross was on an authorized day visit to Long Island. While there, he experienced chest pains and was admitted to a hospital. According to the complaint, Donovan came to Long Island with an ambulance and insisted that Gross be returned to Connecticut. When the doctor indicated that this was medically unwise, Donovan nonetheless removed Gross from the hospital against his wishes and returned him to the locked ward at Grove Manor.

Gross alleges in his complaint that there was no reason to put him in the locked ward. He further alleges that Ewald, the state ombudsman, and Donovan, the conservator, were aware of these problems but failed to take steps to alleviate them. The parties do not dispute that Donovan obtained from Brunnock ex parte orders limiting Gross’s contact with family and with counsel; Gross claims that there was no evidence suggesting that such contact was harmful to him. We are very troubled 78*78 by one such order in particular. According to Gross’s complaint, this order restricted Gross’s daughter’s ability to visit him: the visits were required to be on-premises, only once per day, for no longer than one hour. Strangely, it also prohibits her from bringing “any recording devices (visual and/or audio) into Grove Manor Nursing Home.” The restrictive nature of the order, and the prohibition on the use of recording devices, gives credence to Gross’s allegation that there was a conspiracy to deprive him of his rights—and potentially, to prevent the exposure of such injustices.

On June 9, 2006, Gross filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in Connecticut Superior Court. A hearing was held on July 12. Brunnock moved to dismiss, making the (rather remarkable) argument that habeas relief was unnecessary because, if the Probate Court acted without jurisdiction, the conservatorship was void ab initio and Gross could leave Grove Manor at any time. The Superior Court granted the writ:

[O]ut of an absolute caution that somebody else may come in and file [an] appearance in this case, I’m going to grant the writ of habeas corpus[;] I’m going to find in accordance with the statute that he has—is and has been, since September 1, been deprived of his liberty. And at the time of his—of his appointment of the conservator of both his person and his estate, Probate Court lacked the jurisdiction on the basis that he was not a domiciliary and/or a resident of the [S]tate of Connecticut. The conservatorship is terminated as a result of the decision on the habeas corpus and Mr. Gross is free to leave here today.

Gross is asserting federal and state law claims against state officials. The doctrine of judicial and quasi-judicial immunity is, in the main, a creation of the U.S. Supreme Court with regard to federal claims and thus a federal law doctrine. The cases support employing the federal defense of quasi-judicial immunity as against federal claims. However, Gross had also pled state law claims against state defendants. 80*80 Connecticut has adopted tests for judicial and quasi-judicial immunity that are nearly identical to the federal law tests. However, the state law doctrine is conceptually distinct from the federal law doctrine.

The cases indicate that the federal common law on judicial immunities applies even to state officials when they are sued in federal court on federal claims. See Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967) (§ 1983 action against local police officers and judges); Tucker v. Outwater, 118 F.3d 930 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 997, 118 S.Ct. 562, 139 L.Ed.2d 402 (1997) (§ 1983 action against New York town justice). We apply this federal test even when the substantive inquiry involves state law. See Tucker, 118 F.3d at 932

Once again, we look to Connecticut law to determine if conservators and court-appointed attorneys for conservatees are entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity, and, if so, under what circumstances. Connecticut law, like federal law, employs a “functional” approach to quasi-judicial immunity. See Carrubba v. Moskowitz, 274 Conn. 533, 542-43, 877 A.2d 773 (2005) (employing a test derived from Butz, 438 U.S. at 513-17, 98 S.Ct. 2894). Carrubba involved state claims (emotional distress and malpractice) against a court-appointed counsel for a minor child. Id. at 536, 877 A.2d 773. The Connecticut Supreme Court noted that Butz involved claims brought under federal law pursuant to § 1983. See id. at 542. However, the Carrubba court did not suggest that the test should be any different when state law claims were at issue, as they were in that case. See id. (stating that it was adopting the Supreme Court’s test for quasi-judicial immunity to determine whether attorneys appointed as counsel for minor children “should be accorded absolute immunity under [Connecticut] state common law”).

Therefore, we certify questions to the Connecticut Supreme Court so that it may decide whether conservators and court-appointed attorneys for conservatees may assert quasi-judicial immunity as to state claims, and the scope of any such immunity, as a matter of state law. The state court’s pronouncement as to those questions will be final.

Even judicial immunity, which provides judges with very broad protection, may be overcome if the judge acts in the clear absence of all jurisdiction or if he is not acting in his judicial capacity. See, e.g., Tucker, 118 F.3d at 933 (citing cases). It may be the case that quasi-judicial immunity may similarly be overcome: for example, if the plaintiff alleges that the actions a defendant took were discretionary (as opposed to in strict compliance with court orders), undertaken in bad faith, intentional torts, etc.

Plaintiff makes several claims against Brunnock, including violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, conspiracy (per 42 U.S.C. § 1985), violation of due process rights, abuse of process, and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. It is unnecessary to parse the specifics of each claim because the only issue on appeal is immunity. We affirm the grant of judicial immunity as to the judge.

“A judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority; rather, he will be subject to liability only when he has acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978) (internal quotation marks omitted and emphasis added). The critical question is whether he had jurisdiction. Id. at 356, 98 S.Ct. 1099. However, there is a difference between exceeding jurisdiction and acting in the absence of jurisdiction:

if a probate judge, with jurisdiction over only wills and estates, should try a criminal case, he would be acting in the clear absence of jurisdiction and would not be immune from liability for his action; on the other hand, if a judge of a criminal court should convict a defendant of a nonexistent crime, he would merely be acting in excess of his jurisdiction and would be immune.

Here, it is undisputed that Brunnock had the power to adjudicate conservatorship applications. The defect arose out of the erroneous conclusion that Gross was a resident of Connecticut. This erroneous legal conclusion is insufficient to strip the judge of immunity.

For the reasons discussed above, we hold that Brunnock is entitled to judicial immunity on state law claims.

Thus, Brunnock did not act in the clear absence of subject matter jurisdiction, and he was not aware of the defects in personal jurisdiction, making judicial immunity appropriate. We therefore affirm the District Court’s grant of judicial immunity to Brunnock and its dismissal of all claims against him.^[8]

Gross pleads several federal and state law claims against the former conservator, Kathleen Donovan: conspiracy pursuant to § 1985, violation of his right to due process, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of fiduciary duty, false arrest and tortious assault, and false imprisonment. The District Court dismissed all of these claims, concluding that Donovan, as a court-appointed conservator acting pursuant to the Probate Court’s order, was entitled to quasi-judicial immunity. The District Court wrote,

Donovan’s argument to extend Judge Brunnock’s judicial immunity to her actions is a simple one as the law is clear and well established. Donovan was acting as an agent of the Probate Court, at the direction and under the supervision of Judge Brunnock. If Judge Brunnock is immune from suit, than [sic] Donovan as conservator acting as his agent or at his direction must be immune.

However, we are not of the view that “the law is clear and well-established.” To the contrary, as we read them, the statutes and case law in Connecticut do not sufficiently enable us to analyze the factors set forth by the Supreme Court in deciding when an individual is entitled to quasi-judicial immunity.

At the outset, we note that Donovan is correct: courts are willing to 88*88 extend absolute judicial immunity to those who “perform functions closely associated with the judicial process.” Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 200, 106 S.Ct. 496, 88 L.Ed.2d 507 (1985). Those who seek this absolute immunity bear the burden of demonstrating that public policy requires such a broad exemption from suit. See id. at 201, 106 S.Ct. 496. The Supreme Court has set forth a “functional” approach to determine whether a particular individual is entitled to quasi-judicial immunity. The factors include

(a) the need to assure that the individual can perform his functions without harassment or intimidation; (b) the presence of safeguards that reduce the need for private damages actions as a means of controlling unconstitutional conduct; (c) insulation from political influence; (d) the importance of precedent; (e) the adversary nature of the process; and (f) the correctability of error on appeal.

Indeed, Connecticut law seems to recognize that, in certain circumstances, conservators can be liable for their official actions. First, a probate court is required by statute to require the posting of a probate bond if it appoints a conservator for the estate of a respondent. See CONN. GEN.STAT. ANN. § 45a-650(g). The court also has the ability, in its discretion, if it appoints a conservator of the person, to require the conservator to post a bond “for the protection of the respondent.” Id

For the reasons discussed above, the District Court’s decision is AFFIRMED in part and CERTIFIED in part to the Connecticut Supreme Court. We affirm the grant of judicial immunity as to Brunnock and the dismissal of the claims against Rell and Ewald. We also affirm the dismissal of the emotional distress claims against Grove Manor.

However, because there is no controlling appellate decision, constitutional provision, or statute in Connecticut that explains whether conservators and court-appointed attorneys for conservatees enjoy quasi-judicial immunity, we certify the following questions to the Connecticut Supreme Court:

1. Under Connecticut law, does absolute quasi-judicial immunity extend to conservators appointed by the Connecticut Probate Courts?

2. Under Connecticut law, does absolute quasi-judicial immunity extend to attorneys appointed to represent respondents in conservatorship proceedings or to attorneys appointed to represent Conservatees?

see the article here:

http://journal-neo.org/2014/10/03/the-dance-of-deception-part-two-the-us-holocaust-museum-caught-covering-up-reports-of-genocide/

I agree with the reporter, Janet Phelan that Hitler’s T4 program started with disabled, unwanted infants, then progressed to older children whom the gas chambers were created because they fought their own death, unlike disabled infants and toddlers, and after that, gas chambers were quickly adapted for disabled and then undesired adults.

Nothing was in writing, there was no documentation. And the T4 evil plan was not utilized in heavily Catholic areas.

It seems that the holocaust museums are just that–stone buildings waiting for another disaster where one human group enmass imprisons and kills off another “undesired” group.

It’s sad that it’s easy to kill off deformed infants and the elderly.  It speaks horrors of modern society.

Further, there is an old saying. and interestingly enough it is from the US Holocaust Museum:

Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) was a prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps.

Niemöller is perhaps best remembered for the quotation:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

So, should the museum delete that page if they do not speak out against those that falsely imprison, drain estates and then kill off the elderly?

Thanks for the great article, Janet

From Citizens Unite for Justice:

https://www.facebook.com/denise.rotheimer/media_set?set=a.10202332304100240.1073741827.1571072851&type=1&l=5603a5ba24

I hope to publish the video of the speakers soon also.

From: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 2:33 PM
Subject: 18 USCA 4 Retaliation Complaint pursuant to Americans with Disabilities
To: “ComplaintAdmin ADA (CRT)” <ada.complaintadmin@usdoj.gov>, Eric Holder <askdoj@usdoj.gov>, Probate Sharks <verenusl@gmail.com>, Harry Heckert <vahrh1135@aol.com>, “J. Ditkowsky” <jdit@aol.com>, “JoAnne M. Denison” <joanne@justice4every1.com>, Tim NASGA <timlahrman@aol.com>, Nasga Us <nasga.org@gmail.com>, Matt Senator Kirk <matt_abbott@kirk.senate.gov>, Chicago FBI <chicago@ic.fbi.gov>
Cc: Janet Phelan <janet_c_phelan@yahoo.com>, “FBI- ( (” <civilrights.cv@ic.fbi.gov>, BILL DITKOWSKY <drditkowsky@aol.com>

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Oct 1, 2014 10:56 PM
To: “timlahrman@aol.com” , “gloami@msn.com” , “ADACoordinator@IllinoisCourts.gov” , “ComplaintAdmin ADA (CRT)”
Cc: Probate Sharks , Harry Heckert , “J. Ditkowsky” , “JoAnne M. Denison” , Nasga Us , Eric Holder , Matt Senator Kirk , Chicago FBI , Janet Phelan , “FBI- ( (” , Chicago Tribune , SUNTIMES , BILL DITKOWSKY , Ginny Johnson , Illinois ARDC , “Y. ACLU” , FOX News Network LLC , Bev Cooper , Diane Nash , ISBA Main Discussion Group , Fiduciary Watch , Barbara Stone , Edward Carter , Cook Sheriff , Cook County States Attorney , “tips@cbschicago.com” , The Wall Street Journal , “Mr. Lanre Amu — Honest Atty Unfairly Persecuted By ARDC” , 60m Cbs News <60m@cbsnews.com>, “Jim (” , Sam Sugar , Nancy Vallone , Elaine Renoire , Glenda Martinez , Jay Goldman
Subject: Re: this is interesting — ADA page at Illinois Supreme Court

I believe the photos tell the best story that I took and each of us stood in front of various video recorders and gave  short story to the media, of how the court system has grossly failed them. Interestingly enough, the Roosevelt college project on “Stop Mass Incarceration” was next to us and they also had some harrowing tales of incarcerations without justification. Some 2% of the US population is now incarcerated at any given time, and many times it is not for the violent crimes of rape, robbery, theft, arson, but for petty drug and disobedience offenses.

It’s time to stop that nonsense also.  We don’t need to railroad more people into our nation’s prisons.

And remember, when you see these pictures, each is of a court room victim with a harrowing story.

And I would like to give a special thanks to Denise Rothmeier who put this together with the Libertarian candidate who also will appear on the videos soon as I get them.

Thanks to all that turned out at the rally so the public can see there is great unrest of grave concern in the Illinois state Court System that simply cannot be suppressed.  We, the People of the US will take to the streets.

I know this is short notice, but Denise Rothmeier and Unite for Justice wants to start a Justice in the Courts Ralley at 4:30 tomorrow. Music will start at 4 pm and we’ll be making up tunes for justice.  Ride sharing any one?  I will be leaving from Niles at 3 pm.  Others are looking for south suburban rides.  Please email me at joanne@justice4every1.com

Suggested songs:

1)  Where have all the Flowers Gone

2) Amazing Grace

3) Get on board little Children (and fight for human rights)

4) Simple song of freedom (Bobby Darin)

and others.  bring your own music too!

bring posters for justice and be ready to show you support justice at the daley center.

thanks

joanne

From Denise Rothmeier:

           
          “Under
            a democratic republic the people across our state have a
            right to hold their elected officials accountable, not
            unaccountable! That’s why I am standing with Unite for
            Justice today and invite you to do the same,” says,
            Libertarian Candidate for Illinois Governor, Chad
        Grim.

           
          “We
            are pursuing public policy that will enforce our
            Constitutional right to remedy and justice in the laws for
            all injuries and wrongs by government officials. Our
            Constitutional right mandates that we shall obtain justice
            by law, freely, completely, and promptly,” says Denise
            Rotheimer, founder of Mothers On a Mission to Stop Violence
            and legislative author of Jasmine’s Law and the Victims’
            Rights Sign-Off Sheet. “Currently, victims of the system
            have no access to the courts to seek justice because the
            laws deny us a cause of action.”

           
          “My
            sons Rosendo and Juan Hernandez are innocent,” says Esther
            Hernandez, founder of Innocent Demand Justice. “They have
            both spent 17 years in prison for a crime they did not
            commit. Juan’s son is fourteen years old and he has had to
            grow up without his father at home. This injustice has
            caused our entire family to endure severe hardship. My fight
            for justice will not end until both of my sons return home
            and my grandson is able to go to a baseball game with his
            dad.”

           
          “I
            am the mother of two, now adult sons. We have been the
            victims of government-based, racketeering activity in
            Illinois’ family court system for over a decade. No Illinois
            State or Federal officials have taken the point to stop the
            now fully verified crimes taking place in Illinois’ family
            court system on the taxpayers’ tab. Enough to the Illinois’
            ‘Pay-to-Play Parenthood’ Family Courts,” says Dr. Sheila
            Mannix, co-founder of Illinois Family Court Accountability
            Advocates.

An excellent paper forwarded to me by a blog fan.

Thanks so much

http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1533&context=facpub

As you are aware, an order was entered by Judge MacCarthy which rendered Joel Handler’s $4,000 judgment against Janie “unenforceable.”

When Atty Carrie Fung of the OPG was told by Judge O’Brien in 1401 that she was to give the key to storage to Atty Handler so he could assess and manage these assets–and he is a judgment creditor, it seems she did not like the order of Judge O’Brien, so Carrie Fung went and filed a 27 page 150 paragraph motion in court room 1804 to invalidate are more than 2 year old judgment that Atty Handler had obtained in June of 2014.

Hmmm.  Interesting.

Obviously I have to file objections to the entry of a void ab initio order (void from the outset) because I don’t want it to appear my client is condoning such behavior (and liability), but Mr. Handler says it well to Ms. Fung–what on this green earth is she thinking?

I guess Judge MacCarthy can just blame everything on Ms. Fung because she wrote the order and Ms. Fung wrote the motion, etc., but 1804 is still her courtroom.

Here is Mr. Handler’s letter:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwMTRZTkZ5M1lWRFU/edit?usp=sharing

I will publish a response if I get one.

Also, here is Carrie Fung’s Motion she sent out, which of course is in the wrong format and waayyy too long.

Perhaps Judge MacCarthy is more favorable to grant motions by the pound, even if there is no jurisdiction, because Ms. Fung definitely showed she was good at writing motions by the pound.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwMGxKY29lZ194UEU/edit?usp=sharing

I didn’t put up the entire motion because it contained a lot of bank account records with account numbers on the statements and the rule is you’re not supposed to file documents with bank account records, so I left those out. For some reason Ms. Fung does not redact.  The rules are you must remove bank account numbers and social security numbers prior to filing.

This is a great article that does a wonderful job pointing out of the many fair and just issues that this blog was created to address–allowing seniors to die in their own homes instead of nursing homes.

I know that this isn’t the only blog posting that is entitled “A Father’s Last Dying Wish” but I am very glad that Joseph Andrey’s daughter, Stephanie was able to get some great publicity.  I wish her well and all the others that are trying to keep parents out of nursing homes when the parents never wanted to be there in their final days. Good luck to her.

According to this article in the Chicago Tribune, before purchasing a nursing home, Rauner’s health care company had only $150,000 in total declared liabilites.

After some years of mismanagement his liabilities rose exponentially:

Jannotta, GTCR and other onetime owners of Trans Healthcare are defendants in the bankruptcy case, accused by plaintiffs’ attorneys of selling the chain in a complicated transaction to dodge liability for what grew to more than $1 billion in tentative wrongful death judgments secured by the estates of several nursing home patients. GTCR attorneys argue that the firm was far removed from the operation of the nursing homes in question and contend the plaintiffs’ lawyers are on a fishing expedition to extract payouts from deep-pocketed businesses.

And perhaps that is the problem, everyone is “far removed” from taking proper care of nursing home patients.

Read the article here:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-bruce-rauner-nursing-home-trial-0928-20140926-story.html

But the real problem is, we are building more and more nursing homes and assisted care centers and we are pushing the need to find bodies for these institutions in lieu of in home care.

I was at the nursing homes when my father had to be ther, when my grandfather had to be there, and when our church did a lot of volunteer work?  What do you see and hear?  Residents pushed up in wheel chairs in front of a TV, that’s all.  If you talk to them, they all want to go home, if not to their own home, then to a child.

China has a law an adult child must visit an elderly parent.  The parents like the law.  Perhaps the US should push some of that and get these elderly people back into their own home or into the home of a caring relative.

As most of you know, I am completely dedicated to pro bono work and promoting it among attorneys. I believe cases should be taken on the merits and not on basis of money alone.  I know we all need to pay rent, utilities, staff and so forth, but there are many people with severe violations of human and civil rights, and loss of liberties too great to ignore.

I do believe that the courts should be provided with Public Defenders, according to income, where the loss of all money and housing is in question.

so the ISBA has an online pledge and I have taken it and I have also posted a bio on their website that features humanitarian legal services.

I hope other attorneys are inspired to do this and that the public encourages attys to do more pro bono or low cost legal work

the site:

The Rape of the Ward

Read the article and you will see direct parallels to what is going on in probate, the zoning board, hospitals, senior centers, “in home” and “in institution” senior/disable servicing–you name it.

Direct Parallels.

1) Don’t fight with the authorities, instead recruit them (the higher the better) to be your enforcers.  In the elder cleansing model, that means recruit certain doctors, tied in agencies (you can never get away from them, they’re on secret lists) be sure all the lawyers are ex-states attorneys or ex-Office of Public guardian so no matter what they do, no one will prosecute their buddies or alumni, also keep them on secret lists.

2)  give the appearance of “all is well”, discount deaths as being something else or for the good of keeping the community safe.  The deaths of Lydia Tyler, DB, Steven Jaycox, Alice Gore will never be investigated because the attorneys involved (“the enforcers who came from the dark side) are all operating with impunity.  No one cares that Alice Gore had her 29 gold teeth pulled about 3 years ago right before she died and no one will exhume that body.

3) When confronted, denigrate and spread rumors about your opponent which are carefully crafted to defame them through “enforcer channels”–the local police, whatever it takes.

thanks Judy, I learned a lot.

JoAnne

I will be making about 10 picket signs today.  Let me know if you want one (email me) and what you want on your sign.

These signs are easily made by sandwiching a plaster lathe from home depot (cost about 50 cents in bulk) between two foam boards and securing with plenty of hot glue.  Both the foam board and the plaster lathe can be purchased at Home Depot or Menards or Lowe’s.  CVS has great permanent poster board markers.

I generally decorate my signs with glitter paints (CVS) and crocheted fuzzy yarns (Michaels).

Support the economy and justice today by making a picket sign for Justice, the Bill of Rights, Jurisdiction–whatever.  The 18th floor of Probate is good to inform with these signs, so is family law court where custody and visitation should be joint.

JoAnne

For Immediate Release:
Unite for Justice meeting
Saturday, September 20, 2014 at 1:00 p.m.
Daley Center, Chicago

A group of domestic victims will gather in front of the Daley Center to discuss their experience of injustice by government officials within the court system.

Denise Rotheimer, author of Jasmine’s Law and the Victims’ Rights Sign-Off Sheet, organized a meeting with dozens of individuals who shared their grievances after becoming victimized by the system.  “The child welfare system is supposed to protect our children not break up the homes of innocent families. Who really protects the rights of the working poor from a system that fails us?” asks Lakisha Tanna, LCSW, Social worker.

Phillip Rotheimer, Vietnam Veteran and father of Adam Rotheimer, continues to question how Lake County authorities had a right to arrest his son without jurisdiction and hold him in a jail cell for forty days as a direct result of the malicious prosecution by formerly disgraced Lake County State’s Attorney Michael J. Waller.  “I served my duty as a Military Police Officer in the Vietnam war to protect the homeland and stop the spread of communism. Yet, I wasn’t able to protect my own son from becoming victimized by the system.” The criminal charge against Rotheimer was dismissed and his federal suit against Lake County officials is still pending.

“Our courts must work for the best interest of all people. Families must be united rather than broken apart. Our families are the foundation of society. The elders must be protected from the ‘Probate Sharks,’ their hard earned assets belong to them and their families and not to the army of unnecessary service providers. Equal access to justice and equal justice for all are human Rights, declares Attorney ’Lanre Amu whose law license was wrongfully suspended for exposing judicial corruption in Illinois.

Jasmine Jimenez, survivor of child sexual violence and recent law school graduate of Cambridge University in England, recalls her crusade for justice. “I was 12-years when I told the prosecutor that I would testify in court if it meant bringing the rapist to justice. But I never had the opportunity to speak. The prosecutor agreed to a plea deal without my knowledge and against my expressed wishes. After Jasmine’s Law was enacted,  in my junior year at Washington and Lee University, I filed a federal law suit to declare the Crime Victims’ Rights laws unconstitutional because the statutes deny victims of violent crime of our individual right to due process. As a victim of violent crime, I became a second-class citizen and was further victimized by the system.”
Attorneys Ken Ditkowksy and Joanne Denison who have spoken out against corruption in the Cook County Court system vociferously have also been targets of retaliation. Both attorneys have made it known that “groups of judges have acted so outrageously denying certain public members their human and civil rights,  that such injustices could not be tolerated in a democratic society. The grievances by the public there are many,” says  Ms. Denison.  “I am presently awaiting  ‘discipline’  having been convicted by an ARDC (kangaroo tribunal) of ‘misconduct’  for merely running a blog that speaks the truth.  Mr. Dtikowsky was suspended for 4 years.  These injustices cannot be tolerated in an open, free and democratic society.”
Contact: Denise Rotheimer at 847-406-8566 or email denise@momsv.org

very good post!  thanks so much.

Also, notice the conversion of the dog Hannah. If any of you are there are animal rights activists, you might want to represent me in court.  The deal with Hannah (and I told the GAL’s this) is that she was Peanut’s sister, she was given to Mary as a therapy animal, and she was to be returned to me or Gloria if or when Mary passes.

My dog Peanut is Hannah’s sister and they love each other dearly (I would like Sherri Brenner to take pics of them at play if we can get visitation from CT).

I am deeply upset and disappointed that CT is engaging in conversion of Hannah, and HAD HER INSERTED WITH ANOTHER AVID CHIP!  Hannah is already chipped, like Peanut with Home Again. The rechipping is a blatant conversion of precious property–mine and Gloria’s..

See also in the order how ALL OF THE LIQUIDATION OF MARY’S ASSETS, contrary to what the GAL’s have said in court, are going to the attorneys.  Tens of thousands of dollars, and what does Mary get for her care–zippo.

please see the court orders below:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwYjR1UkxKTEJQV28/edit?usp=sharing

and once again I note that we publish EVERYTHING. the ardc does not.  they don’t do ethics reporting which they are mandated to do under the Illinois Ethics Act of 2009 and they do not publish their salaries as do 99% of other Illinois state agencies.

What is up with that?

The Illinois public, which has suffered as THE MOST CORRUPT STATE IN THE NATION, deserves a whole lot better.

I’m just saying

JoAnne

The following is what Gloria had to say:

DEAR ALL,

On the 15th of September, attorneys Peter Schmiedel and Adam Stern (Cynthia Farenga did not appear) and Carolyn Toerpe hurried the court (in less than 5 minutes) to sign the attached 14 pages of orders, in order to create the illusion that they can launder money for their personal financial gain — and make certain that I was not present, to object, and be part of the record.  Of course I didn’t receive 10 day notice or even copies of all of the documents, including but not limited to Toerpe’s (you know, the alleged psychologist, PhD, who signed the initial CCP211 Toerpe filed with the court)  REPORT on my Mother’s health, Fee petitions from Stern, Schmiedel and Bryne and other attorneys from Fischel and Kahn (Deborah Jo Soehlig and Mr. Manning, who neither represented Toerpe the Guardian, or my mother’s estate (although Deborah Jo Soehlig told Judge Darrah in the U.S. District Court she represented my Mother Estate)).  As normal for Toerpe, Toerpe claimed that Mother’s health had declined so much that Mother was in need of serious 24/7 care, (which means that now that Toerpe and company got all of mother’s money, all of my money, as Dr. Bloom stated, Toerpe will “murder” my mother either by over or under medication or suffocation, and will then cremate Mother, to hide any proof of abuse and wrongful death/murder.  All of this comes on the heals of the Naperville Police having eyes on Mother in June 2014, and finding mother highly articulate, very healthy (and she’s 95).  Interesting that Toerpe refused to let the police have eyes on Mother this past weekend, Toerpe telling the police that they could see mom if they wanted, but as Guardian she could prevent them from doing so.  In any event, the truth is, Toerpe didn’t want “eyes” on mother because she did not want yet another police report by the Naperville Police reporting how healthy, and without dementia, my mother still is. It’s just too bad that the Naperville Police, who I’ve copied, refuse to learn the laws, including the Probate Act of 1975, and the ADA title II and DOJ Regulations.

Their reactions in the Sykes case is supported by all of the fraud on the court perpetrated by Stern, Farenga, Schmiedel, Bryne, and Toerpe.  I swear none of these people have said anything of fact or truth in the Probate Court, Chancery Court, U.S. District Court, Bankruptcy Court, or even to law enforcement.  They are, what Dr. Peck calls, “People of the Lie”.  Unfortunately LIARS as these people are, are not considered mentally ill, although Peck argues that as sociopaths, People of the Lie who harm others, are definitely mentally ill. LOOK AT AND TAKE A HARD READ of Stern, Farenga’s and Schmiedel’s “MEMORANDUM AGREEMENT” (attached).  There may be a few words of truth, but at first, second or third read, there’s so many lies, that even the ounce of truth is hidden.  From the beginning of their memorandum, they omit that Toerpe is the Respondent to an order of protection authored by my mother, and then, go on to say that Stern was appointed special guardian because Cynthia Farenga was out of town, et al.  We all know that Cynthia Farenga didn’t appear as she wrote in the fax to the court, because she hadn’t put eyes on mother, and more important, mother had not been served summons or notice, and mother was living in DuPage County, not Cook County.  I don’t have the time to go point by point, but please publish this document, as the RECORD does not support one word they say!

But then this is how it’s been for a long, long time.  It’s been all about Gloria  — me — who has done this and that, including having stole $1.3 million dollars from my mother, while Stern and Farenga knew or should have known Toerpe was the abuser and financial exploiter.  BTW I also just bought a ‘flashy new Lexis” in 2009 with my mother’s money, and ****.  I’m still driving my 1999 1/2 Infiniti QX4 that I bought in August 1999. (Infiniti didn’t make a 2000, so I guess in reality this is a 2000)

Curious, the order reads that Stern is asking for $66,000 which is at this time the same amount he owes the IRS for the Lien now on his very expensive home. [see property records published in other posts on this blog] Stern Farenga and Schmiedel said they were already paid a combined total of about $100,000 from the sale of Mother’s (my) home, 6014, you know the one they sold for cash $238,000, (50% less than the value of the property) and not one penny from the $238,000 was inventoried. (The home was sold in 2013, May, and the attached inventory is for 2013).

Apparently Mother is not living in Toerpe’s home or is bussed out every day so Toerpe can enjoy her retirement with her unemployed-forever husband.  All said, Mother has complete medical, dental and prescription drug coverage with Blue Cross Blue Shield and he City of Chicago, and yet, look at all the medical bills mother’s paid for….. They certainly do not reflect the 5 Wellness Checks from 2013 where mother was always found in good health, alert, communicative, and without dementia.

In any event, Stern, Bryne and Schmiedel refused to send me a copy of the attached 14 pages of Order and ya gotta wonder why.  The answer is simple.  if I read certain case law correct,  orders granting fee petitions are final and therefore, appealable.

.
BUT THERE’S ANOTHER REASON THEY DIDN’T WANT ME TO HAVE THE FINAL ORDER(S).  Look at the last few pages of the order, the two pages before the order granting Fischel and Kahn another $45,000.  It’s the transfer orders for the 2009 Petition for an order of Protection.  Yep. Although there is a transfer order from another case (I’m looking up), Stern, Schmiedel and Bryne probably convinced the court that the OP was against me!!!  Even thought it says  Mary G. Sykes v. Carolyn Sykes-Toerpe!

Finally, and not to further waste anybody’s time, as all ya gotta do is read this crap and you can see that it’s just that, LIES and crap, apparently the entire $260,000 was removed from the Probate Clerk’s account some time ago, and there is no transfer from that account, where Stuart wrote an order that only $50,000 was to be disbursed to Toerpe.  The order reads that everything comes out of the Estate of Mary G. Sykes, which is — wait, wait, wait… in the U.S. Bank  — ya know he same bank where mother had all of her accounts (3) and over $25,000, plus the safe bank box.  I cannot find any account with my mother’s name, or as i should, The Estate of Mary G. Sykes, at U.S. Bank.

Its really telling why Stern, Schmiedel and Toerpe refused to send me a copy of the final orders stealing my money, and why Health Report Toerpe submitted on Mother was not an original, and was redacted and restricted, and I cannot get a copy from the Clerk’s office too.  it’s also telling that Stern never sent me a copy of his fee petition.  Even a challenged child could connect the dots.

PLEASE POST and cross post the entire 14 pages of orders I got from MacCarhy’s clerk.  And please, everybody put in a request for a Wellness Check on my mother.  If she is in hospice, as it is believed a person who was sitting in the courtroom heard, then my mother will be or is dead by murder.  As Dr. Bloom reports, when the money runs out, or after the guardian and others get all of the Ward’s money, the elderly or disabled are either over or under medicated,and or  suffocated and then cremated.  Word isn’t published for weeks or until way after the remains disappear.

I thought long and hard as to whether I would make public these documents and I’d be remiss to not to expose Toerpe and company for who they are.  If anybody wants to the facts, please contact me.  I’ll give you the page numbers in the Record which disproves everything Schmiedel, Stern and Farenga say.

And you wonder why they didn’t have notarized or swear to what they wroe in their Agreed Memorandum.   Enjoy the read.

see the orders at

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwYjR1UkxKTEJQV28/edit?usp=sharing

PS–from Joanne, I just got told in another 18th floor court room that family could not object to fee petitions because they had no standing (sister and only heir son). This is even more bizarre in light of the fact that the family hired this attorney, and they were to pay her. But in the midst of fights with the “appointed attorneys” she turned redcoat and dropped all her pleadings on behalf of the family to get paid $3700 our of the estate! And the judge said the family could not object!  amazing. Does anyone miss the irony of this?

Apparently China has an elderly population of some 200 million and increasingly children are not sticking around to care for grandma and grandpa.  The one child mandate has left many elderly without someone to care for them as adult children are pursuing their own goals of career and money–often hundreds of miles away.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/02/world/asia/china-elderly-law/

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-231243

While there doesn’t seem to be a penalty for foregoing frequent visits and phone calls, a person could be haled into court and filed or imprisoned or both.

It does seem like a law unlikely to be enforced, unless there is some tragedy that could have been prevented by frequent calls and visits.

A big thank you to Aleyce Russell for pointing out this significant new law to us.

—–Original Message—–
From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Sep 16, 2014 11:07 PM
To: “J. Ditkowsky” , “JoAnne M. Denison”
Cc: Harry Heckert , Probate Sharks , Tim NASGA , Nasga Us , Eric Holder , Matt Senator Kirk , Janet Phelan , Chicago FBI , Chicago Tribune , “FBI- ( (” , SUNTIMES , BILL DITKOWSKY , Ginny Johnson , Illinois ARDC , “ComplaintAdmin ADA (CRT)” , “Y. ACLU” , “Foxnews_7D7B711AF105DCA690AB56169C0FF242 (” , Scott Evans , Bev Cooper , Edward Carter , Diane Nash , ISBA Main Discussion Group , Cook County States Attorney , “Chicagotonight (” , Fiduciary Watch , Human Rights Watch , “tips@cbschicago.com” , Barbara Stone , “Mr. Lanre Amu — Honest Atty Unfairly Persecuted By ARDC” , The Wall Street Journal , “Jim (” , Sam Sugar , 60m Cbs News <60m@cbsnews.com>, Cook Sheriff , Martin Kozak , Rabbi Moshe Soloveitchik , Martha Jantho , Eric Blair , Len Holland , “JoAnne M. Denison” , Rudy Bush , “illinoislawyernow@isba.org” , Elaine Renoire , Alyece Russell , Kathie Bakken , ACLU of Illinois , “information@iardc.org” , Glenda Martinez , “Truthbetoldradio (” , Tom Fields , RosANNa Miller , Nancy Vallone , John Howard Wyman
Subject:
Today’s talk at the Northshore senior center had a dividend that I did not plan and did not anticipate.

As you know I have been suggesting that judicial corruption includes the situation in which a Judge is uninformed as to basic or core values.   Judge Connors in her evidence deposition illustrated the point when therein she demonstrated she had in fact never read the very act that she was administrating and which had an enormous effect on the lives of countless seniors.     I was discussing this type of situation and during the question and answer session a former Judge had the temerity to explain to me that a defendant can waive his or her personal jurisdiction.    Of course it can be, but not by an alleged incompetent.    No said the former judge – “ the guardian ad litem can waive jurisdiction!”

As we had an intelligent audience they were shocked!    This is basic!     If you are going to declare someone incompetent you have to protect their rights.    This means that actual service of process along with a copy of the complaint not only has to be accomplished, but a surrogate who has the interest of the alleged incompetent also has to be give prior notice.    Our Illinois Supreme Court and appellate court have both pointed out this prior 3 ^rd party notice is jurisdictional!   [See, In re Soldini and In re Seinfeld]/

The foregoing is Constitution 101.    The pre-teens who have to pass their Constitution test to go to high school have to know this fact – HOWEVER judges who are highly paid (as well as lawyers and lawyer regulators ) who we have encountered in relation to these cases, all appear ignorant of America’s core values.

Exactly how does a society survive when those persons who are charged with administrating the law lack a clue as to what it is, where to find it, and its basis.     It is no wonder that the public has no respect for the judicial system and the lawyers who are in charge.

Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

You can now turn your internet to http://www.americanvoiceradio.com to hear about recent troubles and issues in Illinois probate.

While our last Monday’s program was interrupted, we are hoping for continuous broadcast this week.

Check out the chat room–lots of sympathetic probate court and other court problem sufferers.  Make some new friends.

My comments last Monday can be found here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwQkxEaVdqeTRZM3c/edit?usp=sharing

Dear Readers;

What Ken and I and Mr. Amu have done is clearly whistleblowing, with a plethora of evidence, facts, affidavits and pleadings in our favor–overwhelmingly so.  We send them to the FBI, the states attorneys, and of course, the ARDC who conveniently ignore them.  Wait, that’s not entirely correct, what the ARDC does if you confront them with evidence of a serious felon perpretrated by a favored attorney or a judge, is they provide you or your client with a nonsensical answer–as in Sykes where Ms. Guzmann said that Adam Stern was Gloria’s guardian ad litem (a veiled threat to guardianize her, but that won’t happen, they made Gloria broke and penniless), and more recently Bev Cooper was told it looked like a “civil dispute” when her mother was isolated from 20 friends and family for 6 months before she died, 29 gold teeth were pulled, and she was dehydrated and starved to death and $1.5 million fell off that inventory.  In the case of Janie Thomas, were a loving, long term sister POA was removed by miscreants who “pretended” not to understand accountings done on Microsoft Money and took away her POA because a body attachment issued (Janie was in the nursing home at the time, so she could not attend church and none of the other court appointed attorneys did ANYTHING until I stepped in, but they blamed the POA, a loving sister regardless), now the family is isolated from her with an 8 to 3 Mon to Fri visiting order when before the family spent hours with her and a beloved neice and nephew are distraught they cannot take Janie to her favorite church, restaurant–or most likely ever see the light of day again.  I will file a complaint, but watch the reaction, it will be nonsensical.  The ARDC is currently pretending in the Owens/Thomas case that the POA does not exist.

Where cronyism is involved, favoritism, handing off business is concerned, the ARDC will just put any sort of words together and issue a letter in response, completely ignoring the problem and doing their job to properly investigate.  So if you get a response to your grievance against an attorney that makes no sense (Sykes, Gore, Owens-Thomas), you know you’re picking a scab and there’s something festering underneath.  If you do find yourself in this position, don’t give up hope, you have the email to the US Dept of Justice, you have the emails to State’s attorneys, etc. and keep on investigating yourself and turning over the information.  Seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened.  Just keep on going.  If the ARDC is sputtering nonsense, you know you’re on to something valuable.

Mr. Zimmerman, I understand was appointed by the SCOI to investigate the attorneys at the IARDC.  I recently learned he was appointed there by Gov. B, who is now in club fed med, and far as I can see, Mr. Z has no experience on how to do this, nor is he in fact doing anything about corruption and cronyism in the Illinois legal profession which is being hotly complained about by many.

This is nothing but First Amendment violations by Mr. Larkin, and unlike the Federal District Court, the violations are direct in that he files false charges against each of us claiming what we say is untrue when in fact the evidence is and has been published for all to see.

The filing of “other charge” against Mr. Ditkowsky for sending a letter to Dr. Patel and asking him for any information he might have that would help an investigation of Mary — for when he would appear, appearance form enclosed, are clearly retaliation charges.  The charges of misleading Dr. Patel are retaliation when they are facially deceptive.

The ARDC still does not publish a link to the letter, as does this blog.  They want to hide an obfuscate — using funds they collect which are entrusted to the public.

All of this qualifies for a qui tam action because Ken and I continually contact the authorities about the continuing string of felonies.

Accordingly, Mr. Ditkowsky offers the below safe harbor letter to Mr. Larkin.  Simply come clean and do what is right, and we will forego filing yet another law suit to clean up our precious courts so that we can take our clients there and expect the playing field to be level and the decisions well reasoned, just and fair.

I publish all the evidence to the public.  The ARDC does not.  They need to go to efiling on their cases and I will ask the SCOI to implement that.  The public needs to see every pleading, every motion to strike, the now apparent move to prevent even traditional motions of 2-615 and 2-619 for failure to state a claim, dismissal on other grounds.  They also strike all affirmative defenses.  In addition, they refuse Summary Judgment Motions–all of which is a waste of the funds they are entrusted with.  They quash subpoenas left and right.  Poor Mr. Amu not only could not file any of these traditional motions, but with no witnesses against him, his tribunal still found in favor of the ARDC.  How does this happen?  What sense of justice is that other than rubber stamp?  You have to have witnesses against any defendant or the case has to be dismissed.

Apparently not at the ARDC.

What Mr. Amu did was entirely proper.  The judges he complained of:  Chiola, Egan, etc. are notorious and 2 of the 3 reversed their decisions regardless based upon Mr. Amu hammering them for justice for his poor immigrant clients.

Of course, this would never happen at a large law firm that has political connections and jobs galore.  Don’t step on those toes.

But what it means is the sameole, sameole for the little guy out there.  The person of color, the immigrant, the person with an accent–their chances of seeing justice are greatly diminished and that’s not right or fair.  Lady Justice is blind, remember?

JoAnne

From: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
To: JoAnne M. Denison <joanne@justice4every1.com>; Probate Sharks <verenusl@gmail.com>; Harry Heckert <vahrh1135@aol.com>; J. Ditkowsky <jdit@aol.com>; Nasga Us <nasga.org@gmail.com>; Tim NASGA <timlahrman@aol.com>; Eric Holder <askdoj@usdoj.gov>; Matt Senator Kirk <matt_abbott@kirk.senate.gov>; Janet Phelan <janet_c_phelan@yahoo.com>; Chicago FBI <chicago@ic.fbi.gov>; Chicago Tribune <tips@tribune.com>; FBI- ( ( <civilrights.cv@ic.fbi.gov>; SUNTIMES <letters@suntimes.com>; BILL DITKOWSKY <drditkowsky@aol.com>; Ginny Johnson <ginny.johnsoncheeserings@gmail.com>; Cook County States Attorney <statesattorney@cookcountyil.gov>; Illinois ARDC <illinois.ardc@gmail.com>; ComplaintAdmin ADA (CRT) <ada.complaintadmin@usdoj.gov>; Y. ACLU <aclu@aclu.org>; Foxnews_7D7B711AF105DCA690AB56169C0FF242 ( <foxnews_7d7b711af105dca690ab56169c0ff242@newsletters.foxnews.com>; GLORIA Jean SYKES <gloami@msn.com>; Bev Cooper <bev.cooperscorner@yahoo.com>; Edward Carter <ecarter@atg.state.il.us>; Diane Nash <sa3456@msn.com>; ISBA Main Discussion Group <isba@list.isba.org>; Chicagotonight ( <chicagotonight@wttw.com>; Fiduciary Watch <fiduciarywatch@gmail.com>; Human Rights Watch <jana.neethi.7@facebook.com>; tips <tips@cbschicago.com>; Barbara Stone <bstone12@hotmail.com>; Mr. Lanre Amu — Honest Atty Unfairly Persecuted By ARDC <loamu@aol.com>; The Wall Street Journal <support@wsj.com>; Jim ( <jimdit@earthlink.net>; Candice Schwager <schwagerlawfirm@live.com>
Sent: Sat, Sep 13, 2014 4:00 pm
Subject: Re: $1000 of nonsense and corruption

Please tune in to americanvoiceradio.com and click on channel AVR1 at 11 pm Central Daylight Savings Time (Chicago Time) or 12 midnight Eastern DST.

I will be talking about my 5 or 6 worst cases in probate and what will help my chairty.

Let’s see if I can make a difference in probate at the 18th floor of the Daley center and across the nation.

Probate victims are popping up everywhere it seems.

JoAnne

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Sep 8, 2014 12:01 PM
To: “Dr. Sam Sugar” , Tim Lahrman
Subject: Re: Malpractice

From Lane v. Franks where an employer fired an employee for testifying against him when he was engaged in fraud, is the sworn testimony protected speech or ordinary speech?  SCOTUS held:

Lane’s sworn testimony outside the scope of his ordinary job duties is entitled to First Amendment protection. Pp. 6–13.
(a) Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township High School Dist. 205, Will Cty., 391 U. S. 563, 568, requires balancing “the interests of the[employee], as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.”Under the first step of the Pickering analysis, if the speech is made pursuant to the employee’s ordinary job duties, then the employee isnot speaking as a citizen for First Amendment purposes, and the inquiry ends. Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U. S. 410, 421. But if the “employee spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern,” the inquiryturns to “whether the relevant government entity had an adequatejustification for treating the employee differently from any other member of the general public.” Id., at 418. Pp. 6–8.
(b) Lane’s testimony is speech as a citizen on a matter of public concern. Pp. 8–12.
(1) Sworn testimony in judicial proceedings is a quintessential example of citizen speech for the simple reason that anyone who testifies in court bears an obligation, to the court and society at large, to tell the truth. That obligation is distinct and independent from any separate obligations a testifying public employee might have to his employer. The Eleventh Circuit read Garcetti far too broadly in holding that Lane did not speak as a citizen when he testified simply because he learned of the subject matter of that testimony in the course of his employment. Garcetti said nothing about speech that relates to public employment or concerns information learned in the course of that employment. The critical question under Garcetti is whether the speech at issue is itself ordinarily within the scope of an employee’s duties, not whether it merely concerns those duties. Indeed, speech by public employees on subject matter related to their employment holds special value precisely because those employees gain knowledge of matters of public concern through their employment. Pp. 9–11.
(2) Whether speech is a matter of public concern turns on the “content, form, and context” of the speech. Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 147–148. Here, corruption in a public program and misuseof state funds obviously involve matters of significant public concern. See Garcetti, 547 U. S., at 425. And the form and context of the speech—sworn testimony in a judicial proceeding—fortify that conclusion. See United States v. Alvarez, 567 U. S. ___, ___. Pp. 11–12.
(c)
Turning to Pickering’s second step, the employer’s side of the scale is entirely empty. Respondents do not assert, and cannot demonstrate, any government interest that tips the balance in their favor—for instance, evidence that Lane’s testimony was false or errorenousor that Lane unnecessarily disclosed sensitive, confidential, orprivileged information while testifying. Pp. 12–13.

Interestingly enough, an even more important question is whether the employee could seek damages from the employer and the government agency because could the employer have held a reasonable belief that his action was protected.  That, it turns out was a  question for another day because it was not part of the brief submitted to SCOTUS.

Nonetheless, the decision by SCOTUS was unanimous that government employees when speaking out against corruption do have First Amendment protection.

Ken’s Writ of Cert. has been submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Approximately 4,000+ Writs for Certiorari are submitted.  Only about 300 get a decision, with about 100 summary confirmations, another 100 short or slip opinions, and only around 70 get a full blown opinion.  Let’s hope and pray that Ken’s brief is considered and the decision of the ARDC dismissed on grounds similar to Lane v. Franks.

Read the entire opinion here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwVm03ZnBSWi1VdWs/edit?usp=sharing

The decision was unanimous and I think SCOTUS makes it clear that when speaking of corruption, very wide berth must be given to one’s First Amendment rights.