A major reason I was suspended from law is because this blog writes the truth.  I have seen far tooo many people ripped from their loved one because of a psychopathic guardian or ex partner.  Gloria Sykes saw her mother a handful of times during a 5 year abusive guardianship. The GALs continue to deny their highly abusive behavior to this day and have never apologized to Gloria, nor has the Guardian, her sister. That is horrid.

Randy Robinson, due to the nefarious activities of GAL Mary Robinson is highly unlikely to see his mother, though they both love one another greatly, they are isolated from one another unfairly and without remorse from either Mary Robinson or the court.

Alan Frake has been separated from his father by the court appointed lawyers and GAL and the court. Again, no remorse, and worse yet, Alan Frake has been the subject of illegal and tortuous psychotropic drugging and neither the GAL nor the court appointed attorneys seem to care.  My view of the bench is that it was a love fest between the judge and the attorneys and the judge routinely used a rubber stamp to deny this family their civil and human rights.

Barbara Stone also comes to mind with the huge separation between her and her beloved mother. When she protested, corrupt Judge Michael Genden put an ankle bracelet or two on her legs.  Nonetheless, she continued to fight for her mom’s rights, despite all odds, until they threatened to kill off her mother if she persisted.  I do not want to be in that courtroom the day her mother passes, but I can tell you that Barbara Stone is a veracious fighter for human and civil rights and there will be a flurry of pleadings from her.

I know others have written me crying about abusive Guardians, separating parent from child, abusing the parent in a probate proceeding or guardianship, and other parents have called me crying they cannot see a beloved child because of falsified Protective Orders from a psychopathic parent. When will the courts start testing for psychopathy of our politicians, and political appointees and their minions (Larkin, Opryszek, Smart), and the GALs that abuse and destroy lives, and the judges.  How hard is a PET brain scan for psychopathy.  The ARDC and bar licensing authorities pretend they have rigorous screening, but this test is not even mentioned before any professional gets a license and all should be tested–politicians, judges, lawyers, nurses, teachers, police–all control the lives of others and psychopaths are drawn to wealth, power and control.

The difference between an MRI and a PET scan is that markers are used to see how the brain processes glucose–the food of the brain.  In normal people, they use all parts of the brain for love, kindness, tenderness, sympathy, empathy, guilt and remorse.  In a psychopathic brain scan, no nutrients are delivered to these areas because they are not used.  A psychopath typically has a flat affect and little emotion.  However, they do feel slight better when they see war, torture, humiliation, violence, deviant sex, bullying and nastiness.

Why aren’t we demanding routine tests for this and getting the psychopaths out of positions of power and control?

But I want everyone to know I wish you all a Merry Christmas and I continue to pray for and help all court corruption victims.  I see the files unconstitutionally sealed, the changed transcripts, the changed docket sheets, the file tampering, and worst of the lot is the fact that your average lawyer will not speak out and help people for low cost or free people that experience corruption in the court.

I believe we all have a duty to speak out.  I took my bar oath of office seriously.  I don’t think I am a saint, a hero or anything special.  I just think I am doing my job the way it ought to be done.  Now where are the rest of Illinois’ 83,000 lawyers speaking out on these topics?  Where are there blogs.  I see court corruption victims going to lawyer after lawyer after lawyer and no one tells them about corruption. I don’t believe there is a single CLE class anywhere on corruption in the court system, although it’s a major factor in the public distrust of judges, lawyers and the legal system.

Greylord is not dead.  It never went away. It continues to fester.

We need better lawyers and judges.  We have reached a crisis in the court system.  No one is fooled any longer.

We need more blogs and books. You want to start a court corruption blog or court victim blog, I’d be glad to help you. You want me to help you with a book on corruption in the courts, just ask.

I wish everyone a Merry Christmas even though you can’t see your loved ones this holiday season due to corruption in the courts.

I pray the elderly and disabled are not tortured with illegal drugging with psychotropic drugs which have no place in nursing homes or group homes.

I am here for you all.

JoAnne

But if I publish this article on my blog, according to Mr. Larkin, head Administrator of the Illinois. Atty. Registration Commission, that deserves a 3 year suspension for me and a 4 year suspension for Ken Ditkowsky:

http://nasga-stopguardianabuse.blogspot.com/2016/12/supreme-court-orders-public-reprimand.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FURWOK+%28National+Association+to+Stop+Guardian+Abuse%29

Every single person I have talked to believes that this blog is protected by the First Amendment.  They are shocked to learn that when an attorney speaks out against corruption–a team of nasty lawyers–Larkin, Opryszek and Smart will hound you, harass you and then ask to have you disbarred.

I help people now spot and report corruption in their cases to the FBI and states attorney. They have mostly all been through the grist mill of Circuit Court in Cook County and will readily confirm that there are some very serious problems in the court system with judges issuing orders not in accordance with the law, and lying, sleazy lawyers who will say anything in court just to get a win.

I have had one probate attorney tell me “he always wins.”  I asked him if that was an admission of case fixing and never got a response.

So this article is for Mr. Larkin and his crew-Opryszek and Smart who say that my blog is like “yelling fire in a crowded theater” and my response is, yes, but it has to be filled with lying, crooked judges and attorneys and the police announce a raid on honesty.

Now for the article highlights:

The Supreme Court of Georgia issued the following disciplinary decision on December 15:

In the Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided: December 15, 2016
S16Y0825. IN THE MATTER OF MICHAEL ANTHONY EDDINGS.
PER CURIAM.

This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of the Review Panel recommending that Michael Anthony Eddings (“Eddings”) (State Bar No. 238751) be disbarred for several violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct arising out of the theft of $2.3 million from his law firm’s trust account by his wife (now ex wife), Sonya Eddings (“Sonya”), while she was the law firm’s financial manager. Eddings, in response, contends that a public reprimand or suspension is more appropriate under the circumstances, as Eddings did not participate in the theft and was unaware of Sonya’s wrongful actions. After a review of the extensive record and detailed fact finding provided by the special master, Katherine L. McArthur, we reject the Review Panel’s recommendation that Eddings be disbarred, and we agree with Eddings that a public reprimand is the more appropriate level of discipline to impose in this case.

The special master and Review Panel contend that Eddings violated Rules

1.15 (I) (c) and 1.15 (II) (b) and Rule 5.3 (a) and (b) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct found in Bar Rule 4 102 (d), based on the following facts: Eddings, who was admitted to the Georgia Bar in 2002 and initially worked for a plaintiffs’ personal injury firm, opened his own practice in 2003, the Law Office of Michael Eddings, PC (“the Firm”), concentrating in real estate law. Sonya served as the Firm’s financial manager. Sonya had a bachelor’s degree in accounting, a master’s degree in business administration, and substantial work experience in banking, including seven years with Columbus Bank & Trust/Synovus (“CB&T”), which was also the Firm’s financial institution.

In 2006, Eddings and Sonya established Eddings Holdings for the purchasing and holding of a franchise of The Coffee Beanery with two stores. Sonya handled all of the operations related to the franchise, and told Eddings, falsely, that the franchise was breaking even. However, in March 2007, without telling Eddings, Sonya began diverting money from the Firm’s IOLTA account to cover losses from the franchise. Between 2007 and October 2011, she stole over $2.3 million.

The record shows that Sonya used her inside knowledge of CB&T’s technology and technological vulnerabilities to accomplish the theft. Because she had been a top professional at CB&T, the bank did not question her as closely as others might have been questioned when questions arose about the Firm’s accounts. For example, just before Sonya’s scheme came to light, she admitted to a CB&T employee that she had created a fake wire confirmation to present to a client, but claimed she did so because she had not sent the wire transfer when she should have. The CB&T employee accepted this explanation and did not inform Eddings.

Although Eddings and Sonya had monthly financial meetings to review the Firm’s account reconciliations, Sonya presented bank statements that she had altered to remove any negative balance information. Additionally, over the course of Sonya’s criminal activities, CB&T, without notice to Eddings, ceased providing notifications of overdrafts and placed the Firm’s IOLTA account on automatic overdraft protection. As a result, CB&T provided notice to the State Bar on only a few of the multiple times the IOLTA account was overdrawn . On four occasions, Sonya also intercepted letters from the Bar’s Trust Account Overdraft Notification Coordinator regarding checks presented against insufficient funds in the Firm’s IOLTA account, and responded, to the Bar’s satisfaction, without Eddings’ knowledge or consent. When Eddings did receive information about minor irregularities during this time, Sonya was able to resolve or explain the issues to his satisfaction. And, when Eddings subsequently instituted new firm policies to address the issues, Sonya simply increased her level of deception to get around the new policies.

Finally, in October 2011, after a late payoff, the Firm’s title insurance company conducted an audit which showed that between October 2007 and October 2011, the Firm’s IOLTA account had a negative balance 50 times. Sonya then admitted her wrongdoing, and CB&T seized the Firm’s funds and closed the Firm’s accounts. The Firm’s insurance company provided coverage for most of the losses; however, the parties agree that $65,618.22 in losses to clients and mortgage holders remains uncompensated.

The special master also found that there was no evidence that the money that was diverted went anywhere except the account of Eddings Holdings to run or cover losses for the coffee shops, finding that there was no evidence that the diverted funds went to pay personal bills or expenses for Eddings or Sonya, that there was no evidence presented that Eddings’ lifestyle was one that could not have been maintained based on his own income, and that there was no evidence that Eddings was aware of the transfers from the Firm’s account to the Eddings Holdings account. The special master found by clear and convincing evidence that Eddings did not know of the diversion of funds from the trust account by Sonya between 2007 and 2011, and therefore, that he had not knowingly violated the Rules. Nevertheless, the special master concluded that Eddings’ failure to supervise Sonya and his failure to maintain his trust account constituted violations of Rules 1.15 (I) (c) and 1.15 (II) (b) and Rule 5.3 (a) and (b). For the reasons that follow, while we agree that Eddings violated Rules 1.15 (I) (c) and 1.15 (II) (b), we do not agree with the special master’s conclusion that Eddings violated Rule 5.3 (a) and (b).

In this regard, the facts here point to the conclusion that Eddings was the victim of an elaborate con perpetrated by his wife, Sonya–a con that even bank officials unwittingly helped Sonya commit and in one case even helped her cover up–and not the conclusion that it was unreasonable for Eddings not to have done anything more to have prevented Sonya from misappropriating the funds that she stole. Eddings reviewed bank statements from CB&T, but had no reason to believe that Sonya had altered them; received information from an audit in February 2010 that did not find any suspected embezzlement activity; was unaware of correspondence that Sonya had deliberately intercepted to ensure that her deceit would not be discovered; and, even when Eddings implemented new office procedures in November 2010 in an effort to prevent future account irregularities and make sure that all wire transfers would be made properly, Sonya was able to use her banking skills and relationships to circumvent these policies (and even convince bank officials to hide from Eddings the fact that she had created a fake wire transfer in connection with one of the law firm’s real estate closings). Sonya was so convincing in her con that no one from CB&T believed that any deceit was occurring, let alone to the tune of $2.3 million, and Eddings was given no information upon which to base a reasonable belief that any deceit was occurring. Indeed, no one discovered Sonya’s deception until October 27, 2011, when Sonya herself confessed in writing during the audit by First American Title Insurance Company that she had been misappropriating funds from the law firm’s trust account since 2007. In short, none of the activity here shows the type of misconduct on the attorney’s part that this Court would generally look for to justify a suspension from the practice of law. See, e.g., In the Matter of Jones, 280 Ga. 302 (627 SE2d 24) (2006).

Additionally, as the special master noted, this is not a case where Eddings should have noticed a change in his lifestyle or that of his wife. To the contrary, Sonya diverted money from the IOLTA account to cover losses from the two coffee shops that she operated independently from Eddings and that she was eventually forced to close. Eddings had no knowledge that the coffee shops were failing.

Based on the above, the special master has not provided any solid reasoning to support the conclusion that Eddings violated Rule 5.3 (a) and (b) relating to his duty to make reasonable efforts to supervise Sonya under the facts of this case. Eddings therefore cannot be disciplined for any alleged violation of this Rule. Specifically, Rule 5.3 (a) and (b) provides that:

With respect to a nonlawyer employed or retained by or associated with a lawyer . . . a lawyer who … possesses managerial authority in a law firm[] shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that the person’s conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer; [and] a lawyer having direct supervisory authority over the nonlawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the person’s conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer.  (Click to Continue)

Full Article & Source:
Supreme Court Orders Public Reprimand of Lawyer Whose Wife Stole $2M From Firm Account

If you are on FaceBook, check out this page and like it and pass it along to your friends:

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/1591e988929d3160

Troubled nursing home–Continental –5300 N Western in Chicago, 29 residents have felony records (probably something you can ask the court about when your loved on is place there, good point).

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-continental-nursing-met-20161113-story.html

from the article:

Chicago nursing home fined after residents overdose on heroin

Click to access Daniel%20Gillespie%20AND%20Shawn%20Wood.pdf

Here is an excellent and comprehensive listing of what to do when you are facing a 619 Motion to Dismiss, complete with case law.

Motions to Dismiss are typically filed right after the Defendant receives the complaint and the Defendant has to Answer the Complaint or otherwise plead.

Generally, if your Defendant does not file a Motion to Dismiss, it is generally waived.  However, the Defendant can still file a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and/or  A Summary Judgment Motion, so make sure your Complaint is on solid grounds.

As you know, Justice4 Every1 provides services to corruption victims for free.  We look at cases and report corruption to the authorities.

In the past, 6 judges have been removed with our efforts and the efforts of many others in reporting corruption.

We do not get any money from the government or any other sources. We depend on your generous donations.

Please help us raise rent money to keep services to court corruption victims for free.

Thanks

JoAnne

You can donate here:  https://gofund.me/rent-for-justice4-every1-nfp

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/explorer/videos/i-see-dead-people/

These people have an interesting way of honoring the dead, and this has become a tourism industry.

Check it out

Unbelievable the things that are sent to my attention.

Take a look at this:  Milton Golin, an elderly veteran with a perfectly good home being held against his will in Peterson Park by two amazingly obnoxious staffers who say it’s illegal for the son to video tape them, but somehow false imprisonment and kidnapping of an elderly man is not.

Please pray for this horrible situation and that this man gets help.

I don’t know all the details yet, but Peterson Park should be ashamed of itself for doing this.  1) for lying about the fact it’s illegal to videotape the commission of a crime in progress and 2) for unlawful restraint, false arrest and kidnapping.

Of course Peterson Park is holding him for his estate or Medicare benefits, but this is a blatant violation of numerous federal and state laws that say the elderly can and should live where they want to.

JoAnne

http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/09/16/seventh-circuit-wont-allow-service-dog-case.htm

Note in the article at least it says that Judge MacCarthy accused Gloria’s dog of being “just a pet” and that Gloria had a fake disability (LAS) or Litigation Abuse Syndrome.  I hope Gloria reported this nonsense to the JIB.

What the 7th circuit said was that Gloria had to exhaust her state court remedies. That is, she had to first appeal the ruling in Judge MacCarthy’s courtroom, or file a separate state court lawsuit.

We all know that Gloria’s suit would have been dismissed by the appellate court and any new suit brought in state court would have been kicked to the curb, and most likely with sanctions.

However, I can’t tell you how many times in the past I had told clients that they had to exhaust their state court remedies in order to go to Federal Court.  Soooo many people have found that state court is prejudiced against the ADA, the senior, the disabled, the disenfranchised. All these people see it and feel it and want to run to Federal Court.  But they can’t. They first have to exhaust state court remedies.

I still recall when Aicha MacCarthy came screaming down the court hallway, her robes a flutter in the breeze she was creating, screaming she was going to jail Gloria because Shaggy barked and she thought service dogs don’t bark.  (See prior post, yes they do, as a last resort when the person they are caring for isn’t taking appropriate action, they bark to warn of imminent danger).

So when your lawyer tells you you have to exhaust all your state court remedies before filing in federal court, please do so. File the appeal that will be dismissed on motion, file the new case that will be dismissed for failure to state a claim because currently the Circuit Court of Cook County doesn’t believe there is an ADA or that it applies to anyone or anything.

Just ask Aicha MacCarthy.

OMG OMG OMG TODAY IS THE BEGINNING OF THE END OF THE REIGN OF CORRUPT GUARDIANS AND ATTORNEYS IN CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA.

Finally, after over 2 years of delays in Family Court, our trial against private guardian April Parks took place.

.The honorable Judge Nancy Allf presided.  Homa and Adam Woodrum did a great job of representing my mom. I am so grateful.

After over 4 hours of testimony, Judge Allf made her ruling.

She stated “PARK’S ACTIONS WERE SO EGREGIOUS THAT THEY DEMAND A DISGORGEMENT”

She went on to say Parks was guilty of FRAUD, THEFT, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND CONVERSION OF FUNDS.

She then went on to order that Parks is not entitled to any of the $22k in guardian fees and she must return the $13k she prepaid herself.
Noelle Palmer Simpson (Park’s first attorney) is to return the $3000 she was supposedly paid by Parks.

$40k is to be returned for the loss of the home.

$100k is to be returned for the loss of the valuables in the home.

Sadly Parks has hidden her assets so most likely my mom will never benefit from the judgment. Since I did not think money judgments of that size were ever ordered in family court (this may be the first?) I am in total shock.

This ruling by Judge Allf is crucial in stopping the rampant guardian abuse in Clark County Nevada!

NOW CAN WE HAVE AN ARREST PLEASE???

Another article on problems with guardianships in Las Vegas, NV:

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-vegas/ex-official-guardianship-system-isnt-bad

http://aaapg.net/latest-news-from-las-vegas/

http://www.stopguardianabusenv.org/blog/embattled-private-guardian-april-parks-censured-for-exploiting-the-elderly-mastermind-jared-shafer-stays-under-the-radar-for-now

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92689&page=1

When Justice Alito was still on the Third Circuit, he was on the panel before whom I appeared, and authored the an opinion in a case early in my civil rights career, I represented a man, David Chittister, who sued the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development for First Amendment retaliation and for violations of the Family Medical Leave Act.  The case was mentioned in his Supreme Court confirmation hearings – https://books.google.com/books?id=cQPWT1nb6soC&pg=PA1362&lpg=PA1362&dq=chittister+v+dced&source=bl&ots=6TSDkb3E3t&sig=FC_m5lu6P_x6joWcBjAA38UK1GY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi6p-fap-zQAhWD4iYKHYO9DfIQ6AEINDAE#v=onepage&q=chittister%20v%20dced&f=false.

The claim involved a scheme to circumvent an open political graft program (the “WAM” program for “Walking Around Money”) which Governor Tom Ridge eliminated as a campaign promise.  It was a significant factor in his election.  Upon the change in administration, the money earmarked for that program was funneled through a program managed by Mr. Chittister.  He denied the one-line requests for a few thousand dollars here and there for no programmatic purpose, and began to receive pressure to simply approve the requests.  He resisted, and was harassed, and ended up with the desk, chair, and phone, and no job duties, and was forced out.

Through some typically transparent chicanery of the federal district judge, Sylvia Rambo, of the Middle District of Pennsylvania, in service to the political establishment of the persuasion that prevails in central Pennsylvania, ended up dismissing the First Amendment claims on a Motion for Summary Judgment, and allowed us to proceed to trial on a claim under the FMLA.  There was nothing honest or just about it, and the claim was a very difficult one to make, for specific reasons I do not currently recall.

What these federal judges do in these civil rights/whistleblower/public corruption cases is engage in a process of “winnowing” the claims, through use of the Motion to Dismiss and Summary Judgment Motion, and then permitting cases to go forward on limited aspects of the overall claims, then using the lengthy summary judgment opinions as guides for limiting the evidence at trial, and then engineering jury verdicts through the creative use of special verdict questions.  In these cases, the jury rarely ever heard the full scope and essential nature of the cases, and adverse verdicts were often justifiable on the engineered record.

Well, despite the engineering of the trial judge, we got a verdict in our favor, and a modest award of damages and attorneys’ fees in Mr. Chittister’s case.

On post-trial motions, the Commonwealth raised the issue of whether it was immune under the 11^th Amendment for damages under the FMLA.  I made the clear and simple argument that I believed compelled a favorable ruling on the issue – that, clearly, the states did not have 11^th Amendment immunity under the FMLA.  Judge Rambo, of course, granted the motion, and threw out the verdict.

Both the First Amendment and the FMLA issues were appealed to the Third Circuit, and Justice Alito was on the panel.  The First Amendment/whistleblower issue was a no-brainer under the state of First Amendment public employee jurisprudence at the time.  Alito is cut from the same political establishment that prevails in Pennsylvania, and the First Amendment issue, which was my focus in the brief and at oral argument, was scarcely mentioned by the judges, and brushed off in the opinion.

Alito authored the published opinion, however, upholding the ruling that the Eleventh Amendment bars claims against the states under the FMLA. https://casetext.com/case/chittister-v-dept-of-commun-and-econ-dev.   My client was still ill, and near broke from the expense of the litigation, and the firm I was with, who were getting concerned with the political nature of the cases I was taking, would not commit to advance the costs for a Petition for Writ of Certiorari on an issue that I knew was a winner.  In a case not much later, the United States Supreme Court did accept a Petition on the identical issue, and decided in Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs, 538 U.S. 721 (2003).

In the interim, we filed a qui tam action under the federal False Claims Act, based upon the fact that the fraudulent use of the program administered by my client, which involved a few million dollars a year of federal grant money.

Based upon the US Supreme Court ruling in Hibbs, I filed a Motion to Open Judgment in the district court, asking that the verdict be reinstated because the Court at all times did have jurisdiction.  I believe I addressed the First Amendment issues as well.  Judge Rambo denied the Motion, and I filed an appeal to the Third Circuit.  Rambo’s Opinion had some threats directed at me, and an invitation for the Defendants to seek sanctions for something or other, which they did not follow through with.

In the Brief I filed with the Third Circuit, I placed a footnote wherein I carefully layed out the logic of my position that, consistent with my ethical duties, I had an obligation to inform my clients that there is corrupt decisionmaking in the federal courts.  I’ll have to dig out the document, and post the footnote.

I was about 37-38 at the time, and was very naïve to these issues, and I did not do this lightly or cavalierly.  I said it because I felt I had to, and trusted that it needed to be addressed.  We had a later oral argument scheduled on the matter, and I recall being very anxious that I was going to be taken to task on this point.  I was very apprehensive about it.

Not a word, however, was mentioned, and I never heard a word of the substance of that footnote since.  However, it was a couple months later where I had my first brush with the disciplinary authorities.  A young girl, 20 years old, who I was helping with some misdemeanor charges she was dealing with, asked me to write a letter to her mother telling her mother that she is no longer permitted to interfere in her daughter’s affairs, which I did.  The mother called me and told me that I was going to pay a heavy price for sending her that letter.

I had also taken over the representation of the young in an auto accident in which she was involved.  The girl got an additional charge for retail theft, and was forced by her circumstances to return to her mother for support.  While she was in jail for about 90 days, she sent me a letter with a couple questions about her injury case.  I was pursuing the case, but did not get back to her.  A disciplinary complaint was filed against me by the mother, and I received an informal admonition (got a discipline on my record) as a result.  They also settled the injury case out from under me, and stiffed me on my fees.

After Alito took his seat on the Supreme Court, he participated in 3 decisions, Garcetti v. Ceballos, Guarnieri v. Borough of Duryea, and Enquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture, which severely curtailed the First Amendment protections of public employees, by saying when the unlawful conduct in which they are involved, or refuse to be involved, is part of their job duty, they do not have constitutional protections.  This would have ended the Chittister case if it was the law at the time, and me and my partner, Don Bailey were handling a lot of these types of claims.

The story of Don Bailey relating to Justice Alito, and how a $1.5 million verdict against, among others, Pennsylvania’s Attorney General, Mike Fisher, who is now a Third Circuit Judge sitting in the seat vacated by Alito, and the “shit storm” this caused, is told here – http://pennsylvaniacivilrightslawnetwork.com/2011/11/21/the-role-of-partisan-politics-in-pcrln-the-bailey-shit-storm/.

To the point of this email, is this corruption?  How do we factor these things into the approach to reform we take?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/former-insys-ceo-arrested-in-opioid-prescription-kickback-case-1481228056?emailToken=JRrzdvB/ZH%2BUhdE8aswy00ctY7NNCumSV0iSJ33Nf0HWrnHOve%2BtgqQzwtyvoGSuSQNi/d0f5HQ%2BXSHQh2wvX86amLR2mlThcHBGo9SdjV3SYB6LxBPU

Of course, everyone knows that the main revenue stream keeping Elder Cleansing alive is the over use of opiods and psych drugs on the elderly and disabled.

Only one problem, the use of psych drugs and opiods in elders and disableds comes with a black box warning against such use by the FDA and is highly illegal.

Probate courts condemn the elderly to slums and ghettos called “nursing homes” who then drug the patients to death.  If they resist, they are held down and shot up with halodol (Wyman and Teichert).  No one stops this.  If Protective Family members protest, they are smeared and called felons, drug addicts (when it’s the probate judges and attorneys forcing illegal drugs on seniors and disableds) and they are threatened.

Look at this indictment and see why it is nearly impossible to stop the machine, until people get fed up and light a fire under the FBI to do its job.

In Illinois, we have the IDPR to investigate, but when one mother complained (Gidan) that her disabled son was being held by a psychopathic father, the judge said “he didn’t have time to read the file (of abuse)” and kept the son with the abusive father. Soon the son will turn 18, but did he finish high school?  (nope)  Did he miss most days?  (yep), under the mother’s care did he get A’s in honor’s level classes? (yep). So why was this judge so stubborn he ignored all this and place an innocent disabled son with the father to skip school, drop out and get drugged into being a zombie with illegal psych drugs? (profit and kickbacks?)

And why does no on investigate.

Just today, a clouted attorney on the 18th floor made sure a woman was condemned to die in a nursing home, drugged and the protests of a Protective Son were ignored by the court. The demands of a clouted attorney were rubber stamped to drug, keep the elderly mother in a nursing home, and make sure she suffered the worst form of torture imagined.  She has bed sores and no one cares. They are per se mal practice, but you think this clouted attorney reported it?  Of course not.  He needs to be condemned to a nursing home, shot up and drugged with death the only way out and septicemia from bed sores.

Is anyone listening to Ken and I and Candice Schwager and Barb Stone–the only attorneys who will speak out.

The ARDC and Jerome Larkin hate it.  Talking about abuse of the elderly as an attorney in probate court means ARDC Attorney Melissa Smart will accuse the attorney in one of the ARDC’s kangaroo courts of “yelling fire in a crowded theater”.

No attorney in Illinois is supposed to protect the elderly here. They are condemned to die in the slums and ghettos of nursing homes with force psych drugging. Alice Gore lost $1.5 million (uninvestigated) and 29 gold teeth in a famous 18th floor slum-like nursing home when she could have been pampered at home by her kind and caring protective Daughter.  But the Daughter protested and was slapped with a $60k bogus judgment.  She was not deterred and to this day continues to appear on a highly popular cable show speaking out against what atrocities happened to her mother–Alice Gore, who was eventually drugged to death and all skin and bones in the end–an end that happened soon after she lost her 29 gold teeth to some miscreant dentist who has yet to still be investigated and punished for this horrific crime.

Has the ARDC investigated the lawyers involved?  Nope. Do they continue to abuse and drug disableds and seniors under the guise of an unlawful probate court?  Yep.

Read on for the full article.

JoAnne

Six former executives and managers at Insys Therapeutics Inc. were arrested on Thursday and charged with conspiring to defraud health insurers and bribe doctors in exchange for prescribing the company’s fentanyl painkiller, Subsys, the Justice Department said.

Among those arrested were former Chief Executive Michael Babich, who resigned from the company in November 2015. Mr. Babich, 40 years old, was charged with conspiracy to commit racketeering, conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud, and conspiracy to violate the anti-kickback law.

The racketeering, wire fraud and mail fraud charges each carry penalties of up to 20 years in prison, in addition to fines and supervised release, the government said. Violation of the anti-kickback statute carries up to five years in prison.

–– ADVERTISEMENT ––

Before resigning last year, Mr. Babich had helped oversee the company’s early success, which included its stock becoming the best-performing initial public offering of 2013. He sold $30.6 million in Insys stock during his tenure as CEO, according to Thomson Reuters data. In addition, he was paid more than $10 million in accelerated stock options and cash as part of his severance from the company in 2015, according to Insys regulatory filings.

Mr. Babich didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. His attorney said he intends to plead not guilty.

In a statement, Insys said the arrests on Thursday related to previously disclosed investigations and that the company “continues to cooperate with all relevant authorities in its ongoing investigations and is committed to complying with laws and regulations that govern our products and business practices.”

Thursday’s arrests were the latest to result from ongoing investigations into Insys, a once-highflying pharmaceuticals company based in Chandler, Ariz., that has struggled over the past year amid increasing scrutiny by prosecutors and regulators.

Including the arrests on Thursday, 11 former Insys employees this year have been charged with breaking federal law.

Shares of Insys fell 11.9% through the close of regular trading on Thursday; shares have fallen 67% so far this year. Global sales of Subsys soared 50% to $329 million in 2015, but have declined significantly this year amid heightened scrutiny of opioid abuse and the company’s business practices. Analysts expect Subsys sales to decline 28% to $237.7 million in 2016, according to FactSet.

Insys and its chief executive and majority shareholder, John N. Kapoor, were the subject of a Journal article in November that detailed the company’s relationships with doctors, including a pair of Alabama physicians scheduled to go on trial next month to face criminal charges of operating what prosecutors allege was a “pill mill.”

The charges on Thursday were brought byCarmen Ortiz, the U.S. attorney for the District of Massachusetts.

“I hope that today’s charges send a clear message that we will continue to attack the opioid epidemic from all angles, whether it is corporate greed or street level dealing,” Ms. Ortiz said in a statement.

Also charged on Thursday were Alec Burlakoff,the company’s former vice president of sales; former national sales director Richard Simon; former vice president of managed markets Michael Gurry; and former regional sales directors Sunrise Lee and Joseph Rowan.

Anthony Pacheco, an attorney for Mr. Rowan, said in an email that “the indictment in itself is nothing more than a list of the government’s unproven factual assertions and legal theories.”

Ms. Lee and Mr. Simon couldn’t immediately be reached for comment. The other former employees or their attorneys didn’t immediately respond.

Mr. Babich and the other defendants disguised the company’s bribes to doctors and other health-care practitioners as legitimate fees paid for promoting Subsys to colleagues at speaking events, the government alleges in a criminal indictment filed in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts.

Subsys, a rapid-acting and highly addictive opioid, is approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat extreme cancer pain. Messrs. Babich, Burlakoff and Simon, however, targeted their sales efforts at doctors who prescribed fast-acting fentanyl for all types of pain, the indictment alleges.

The goal of the speaker’s program was to reward large prescribers of Subsys, the indictment alleges. Mr. Burlakoff allegedly told an Insys sales representative in a text message that prescribers “do not need to be good speakers, they need to write a lot of” Subsys, the indictment alleges. Speaking events were “were often just social gatherings at high-price restaurants that involved no education and no presentation,” the indictment alleges.

Mr. Babich and the others closely tracked how much money each speaker was paid, how many Subsys prescriptions they wrote and the resulting net revenue Insys received, the indictment alleges. For a time, the former employees also explicitly calculated the return on investment from each speaker, the indictment alleges.

Many insurers refused to pay for Subsys unless prescriptions met certain criteria, such as being prescribed for cancer pain or for patients who had already tried cheaper alternatives, the Journal reported in November. To help address the problem, Messrs. Babich and Gurry in January 2013 created and operated a reimbursement unit that worked on behalf of doctors to obtain payment authorization directly from insurers, the indictment alleges.

Mr. Gurry and other unnamed conspirators taught reimbursement unit employees “how to mislead and deceive insurers regarding their employment, patient diagnoses, and tried and failed medications,” the indictment alleges. The reimbursement unit’s methods were effective: Roughly a year after the unit was launched, about 85% of prescriptions were approved for payment by insurers, up from roughly one-third of prescriptions in November 2012, the indictment alleges.

Write to Joseph Walker at joseph.walker@wsj.com

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dick-simpson/judges-for-sale_b_1220061.html

Now the real question is, why are the deaf being covered by the ADA but elders and disableds suffering abuse, bedsores and chemical restraints generally receive no protection from our state and federal court system under the ADA?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/deaf-woman-nypd-lawsuit-settlement_us_5630da6ce4b00aa54a4bfef1

NEW YORK — A New York City woman, who is deaf and says NYPD officers wrongfully arrested her and then ignored her pleas for an American Sign Language interpreter, has settled her lawsuit against the city for $750,000, a sum her lawyers say is the largest ever deaf discrimination settlement for a single person.

“Our client is pleased that she can now move on with her life and put this horrific situation behind her,” Andrew Rozynski and Eric Baum, the lawyers representing 58-year-old Diana Williams, said in a statement Tuesday.

EISENBERG AND BAUM LAW CENTER FOR DEAF AND HARD OF HEARING

“Due to the immense barriers they face when trying to communicate with the hearing world, Deaf individuals often find themselves without a voice to assert their rights,” Rozynski and Baum added. “Deaf individuals have rights, and they do not have to tolerate discrimination and injustices of any kind.”

Williams and her husband, Chris Williams, both of whom are deaf, are landlords of a building in Staten Island. On Sept. 11, 2011, when the couple were trying to evict tenants who hadn’t paid rent, the boyfriend of one of the tenants allegedly gestured that he had a gun.

Chris then called for police using a video relay service — which the couple later argued should’ve signified to police that they would need a sign language translator. But when officers arrived on the scene there was no translator, and it was only the tenant and the boyfriend, both of whom can hear, who could communicate their side of the story.

Some deaf tenants in the building later testified that the officers rejected their offers to translate for Williams, who cannot hear, speak English or read lips. Instead, Williams was arrested for allegedly getting into a fight with one of the tenants.

Panicked, Williams attempted to scrawl “HOSPITAL” in the dust on the window of the police cruiser, according to The New York Daily News. She made it to “HOSP.”

Williams was detained for 24 hours, during which a translator was never provided. She was released without charge.

“It is a sad reality that Deaf individuals continue to experience blatant discrimination on a routine basis.”

In 2012, Williams filed the federal lawsuit against the city of New York alleging that she had not only been wrongfully arrested, but that NYPD officers had ignored police guidelines for how to deal with the deaf, and in doing so violated the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Earlier this year, lawyers for the city argued that an arrest was neither a “service, program, or activity,” and therefore did not fall under the Americans with Disabilities Act, according to Courthouse News.

But U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni found the city’s argument woefully unpersuasive.

“New York City takes the extraordinary position that, even though the Americans with Disabilities Act has been the law of the land for 25 years, it has no obligation to provide any accommodation to the hearing-impaired at the time of an arrest, even if doing so could easily be accomplished without endangering the officers or the public safety and without interfering in the lawful execution of the officers’ duties,” she wrote in an August decision, allowing the lawsuit to proceed to trial.

Reached for comment Wednesday, a spokesman for the New York City Law Department said only that “settling this case was in the city’s best interest.”

Advocacy group Helping Educate to Advance the Rights of the Deaf. (HEARD), has documented at least 40 stories of police brutality against deaf Americans in recent years.

“These stories highlight the woeful lack of training about — and awareness of — Deaf culture and communication within police departments across the nation,” HEARD founder Talila Lewis wrote in a 2014 blog post for the American Civil Liberties Union. “They illustrate the urgent need for systemic change.”

“Perhaps as alarming as the frequency and severity of these assaults, is the infrequency and leniency of formal charges against the officers responsible,” Lewis continued. “Deaf survivors of police brutality and family members of deaf homicide victims tend to prevail in lawsuits against police, costing taxpayers dearly, but officers are rarely formally charged or dismissed for their actions.”

Last year, actress Marlee Matlin, who is deaf and is married to a police officer, made a video to help inform deaf people of their rights when interacting with police.

Williams’ lawyers, in their statement Tuesday, said “it is a sad reality that Deaf individuals continue to experience blatant discrimination on a routine basis.”

“Ms. Williams hopes that the settlement will send a message to all law enforcement agencies across the country that they should adopt proper policies and procedures to ensure full communication access for Deaf individuals,” they said.

Warning: A Psychiatric tsuNAMI is Upon U.S.

Warning: A Psychiatric tsuNAMI is Upon U.S.

By

Lauren Tenney, PhD, MPhil, MPA, Psychiatric Survivor

November 29, 2016

28

2538

FacebookTwitterEmailShare

roxilamb@gmail.com

Black Friday sale–all Lulu.com books are 33% off!

Now is the time to order.

Teresa Lyles Book

65 Minutes

By Teresa Lyles

View this Author’s Spotlight

Paperback, 182 Pages

This item has not been rated yet

Preview

Price: $12.00

Prints in 3-5 business days

This is a true story of the horrors in Guardianship Court where Teresa Lyles, PhD lost her mother to an abusive system and several abusive “guardians” who allowed her precious Cuban mother to be drugged, isolated, tortured, forced to live in a locked down facility, where she eventually died, after being forced into a guardianship she did not want and did not authorize. She wanted to live in her own home or with her Protective Daughter, Teresa. Ms. Lyles discusses her early family life, how much she was loved, and how much she wanted to love her mother and care for her in her own home. But that was not to be, for her mother was put through the horrors of an abusive Guardian and Guardianship court and a maze of uncaring Judges and Lawyers who simply were in it for the money billing at hundreds of dollars per hour. The Guardians also just wanted the money and all complaints of abuse, chemical restraints, and where Mother wanted to live, were always ignored.

Embed

Subject: Re: FULL RECOVERY — Where In The Hell Are My “Inalienable Legal Rights” & “Durable Legal Safeguards”?

Yesterday I received an e-mail from my daughter which I forwarded by e-mail to everyone in sight.    (Analysis of the election continues, noting that many candidates did well by simply challenging the establishment).

What is so wrong with the establishment?     Why is “establishment” such a dirty word?      The e-mail that I forwarded points out in simple words of one syllable the answer.      Political correctness.     It is now politically correct to abuse, exploit, and dehumanize the elderly and disabled, however, it is not politically correct to talk about it.

 

When Diane Nash, an icon of the Civil Rights movement sought to obtain the public accommodation of attending one of the kangaroo hearings involving the demonization of Attorney JoAnne Denison, she was barred from the hearing.    How was this act of racial discrimination rationalized?     It was not – the agent of the Supreme Court of Illinois (Jerome Larkin) just ignored the anguished calls!     The Establishment did not call him on it, nor will they.     Larkin knew that there was a vacant seat right next to me – however, he would not even give the usual insincere apology that is so common amongst the political set.    Simply put – it is politically correct to deprive persons of their civil rights as long as you have sufficient clout and your standing in the establishment is intact.

 

It goes without saying that it is politically correct to take citizen’s FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS  away if they do not comply with the current political view.     For instance, JoAnne Denison’s blog MaryGSykes exposes judicial corruption and has called for an HONEST INVESTIGATION of the Mary Sykes, Alice Gore, Carol Wyman ***** cases, and points out that at page 91 of her evidence deposition, the Honorable Maureen Connors admitted to being corrupt, in words and phrases admitting that she was ‘wired’ (‘fixed’) when hearing the Mary Sykes case.      To the politically correct Illinois Supreme Court, Attorney Disciplinary Commission (IARDC) and of course the “administrator of the IARDC, Jerome Larkin, the First Amendment does not apply to citizens who disagree with Establishment’s War on the Elderly and the Disabled.      He wrote to the Supreme Court of Illinois that the exposure (in the blog) of judicial corruption was akin to yelling “fire in a crowded theater!”     To attempt to silence Ms. Denison the Supreme Court of Illinois ordered that he license to practice law be suspended!      Simply put – if a lawyer complains of corruption or the elder cleansing of the elderly and the disabled it is not politically correct and that lawyer’s Civil rights are forfeit.

 

In the Lanre Amu case the political correctness was taken to a National Socialist extreme.     Amu was suspended from the practice of law because not only did he complain that Judge Egan was hearing a case in which she was a member of the Board of Directors of the defendant (and her brother was an attorney for the defendant) but he had the temerity to have the wrong skin color and worse yet – a prestigious business publication (Crain’s Chicago Business) made the same charge.    Mr. Amu was suspended from the practice of law by the Illinois Supreme Court.    Simply put – if a lawyer complains of corruption and has a dark hue to his skin, such is ipso facto politically incorrect and that lawyer must be suspended from the practice of law for his audacious failure to be politically correct.    The political incorrectness is gross and lacking respect for the Establishment.     Practicing Law while Black is inexcusable in the eyes to the Illinois Supreme Court.

 

Political correctness is the Law of the Land and it obviates even the State and Federal Constitutions.     Of course, it is not politically correct to point this fact out and therefore the weight of the Establishment must be throw at the offender.   WikiLeaks exposed the e-mails of the Establishment at the Democratic National Committee attempting to quash Bernie Sanders’ revolt against the Establishment.     Probate Sharks, MaryGSykes, NASGA, AAAPG **** and other blogs have attempted to expose the plot of the Establishment to extinguish and cover-up the Establishment’s War against the Elderly and the Disabled.  

 

Political leaders, such as Illinois’ senior senator are successfully leading the Political correctness movement and the War on the Elderly and the Disabled.     I wrote to the senior senator requesting his assistance.   I received his reply – a copy of a stupid speech he gave on “saving Social Security.”    I wrote the junior senator – he was defeated in the last election.    I personally called for an HONEST INVESTIGATION – the Supreme Court of Illinois suspended my law license and forced my retirement.

 

The battle goes on –  the Chicago Tribune Article is worth repeating!

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/ct-group-home-investigations-cila-met-20161117-htmlstory.html

THE TIME IS NOW FOR THAT HONEST INVESTIGATION that Jerome Larkin, the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission and the Supreme Court of Illinois are fighting against.   The intimidation of lawyers who pursuant to Rule 8.3 report these outrages has to stop.    Reporting corruption should not be considered to be akin to ‘yelling fire in a crowded theater’ and blogs such as the MARYGSYKES blog should be protected – as required by the First Amendment.