—–Original Message—–
From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: May 28, 2014 10:21 PM
To: ginny johnson , matt senator kirk , Eric Holder , Cook County States Attorney , Edward Carter , Chicago FBI , Tim NASGA , NASGA , probate sharks , Harry Heckert , j ditkowsky , Martha Jantho , Janet Phelan , “zamirkatan@aol.com” , “ACLU@ACLU.ORG”
Subject: Re: USAG office must approve for FBI to investigate all Federal Crimes on Elder Abuse neglect and financial exploitation in all 52 states

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

As a part of the ongoing investigation into health care, hospice fraud, it is interesting to note the following post on the FBI blog:

http://www.fbi.gov/chicago/press-releases/2014/illinois-hospice-executive-charged-with-federal-health-care-fraud-for-allegedly-falsely-elevating-level-of-patients-care

You will note that an attorney was involved (Seth Gillman of Lincolnwood) and indicted in the ND Illinois Federal Court for falsely targeting and dragging into hospice care dozens of dozens of patients that did not qualify for hospice care.  They were simply “upgraded” to first class because well, easy govt money was left on the table completely unattended, or so they all thought.

Now go ahead and do an “attorney search” at the IARDC and you will note the IARDC has not filed, and there are no charges pending again Atty Seth Gillman. (Presumably because Atty Gillman never spoke out against attorneys and health care fraud and the targeting of seniors as a commodity or get rich quick scheme.  In fact, when one of the employees at one of his companies questioned what was going on and the large bonuses paid to certain personnel–he was quick to tell them to shut the fudge up!  A true leader in the code of attorney silence in fraud).

From the FBI website:  Gillman, an attorney, is the corporate agent, administrator, and one-fourth owner of Passages Hospice LLC, based in west suburban Lisle, and is also the agent and secretary of Asta Healthcare Company Inc., which operates Asta Care Center nursing homes in Bloomington, Colfax, Elgin, Ford County, Pontiac, Rockford, and Toluca, Illinois…… As Passages grew, it divided its operations into geographic regions covering Chicago and the western suburbs, Rockford, Bloomington, and Belleville, with different nurses, nursing directors, and medical directors for each region.

Note the huge level of involvement in the Illinois area–to the point of patient saturation, yet the indictment was from January, and here it is May and you will note the IARDC has not taken any action, even though the scheme began in 2008 to defraud medicare and Gillman was indicted in early 2014–that’s 6 years of silence on this scheme.

No doubt the IARDC would prosecute me for publishing information from the FBI or the US Office of Inspector General, but it remains suspiciously silent on health care fraud allegedly perp’d by atty Gilman which rises to the level of a 70 page affidavit to support his indictment.

How much money is involved in this scheme (remember Omnicare was $150 million, Shinfa Mental Health Care out of Louisanna was $258 million, etc.–see http://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/enforcement/criminal/index.asp for details on millions and millions of dollars lost in fraud in just early 2014 alone!)

What kind of money was Gillman making?:

In fiscal year 2012, Medicare’s daily reimbursement for GIP was $671.84, while the daily payment for routine care was $151.23. According to claims data, from January 2006 to late 2011, Passages submitted claims for approximately 4,769 patients to Medicare and/or Medicaid and was paid approximately $95 million from Medicare and approximately $30 million from Medicaid. Between July 2008 and late 2011, Passages was paid approximately $23 million by Medicare for claimed GIP services, in addition to Medicaid payments for claimed GIP services submitted on behalf of more than 200 patients.

The charges further allege that in the fall of 2008, Gillman began paying bonuses, sometimes well in excess of their salary, to Passages’ directors overseeing nurses and certified nursing assistants based on the amount of GIP under their supervision. Gillman also authorized large bonuses to himself and a co-administrator, Individual A, based on the number of patients per day at certain nursing homes in the Belleville region, including $833,375 to himself between March 2009 and April 2011. The bonuses increased as the number of patients on GIP increased and as the number of facilities counted for the bonuses increased, according to the affidavit.

What is the penalty for health care fraud?

Health care fraud carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine, and obstructing a federal audit carries a maximum of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine, and restitution is mandatory.

Ken and I are publishing this and will continue to analyze the situation because just what kind of scheme did we step into with the likes of the Sykes case (in particular), Gore, Wyman, Drabik, Tyler, and many, many others where the law is X but the courts are doing Y–and they do it with apparent impunity, only punishing severely any attorney that runs a blog (myself), or continues to investigate probate court and issues hundreds of emails, faxes and letters to law enforcement (Ditkowsky) after we were both clearly told by those doing Y when the law is X to shut the fudge up — or else!

Why is the ARDC so silent, and why did atty Gillman operate for years without the IARDC saying a peep and where are they now on this issue?  There must have been complaints filed.

This blog is not going to shut up however, until the law is X and the courts and attorneys in probate are doing exactly X.

The fact that the US Dept of the OIG (Office of Inspector General) is publishing indictments and making clear the level of money to be extracted out of the US health care system–even by Illinois attorneys, certainly is not something the ARDC wants made public when Illinois attorneys are seeing the effects that health care fraud–in the hundreds of millions–has upon the medical field, and it is this fraud and greed which is the root cause of the problems that are spilling over into the court system.

While many, many people fear that single payer health care would simply be far too expensive, after reviewing the indictments made just in early 2014, it is clear that hundreds of millions of dollars are simply going to fraud, and if that fraud were eliminated it would have a huge impact on healthcare for those actually needing it, if doctors and medical professionals all were delivering the real thing–not fraud.  If a huge chunk of the US health care system is fraud, then perhaps by eliminating that, we could afford universal health care for everyone.

The upshot?  While all of this is going on, Atty Gillman is listed as a perfectly good attorney to hire according to the IARDC website.  Ken and myself apparently are not.

What the IARDC says about Ken Ditkowsky:

under information:

Mr. Ditkowsky, who was licensed in 1961, was suspended for four years and until further order of the Court. He made false or reckless statements about the qualifications and integrity of judges presiding over a guardianship matter. In addition, he sent a letter falsely stating that he represented the ward in that proceeding.

Note carefully they do not link to the letter. NEVER LINK TO THE LETTER.  Never let the public know that 1) the letter clearly says he was conducting an investigation and once that was complete he would only then represent Mary G Sykes and 2) his main witness, the Honorable Jane Louis Stuart SUDDENLY  retired on Thursday, May 8, 2014.

Hey look, I can link to the letter:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwT0YxWEEwdkFnS0k/edit?usp=sharing

The question is, why doesn’t the ARDC link to that letter right on the page involved?

Here is the link to Ken Ditkowsky’s page:

http://www.iardc.org/ldetail.asp?id=284805088 — (if link does not work, go to http://www.iardc.org and click on “atty search” and put in “ditkowsky” under “last name”)

I can link to a page to support my blog posts, why don’t they?

Why doesn’t the ARDC mention that the Hon Jane Louis Stuart retired May 8, 2014, or why don’t they publish her testimony during my trial on my ARDC page when she was a main witness?  Why don’t they publish the audio from the court reporter so people can hear what she said and compare it to the transcript?  All of this is technologically possible, even by a grammar school child given the data.  A 2nd grader now knows how to start, run and publish on a blog any sort of PDF, MP3 or MP4 file, etc. but the ARDC does not know how to do this?  Come on now.

IF I HAD THE MP3 AUDIO FROM THAT COURT REPORTER I WOULD PUBLISH IT NOW FOR YOU THE READER.

She apparently still has a webpage, sans information, why is that?

http://www.cookcountycourt.org/JudgesPages/StuartJaneLouise.aspx

AND, most notably she is still listed under judges:

http://www.cookcountycourt.org/ABOUTTHECOURT/CountyDepartment/ProbateDivision/JudgesInformation.aspx

I postulate that if I published someone on my website had retired and I did not take it down right away, the ARDC would be all over me to tell the truth promptly, but it looks like the Circuit Court of Cook County, IL, gets the “big free hall pass” on that one.  Teacher always writes a hall pass for her pets.  The rest of the brats like me and Ken have to hold it until recess and stand in line.

MY CONCLUSION: (which is really just a bunch of annoying questions the IARDC will NOT want to answer)

1) Why doesn’t the ARDC website link to the FAMOUS Dr. Patel letter on Ken’s “information page”

2)  Why doesn’t the ARDC mention that Judge Stuart, one of Ken’s and my main witnesses “suddenly” retired on May 8, 2014

3) Why doesn’t the ARDC provide the audio of Judge Stuart’s court testimony so the public can HEAR and COMPARE to the transcript which I previously published?

I can and have linked to all of these above.  THIS BLOG IS TRANSPARENT AND HONEST WHY CAN’T THE IARDC DO THE SAME?

From: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
Sent: May 28, 2014 10:24 AM
To: “illinois.ardc@gmail.com” <illinois.ardc@gmail.com>, “IllinoisLawyerNow@isba.org” <illinoislawyernow@isba.org>, “ilsenate29@sbcglobal.net” <ilsenate29@sbcglobal.net>, “ilhouse51@sbcglobal.net” <ilhouse51@sbcglobal.net>, “ilsenate20@sbcglobal.net” <ilsenate20@sbcglobal.net>, “ildbambic@govabuse.org” <ildbambic@govabuse.org>, “illhouse@aol.com” <illhouse@aol.com>, “ilrepmikeboland@aol.com” <ilrepmikeboland@aol.com>, ISBA Main Discussion Group <isba@list.isba.org>, “IllinoisLawyerNow@isba.org” <illinoislawyernow@isba.org>, “isilverstein@senatedem.ilga.gov” <isilverstein@senatedem.ilga.gov>, GLORIA SYKES <gloami@msn.com>, probate sharks <verenusl@gmail.com>, NASGA <nasga.org@gmail.com>, “tips@elderabuseexposed.com” <tips@elderabuseexposed.com>, Tim NASGA <timlahrman@aol.com>, Cook Sheriff <sheriff.dart@cookcountyil.gov>, Chicago Tribune <tips@tribune.com>, Cook County States Attorney <statesattorney@cookcountyil.gov>, Eric Holder <askdoj@usdoj.gov>, matt senator kirk <matt_abbott@kirk.senate.gov>, Mary Richards <maryrichards45@gmail.com>, mary wooley state police <mary_woolery@isp.state.il.us>, SUNTIMES <letters@suntimes.com>, scott evans <scottcevans@hotmail.com>, Diane Nash <sa3456@msn.com>, “ACLU@ACLU.ORG” <aclu@aclu.org>, “Mr. Lanre Amu — honest atty unfairly persecuted by ARDC” <loamu@aol.com>, “acluofillinois@aclu-il.org” <acluofillinois@aclu-il.org>, “Atty Nejla Lane Lane Legal Services. com” <info@lanelegalservices.com>, JoAnne Denison <joanne@denisonlaw.com>, Janet Phelan <writejanet@live.com>, John Howard Wyman <johnhowardwyman@gmail.com>, j ditkowsky <jdit@aol.com>, Harry Heckert <vahrh1135@aol.com>, Kathie Bakken <k_bakken@att.net>, “Mr. Kim” <raywkim@yahoo.com>
Subject: Formal Complaint against Jerome Larkin, Administrator of the IARDC

After reading the Seth Gillman article in Crains and the Sun-times it became very clear meaningful health care is not possible unless that is a concerted effort by members of the public to dissect out the cancer that is eating away at our society.    Elder cleansing is not only here to stay, but has entrenched itself so firmly that the operators of this illegal cottage industry are openly and notoriously intimidating lawyers to keep silent.

As Jerome Larkin has gone to such extreme lengths to try to silence me – a four year suspension from the practice of law for writing to the Attorney General of the United States complaining that a 90 year old widow was being elder cleansed by some miscreant lawyers – it is time for all of us who want to avoid being victims to stand up be counted.    I therefore am filing a formal complaint against Larkin as is my right as a citizen.     The document that was faxed this morning to the IARDC states:

Formal Complaint

re: Jerome Larkin, Administrator, ARDC

Date:  May 28, 2014

To:   Law Enforcement

Subject:  Obstruction of Justice by Mr. Larkin and the IARDC i.e.  Punishing attorneys for compliance with 18 USCA 4.

From:   Kenneth Ditkowsky 5940 W. Touhy Ave, Niles, Illinois 60714,  Kenditkowsky@yahoo.com

Please be advised of the following facts:

18 USCA 4 states:

“Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”  18 U.S.C.A. § 4 (West)

On or about April 2010, I was engaged to investigate the ‘railroading’ of a senior citizen – Mary Sykes into a guardianship.     My investigation discovered that 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10 the jurisdictional authorization for the guardianship act had not been complied.    In particular, a process required by said 11a – 10 had not been served upon Sykes.    No timely service had occurred.    Close relatives required to be disclosed and timely served had not been disclosed in the petition and not served. (11a – 10(e).)     Thus there had been no jurisdiction obtained.    Mr. Peter Schmiedel admitted that instead of hearing on the issue of Mary’s incompetency some proceeding occurred in relation to a ‘care plan.’     Other irregularities were also noticed.

That Commencing April 2009 a number of citizen complaints had been made to law enforcement and to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission.    Mr. Larkin is the Administrator of the said commission and earns remuneration from the State of Illinois for administrating the said administrative body.    All documents filed by the said agency appear to be filed in the name of Mr. Larkin pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 137.    Amongst the Citizens who filed complaints was one Gloria Sykes.     Mr. Larkin and attorneys employed by the agency not only ignored the complaints but were discourteous and condescending in their responses.   One response stated that the attorney (Adam Stern) who was the subject of the complaint had been appointed as Ms. Sykes’ guardian ad litem.    The averment was untrue, and 17 days later after Ms. Sykes threatened suit, the senior attorney for the IARDC claimed that the averment was a “typo.”   However, no investigation occurred.     The averments concerning Mr. Stern were serious and involved felonies associated with the cottage industry of elder cleansing.

That numerous efforts were made to silence complaints to law enforcement pursuant to 18 USCA 4 and pursuant to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.    Larkin being aware of the following facts instituted proceedings reasonably calculated intimidate and induce lawyers to ignore their legal, moral, ethical and 18 USCA 4 responsibilities:

Mary Sykes and others were being systematically denied due process and equal protection of the law.    In particular,  the Circuit Court proceedings in case 09 P 4585 were deficient.    a) The petition filed did not make the required disclosures. b) the jurisdictional criteria were ignored – put very bluntly – no jurisdiction was obtained and rather than address this lack of jurisdiction, vacate the void orders, Stern, Farenga, Schmiedel  in concert with Larkin and certain jurists refused to address the issue except in a manner reasonably calculated to intimidate.    As an example – attorney  Ditkowsky was sanctioned by a Court that knew it had no jurisdiction.   The Appellate Court vacated the sanction on this basis. c)  Mary was regularly abused – in particular she was barred from having contact with her two sisters, her younger daughter, her friends, her prior activities.  d) Mary’s estate had been pillaged.   Her safety deposit box had been emptied and the contents removed.  (Not one coin in the million dollars’ worth of coins was inventoried).

Persons who objected to the alleged criminal activities of Attorneys Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga, Peter Schmiedel, et. al were being harassed, intimidated, and denigrated without any just cause.   In particular, Gloria Sykes was subjected to a denial of due process of law (full faith and credit of a valid judgment) by Judge Connors.   Later on, when she again complained too loudly, she was chained to a chair, threatened, and harassed until she disclosed where she had hidden her personal property.   (It is reported that at first Judge Stuart at first denied under oath this event, but later admitted it)

Attorneys who were engaged to represent the interests of Mary Sykes or the persons who were concerned that Ms. Sykes’ rights were violated were subjected to inappropriate and patently wrongful disciplinary proceedings.

That Attorney JoAnne Denison and Attorney Kenneth Ditkowsky when threatened by Attorney Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga, Peter Schmiedel, Lea Black,  etc. refused to stop complaining concerning the continuing elder abuse/financial Exploitation (elder cleansing) that Mary Sykes was being subjected.    Ergo, at the direction of Farenga, Stern, Schmiedel, Larkin  and others, disciplinary proceedings were commenced against Ditkowsky and Denison by the IARDC attorneys well knowing that every statement made by either attorney was verified by either an affidavit, testimony in Court, a statement in Court by Farenga, Stern, Schmiedel et. al, or affidavit.      The aforesaid attorneys were also well aware that every statement, every letter, every posting of statements made by the aforesaid attorneys was content related speech protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Article 1 section 4 of the Illinois Constitution and the public policy of the State of Illinois as set forth in 735 ILCS 110/5.

18 USCA 371 states:

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.  18 U.S.C.A. § 371 (West)

To protect senior citizens and the disabled the Congress of the United States of America has enacted laws to protect citizens including the Elder Justice Act, Americans with Disabilities, 42 USCA 1983 etc.     The breach of fiduciary relationship is a taxable event.   Thus, when a benefit was obtained by the raiding of Mary Sykes’ safety deposit box, or the mining of Alice Gore’s teeth,  Federal Income  taxes became due and payable.   As the items were never inventoried it is assumed and therefore alleged upon reliable information and belief that the Federal Income taxes were not paid.

That Ms. Denison and Mr. Ditkowsky have called upon Mr. Larkin and the IARDC to join with them in calling for an HONEST intelligent complete and comprehensive investigation of the elder cleansing of Mary Sykes and dozens of other senior citizens that have routinely occurred in the State of Illinois and in the United States of America.   Mr. Larkin’s answer has been to prosecute both Ditkowsky and Denison for making said request pursuant to law.

In light of the growing fraud scandals that are being reported in the Hospice industry, the nursing home industry, and the strong suggestions of involvement by lawyers  – and the continued prosecution by the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of lawyers who have spoken out against Judicial corruption  the undersigned herewith files this written demand  and complaint.

The undersigned as citizens of the United States of America and the State of Illinois herewith demand that government including State of Illinois, the United States of America and the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission do an HONEST complete intelligent and comprehensive investigation of the ‘elder cleansing’ cottage industry and in particular the role of Larkin, Stern, Farenga, Schmiedel, Black, and such other and different attorneys who aided and abetted their attempts to obstruct justice and discourage attorneys 18 USCA 4 reports to law enforcement.

Respectfully Submitted.

signed/

Kenneth Ditkowsky

This Complaint is also filed against Adam Stern, Peter Schmiedel, Cynthia Farenga, Lea Black and all other attorneys who have participated directly or indirection in the obstruction of justice that has been promulgated by Mr. Larkin and the IARDC in their attempt to Cover –up and impede citizen reporting of felonies to law enforcement.    There is no excuse for Attorneys licensed to practice law to not follow the law as set forth by the SCOTUS in its decisions and/or deny a citizen of his/her First Amendment rights and privileges.

The unsubstantiated allegation has been made that one or more of the miscreants has an investment in the nursing home industry and therefore has an independent profit from the elder cleansing industry.

_____________________________________________________________________________

I retain no copyright on this document and give my permission to whomever desires to copy, republish post etc.  My desire is to motivate all the victims of elder cleansing and their families to pursuant to 18 USCA 4 report the violations of the law to law enforcement, name names, and specify the acts of elder cleansing.

All attorneys as well as all public officials take an oath to defend the Constitution.    Part of defending the constitution is to root out those who are denying our fellow citizens of their Constitutional rights.    When MS orchestrated the mining of Alice Gore’s teeth for the gold filings each of us was made poorer!    We substantially lost our because each one of us did not report to law enforcement this outrageous act of stealing the gold out of the teeth of a senior citizen.   I personally lost out in that I did not write a letter to Mr. Larkin – which he would have ignored – demanding an HONEST complete and comprehensive investigation of attorney MS and her role is this disgusting event.  (The fact I was not educated concerning the event at the time is irrelevant as such went on in my City, my community and could have effected those I love).

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

 
Subject: Fw: WestlawNext – § 1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant – complaint against Jerome Larkin for ethical violations in addition to his failure to file State of Illinois Disclosure statements.

And while I have wondered why back in 2000 when the Federal Courts went to Pacer and I talked with their staff and they said that they could easily convert the Circuit Courts of Cook County to Pacer, but they weren’t interested, comes one good possible explanation.

http://politics.suntimes.com/article/chicago/dorothy-brown-donated-campaign-cash-offices-watchdog/sun-05252014-1237pm

Apparently the Inspector General for the Court System contributes to the campaign of funds of Dorothy Brown!

This particular article from the Sun Times suggests an ethics violation, and so does the Better Government Assn who is bringing this to the public’s attention.

Dear Readers;

One of the issues my trial stated out with was Atty Melissa Smart of the ARDC going on and on about how my blog is like “yelling fire in a crowded theater” which, I believe, is fairly akin to the Nelson 7th circuit case wherein 2 Aldermen in Chicago (Bobby Rush and Dorothy Tillman) entered the Art Institute of Chicago — one brandishing a gun– and claimed that a painting depicting former Mayor Harold Washington in ladies undies and a garter belt “would incite riots” in the street of Chicago, making that speech a “clear and present danger.”

So when and why is speech a “clear and present danger”.  Is there any belief amongst reasonable people out there that this blog in any means or manner could ever incite any sort of violent action, other than perhaps a paper cut? (pixels generally don’t damage anyone or anything, except maybe a backache from carrying a too heavy laptop so you would have to print it out to get even a paper cut).

In re Kendall, a 3rd circuit case, explains the standard Atty Smart was trying to invoke.  The only problem is, I don’t know of a single disciplinary case at any level–where a lawyer was able to incite a riot or any sort of violence other than the Civil War of 1860 and that involved slavery of a huge chunk of the United States.  Even the suffrage and women’s movement was not particularly successful in creating any riots or wars.  So what then is Atty Smart even talking about?

The concept, while largely unused (and certainly not for a blog or an atty not involved in any case but only commenting upon it) is explained in this case In re Kendall

http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FCO%2020130403073.xml/IN%20RE%20KENDALL

In the realm of speech about ongoing judicial
proceedings, the government’s authority as sovereign
provides only limited power to criminally punish speech by
those outside the judicial system. As the Supreme Court
made clear in a trio of cases involving members of the
press held in criminal contempt for their news stories, speech
about ongoing judicial proceedings is criminally punishable
only if it poses a clear and present danger of obstructing or
prejudicing the ongoing proceedings. Craig, 331 U.S. at 372,
67 S.Ct. 1249; Pennekamp v. Florida, 328 U.S. 331, 348, 66
S.Ct. 1029, 90 L.Ed. 1295 (1946); Bridges v. California, 314
U.S. 252, 260–63, 62 S.Ct. 190, 86 L.Ed. 192 (1941); see
*826 also Standing Comm. on Discipline of U.S. Dist. Court
for Cent. Dist. of Cal. v. Yagman, 55 F.3d 1430, 1442 (9th
Cir.1995). The government has greater authority to discipline
speech about an ongoing judicial proceeding, though, when

the speaker is an attorney involved in that proceeding. See
Gentile, 501 U.S. at 1075, 111 S.Ct. 2720. Because the
attorney is likely to be viewed as “especially authoritative”
and his statements are more “likely to influence the actual
outcome of the trial,” the government has an overriding
interest in limiting the attorney’s prejudicial comments to
preserve the litigants’ constitutional rights to an impartial jury.
Id. at 1074–75, 111 S.Ct. 2720. Consequently, the attorney’s
speech is subject to discipline at a lower threshold: when it is
substantially likely to prejudice the proceedings. Id. at 1075,
111 S.Ct. 2720.

The only thing this blog has done is call for an investigation.  It has pointed out a court that does X when the law is clearly Y.  How that prejudices a proceeding is unknown to anyone at this time.

The ARDC wants to use a different standard, and that is any speech THEY deign to not like must be disciplined.  Two little problems with that are the free speech provisions of both the US and Illinois constitutions even they are sworn to uphold — and this becomes yet one more example of a government body doing X when the laws are clearly Y.

But that is a “blame the media” solution to their problem of reporting on what is going on in court–courtrooms where the attorneys reporting and commenting on the case have no appearance on file and are acting as bystanders to the proceeding.  Further, there is no prejudice to any of these cases:  Gore, Wyman, Sykes, Spera, etc. because there is no jury involved.  Presumably judges can spot bias and interpret the laws on their own, thank you very much.  They must avoid reading legal blogs with commentary about their own cases.  Judge Stuart said she did not read this blog.  Now she is retired, she can read it all she wants.

So what does this court have to say about a judge’s opinion that was denoted as

” The opinion characterized the Virgin Islands
Supreme Court’s reasoning as erroneous, “improper,” having
“no rational basis,” lacking “merit,” and “making no sense.”
In re Kendall, S.Ct. Misc. No. 2009–0025, 2011 WL
4852282, at *4 & n. 6 (V.I. Oct. 12, 2011). Indeed, the
opinion went so far as to say that the writ of mandamus “was
apparently sought and issued to facilitate [Bethel’s] blatant
misconduct and perpetrate a fraud on the [Superior] Court.”
Id. at *4 n. 6. Its issuance, Kendall wrote scathingly, was
therefore “contrary to law and all notions of justice.” Id.

but the ruling of the 3rd court was as follows:

we hold that the First Amendment protects a sitting judge from being criminally punished for his opinion unless that opinion presents a clear and present danger of prejudicing ongoing proceedings. Kendall’s opinion did not pose such a threat. We also agree with Kendall that there is insufficient evidence that his recusal was pretextual. Consequently, we will reverse the Virgin Islands Supreme Court’s judgment and vacate all of Kendall’s contempt convictions.

It is hard to see anything happening other than that.  Atty Kendall worked as a prosecutor and found a number of problems with the conviction of a certain criminal defendant.  At some point in time later, the case came back to him now as a sitting judge.  He then  wrote a scathing opinion on the plea bargain involved.  A new set of prosecutors and judges charged him with criminal contempt at the state appellate level.  The case eventually ended  up in the 3rd circuit where those Justices upheld the first Amendment and reversed Judge Kendall’s criminal contempt conviction.

Nonetheless, the standard, even for attorneys commenting on a case is good law.  The First Amendment requires that comments made by judge or attorney must present a “clear and present” danger.  While the ARDC does not like that Gloria Sykes, John Wyman Ken Ditkowsky and many, many others (Lisa Belanger, Rosanna Miller, Janet Phelan) have commented on cases and published on this blog where the law is X and the court did Y, none of this in a million years, even with stretching the truth like a weather balloon, could produce the resultant effect of this blog ever being a “clear and present danger” to anything or anyone.  It pretty much repeats what the litigants have said, and why they are extremely unhappy and it also explains why many of them have PTLD (post traumatic litigation disorder) and behave as probate victims do (fearful of attorneys, judges, court tied in or appointed personnel, etc.)

In re Kendall is very good case law.  The only question is, why the ARDC is doing X to Ken and I and Mr. Lanre Amu when First Amendment law is Y.

JoAnne

To: Tim NASGA , JoAnne Denison
Cc: j ditkowsky , Tim NASGA , GLORIA SYKES , Janet Phelan
Subject: Breach of Fiduciary Relationships

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: May 25, 2014 9:10 PM
To: j ditkowsky , Harry Heckert , Larry Chambers , Jo Anne M Denison , NASGA , probate sharks , Eric Holder , Cook County States Attorney , Cook Sheriff , “illinois.ardc@gmail.com” , ISBA Main Discussion Group
Subject: Elder Cleansing Scandal

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2014/05/25/guardian-problems-prompt-call-for-action.html

Does all this sound familiar to you probate victims out there and in particular, Rosanna Miller from Ohio who has tried every trick in book, up to a writ of habeus corpus to protect her parents from abusive guardianships.  She has worked tirelessly, has not found a pro bono attorney to help her, and yet her case was grossly unfair.

you can easily see dozens of articles on her case by googling “rosanna miller ohio corrupt guardianship.”

Let’s keep her and her father (alive) and mother (passed over) in our hearts, minds and prayers and that Rosanna sees justice soon.

First of all, I have to be a bit suspect.  You know when the police in the US do warantless searches without probable cause, they aren’t looking for drunken drivers.  Drunken drivers are obvious–they can’t drive.  They weave, they speed or they drive too slowly.  So what’s the point of these check points?  As shown in the video, I think they’re looking for drivers with warrants (this means forfeited bond money), drivers who need license plate or city stickers and who have parking tickets  I for one, have never believed that the police were after drunken drivers when those are so easy to spot.

So this video explains it all.  I’m not sure where this is, but if you plates are expired or stickers or whatever, they impound your car there.  Yikes

http://www.activistpost.com/2014/05/how-to-deal-with-warrantless-sobriety.html

Note the family with young children having to walk home. That could have been as serious an outcome as a drunken driver, a family without bright clothes, walking down busy streets at night, any or all of them could have been run over.

I’m just saying.

I for one do not believe that our Constitutions (US and State) permits any type of warrantless stops and seizures–except for an ongoing investigation, and yes, according to a recent SCOTUS decision, you do have to give the police your name and address.  If driving you have to show your driver’s license, etc.

But I will add, EVEN IF A POLICE OFFICER ASKS YOU TO DO SOMETHING HE HAS NO RIGHT TO ASK (remain for an indefinite period of time, destroy photos, stop recording or filming, submit to invasive searches), if you avoid jail, by all means do it and document it.  The reason you want to avoid jail is because it can be very, very dangerous.  Your safety is not guaranteed there and you can be put with very violent other offenders.  Risking jail is not worth searches, unfair and unreasonable detentions, destroying your property, etc.  Your life and safety is more important than anything else.

JoAnne

One of the rights a disabled person has is the right to ask for a “reasonable accommodation”  and this would include therapy animals, interpreters, and whatever else would help the disabled in court that was not expensive or requires extensive changes.

However see below what this judge did:

http://www.theindianalawyer.com/jqc-files-charge-against-st–joseph-judge-peter-nemeth/PARAMS/article/29470

Not only did he deny a disabled person, but he did it in a rude and insolent way, and amazingly enough, he was disciplined for this violation of the ADA.

Thanks for the article Tim.

JoAnne

One of the problems with getting media coverage for problematic probate cases is 1) the miscreant attorneys will threaten to sue the media outlets claiming that the ward has a right to privacy and so nothing can be said about them.  since the attorneys are generally court appointed and connected, the media backs off.  they have plenty of other stories. 2) the stories and situation is so out of control, absolutely no one believes or even wants to believe that all this is true; and 3) the court records systems are not fully public at this time, and so information is difficult to verify, and many miscreant attys want it that way.

Does that stop Gloria?  Heck no, see her major news story below, from Detroit, of all places.

http://www.tv20detroit.com/home/Fighting-Scammers-Who-Prey-on-the-Elderly-254986571.html

You go girl and keep it up.  Good job.   Well done.  A thousand gold stars for you today.

JoAnne

I believe I wrote you all a few months ago, when activist attorney Tom Gearhart told me that they took away his Daley center attorney’s pass.

Now, as you know, I for one have absolutely no need for “special treatment”, arrogance, condescension, being better than others, etc. and that’s why I write this blog, and that’s why I fight the powers that be, reminding them to follow the law and don’t look the other way when miscreants are doing the wrong thing.  Speak up. Say your peace, before nothing is left of the Bill of Rights and our Democracy.

So, yesterday, I trudged down to CL114 to try to renew my attorney pass, and the nice deputy man looked at my pass and said, “hon, I’m going to have to take this pass and you can’t get another, I think (horrors) you’re on “the list.”  Hmm, I wonder if that includes the “no fly” list too, but since I’ve so little money fighting for everyone’s rights at the Daley center (which I am perfectly fine with), it doesn’t matter they put me on that list either.  ho hum drum to that.

I asked to see a supervisor.   No, he was the supervisor.  I asked why they are doing this when I am an attorney in good standing.  He said he did not know.  I asked how I can find out.  He didn’t know.

Well, again, for me this is not a problem at all, in fact it’s just one more fun thing to put on the blog.  If you tell the truth about the Daley Center and the Sheriff’s Office, apparently they take away your hall pass, like some 7th grade bully that got made hall monitor because he threatened the teacher too!

Will I abandon you, the dear public over a silly pass?  Heck no.  Federal Court makes me stand in line anyway (looking for embroidery scissors and corkscrews) so no problem with the Daley Center and the Sheriff’s department, mainly because I stood up for myself and this blog and said THE PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO BLOG.  Now I’ve also said that people have a right to bring in their laptops, or whatever they need to take notes in court and calendar dates and when I’ve said that, the deputies didn’t like it.

Also, in probate when someone tries to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, they will add deputies to the courtroom (as if anyone cares about that other than the powers that be).  I am associated with the Sykes case and Gloria’s emphatic, emotionally charged First Amendment speeches (as if a 90 lb elderly vegan woman grandstanding is something dangerous to behold, when in fact they are in the absolutely lowest level of statistically criminally minded persons on earth.–that is next to 56 year old mothers of 4 that have no need for anything other than espousing justice firmly and not backing down).

Perhaps I need my “hall pass” taken away because of this blog.

I don’t know, but certainly the likes of Janet Phelan and Gloria Sykes can do FOIA’s and investigations and this can be reported to the authorities.

Since I and this blog only tell the truth, and the only thing I have done in court is calmly and collectively asserted my First Amendment rights and those of others, this means again, something nefarious is going on when a 56 year old mother of 4 has her “hall pass” taken away, for reasons that will not be stated, and the hall pass monitors will not say when I can get it back. (They suggested to me to come back in a year.)

In law school they told us if you are a criminal lawyer, and you get people off that makes the prosecutors mad, expect to get harassed by the IRS and other authorities on a regular basis because “that’s what they do.”  Even though it’s completely unfair, and unAmerican, expect it because “that’s what they do.”

My main badge of honor is that a blog about corruption (not following the law as written and in particular the Illinois Probate Act) is the “misconduct” medal by the ARDC and it was won with the following parade of witnesses against me: 1) an attorney with a $60k tax lien on his home and a super jumbo loan 2) attorneys that testify “they care deeply about probate wards and help them tremendously” and then admit they’ve only seen Mary about a half hour total in 5 years with one not seeing her at all; 3) a judge that changes her testimony on the stand during cross examination, a transcript different than what I heard or witnesses heard.  All of these people swore up and down on the ARDC stand they were “wonderful attorneys” “well respected by their colleagues”, but then their names are in fact nefarious and appear on the NASGA website as “most wanted.”

I really don’t know how the ARDC can live this one down and keep a straight face.  It’s near impossible.   SO called me a “mean girl” during the trial but she was at the same time referring to this blog.  The blog of a “mean girl.”  As far as I can tell, I’m only the “mean girl” when a court is doing X and the law is Y and I point that out.  Got it.

So I will keep on going down to CL114 and see if I can bring a crowd and see if I can get people to FOIA this information on my behalf.

You would think after the blog, the silly but grueling trial I went through, the fact that Ken Ditkowsky is now a hero and a martyr amongst probate victims, they would stop picking on us because the blog tells it all and it never ends well for the “powers that be” that are doing wrong.

Guess not.  Their is still too much money and power in it.

Just so you know, I don’t mind standing in line and talking to the nice guards about the US and Illinois constitution.  I LOVE talking about the constitutions in line and reminding people of their rights and they have the right to note take in court, they have the right to bring in their cell phones and laptops, they have the right to record in court under People v. Clark.

Pete Seeger is a personal hero of mine.  He was banned under the McCarthyism era when he refused to state to the US Congressional committee if he had “communist associations” or some such other nonsense.  He replied MYOB and I’m not answering that.  So he lost his lucrative Hollywood contracts, he was banned and blackballed.  He would, however, play regularly on PBS.  Good for him. But the worst upshot for the ‘powers that be” was that he then went out and taught thousands upon thousands of school children (where he could freely play his music) songs of protest, love, peace, activism and justice.  That’s how we know him and let’s pray for him and his recent passing over into eternal peace, love and justice. He went home in glory with all his tailfeathers.  He taught thousands and thousands of children to speak up for peace, love, truth and justice.  Good for him, a thousand gold stars for him, a thousand bags of coal for xmas for his persecutors.

Sometimes the devil wants to take your tail feathers, and he entices you with things like “special hall passes.”

Don’t buy into that, it’s a trap.

I have a button making kit and I’ll probably just wear a button, proud to uphold the US Constitution when I go in.

But for the life of me, I have no idea why the “powers that be” are so arrogant they could have possibly thought this was in fact a good idea.  No, it’s just more fodder for the martyr cannon.  And why would they think that going after a 56 year old mother of four looks anything but highly suspect on their part.  Again, they seem to be protecting attorneys and judges that do X when the law is Y, my question is, why do that do that?  What is the perceived need?  Or why do they pick on attorneys that uphold the constitutions of the US and Illinois and question the need for courts that do X when the law is Y?

Peace and love, all, peace and love.

JoAnne

http://www.infowars.com/exclusive-whistleblower-reveals-new-va-scandal/

Janet Phelan emailed this to me, and apparently, VA hospitals hire and do not fire staffers that say “old veterans are worthless and should be taken out back and shot in the head to save money.

Unbelievable.  This whistleblower has also decried the rampant fraud and waste at VA facilities.

Again, many estimates say health care is about 70% fraud in the US created by professionals (not the patient, as the ads would have you believe, but its’ the docs, the investors, the staff, etc) that are involved in the bulk of false claims, shuffling patients between facilities, unneeded procedures (even including amputations and other dangerous therapies) which comprise the bulk of health care fraud.

It’s sad, when so many people need real healthcare, that this is permitted to fester and foster.

joanne

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: May 21, 2014 9:00 PM
Subject: How to explain elder cleansing to a novice atty

Dear Readers;

Mr. Tim Lahrman of Indiana, who is actually a ward of that state, has graced us with some amazing and talented writing and research on the etymology of the term ward which is nothing less than fascinating.  Tim now researches and writes tirelessly for probate victims. Contact him if you have a pleading or statute to research and he may have your answers.

Read below and enjoy.

Tim–keep up the good work and much thanks for your sharing.

JoAnne

—–Original Message—–
From: timlahrman@aol.com
Sent: May 20, 2014 7:51 PM
To: JoAnne@justice4every1.com, kenditkowsky@yahoo.com, janet_c_phelan@yahoo.com, llessura@gmail.com, tinker.belle2000@yahoo.com
Cc: djmatson06@yahoo.com, NASGA.org@gmail.com, verenusl@gmail.com, JoAnne@DenisonLaw.com, vahrh1135@aol.com, jdit@aol.com, gloami@msn.com, jimdit@earthlink.net, LarryChambers@comcast.net, matt_abbott@kirk.senate.gov, ginny.johnsoncheeserings@gmail.com
Subject: I almost never write an email this long … but I hope you read it nonetheless —- Re: the 13th and 14th amendment do NOT make us all wards–are you kidding?

No Joanne, I am not kidding — nor am I wimping out of my part of the fight for I am but a ward —  

To the contrary I am offering perspective for discussion —  beginning with the Norman Conquest circa 1066 A.D.  —  where the written history of ‘wardship’ in the feudal days of Old England originates.   Question Joanne, what do you know about the legend of Robin Hood ??  Did you by chance know that the legend of Robin Hood was in fact the story of a ward’s revenge for the wrongs he suffered under a wardship ??    What do you know about Charles Dickens ??  Did you know that Charles Dickens was a ward of the Superintendent of the king’s debtor prison.  As a young boy his parents were imprisoned for their debts and so the Super. took wardship of Charles and indentured him to work for his keep ?  Did you know that Charles Dickens grew up to work as a clerk in the court and a journalist/reporter and that his works are largely inspired by his experiences as a ward and those of his parents who were freed from debtors prison because it was expected that they were about to inherit an estate and could then pay their debts — yet after years in a probate fight to get the inheritance they never did inherit what was owed them…..  Of course you know that when the white Anglo-Saxon landed on this continent and began to settle in — ultimately they placed all the American Indians under a national wardship (think about the old movies and TV westerns —  the Indian was always a ‘crazy injun’ — in contrast consider the theme of Dances With Wolves ….  as our country was settled, that which we could not understand we simply slaughter and oppressed … chased them down hunted them down and confined them to the reservation — which in part looked like a segregated nursing home of the present…. I am being cynical of course.)

The problems with wardship and with ‘probate’ dates back to these times Joanne — it is an old old problem that has simply never really changed.  So let’s go back to feudal times …. and I garner this perspective in part from a 1962 Marquette Law Review article and a 1965 Ill App. Ct. case which point out …..

In feudal days and following the Norman Conquest — ‘society’ as it was then had a two-court system — the king had his court and the church had theirs (the ecclesiastic courts)

The jurisdiction and legal interests of the king was limited to control of his castle on ‘the hill’ and all land of the sovereign.  The only way a man (never a woman) could acquire land was by either service to the king or inheritance from some man who once served the king.  The king had no interest whatsoever in a man’s belongings, in his marriage, in the children of a marriage nor in death of any person.  All the king had jurisdiction over was his castle on ‘the hill’, the land of the sovereign and the taxes for the king’s land in the possession of others.  All land was held in wardship of the king.

The church courts had jurisdiction over marriage, divorce albeit a very rare event, care of the orphans and widows, and probate of a will and death estate.  In these times it was a sin to die without a will and the fees of the ecclesiastic court for the probate of a will were presumed to be intended by the decedent to ‘pay for masses’ [my words .. the final tithing]

so I ask — do we know and understand our history ???   Is the above structure of courts what the founding fathers envisioned when they wrote the ‘establishment clause’  —-  to forever keep the king out of the business of the churches ???   Which means to forever keep the king from having jurisdiction over anything but his castle on ‘the hill’ , the land of the sovereign and the taxes on the king’s land in the possession of others…..  Think about it folks —-  where do we see all this BS going on in the legal profession today — which is empowered centrally in the king, actually two kings now days (one state one federal) —  huhhhh, imagine that, family law proceedings and probate proceedings.   In sum, today, the king is performing what was historically the functions of the church courts.   How did the king get this jurisdiction ??   Before I answer the foregoing question, know this — throughout the history of old England from the feudal days neither the king nor the ecclesiastic courts had jurisdiction to appoint a guardian for an adult.  The ONLY jurisdiction for appointing a guardian was vested in the ecclesiastic courts to appoint a guardian for a minor child who had an interest in a decedent’s estate as an heir under a will in probate.  Death has always been the jurisdictional fact and requisite condition precedent for invoking the probate jurisdiction of the ecclesiastic courts.  Now, back to how the king got into the business of family law and probate …..

First of all the king in chancery was known to assume that on rare occasions a minor child could be provided for by the king (parens patriae) for example, Charles Dickens — the king imprisoned his parents, he was not an orphan that the church court had jurisdiction, and so the king, out of the goodness of his heart, gave wardship of Charles to the superintendent of the debtors prison —  Still however in these days the king had no interest whatsoever or jurisdiction to provide for the incompetent adult.  The church courts had no interest or jurisdiction because the unfortunate incompetent very likely never has any estate or a will. —–

Now, as I understand it from my research the kings court in Chancery was always open to those who were aggrieved by the events and processes of the ecclesiastic courts — by contrast those aggrieved by the kings court had no remedy in the ecclesiastic courts.  Accordingly the king had a steady flow of complaints about the ecclesiastic courts simply because the church courts were themselves at times corrupt and corruptible.  As I believe I once read in the 1400’s the king set up the “Star Chamber’ just for the cases of corruption that came to the kings court from the ecclesiastic courts …  the king had no problem meting out swift and summary justice to the evil-doers and untouchables over in the ecclesiastic courts — and the king always had an eye out for abolishing the ecclesiastic courts all together because, quite frankly, they were a pain in his ass …. and clogged up the kings courts …. (looks kind of familiar to the clog in todays courts too)

The struggle to abolish the ecclesiastic courts waged on and over time the king’s court in Chancery was increasingly taking jurisdiction of matters brought to it from the ecclesiastic courts — for example, the ecclesiastic court would admit a will to probate, appoint the estate representative — and if an interested party ‘filed a bill’ requesting Chancery to administer the estate, Chancery could and would take the case from the ecclesiastic court.  (a change of venue)  [This practice is still done to this date —  probate appoints a guardian and/or death estate representative — and any interested party can then ask the Chancery Court to assume jurisdiction over the ‘administration’.]

In 1832 the Parliament of England abolished its ‘Court of Delegates’ (which I understand was a special court for appeals to the king from ecclesiastic courts — evolved out of the Star Chamber) and the powers of the former Court of Delegates was transferred to the king’s Judicial Committee —  In 1857 [and this is significant I think] the king’s  ‘Judicial Committee’ created the English ‘Court of Probate’ and ‘Divorce Court’ —-  thus stripping the ecclesiastic courts of its jurisdiction over probate and matrimonial matters.  1857 …. is this important to us ??  I think so ….  Remember, it was not until 1857 that the king had original and exclusive jurisdiction over a man’s belongings, his marriage/divorce, children of a marriage etc. etc.  But in 1857 the king assumed his authority and jurisdiction over all of his ‘subjects’ and his ‘subject’s property ….  from birth to death.

1857 America — if I am not mistaken … Lincoln never really opposed slavery … it was a known and recognized practice to ‘indenture’ people, the slave however was not a people — the slave was a thing, a belonging, property which, at common law the king had no interest in nor jurisdiction over.  So how does the king in America get jurisdiction over that which at common law was beyond his authority —-  In 1862 Lincoln entered into a treaty with England to abolish slavery, a prior court case in England had abolished slavery and in keeping with our common law principles derived from English common law our country had to change policies on slavery — never mind there had already been an anti-slavery movement in the states, just not the southern states.  War broke out in S. Carolina and Kentucky over this anti-slavery treaty and in 1862 Lincoln issued Executive Order 1 which recognized the War Department for quashing the rebellion in Kentucky.  In 1863 Lincoln issued the ‘Emancipation Proclamation’ — and again war broke out because — slavery was bad?  or was it because the king just took jurisdiction over a man’s property ?  It was absolutely imperative that Lincoln win the war because the Emancipation Proclamation was being challenged as an unconstitutional taking of property and it was imperative to Lincoln that the 13th Amendment be passed — in order to render the war moot … all of which took place in 1865.  On February 1, 1865 Lincoln approved and signed the Join Resolution of the Congress regarding the 13th amendment and submitted it to the States for ratification — on April 9, 1865 Lee surrendered at Appomattox, and on April 15, 1965 Lincoln is assassinated —  the law of the land is now — the sovereign (the king) has jurisdiction over what is/was a man’s belongings.  (don’t get me wrong … I do not espouse owning another person as property … but the 13th amendment did not abolish slavery … it only abolished ‘involuntary servitude’ … which means that voluntary servitude is still quite welcome and acceptable)  Interesting enough … along comes the 14th Amendment.  Never mind how beautiful it is and what it says —-  what did the 14th Amendment do ??   Okay, it conferred upon the states the first ten Amendments, it gave a legally recognizable ‘personage’ to the freed slave, and at the very same time it made all of us ‘citizens’ of a country to which we were never before citizens, and we now come under a jurisdiction to which we never before, as free-thinking liberty-loving people, fell under….  Bear with me here please because as you are about to see — in the minds of some — Lincoln did not free the slaves, but rather he made us all slaves and here is how.  The 13th amendment abolishes ‘involuntary servitude’ …. which only means the ‘slave’ has to be paid for his/her services, and because Article I of the Constitution gives to the United States Congress the power to regulate commerce — whether ‘slave’ or ‘freeman’ being paid for your services makes all of us an instrument of commerce for which Congress has the jurisdiction to regulate.  We are ‘wage slaves’ … might be free men and women … but we are ‘wage slaves’ ….  The system is set up in such a way that we have no choice but to be wholly dependent on a wage and without some means of commerce survival as a free man or woman is all but impossible.  You know, case law says it is the duty of the guardian to keep his ward employed ….  funny, Congress regulates our ‘minimum wage’ … and in recent years ‘job creation’ has been, in part, at the forefront of our country’s agenda …  You do realize that there is no constitutional right to vote (read Bush v. Gore) …. and what is your right to vote except the right to nominate your representative who will climb atop ‘the hill’ and represent your best interests as her or she sees fit ….  kinda looking like a guardianship here Joanne … you work, whether voluntarily or involuntarily out of necessity, your ‘representative’ takes his cut for his role of sitting atop ‘the hill’ representing your interests to the king in his castle… and you are told to get back to work …. leave the policy making to the ‘representatives’ that you nominated with your vote.  So I ask, some people say if you don’t vote — you don’t have a voice and have no right to complain —-  but is not voting really giving up your voice … to a representative who will climb atop ‘the hill’ and in the kings castle represent your interests ??  ….  I had to laugh several years ago when I heard King George Bush say in a press conference — “It’s time we let the American people keep more of their money”, and so I have to ask — where did King George ever get jurisdiction over my money (my stuff) in the first place …..  oh, that’s right —- the 13th and 14th Amendments which creates in me a ‘citizenship’ in a nation that I have, perhaps unknowingly, voluntarily consented to.

    I say, we are all wards — we might be free men and women — but our system of government views us all, and treats us all, as its ‘subjects’ under its control only allowing for us to control, in our own right, that which the king wants us to control …. otherwise, just like every other ward — the king, the supreme guardian, will decide for us just what is in our best interest ……   Of course the king does not want us to know we are his ward, lest we then try and enforce the fiduciary duties owed to us — and God knows the US Government has learned from the American Indian just what happens when and if the ward ever garners the insight and finally figures it out ….  In sum, not all of us can own and operate our own casino, with the kings blessing and sanction of course.

In close, does Chicago still refer to its political districts as ‘wards’ ??   Is not the ‘Superintendent of our prisons referred to as ‘the warden’ ?  Why at the hospital is it called the ‘maternity ward’ ?  Why do attorneys have ‘clients’ and why s the attorney-client relationship fiduciary in nature ??  Before I disclose the answer to this last question let me tell you how and why I went looking for the answer —-  a few years back a friend of mine, who has since died, was running for office as a County Commissioner — he was a former county sheriff and his soap box was the ‘prisoner for profit’ agenda.  Elkhart County was under a consent judgment with the DOJ to cure the overcrowding in our county jail — at the time of the consent judgment our jail was built to house 370 prisoners and the County was in the process of building a 100 million dollar 3,700 person capacity jail (expandable to 9,000) —  there was an article in the local paper about the county’s probation program and ‘community corrections’ contract being given to another entity in the dead of the night and without any bidding process.  Community Corrections administers the county’s probation program and as it turned out when the new entity began to set-up its operation …. low and behold there were more names on the probation roster than bodies in the probation program … of course names on the roster equates to federal funding from the DOJ and bodies in the program equates to higher administrative expense … you do the math and conclude as you wish …. but things really looked like a pile of fraud taking place…  Anyhow while blogging on the news article I asked the question —-  why does the article speak of ‘criminal defendants’ ….. and then half way through the article the ‘criminal defendant’ was suddenly on longer referred to as being a criminal defendant but rather was referred to as a ‘client’ of community corrections ??  Of course my point was that the word ‘client’ had some overtones of a commercial interest … and as it turns out I was dead wrong —– kind of anyhow.  The word ‘client’, defined in Black’s Law Dictionary 2nd ed., derived in origin from the word ‘cliens’ … Roman Cannon Law and the word ‘cliens’, according to Black’s 2nd ed. —  denotes a guardianship…. hence the reason the attorney client relationship is fiduciary in nature and character (the client is wholly dependent on the attorney for the task the client submitted to the attorney) and the reason the ‘criminal defendant’ was a client of community corrections — he/she is/was a ward of the probation program.

It is simply inescapable —-  the law of wardship is deeply rooted in our history.  We have never really known true freedom and we never will truly realize true freedom so long as there is a king on ‘the hill’.  Think about it — the king (the sovereign) still to this day holds all land in wardship … don’t pay your property taxes and just look at who comes and takes the land back … the king does, afterall it has always been his land … he was just simply kind enough to let you use it and call it yours so long as you pay him the taxes.

As for Robin Hood —- he served the king in ‘knight-service’ and for his service he was entitled to land which — once Robin Hood completed his knight-service and went to claim his land … he found his land lay in waste, pilfered of all its resources and value by the Sheriff of Nottingham … and the rest is as we say —- what legends are made of.

Tim Lahrman, guardianship paralegal and advisor and ward of the state of Indiana.

Note, this is how learned and educated a ward is.  I defy the ARDC and the State of Indiana to come up with a single reason why this man is under a guardianship.

For a great book on some stories of the Workhouses and Poor houses of England, (5 stars on Amazon) read, “Call the Midwife” also available as DVD’s or a series on PBS, but the video version has not gotten to the story of Mrs. Jenkins, a woman who was so desperate to save her starving children after she had been widowed (circa 1930-40 in London), she rang the bell of the Workhouse.  She describes in detail how she was separated from her 4 children upon arrival and never saw them again.  The book explains how women were separated from husbands and how chlidren were taken away immediately, never to be seen again, because without the care and comfort of a mother, they died.  Her 4 children died of grief and inhumane conditions.  Read the story of “Mrs. Jenkins”.  She was “allowed” to leave the Workhouse after 20 years with a sewing machine to make a living, after she had “saved enough” and “proved herself”.  Work days every day, 12 hours, at pennies per hour.  No break.  No visitors.  Fresh air one hour per day in a gravel courtyard.  She never survived the workhouse or the death of 4 children there intact.  True story.  The book also has story after story of the true heroes (actually heroines) of the London docks in the 1940’s to 50’s talking about women who gave birth to child after child, raising them, feeding them with endless hours of housework.  Highly recommended.

—–Original Message—–
From: JoAnne M Denison <jdenison@surfree.com>
To: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>; Janet Phelan <janet_c_phelan@yahoo.com>; timlahrman <timlahrman@aol.com>; llessura <llessura@gmail.com>; tinker”Janet Phelan at Tinker Belle” <tinker.belle2000@yahoo.com>
Cc: djmatson06 <djmatson06@yahoo.com>; NASGA.org <NASGA.org@gmail.com>; verenusl <verenusl@gmail.com>; JoAnne <JoAnne@DenisonLaw.com>; vahrh1135 <vahrh1135@aol.com>; jdit <jdit@aol.com>; gloami <gloami@msn.com>; jimdit <jimdit@earthlink.net>; LarryChambers <LarryChambers@comcast.net>; matt_abbott <matt_abbott@kirk.senate.gov>; ginny.johnsoncheeserings <ginny.johnsoncheeserings@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, May 20, 2014 1:13 am
Subject: Re: the 13th and 14th amendment do NOT make us all wards–are you kidding?

13 th amendment:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation

14th amendment

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

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

Section 1 contains beautiful words.  What’s with this doubting?  We have to stop doubting.  The Illinois Probate Act and other state laws are beautiful. The US constitution is beautiful.  The Illinois state constitution on its face is beautiful.

it does not make us slaves.  stop that nonsense.  stop your doubting and stand strong against these miscreants, reprobates and scallywags.

they want you to doubt and question yourself.

but when you were born, everything you need to know about love, caring, kindness, truth and justice was already imprinted upon your hearts.  stick with that.  then interpret the words of the laws of the land.

do you know how lucky we are to even have gotten those words?  it is amazing.

democracy is NOT a spectator sport.  get involved.  write letters.  pummel the IARDC, the federal district judges–anyone that is in a position of power to LISTEN to your grievances and instruction.  fax, write, email, call. whatever works for you.  the media is NOT important.

I know there are probate victims out there that have been brow beat, have PTLD that cannot do this. but please stop the doubting and the worrying, and carry your torch, your truth and light up the world.

the 13th and 14th amendments are amazing on their face. do not twist the words to the dark side.  do not doubt yourselves.

we all have our part.  do your part and do not doubt by thinking what I do is not enough, what the dark side says is true (it is most certainly not) and I can’t do anything as one person.

We ARE a collective consciousness.  Do your part.

joanne

PS okay to publish this and cross post

—–Original Message—–
From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: May 19, 2014 9:28 PM
To: Janet Phelan , “timlahrman@aol.com” , “llessura@gmail.com”
Cc: “djmatson06@yahoo.com” , “NASGA.org@gmail.com” , “verenusl@gmail.com” , “JoAnne@DenisonLaw.com” , “vahrh1135@aol.com” , “jdit@aol.com” , “gloami@msn.com” , “jimdit@earthlink.net” , “LarryChambers@comcast.net” , “matt_abbott@kirk.senate.gov” , “ginny.johnsoncheeserings@gmail.com”
Subject: Re: 2nd letters from Disciplinary Counsel – NOW WHAT DO I DO?

let’s see if we can set up it!   It certainly will call attention to the fact that we are losing the war promulgated by the miscreant judicial officials [and those in government who attorn] against the elderly and the disabled.

Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: May 16, 2014 9:57 AM
To: “information@iardc.org” , “illinois.ardc@gmail.com” , Tim NASGA , NASGA , probate sharks , JoAnne Denison , Chicago Tribune , Chicago FBI , Eric Holder , Eric Blair , Harry Heckert , j ditkowsky , matt senator kirk , Edward Carter , Janet Phelan , GLORIA SYKES , Ginny Johnson Justice4 Everyone Blog Fan , SUNTIMES , “ACLU@ACLU.ORG” , Lucinda
Subject: Fw: dorothy brown’s ******

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: May 16, 2014 11:13 AM
To: “jdit@aol.com” , “joanne@denisonlaw.com” , “ACLU@ACLU.ORG” , “acluofillinois@aclu-il.org” , Chicago FBI , Chicago Tribune , Eric Holder , GLORIA SYKES , Harry Heckert , Eric Blair , Janet Phelan , Cook County States Attorney , Cook Sheriff , “illinois.ardc@gmail.com” , “isilverstein@senatedem.ilga.gov” , SUNTIMES
Subject: Re: URL for important Chicago Tribune Article

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

And I would like to add that Illinois no longer has an Eavesdropping Statute, so people should be allowed to record court proceedings. They are public.  But see prior blog post for other considerations (there may be a federal law involved–see prior post on ISBA article).

This blog stands for any recordings made in public, and esp. in the court house should be covered under the First Amendment as a people’s right.

JoAnne

And just to remind everyone, if you send me something, it is nice to send it “okay to publish/post/cross post” so I can publish right away.  Also if you want to remain anonymous, I want to reassure everyone I will claim reporter’s privilege and the Illinois Reporter’s Shield Law and/or attorney confidential information.  I am prepared to go to jail to hide your identity, I don’t wear shoes with shoe laces anyway.  I prefer flip flops, if you all know (but not in the office or court).

From a person that wants to remain anonymous:

“I never thought these criminals to be stupid, I believe that they had a fairly tight organization which may have a few minor cracks.  I know from the millions I have heard about being stolen by other victims who are not afraid to talk, that this organization is well financed.  I suspect that there are some in this organization, or that have been part of this organization in the past, who realize they got in to more than they bargained for.  I hope that some of these people will come forth now that they know they will not have to fight alone.  Since the Jan and Feb articles in the Denver Post this year, I have met several other people who have been victims trying to fight this alone.  several other victims have complained against the same small group of career criminals that I believe allowed my mother to die for their own greed.  
I think we all have to worry that these spies have even infiltrated some groups like this one.  There is a lot of money at stake. I expect that they will abuse their positions and try to spy on and harass anyone they can.  Their weapons will likely include abuse of the laws with frivolous lawsuits like contempt. 
These criminals have relied on threats, abuse and misuse of laws.  For them stealing from an Alzheimer’s patient is as easier than taking candy from a baby.   It is especially easy in probate, when you can gag the baby. 
Law is probably a lot easier when you don’t have to substantiate or actually justify anything you do, and evidence your opponents produce is mocked as irrelevant.
But….
These felons count on fear of financial ruin or even imprisonment.  They don’t realize that to those of us who really cared about their so called ‘ward’,  we have lost much more already than they can ever take away, or make reparations for.  Then never counted on the persistence of these people to do risk freedom or even money to see that we live in the country we thought we lived in.  They never counted on the tenacity of the victims that they beat into the ground, many times using their own money against them.  They never counted on the ability of people to use groups like this one, to put together the pieces of the crimes they thought they could bury as easily as buried our loved ones.
As discouraging as our legal system is, I still have hope that in the end, like in the comics, Justice will prevail over evil. 
“You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one”…..John Lennon(Imagine)
 
 
 ****

thank you for your kind thoughts.  because you are a probate victim and court corruption victim, your words mean more than my words do, anonymous or not.  I pray for your and your sufferings and that you be granted, peace, love and blessings.

JoAnne

It is very interesting this article is no where to be found in the Chicago Trib today, but the Christian Science Monitor published it.

Ken estimates health care fraud at 70% of the budget.  This article seems to back that up and kudos today for the Obama administration and eliminating this health care fraud so that people with real needs can be better taken care of.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/0513/Medicare-fraud-Feds-charge-90-plus-people-for-260-million-in-false-claims

Recently, $154 million was paid in health care fraud claims by Omnicare without batting an eye.  This $260 million sting operation in health care is not surprising.

Today, at the State of Illinois building I saw hundreds picketing for government health care.  I wondered how many of them knew that the massive fraud is the major element in preventing those programs from going forward.  We have plenty of people in need of health care.  For some reason the fraudsters make up imaginary patients and conditions, “treat” those patients when the real patients in need go wanting.

Let’s work to make this a better system. To expose the fraud and make the doctors and hospitals and nursing homes do their jobs so that people can be healthier and get better.

JoAnne

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: May 13, 2014 6:31 AM
To: Eric Holder , GLORIA SYKES , Janet Phelan , Cook County States Attorney , Cook Sheriff , NASGA , probate sharks , Jo Anne M Denison , “illinois.ardc@gmail.com” , j ditkowsky , Harry Heckert , scott evans , Kathie Bakken , Chicago FBI
Cc: Chicago Tribune , SUNTIMES , “fox2newsdesk@foxtv.com” , “foxnews_7D7B711AF105DCA690AB56169C0FF242@newsletters.foxnews.com” , Chicago FBI , “chicagotonight@wttw.com” , “illinois.ardc@gmail.com” , DAVID SILVER , Tim NASGA , “tips@elderabuseexposed.com” , “tips@cbschicago.com”
Subject: 18 USCA 4 disclosure

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: May 12, 2014 10:04 AM
To: Tim NASGA , Bill , probate sharks , JoAnne Denison , NASGA , Tim NASGA , Janet Phelan , Harry Heckert , j ditkowsky , “zamirkatan@aol.com”
Subject: Fw: Hey, your name is missing from this petition to overturn Citizens United and McCutcheon

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

Now, this event will not take place in a church, but rather a pub, but it evokes a very interesting concept:  apparently the Satanic “black mass” makes fun of Mother Mary and Jesus or something like that.  We don’t really know, because the RCC and Fox News (the news agency that has suddenly become Roman Catholic (RCC), is sketchy on details but long on criticism of an event which has not happened yet, and for which details have not been released, at least not yet on youtube.com

So this week we found:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/05/12/harvard-satanic-black-mass-remains-scheduled-despite-growing-outrage/

I guess I found the Fox News video to be lame as usual, a stiff collared priest claiming “mockery” of Catholic Religion, etc. but with no details. So this even more lame Catholic student “Tag” just says all Catholic students are up on arms but no one else cares.  Primarily, “Tag” looks like a stuck up rich kid just missing his SmartPhone to play with thru all the interview, and he isn’t really ready with his POV.

What I don’t understand is why Fox News did not interview a satanist.  Are there Satanists?  What do they stand for?  Do they hate or taunt RCC members or do they just make fun of them?  Are we talking South Park Satan, or Penny Dreadful Satan or Exocist scary Satan? The RCC has to learn that our knowledge and understanding of Satan and Lucifer no longer comes from the bible, but from the MPAA.  That means we have to be told whether or not Satan is South Park, Penny Dreadful or Exorcist.

The Fox response?  Burn the Koran instead of insulting the RCC church (Roman Catholic, there are American Catholics, you know).  The priest’s conclusion? Pray and be respectful.  Good idea and I agree with that, but then he goes one step further and says “don’t denigrate us or make fun of us.”

Okay, just so everyone is straight on this blog. You DO get to make fun of me and denigrate me, but only if the joke is better than “somewhat lame.”  I will even publish it.  I grew up with 4 brothers and now have a husband and 3 sons (can’t get away from that 4 male numbers), but I can deal with it.  I promise you won’t make me cry.

The First Amendment Response is everyone has to get along in the sandbox.  And yes, sometimes you will be made fun of and taunted and maybe it’s time to go home for milk and cookies.  But hey, we’re all older so we can do cheeseburgers and jello shots!

Remember, the Satanists won’t get milk and cookies.

Of course, the true answer to all of this is that it must be a slow newsday.  South Park makes more fun of all religions, but esp. the Roman Catholic Church, Jesus AND Satan.  No one mentioned that.  I’m pretty sure South Park has done a Satanist mass on South Park, but I don’t think the Satanists have called for South  Park creators to resign.  Well maybe they did, but they just got another show making fun of them.

I don’t know if they burned a Koran on South Park either, but they regularly dig into the Muslim stuff and yes, they have even shown Mohammed in construction paper on the show.  Another ho hum.

Again, slow news day.  If the Satanists at Harvard want to re-enact a “black mass” (what is that, a black licorice eucharist) I do believe the Frist Amendment permits that, and it permits South Park doing the same too. (Does it mean I’m a Satanist if I advocate chocolate cake for a eucharist instead of a boring, possibly GMO over processed white wafer of “bread product?”)

Now, do I want to go and get all that negativity on me?  Heck no.  But if there is some perceived need for a bunch of Harvard students to engage in such risky behavior, I’m not sure it needs to be treated like recreational drugs or drinking parties.

Because in the end you pray for something negative for someone else, it always seems to come back to YOU.  If you ask for harm, it will be in the end on YOUR shoulders and rarely the intended victim.  If Harvard kids, as smart as they are made out to be, haven’t figured that out, well there is something else–free will, and they need to hold their hands over the fire to get a burn, so be it.  Just to mix religions like a Waldorf salad, I also believe in free will and karma as an effective learning tool, so you all go for that. As Sponge Bob says when Plankton wants to take over the world, “good luck with that.”

Another of their websites:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2014/5/11/black-mass-extension-school/

On this website they claim the students will in fact denigrate or “sacrilege” a eucharist, which is basically sacrilege a piece of bread.  The RCC doesn’t do the real, organic, fair trade, wine and bread thing any more, they have tasteless thin wafers instead.  I’m not sure how you can “sacrilege” those, they already look pretty processed to me, but then I think sacrilege would be making them GMO or something, AND allow them to be made non organic.  Again, I have no idea how a black mass would affect an RCC eucharist since those already look overly processed, non-organic, non fair trade and GMO to me.  I mean, they really aren’t food already are they?  They’re a “food product.”  The RCC for sure has gone “kraft” mac and cheese, far as I can tell.

And just to point out another hole in their “holy” religious warfare logic here, if the Satanic Anti-Mass is only a re-enactment, the RCC teaches you can’t have a “real” RCC mass without a “real” male RCC priest (women and gay RCC priest/esses don’t count), so if the Satanic Priest is only an educator or student, then how can what he does possibly count for anything or have any effect?  Just pointing that out.  The RCC usu. requires something official and genuine, and the annoucement says it is an unofficial re-enactment for educational purposes.

In any case, without any details or a video or you tube

As usu. an absolutely brilliant reporter said they won’t use a “concentrated host“, but just a saltine cracker.  Hmm, interesting.  More reasons for me NOT to watch CNN or Fox “news”.

In this video, a priest comes up with the word “provocating” and “absolutize” to justify the fact that Harvard should ban all “black masses.”  Unfortunately the First Amendment does not ban provocating and absolutized speech.

My question?  The issues are definitely worthy of South Park, all the Boston priests are actually a bunch of yawners and Fox News once against justifies the fact it is not worth watching.  With respect to the “Harvard Student” they are lame, rich, unconnected at best, and at worst, they obviously didn’t pass their 6th grade US and state constitution tests, (which I did with 100%) and they make our own CPS look good in that arena.  Glad I went to U of I in Chicago after seeing those students.

Interesting that no lawyers were put on these shows–only priests, students,etc.

Let’s see if the show is utubized to see if the warnings of danger, drawing up evil forces and all that are shown on video.  One would think that if religion requires intent, which it does, and anti religion, unlike anti matter would also require intent. pure educational interests should be devoid of an intent factor–something required to change neutral to bad or good to evil.  The students, with the explanation of “educational pursuit” have the best argument so far.  If you don’t intend harm, none will come.

It still seems to me that if Satan and Lucifer are “fallen angels” and if Jesus always forgives with pure love, can Jesus, Mother Mary, Mary Magdalene and the entire holy family show up and convince Satan and Lucifer to change their evil ways?  It also seems to me, that if the RCC and all it’s priests and priestesses are so strong (I do take the encompassing approach that a few strong bishops cannonizing women priestesses is valid and actually advances the RCC), why don’t they just hand out their pamphlets on a “better religion” on the way in and out?  Also, can’t they just “white light” the service and participants and be done with it?  I thought the basis of “black mass” is that it is hidden evil and can do actual harm because it can’t be countered with prayer and light.

However, I have to note for the record, if the Pentagon and the White House are creating wars and weapons and drones that kill, that is a far worse and serious “black mass”  or “black magic” or “black religion” (hmm, maybe pun intended) than any Harvard student can ever dream up in the name of education and I find that to be a much more serious issue.

I believe the Harvard students are in fact educating us to what works in our lives and what does not.  What is a “black mass” and if you do in fact worship Lucifer and Satan, are you joining the dark side.  Will you end up in Congress or even the President and intellectually justify wars which mostly kill women and children and the elderly and rarely a “terrorist” and rarely anyone it was intended to kill?  Is the “black mass” at Harvard in the basement of a pub, or is it in Congress when they vote to wage war or when the President authorizes drones to kill people, on “foreign soil” (and I do NOT believe any land given to us by god/dess is somehow different from our own soil, we all have to share, you know), is any less harmful than the “black mass” said tonight in a pub at Harvard.

You tell me.  Why does Fox News use useless commentators when lawyers would have been better.  We all have religion, most of us have has past lives as priests and priestesses, but our thoughts I believe are more interesting.  And we don’t think that by using “provocating” and “absolutize” that gets us around the First Amendment.

I think the real fear with any church is that they WANT to control, they WANT to corral, but god/dess has given us free will.  The best way for some people to learn is by burning their hands when they put them over candles, and I for one do not want to keep them from such an interesting and effective karmic exercise in their lives.

JoAnne

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: May 12, 2014 10:04 AM
To: Tim NASGA , Bill , probate sharks , JoAnne Denison , NASGA , Tim NASGA , Janet Phelan , Harry Heckert , j ditkowsky , “zamirkatan@aol.com”
Subject: Fw: Hey, your name is missing from this petition to overturn Citizens United and McCutcheon

Dear Readers;

As many of you might know, Ken and I have been working on our appellate brief to the 7th circuit court of appeals.  Ken and I filed a civil rights suit independent of our ARDC disciplinary proceedings complaining about the fact 1) all we did was engage in political speech and wrote the authorities and our friends and other probate victims to complain what is going on in the court system is not fair and not right; 2)  I started a blog (this blog) which posted communicated from myself, Ken, Gloria and others to protest the probate court abuses where the court was regularly not following the law, was ignoring Powers of Attorney, and was paying big bucks to favored attorneys and tied in case managers and such and depleting estates leaving seniors worse off than if they had never gone into the probate system.

I readily admit that I and this blog are not perfect.  I don’t have all the solutions, but when I see that Mary Sykes’ estate went $250k+ to attorneys, $1 million in gold coins fell off the inventory (please send me ideas of how to investigate this) and cash in the mattress of $40k is gone, I start to see red.  I have many, many complaints from alleged “wards” that their estates are gone, they were told to live in a nursing home when they did not want to, they escaped and lived on the lamb for a couple of years but their estates were billed $20k or more, they had a house and bank account but were told they had to live in a nursing home, families were isolated from the seniors, seniors drugged against their will–wrongfully, it just brings me to tears.  I don’t get it.  No one warned me about this in law school.

Getting back to the subject at hand (boy, this truly is a blog, stream of consciousness) the brief, Ken says, just wrote itself.  And that’s the way it should be when the majority of the cases are on your side.

My favorite case quotes?

This court has recognized that the Supreme Court “indicates that the First
Amendment does not authorize restrictions on “pure speech” merely for the purpose of protecting judges from criticism. E.g., Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 273, 62 S.Ct. 190, 86 L.Ed. 192 (1941), Chicago Council of Lawyers v. Bauer, 522 F. 2d 242, 257 (7 Cir. 1975). Emphasis added

“An appellate Court must independently examine the entire record in First
Amendment cases to ensure that ‘a forbidden intrusion on the *496 field of free
expression’ has not occurred.”

“At the very least, [the] cases recognize that disciplinary rules governing the
legal profession cannot punish activity protected by the First Amendment,
and that First Amendment protection survives even when the attorney
violates a disciplinary rule he swore to obey when admitted to the practice of
law.” Gentile.

“The First Amendment reflects ‘a profound national commitment to the
principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and
wide-open.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270, 84 S.Ct. 710,
11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964). That is because “speech concerning public affairs is
more than self-expression; it is the essence of self-government.” Garrison v.
Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 74–75, 85 S.Ct. 209, 13 L.Ed.2d 125 (1964).
Accordingly, “speech on public issues occupies the highest rung of the
hierarchy of First Amendment values, and is entitled to special protection.”
Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138

The First Amendment was “designed and intended to remove governmental restraints from the arena of public discussion, putting the decision as to what views shall be voiced largely into the hands of each of us, .. . in the belief that no other approach would comport with the premise of individual dignity and choice
upon which our political system rests.” Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 24,
91 S.Ct. 1780, 29 L.Ed.2d 284 (1971). As relevant here, the First
Amendment safeguards an individual’s right to participate in the public
debate through political expression and political association. See, Buckley,
424 U.S. at 15. McCutcheon v. F.E.C., 12-536, 2014 WL 1301866 (U.S. Apr.
2, 2014) (Emphasis added).

It is, however, a basic First Amendment principle that freedom of
speech prohibits the government from telling people what they must say.”
Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47,
61, 126 S.Ct. 1297, 164 L.Ed.2d 156 (2006) (citing West Virginia State Bd. of
Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642, 63 S.Ct. 1178, 87 L.Ed. 1628 (1943), and
Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 717, 97 S.Ct. 1428, 51 L.Ed.2d 752 (1977)).
“At the heart of the First Amendment lies the principle that each person
should decide for himself or herself the ideas and beliefs deserving of
expression, consideration, and adherence.” Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.

(“The government may not … compel the endorsement of
ideas that it approves.”). Were it enacted as a direct regulation of speech, the
Policy Requirement would plainly violate the First Amendment. The question
is whether the Government may nonetheless impose that requirement as a
condition on the receipt of federal funds”. Agency for Int’l Dev. v. Alliance for
Open Soc’y Int’l, Inc.,

“[A]s a general matter, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U.S. 564, 573, 122 S.Ct. 1700, 152 L.Ed.2d 771 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). As a result, *2544 the Constitution “demands that content based restrictions on speech be presumed invalid … and that the Government bear the burden of showing their constitutionality.” Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 542 U.S. 656, 660, 124 S.Ct. 2783, 159 L.Ed.2d 690 (2004)”. United States v. Alvarez,

“T]he concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our
society in order to enhance *350 the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment”; Automobile Workers,

The First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech does not extend only to
categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and
benefits. The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American
people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the
costs. Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply
on the basis that some speech is not worth it. The Constitution is not a document
“prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.”
Marbury v. Madison (US 1803)

“It hardly needs elaboration to make it clear that the question of the total
insufficiency of the evidence to sustain a serious charge of professional
misconduct, against a backdrop of the claimed constitutional rights of an
attorney to speak as freely as another citizen, is not one which can be
subsumed under the headings of local practice, customs or law.” In re
Sawyer, 360 U.S. 622, 640 (1955)

The point is not that there is no such thing as truth or falsity in these areas or
that the truth is always impossible to ascertain, but rather that it is perilous
to permit the state to be the arbiter of truth. United States v. Alvarez

“A federal court need not abstain, however, if the plaintiff shows that the
proceedings were instituted in bad faith or as harassment, or if there are
other “extraordinary circumstances” justifying federal judicial intervention.
See, e.g., Id. at 435, 437, 102 S.Ct. 2515; Younger, 401 U.S. at 53, 91 S.Ct. 746.
As noted above, *1273 where a federal plaintiff alleges bad faith, harassment,
or extraordinary circumstances, a court may consider evidence outside the
four corners of the complaint. See, e.g., Stein, 272 F.Supp.2d at 1263 n. 3.”
Thompson v. Florida Bar, 526 F. Supp. 2d 1264

Now, watch, if the miscreants (defendants) file any case law quotes, you can bet they will not be of the same quality.  The ARDC has consistently cited case law against my self and Ken that either consists of trial court or lower level decisions (which are not supposed to be cited), or they will mis-cite decisions which normally would be a major issue for an attorney.  So let’s see what they will cite.

they now have 30 days to file a responsive brief.

The most interesting thing about federal appellate court?  If you don’t file your brief on time, they consider it grounds for disciplinary action!  That’s pretty amazing.  I don’t know if I agree but it certainly would help to provide therapy for those that have a completion issue.

Here is the brief:  https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwQW50Y0RYbEFKTm8/edit?usp=sharing

Joanne

Dear Readers;

Today I was in Judge Stuart’s courtroom and there were many, many pretty flowers on her desk.  I thought it was her birthday, which is very nice.  BUT then about 50 or more people came into her courtroom at noon, with a huge cake and I was told she is retiring.

The only thing I can say, is I WISH HER WELL!  I understand she will have a generous pension, and she can move on to new things.

This blog is not about being mean, nasty or rehashing bad prior decisions (we all make mistakes, including and esp. me), it is about making sure the courtrooms are fair and just for everyone.

I know there have been a lot of complaints about Judge Stuart.  A lot from Gloria Sykes who believes she was treated majorly unfairly (and I believe she was and the case deserves a thorough, complete and honest investigation), but a sitting elected judge does deserve respect.

I wish Judge Stuart well and I hope that she will be filled with love, compassion, honesty, courage and understanding.  She still has a law license and she can do a whole lot of good for the poor, the homeless and those in need.  Let’s hope she will be start a new life in that vein.

JoAnne

For those of you out there who are looking to better understand how state and federal laws interact, here is a good basic article on the pre emption doctrine as applied to federal vs. state law:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lesley-daunt/state-vs-federal-law-who-_b_4676579.html

Also, Alyece has us considering a new legal theory of interest (I think this will ring quite a bell for many of you in the probate horror system)–“abuse of rights”.

from Wikipedia:

The prohibition of chicane is known as the abuse of rights (German Wikipedia link) in German law (BGB §226).

The Swiss Civil Code states “The manifest abuse of a right is not protected by law.”

At least one of four conditions is required to invoke the doctrine:^[1]

• the predominant motive for exercising the right is to cause harm
• no serious or legitimate motive exists for exercising the right
• the exercise of the right is against moral rules, good faith, or elementary fairness
• the right is exercised for a purpose other than that for which it was granted.

The principle does not exist in the Anglo-Saxon system.^{[citation needed]}

**********

so let me fast case that in Illinois.  And I find nothing.  With an “all jurisdiction” search I find 241 cases talking about “abuse of rights”, and most are in Lousiana–which is Napoleonic Code!

for those of you with access to Westlaw or Nexus or another legal searching system, you might want to look into the tort of “abuse of rights” if you are embroiled in a typical, malicious probate case.

thanks, Alyece for bringing up this legal theory which I had not heard of before, being from Illinois where there are no cases on this theory.

joanne

And in the popular vein of if you have money and you’re the big guy, push to keep the union out of your company via nefarious means,  engage in union busting, and if law students were involved, please serve them subpoenas for all their texts, emails and faxes which refer, relate to or will lead to evidence regarding their union related activities!

See, NY times article:  http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/01/nyregion/2-law-students-get-a-lesson-on-the-first-amendment-complete-with-subpoenas.html?_r=0

Two law students at New York University criticized one NYU trustee regarding his union busting activities.  This particular Trustee also donates $1 million to the law school, but that doesn’t stop him from going after NYU law students supporting unions.

At first, the law school said they would not get involved, but then it footed the students’ legal assistance in this matter.

No courage shower there.

Other articles reveal the Trustee resigned over the hullabaloo.  His institute focused on “racial, ethnic and economic segregation” to promote law and justice, but it’s not clear if union busting is part of those loft goals.

Another university Trustee simply doesn’t know or understand basic constitutional rights.

JoAnne

While the ARDC is telling everyone that attorneys do not have First Amendment rights to reveal, discuss and disclose information regarding troubles and issues in the court system, Ken has done a wonderful, wonderful job on explaining how court system issues are actually political or content oriented speech–speech which should be given the highest protection in the US under the Bill of Rights because it is essential to a free and open democracy.

This blog has repeatedly explained the difference between private trash talk (saying your married neighbor is a slut, is actionable, saying that he or she swindled someone in their business or trade when they did not is likewise actionable, and of course you cannot bully, stalk or threaten anyone with a crime against person or property, that too is actionable).

But talking about, discussing, revealing, studying and revealing and disclosing information relating to public figures clearly is not and it is fair game.  Not only that, it is essential to a free and open democracy.

Recently in People vs. Clark, 2014 IL 115776 (SCOI 2014) the court struck down Illinois eavesdropping law. I have no idea why any of the circuit courts are stopping anyone from bringing in laptops or recording devices, that is now their right, so please write or fax the Hon. Tim Evans and Sheriff Dart of Cook County and remind them of that and demand your rights, that is, until the Illinois state legislature can draft an anti-recording statute that will withstand a facial constitutional challenge.  For a great article which appeared in the ISBA magazine this month, see http://www.isba.org/ibj/2014/05/lawpulse/whatnextforeavesdroppinglawinillino.

Best quote from that article:

“Until the state legislature crafts a new law, people are now free to tape whatever they’d like, whether the conversation is private or public.”

And of course, I hear many, many complaints, and have experienced it myself that transcripts are changed in favor of favored attorneys and courts (see this blog re Judge Stuart’s testimony and Gloria’s handcuffing for further information), so I have to say it’s a very, very good thing people can record in court.  Further, what average person making $8 to $12 per hour can afford a transcript from a court reporter at $4 a page–the going rate in Cook County?  Is it fair that only the rich can prove justice.  I don’t think so.  I think if you are middle class to poor, your transcripts should be available at reduced price. Justice Kilbride of SCOI has asked why the average person does not turn to the courts for justice resolution, and this blog has stated why over and over.  The filing fees are too high, no one can afford transcripts, the proceedings are lengthy, stilted and greatly skewed in favor of those that have lawyers or have good experience in court proceedings.

Back to the subject at issue, there are still many of you out there speaking the truth regarding your court cases, you get slapped with a defamation suit, you try to use 750 ILCS 110 1/2 and you get no where.  The frustrating complaint is not dismissed.

You might want to try your next motion with a bit of case law and argument from Ken’s brief we filed yesterday:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwblJWYjRJZ1pfbWs/edit?usp=sharing