Is my blog a problem in need of solving? The ultimate solution: censorship!

On 2-20-13, I published a post regarding a most amazing case, Brown v. Entertainment Merchants–complete with dozens of quotes as to how under the First Amendment the government has absolutely no interest in censoring or regulating content based speech and that speech covers not only my blog, but apparently it can cover the trashiest of computer and Wii-Fi games and what not, ie, Grand Theft Auto (GTA).

From Brown:
Because the Act imposes a restriction on the content of protected speech, it is invalid unless California can demonstrate that it passes strict scrutiny—that is, unless it is justified by a compelling government interest and is narrowly drawn to serve that interest. R.A.V., 505 U.S., at 395, 112 S.Ct. 2538. The State must specifically identify an “actual problem” in need of solving, Playboy, 529 U.S., at 822–823, 120 S.Ct. 1878, and the curtailment of free speech must be actually necessary to the solution, see R.A.V., supra, at 395, 112 S.Ct. 2538. That is a demanding standard. “It is rare that a regulation restricting speech because of its content will ever be permissible.” Playboy, supra, at 818, 120 S.Ct. 1878. *** end of quote.

So is the ARDC saying that my blog is a “problem in need of solving?”

Now, as any parent knows, GTA and perhaps Postal has got to be about the trashiest, most obnoxious, detestable, despicable digital media games out there.

The US Supremes says this is “content based speech” and the government cannot regulate its dissemination to even children.

You know, this is the game where you get to rob whatever–a bank, a 7-11, a gas station, kill the clerk, pay for a hooker in an alley, beat her up or kill her, and you get points!  That’s right, points for evil deeds.  You can even get points for killing a cop during your robbery. (I wonder if they have demerits for feeding the poor, or donating clothes).

I digress.  The game is a parental nightmare and a horror show.

So my question is, why is the ARDC going after my blog and saying I cannot speak out against corruption, I am lying about it (despite the fact the court records are published here, the evidence is published here and the blog is complete in and of itself)–when the US Supremes have said you have to leave even the worst and most despicable of trashy video games alone–it’s protected speech?

Can ANYONE answer that one?

What if a lawyer wrote that game or portions of it?  Would the Illinois ARDC go after that lawyer?

What if my blog were put into book form and sent to the ARDC, could they draft up a complaint against a book?  Can they ban a book or discipline a lawyer in the US for writing a book about corruption in the courts?

Are we fast approaching the decline of our democratic, open and free speech civilization where the ARDC will start rounding up and banning books?  Will they have the Illinois sheriff do it?

Inquiring minds want to know.

In Germany in the 1930’s the Gestapo took away all the weapons from the Jews.  A Jew was shot on sight, frisked in the street and shot if he had any weapon–gun or knife.  When that was done, the Gestapo then went and rounded up Jewish lawyers in the courts and banned them from practicing law.

The slippery slope, the wedge with the edge.
While the US Supreme Court has clearly spoke, apparently not all lawyer have heard–apparently the lawyers at the ARDC have not heard.

A 2011 decision. The latest. Confirming over 100 years of free speech case law that I get to say what I want unless someone can prove it is blatantly false or made up–and even then, as long as it is clear it is satire or my imagination, I don’t think they can regulate that either.

What if Lewis Carroll were a lawyer?  Could he have written Alice in Wonderland, clearly making fun of royalty as pompous asses?

I still have a lot of questions that no one has answered.

Is the next step book burning?

 

Just so you know, Attys Jerome Larkin, Haspel and Opryczek, you are free to posts your comments here.  I won’t ban them and you can link anywhere you please.

I WILL FREELY GIVE YOU FREE SPEECH, why do you not afford me the same courtesy?

And between the ARDC and myself, who IS the most transparent and appears the least corrupt?

It’s interesting to note that the ARDC has charged me with lying on this blog.  Not only have most of the other major blogs come to my defense in this matter and have offered to testify on my behalf, but one thing really sticks out in all of this, and that is TRANSPARENCY.

The ARDC posts a complaint utilizing my copyrighted materials, and I expect to receive the copyright registration soon, then Ken Ditkowsky files a Motion to Dismss the complaint, the ARDC responds with a Motion to Stricke his MTD,  KDD files leave for interrogatories, the ARDC files a Motion to Disqualify Ken, he files an answer–all of that is on my blog.

During the “hearing” today on the Motion to disQ one thing struck me about all this.  While the ARDC claims they will call KDD to testify as a witness regarding the blog, he responded with it’s not his blog, he does not control it, nor does he publish anything there.  I make the requests to publish to him.

But the blog, I told the ARDC and the hearing panel, is complete in and of itself.  Documents published there include everything needed to show from the courts own records that the cases I publish about–Gore, Bedin, Tyler, Sykes, Wyman, etc. all appointed a guardian without jurisdiction. The motions, affidavits and all relevant documents are published on this blog so I have transparency when I say something.

Ken is not needed for that.

Further, what does the ARDC publish for transparency.  Are they engaging in “fair reporting”, providing all the facts.

For example, they say I am lying about jurisdiction, service upon Mary, service upon Yolanda and Josephine BUT THEY HAVE PUBLISHED NO DOCUMENTS ON THEIR WEBSITE TO BACK THAT UP.

I challenge them to do so.  I find it highly offensive they publish something about me and I cannot comment, I cannot respond, I cannot reply, they do not publish any proof whatsoever of their claims, and then they go whining to the hearing panel that I am lying and my counsel must be disqualified.

Disgraceful.  There are no words….

I am TRANSPARENT, they are not.  I do not make conclusory statements, but I investigate and back it up with facts–declarations, conversations, anything.

The ARDC just runs to the hearing board to get my atty disqualified.

 

That’s all they got.  No blog, no proof, nothing.

The ARDC must really be afraid of this blog and want it censored

because increduously, they just disqualified Atty Ken Ditkowsky as my attorney!

The first thing you do, when you really have no case is get rid of opposing counsel on a bogus motion to disqualify. That is what happened here.  The ARDC says “there might be a conflict”–no there is not–we are on the same side, reporting on misconduct and lack of jurisdiction in the Mary G Sykes case.  The ARDC says it wants to use him as a witness regarding the blog, but in reality, I run the blog, the blog is mine, and there is nothing to question him about.  The documents speak for themselves. The blog speaks for itself.  I have heard no adverse comments to this blog, only laudatory, confirming comments that there IS a problem with jurisdiction in the Mary G Sykes case, that justice must be done there  and in other cases lacking jurisdiction–Taylor, Gore, Drabik, Bedin, Spera, Wyman.  There are others I cannot mention because I have been asked not to mention them, the victims are soooo afraid of probate court and their GAL’s.

I don’t understand all of this.  Ken Ditkowsky has come up with wonderful, wonderful cases to send to Attys Larkin, Haspel and Opryczek–all ignored.  The DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) makes it clear whatever you put on the internet–you have no liability, except for copyright infringement–and I have done none of that.  My posts are my own, I always ask to publish.  The ARDC has no complaint about that.

My blog is like a book.  I have never heard of a lawyer disciplined for writing a book–the content of a book is clearly first amendment protected.

So why then, are they rubber stamping all of the ARDC’s motions and denying me my choice of counsel.  I have a 6th and 14th amendment right to the counsel of my choice.  All the ARDC attorneys did was cite a bunch of criminal law cases about co-defendants.  It was crazy. They can’t question KDD because he has no first hand knowledge of blogs or blogging.  He doesn’t run my blog, I do.

Time to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.  I need the findings of fact and conclusions of law ASAP.

If we have to, we need to take it to US Supreme Court.

I don’t understand why I can’t freely write about corruption and blog.

The concept that KDD “might” be a “witness” is bogus.  Further, the concept that I cannot have him for my counsel up until trial is further bogus and just use another attorney then is bogus.  I asked for that and they turned down my request.  I have seen courts do that one over and over, just bring in another atty for quesitoning your own atty, which as we know, questioning an atty is generally a waste of time.

AS and CF said there was jurisdiction at the ARDC hearing–despite the fact that Yolanda and Josepine both have exeucted affidavits they were never served with the 14 day prior notice of time, date and place of hearing.  The hearing panel today wasn’t concerned one bit that the ARDC was promulgating that big hairy lie.  They didn’t want to hear it.  A probate court without jurisdiction for 3 years.

Can someone please explain all of this to me?

thanks

joanne

What has happened to our little boy? Did he grow up or just get older?

In the search to find out just whom is prosecuting/persecuting me for speaking out about corruption in Illinois courts, I ran across this:

Jerome (Jerry) E. Larkin, Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, ex officio, is Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC), responsible since his appointment to that position in March 2007, for administering the agency which registers Illinois lawyers and investigates and prosecutes allegations of ethical violations.  Mr. Larkin is a graduate of Niles College of Loyola University and the Loyola University School of Law.  After he was licensed to practice law in 1978, he joined the ARDC as staff counsel.  He investigated, litigated and appealed countless attorney disciplinary cases.  He later served as Senior Counsel, Chief Counsel, Assistant Administrator, and then Deputy Administrator from 1988 until his appointment as Administrator.

He is a past President of the National Organization of Bar Counsel (NOBC), the bar association of lawyer regulators.  In 2003, he received the ARDC’s 25-year leadership and service award.  In 2006, he won the NOBC President’s Award for lifetime achievement in the field of lawyer regulation.  In 2009, he was a recipient of an ABA CoLAP Meritorious Service Award.  He was also given the Robert Bellarmine award for distinguished service to the Loyola Law Alumni Association in 1992.  Mr. Larkin is the fourth Administrator of the ARDC.  He follows the late Carl H. Rolewick (1973-1988), John C. O’Malley (1988-1992) and Mary Robinson (1992-2007).

You will note it says nothing in his bio about knowing about First Amendment or Free Speech rights, nor does it say he ever protected any of those.

Just how does it happen that Atty Jerome Larkin, the recipient of an ARDC award, a Loyola Law Award, an ABA award (I’ll skip NOBC, never heard of them)  is somehow demoted to the position of reading atty blogs on corruption and drumming up some sort of ridiculous notion of regulating our speech and thought patterns?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Check out his full bio with a picture at:

http://ilsccp.org/home/commissioners/jeromelarkin.htm

And can somebody please ask for those awards back for being an idiot about the US Constitution and bill of rights?

Really.  Who would have thought.

I’m very glad I speak out about corruption and represent people with no money and have no money myself rather than go to fancy expensive dinners and get fancy awards.

Save the money on your fancy awards, and take the money from the plaques, trophies, whatever, turn it into dollars and give it to the homeless on the streets.  At least they give you a blessing.

efiling–one of the MOST pressing problems in state court

Dear Readers;

From the time I was admitted to the bar way back in 1985, one of the problems I found is that when attorneys made errors or forgot something or no longer wanted something in the file, it would just appear or disappear!

In 2000 all the Federal Courts went to efiling on a system called Pacer.  Now, I am certain that’s because efiling is immune to court record tampering and I submit for your amusement the fact that federal court went to efiling first is because that system abhors file tampering, whereas 10 years later in most of Illinois, the system is not efiling, there is no public access to most of the system on line and the court’s filing system in Illinois is a dinosauric, antediluvian tragedy which I have been ticked off about since 2000 when the federal court system went to efiling but the states are lumbering along.

I know this will put a ton of (unskilled, paper shuffling) file clerks out of business in favor of a rarified smaller group of IT specialists, but civilization moves ahead in time with or without you.

Small children know how to operate a cell phone, text, tweet, facebook, myspace, build and operate their own webpages, etc. but our nation’s state court system simply cannot tolerate such forward thinking.

And in case you’re wondering about all those 80 + year attys toddling about federal court, yes, Virgina, they finally let them forego Pacer and walk up to the pro se desk with all the other pro se’ers and file there.  I don’t personally have a problem with that.  I think if an older attorney files an affidavit that he or she (but that was a time when women could not be attorneys, but I will save that for another post), still thinks a post is something you hitch a horse to, and a tweet is something birds do, and myspace refers to the bathroom or something, by all means I think THEY and only such attorneys should be allowed to still paper file anything.

Getting back to my point, it truly irks me that while Obama has mandated EMRS or electronic medical records by 2014, where is our nation’s court system on this position?

Why is there no hue and cry that court records and files MUST be electronic by that date also.

see the article at:

http://www.emrandhipaa.com/emr-and-hipaa/2009/01/14/obama-wants-full-ehr-by-2014/

And before you think that HIPAA is any great shakes, you should know that during a recent case I had taken on briefly, I was shocked to find out that HIPAA has no remedy!  That’s right folks.  If your doctor, pharmacist or any other health care provider publishes your medical records online to secure payment because you did not pay a bill–nothing to sue over.  It’s true.  There’s nothing in the statute, and only 3 Illinois cases have looked at this and the Ill. App. Ct. said, hey, there’s no remedy for a HIPAA violation.  So next time you’re at your docs and they blame something irksome on HIPAA you can just turn to them and say, so what?  There is no remedy and no violation and if you wanted to, you could paper the bathroom walls with any medical record you want and I can’t do anything about it, so don’t blame HIPAA.  I believe HIPAA was created so that insurance companies could freely exchange med info to slap unsuspecting insureds with the dreaded “pre existing condition” and lying about your med records to deny or increase your coverage.  I guess with Obama, that’s dead, but HIPAA is not and it only allows insurers to freely pass around your medical information DESPITE the fact it was touted as a law to protect the consumer!

Go hug a lawyer today for telling you the truth.  The statute was a scam and should be repealed.  What a load of junk.

And where was AARP on this issue when they recommended HIPAA?  Out selling overprice medicare supp insurance, that’s where they were.

Getting back to efiling, I know that the Rockford court system in Illinois was granted $80 million to implement it and what they have is a horrid sham.  Well, except for the fact I have been in Rockford and the Winnebago court system and every person out there can tell horrible stories of being shafted by a corrupt court system.

This has to end.  Obama, get in there and give us CLEAN court systems via electronic filing.

I have talked to the dudes at Pacer.  They claim they can come in and within a month set up a court filing system on efile from soup to nuts, in about a month and for minimal cost.

What is going on with our court system, that’s what I want to know.

thanks for listening

JoAnne
PS–okay, the cases on HIPAA were a bit of overkill.  If your doc plasters his bathroom with your medical reports, or publishes them online, etc., you CAN still sue.  The Illinois courts have adopted the tort of “intrusion of seclusion” which came from the common law, and when I say common law, that means some court in England from centuries ago.  It’s amazing how the “common law” is better than an expensive, insurance company touted legislation that does nothing whatsoever for consumers except let one insurance company rat on you to another.  That stinks.

Letters from KD still calling for an investigation

Dear Readers;

I supposed since a police officer from the Naperville police dept was called by LB as a witness to “Ken’s misconduct” in calling for an investigation, and Senator Kirk did not testify against him, Richard Durbin or anyone from the Department of Justice in Washington DC, I would assume these letters are proper.

It is only complaints to Attys Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern and police officers in Naperville that complaints are improper!

See attached and we are all still wondering when anyone out there in criminal justice will take a look at the fact at the following criminal and wrongful misconduct which is created when a probate court clearly operates without jurisdiction in Sykes (conversion, wrongful eviction, false imprisonment, etc.); Tyler, Gore, Bedin, Wyman (conversion, Medicare fraud, false imprisonment, violations of 42 USC 1983, etc.)

It is clearly a mystery to me.  I still think both Ken and I have to get jobs at the ARDC and the US Atty’s offices so that someone there will actually DO something about all the bias and corruption in probate court.

thanks

joanne

sykesblog-KDltrs-JMDardcpanel

From Ken Ditkowsky — a form for requsting an accounting.

A form is guide as to the basics.    (These are Ken’s comments on WestlawNext – HORNER–PPE, § 50:22. Citation to compel accounting and settlement—Forms—Petition for citation, available at any law library.  Chicago has a great public and free law library on the 29th floor of the Daley center).
I am suggesting that this form be used by an ‘interested person’ to require the guardian/executor or other appointed individual to account.   For instance, in the Sykes case I am suggesting to Gloria/Kathy/Aunt Jo/Aunt yo and/or other interested persons to ask for an accounting for Carolyn.   For instance, the petition should disclose:
1) We know that Mary was a millionaire.   She had inherited from her husband and from Albert Biddy gold coins worth at this point in time over a million dollars. We also know that she had a safety deposit box that also had Gloria’s name on it and this safety deposit box was drilled by Carolyn.   (This is the safety deposit box that Cynthia Farenga testified that neither she or Adam Stern went to observe and Carolyn had free rein over it).    We also know that Mary had money of her own, and in particular there were funds that she had in a mattress.  Finally there was jewelry, antiques etc.
2) Under Illinois law being appointed a guardian does not create a forfeiture of the ‘ward’s assets’ but it places the guardian in a fiduciary relationship to the ward.   Ergo, there is not only a statutory duty to account for all of the assets, but a common law duty.    The published form provides a guide as to what should be said and is an acknowledgement that even those persons (including guardians and guardian ad litem) who are governed by Title XIa of the Probate act have to comply with this duty.
The time to take off the gloves is right now.    There is no reason for the State of Illinois and the United States of America not to collect the taxes due created by the taxable event of the plenary guardian not inventorying assets that she obtained in the raid on the safety deposit box, the house etc.    One has to be an idiot not to be suspicious of the fact that neither the plenary guardian or the two Guardian ad Litems have not made application for fees – why should they – over a million dollars of assets have not been inventoried.   The Wizard of Oz has not made the million dollars disappear.    It is logical that the two guardian ad litem and the plenary guardian who are trying desperately to vitiate the First Amendment Rights of persons (including me) who have spoken out have some ‘role’ in the non-inventory of the substantial assets.
Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com