From AP: Complaints against corrupt attorneys David Martin, Andrew Dobszyn and Joanne Bruzgul–will the ARDC do anything when presented with valid attorney complaints?

Anthony Phillips
6128 N Monticello Ave
Chicago, IL 60659
VIA First Class Mail, USPS prepaid, with tracking
cc: JIB FAX 312 814 5719
February 23, 2018
RE: Complaint against attorneys Joanne Bruzgul, David Martin and Andrew
Dobszyn and Wendy Cappaletto
Estate of Lorraine Phillips 2011 P 1044
To: Complaint Intake
Dear Sir/Madam;
I wish to file a complaint against Joanne Bruzgul on two grounds 1) malpractice in
handling the above estate matter; 2) theft, conversion and embezzlement because she
was paid in full by the Estate of Phillips, she obtained liens on my mother’s property for
the full amount she charged, and in fact the probate court approved 100% of her fees,
but she never returned the $22,000 in upfront or bill payments made during the time
she worked on the estate. She never provided me with an accounting after numerous
demands to do so.
On or about March 2012, I hired Attorney Joanne Bruzgul to represent me in a
guardianship matter where she was supposed to have me appointed sole Guardian of
the estate of my mother. A copy of her retainer agreement is attached hereto.
She presented fee petitions to the Guardianship court, and they approved 100% of her
fees. At the time, the Estate had insufficient funds to pay all the attorneys, and the
approval of those liens and court orders were on the basis that once a property located
at 630-32 S. Wabash was sold, all the attorney liens were to be paid in full.
In January 2016, the 630-32 S. Wabash Property was in fact sold. Atty Bruzgul should
have bee paid in full. Andrew Dobszyn was the attorney for Associated Bank, the
guardian of the estate.
It is not known why attorney Dobszyn did not pay Ms. Bruzgul. He had court approval
to do so. Atty Dobszyn was represented by Atty David Martin. Paul Franciszkowicz
was the GAL. All the attorneys were promptly paid what was approved by the court and
none sought any interest payment on the balance.
A title report was pulled sometime prior to the closing, indicating the Bruzgul liens. DM
claims he tried to work this out with Atty Bruzgul, but at no time prior to closing, did DM
Page 1 of 7
Anthony Phillips
February 13, 2018
Complaint against Bruzgul, Martin and Dobzyn
tell the probate court or myself that Bruzgul refused to release the lien upon payment to
her. I believe he breached his fiduciary duty to myself by not informing me of the fact
that Bruzgul refused to release her lien, and was not paid in full.
Accordingly, unbeknownst to me, the Title Company (Chicago Title Land Trust
Company–CTLTC) had their insurance company (Chicago Title Insurance Co.–CTIO)
hold back $100,000 at the closing. Neither I nor the probate court was told of any of
this. The judge could have straightened all of this out prior to closing, had she been fully
Recently, Atty Bruzgul filed a foreclosure action 2017 CH 16577 against 630-32 S.
Wabash alleging she was owed some $76,752 in interest and principal, despite the f act
she was told that no attorney would get interest in the case, they could only have a lien.
In addition, the computation of 9% interest is nothing but a bald faced lie. The Illinois
law pertaining to prejudgment interest only allows 9% per annum compounded
annually, not daily, not by the minute, not by the second.
Accordingly, Bruzgul has lied at least three times to the chancery court in her Complaint
(attached hereto) and grossly inflated what was owed to her ab initio 1) she fails to
mention the $22,000 that I paid her in up f ront fees; 2) she is compounding interest on
a daily basis, which is not permitted by statue; 3) she knows that the probate court sets
the manner in which fee petitions are paid, and these are presumably what is fair and
reasonable, and no attorney receives interest, it was not allowed for in any of her court
ordered judgments and no other attorney was paid prejudgment interest.
David Martin and Andrew Dobszyn knew all along about the problems at closing and did
not reveal any of these facts to the court, before, during or after closing. In fact, this
entire screw up was only mentioned in the probate court after attorney Bruzgul filed suit.
DM’s client is my sister, Tina Phillips, and I believe she was not told about this mess.
DM has a fiduciary duty to inform me as coguardian of all assets and liability of the
estate in a prompt and timely manner. His client is a coguradian. I was never told of
any of this until recently. This matter should have been fully disclosed in the probate
court and handled before closing. Instead it turned into a $100,000 screw up and the
estate is likely to lose that money to lawyers for CTLTC and CTIC.
B. Bruzgul took $22,000, more or less from me and refuses to provide an
I am further attaching 4 email demands to Atty Bruzgul to provide me with an
accounting, and to date, she refuses to do so. An attorney must provide an accounting
to a client within a reasonable time period after a demand has been made.
Page 2 of 7
Anthony Phillips
February 13, 2018
Complaint against Bruzgul, Martin and Dobzyn
She refuses repeatedly to do this or answer my requests in any manner.
C. During the Guardianship case when Bruzgul Represented me, she committed
I was forced to file suit against Ms. Bruzgul for malpractice.
During the Guardianship case, she committed the following errors (from the Third
Amended Complaint, Phillips v. Bruzgul):
1. Plaintiff re-alleges each of the foregoing paragraphs as if fully stated
2. This count is against Deft. Bruzgul and Bruzgul and Associates only.
3. Bruzgul had a duty to represent Anthony to the best of her abilities as a
reasonably competent attorney would in the same or similar
4. Bruzgul breached her duty to Anthony by:
a. Failing to explore the deposition of Sally Griffin of ABT
regarding her the uncorroborated accusations as to
Anthony’s character and competency;
b. Wrongfully insisting and imploring that Plaintiff Anthony
must sign the Agreed Order which prevented proceeding
with a trial he was certain to win due to Deft. Katina’s liens
on the Mother’s Properties, and an order which threatened
to place Mother Lorraine permanently in a nursing home if
he did not sign–both of which were wrongful and illegal
intimidation by Deft’s Martin and Franciszkowicz and which
Deft. Bruzgul participated in. Deft. Bruzgul failed to provide
Plaintiff Anthony with the option of going to trial and that the
threats were wrongful intimidation and should have been
reported to the authorities.
c. Failing to seek to vacate or modify the June 27, 2012 agreed
order after learning that the side order had been vacated,
thereby removing Lane from any further representation of
Lorraine or her Estate;
d. Failing to advise Plaintiff Anthony that he could appeal the
Court’s denial of the motion to reconsider Lane’s removal;
e. Failing to advise Anthony of his rights prior to the signing of
the agreed order;
f. Failing to demand that the agreed order contain all the
Page 3 of 7
Anthony Phillips
February 13, 2018
Complaint against Bruzgul, Martin and Dobzyn
material facts and conditions from all the orders entered on
June 27, 2012 so as to avoid any misrepresentation of the
g. Have stated in the Agreed Order that Lane would remain the
attorney of record in all three cases;
h. Failing to object to the language in the various orders that
acted to the detriment of Anthony;
i. Failing to structure orders to ensure that monies owed to the
estate would go to Anthony as a preference, with priority
before all other claims;
j. Failing to give Anthony adequate notice of fee petitions so
he could review them;
k. Failing to provide Anthony with copies of pleadings filed by
adverse parties to the underlying action;
l. Failing to review the Andreou & Casson Ltd. retainer;
m. Failing to challenge the conflict of interest of attorney David
Martin representing two of the three co-guardians for the
Estate by written motion and/or objections for the record;
n. Failing to inform Anthony that he could file an emergency
motion to stop or delay the impending settlement in order to
save the Estate $300,000; and
o. By being otherwise careless or negligent.
5. As a proximate result of one or more of the aforesaid acts and/or
omissions by Bruzgul, Anthony sustained the following pecuniary
damages in his capacity as co-guardian of the Estate:
a. The removal of Lane cost the estate attorney’s fees and
costs, which would have otherwise been avoided;
b. The settlement agreement cost the Estate the amount
agreed upon;
c. Removing the settlement monies from the Estate deprived
the Estate of capital it could have used to improve certain
properties owned by the Estate, which could have then been
sold for a greater profit rather than being undervalued as
they are now, or could have helped the Estate be financially
self-sufficient by developing the Wasbash properties into a
parking lot, as Mother Lorraine had already undertaken
substantial steps toward doing so.
d. The result of the Agreed Order has effectively denied
Plaintiff Anthony his counsel of choice, Nejla Lane and her
former associate, Kristine Baumstark. Both Defts. Martin
and Franciszkowicz have stated to Plaintiff Anthony and/or
Page 4 of 7
Anthony Phillips
February 13, 2018
Complaint against Bruzgul, Martin and Dobzyn
his agents they would “not allow” him to use either Ms. Lane
or Ms. Baumstark as his counsel of record.
6. As a proximate result of one or more of the aforesaid acts and/or
omissions by Bruzgul, Anthony sustained the following pecuniary
damages in his capacity as an individual:
a. Having no rate of pay provision in the agreed order cost
Anthony money because as a full-time caretaker of his
mother, he had no other income;
b. Anthony has had to expend time and out-of-pocket
expenses to pursuing a rate of pay provision.
c. Plaintiff Anthony will have far less money to inherit due to
the actions and inactions negligence, malfeasance and
misfeasance of each of the Defendants.
7. Plaintiff re-alleges each of the foregoing paragraphs as if fully stated
8. This cause of action is against Defendants Bruzgul and Bruzgul and
Associates only.
9. On March 3, 2012, Anthony entered into a legal services contract with
BRUZGUL & ASSOCIATES, LTD., whereby the said law firm would
“[r]epresent Client in his cross-petition to be appointed guardian of the
person and the estate of his disabled mother, Lorraine Phillips, including
representation at guardianship hearing and necessary preparation to the
conclusion of the case so long as the Client desires such representation.”
10. Anthony initially paid Bruzgul $5,000.00 for the retention of said services,
receipt of which was acknowledged.
11. Over the course of several months, Anthony ultimately paid Bruzgul
upwards of $20,000.00.
12. The material terms of the agreement were breached in one or more of the
ways detailed in paragraph 64, above.
13. As a proximate result of these breaches, Anthony sustained the pecuniary
damages listed above and claims his total fees paid for all legal services
rendered allegedly on his behalf.
14. Plaintiff re-alleges each of the forgoing paragraphs as if set forth fully
15. This Cause of Action is against Defts. Bruzgul and Bruzgul and Associates
Page 5 of 7
Anthony Phillips
February 13, 2018
Complaint against Bruzgul, Martin and Dobzyn
16. Bruzgul had a duty to represent Plaintiff Anthony to the best of her abilities
as a reasonably competent attorney would do in the same or similar
17. Bruzgul breahed her duty to Plaintiff Anthony by failing to inform him that it
was not possible for the OPG to threaten that he must take a particular
settlement concocted by Dft. David Martin or the OPG would institutionalize
Lorraine Phillips.
18. That Bruzgul should have advised Pltff Anthony that such a settlment offer
is void and without effect under the law.
19. That Defendants Bruzgul and Bruzgul and Associates have wilfully and
contemptuously participated in a civil conspiracy to deny Plaintiff his civil
and due process rights during settlement and have failed to advise him
properly and assert his rights, entitling him to his actual and punitive
damages and his reasonable attorneys fees.
20. Plaintiff re-alleges each of the forgoing paragraphs as if set forth fully
21. This Cause of Action is against all defendants.
22. That all defendants appeared in the Guardianship case and directly
supported unconstitutional motions for gag orders, orders that prevented
Anthony Phillips from consulting with his preferred counsel, Nejla Lane,
unconstitutional orders that prevented him from freely copying and studying
23. In addition, Defendants Bruzgul, Katina, Franciszkowicz and Martin
threatened Plaintiff Anthony that if he would not agree to become coguardian
and settle the matter, they would place Mother Lorraine in an
24. In all of this Deft. Bruzgul did not appropriately advice Plaintiff Anthony
regarding his civil rights.
25. Deft. Bruzgul also negligently agreed to settle a case for $300k together
with the other defendants, causing Mother Lorraine’s Estate to be
unnecessarily depleted by that amount. The very day after this Settlement
was approved, the Jury found for Deft. Mother Lorraine on all counts.
However, Defts. Francisczkowicz and Martin continued to advise the
Guardianship court that they “saved” the Lorraine Phillips estate “a million
dollars” by paying out a $300k settlement. In addition, Bruzgul should have
objected to the scheduled court proceeding being held in a small room
without a court reporter on the day the two of three co guardians voted to
Page 6 of 7
Anthony Phillips
Grievance regarding Bruzgul, Martin and Dobzyn
February 13, 2018
settle the Great America case for $300,000. This was a very important
discussion because the next day the jury came back in favor of the
26. Defts. Holmes and Cappaletto came out to Mother Lorraine’s home, Deft.
Holmes drafted up a false and fraudulent report, and then the OPG refused
to provide it to Son Anthony. In addition, they threatened to remove
Lorraine Phillips from her home and sell all her belongings. Deft. Holmes
wrote up a false and fraudulent report which supported this contention,
upon information and belief. Deft. Cappalletto wrote a threatening email
which was provided to Deft. Anthony in which she condemned the home
and threatened to place Mother Lorraine into a nursing home. Accordingly,
all the defendants conspired together to falsely deplete the guardianship
estate and interfere with Plaintiff Anthony’s right to his inheritance.
27. The above actions by all defendants comprise the tort of Expectation with
an Inheritance, entitling Plaintiff Anthony to his actual damages of attorneys
fees falsely spent in the guardianship, the $300,000 unnecessary
settlement, as well as his attorneys fees in this action.
For all of the above reasons, the deception, lies and subterfuge, I am demanding
that attorneys Bruzgul, Martin and Dobszyn be disbarred.
Anthony Phillips
Page 7 of 7

First Amendment Retaliation for running this blog

Dear Readers;

An old friend wrote me lately and asked which statutes were violated in my disciplinary case and I responded as follows (and I want to thank S for the question).

Feel free to use these in your pleadings where you speak out for a loved one, but you are falsely arrested on bogus charges.

You are told to “shut up” in probate or divorce court.

You are told “we don’t do things that way down here” (referring to no due process, no notice, no summons or complaint, no time for discovery and no hearing)

You are told to get your comments off of social media and don’t make any comments on this (corrupt) case.

Dear S;

You asked a good question about why an honest lawyer is being disciplined, and what laws and statutes protect a lawyer who is  whistleblower.  You may wish to review these statutes and cases:

Whistleblower Lawyers

First and foremost, all lawyers are supposed to be whistleblowers on other lawyers and on the judges who are also lawyers. There is no exception and lawyers are not supposed to create a “code of silence” for corruption or look the other way when it is occuring.

Under the Himmel case, an attorney is required to report instances of attorney misconduct to the ARDC and the appropriate authorities.

All my blog did was post information on the Mary G Sykes case.

Mary G Sykes Probate case 09 P 4585 Case Synopsis:

Mary G Sykes noted one day that $4,000 was missing from her bank account. The banker told her that Carolyn Toerpe took the money under a POA and that she should file for a Protective Order.  Mary went downtown to file for a Protective Order.  Carolyn received the Petition, hired a crooked lawyer (Harvey Waller–denounced in Indiana by the Atty General there for fleecing the elderly in a Reverse Mortgage business) and he responded with a Petition for Guardianship.

The US Constitution requires due process or a judgement is void ab initio (from the beginning).  You do not have to file anything or say anything, you can reopen the case at any time and get it dismissed.  Juridiction requires notice, time to prepare, discovery and a hearing.  If any of those are absent, any court order is void abinitio.

Carolyn took Mary to Naperville and would not let her come home. She used the Sheriffs at Cook County to do this.

The Guardianship was filed in Cook County and the sheriff went out on several summons and all were marked “person not served” (First Vol. of Sykes appeal, on my blog).

Mary was also entitled to a hearing.  In a letter from GAL Stern to Harvey Waller it was a done deal that Mary would be deemed incapacitated and that Carolyn would become guardian.

A lawyer has a duty to report all of this to the authorities.  I wrote letters to Lisa Madigan, Illinois state’s attorney, Anita Alvarez Cook County States attorney and Diane Saltoun, Illinois Inspector General whose job is to prevent fraud or theft from Illinois State Agencies.  Mary would be drugged and put in a nursing home when she wanted to stay in her own home, per her power of attorney.  Since the State of Illinois gives significant dollars to nursing home residents together with Medicare, that is fraud.  It is wasted money.  Tax payer dollars.

Each of Madigan, Alvarez and Saltoun wrote back and said it was not their job to go after court corruption and fraud (which is a lie).

I wrote letters (and so did Ken) to the attorneys general, the ARDC complaining of the criminal conduct and the danger Mary was in (“target, isolate, medicate, drain the estate, narcotize and eliminate, cremate), and they all dismissed the letters (In other cases lawyers were disciplined for filing Guardianships without jurisdiction and commandeering a ward’s money to pay their own bills–Sykes is similar–Seniors for Cash)

Ken was told he should be ashamed for writing to the authorities and quoting GAO reports (US govt agency reports), that there was serious fraud and corruption in guardianship. (these are cited elsewhere on this blog)

The statutes involved are:

321 USC sec 20/4 for immunity for report the physical and financial abuse of an elder.

(b) Any person, institution or agency participating in the making of a report, providing information or records related to a report, assessment, or services, or participating in the investigation of a report under this Act in good faith, or taking photographs or x-rays as a result of an authorized assessment, shall have immunity from any civil, criminal or other liability in any civil, criminal or other proceeding brought in consequence of making such report or assessment or on account of submitting or otherwise disclosing such photographs or x-rays to any agency designated to receive reports of alleged or suspected abuse or neglect. Any person, institution or agency authorized by the Department to provide assessment, intervention, or administrative services under this Act shall, in the good faith performance of those services, have immunity from any civil, criminal or other liability in any civil, criminal, or other proceeding brought as a consequence of the performance of those services. For the purposes of any civil, criminal, or other proceeding, the good faith of any person required to report, permitted to report, or participating in an investigation of a report of alleged or suspected abuse, neglect, financial exploitation, or self-neglect shall be presumed.

18 USC sec 4 for Misprison of felony.

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.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 684; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(G), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

All I did was blog about the case, I did not appear in the Sykes case:

47 USC sec 230 Internet Decency Act

(a) FindingsThe Congress finds the following:
(1) The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens.
(2) These services offer users a great degree of control over the information that they receive, as well as the potential for even greater control in the future as technology develops.
(3) The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.
(4) The Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation.
(5) Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services.
(b) Policy. It is the policy of the United States—
(1) to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media;
(2) to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;
(3) to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services;
(4) to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children’s access to objectionable or inappropriate online material; and
(5) to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer.
(c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

First Amendment, US Constitution

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Illinois Constitution

Article I, Sec. 4

All persons may speak, write and publish freely, being
responsible for the abuse of that liberty. In trials for
libel, both civil and criminal, the truth, when published
with good motives and for justifiable ends, shall be a
sufficient defense.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)

First Amendment retaliation claims are covered under:

1. 42 USC sec 1983.  Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation,
custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia,
subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States
or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of
any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and
laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in
equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any
action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken
in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be
granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief
was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress
applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered
to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

and under

2) Deprivation of rights under color of law–conspiracy

18 USC Sec. 241. Conspiracy against rights


If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or
intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth,
Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any
right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of  the
United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the
premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free
exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured –

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in
violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an
attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit
aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life,
or both, or may be sentenced to death.


18 USC 371 conspiracy to defraud the US govt (Medicare fraud–forcing seniors into nursing homes and billing Medicare)

Sec. 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United 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. If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.

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.

More laws – ADA or Americans with Disabilities

42 USC § 12203 prohibiting retaliation for protecting an Elder under the ADA;

(a) Retaliation

No person shall discriminate against any individual because such individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by this chapter or because such individual made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this chapter.

(b) Interference, coercion, or intimidation

It shall be unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his or her having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of his or her having aided or encouraged any other individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by this chapter.

(c) Remedies and procedures

The remedies and procedures available under sections 12117, 12133, and 12188 of this title shall be available to aggrieved persons for violations of subsections (a) and (b) of this section, with respect to subchapter I, subchapter II and subchapter III, respectively.

75 ILCS § 5/8-901 to 8-909 Illinois Reporter’s Privilege Act to protect bloggers, columnists and other news media:

(735 ILCS 5/8-901) (from Ch. 110, par. 8-901)
Sec. 8-901. Source of information. No court may compel any person to disclose the source of any information obtained by a reporter except as provided in Part 9 of Article VIII of this Act.
(Source: P.A. 84-398.)


    (735 ILCS 5/8-902) (from Ch. 110, par. 8-902)
Sec. 8-902. Definitions. As used in this Act:
(a) “Reporter” means any person regularly engaged in the business of collecting, writing or editing news for publication through a news medium on a full-time or part-time basis; and includes any person who was a reporter at the time the information sought was procured or obtained.
(b) “News medium” means any newspaper or other periodical issued at regular intervals whether in print or electronic format and having a general circulation; a news service whether in print or electronic format; a radio station; a television station; a television network; a community antenna television service; and any person or corporation engaged in the making of news reels or other motion picture news for public showing.
(c) “Source” means the person or means from or through which the news or information was obtained.
(Source: P.A. 92-335, eff. 8-10-01.)

Illinois Citizens Participation Act (Anti SLAPP lawsuits or lawsuits designed to deny citizens their First Amendment rights)

735 ILSC sec 110-1/2

(735 ILCS 110/1)
Sec. 1. Short title. This Act may be cited as the Citizen Participation Act.
(Source: P.A. 95-506, eff. 8-28-07.)


    (735 ILCS 110/5)
Sec. 5. Public policy. Pursuant to the fundamental philosophy of the American constitutional form of government, it is declared to be the public policy of the State of Illinois that the constitutional rights of citizens and organizations to be involved and participate freely in the process of government must be encouraged and safeguarded with great diligence. The information, reports, opinions, claims, arguments, and other expressions provided by citizens are vital to effective law enforcement, the operation of government, the making of public policy and decisions, and the continuation of representative democracy. The laws, courts, and other agencies of this State must provide the utmost protection for the free exercise of these rights of petition, speech, association, and government participation.
 Civil actions for money damages have been filed against citizens and organizations of this State as a result of their valid exercise of their constitutional rights to petition, speak freely, associate freely, and otherwise participate in and communicate with government. There has been a disturbing increase in lawsuits termed “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation” in government or “SLAPPs” as they are popularly called.
    The threat of SLAPPs significantly chills and diminishes citizen participation in government, voluntary public service, and the exercise of these important constitutional rights. This abuse of the judicial process can and has been used as a means of intimidating, harassing, or punishing citizens and organizations for involving themselves in public affairs.
    It is in the public interest and it is the purpose of this Act to strike a balance between the rights of persons to file lawsuits for injury and the constitutional rights of persons to petition, speak freely, associate freely, and otherwise participate in government; to protect and encourage public participation in government to the maximum extent permitted by law; to establish an efficient process for identification and adjudication of SLAPPs; and to provide for attorney’s fees and costs to prevailing movants.
(Source: P.A. 95-506, eff. 8-28-07.)
(735 ILCS 110/15)
    Sec. 15. Applicability. This Act applies to any motion to dispose of a claim in a judicial proceeding on the grounds that the claim is based on, relates to, or is in response to any act or acts of the moving party in furtherance of the moving party’s rights of petition, speech, association, or to otherwise participate in government.
    Acts in furtherance of the constitutional rights to petition, speech, association, and participation in government are immune from liability, regardless of intent or purpose, except when not genuinely aimed at procuring favorable government action, result, or outcome.
(Source: P.A. 95-506, eff. 8-28-07.)


    (735 ILCS 110/20)
    Sec. 20. Motion procedure and standards.
    (a) On the filing of any motion as described in Section 15, a hearing and decision on the motion must occur within 90 days after notice of the motion is given to the respondent. An appellate court shall expedite any appeal or other writ, whether interlocutory or not, from a trial court order denying that motion or from a trial court’s failure to rule on that motion within 90 days after that trial court order or failure to rule.
    (b) Discovery shall be suspended pending a decision on the motion. However, discovery may be taken, upon leave of court for good cause shown, on the issue of whether the movants acts are not immunized from, or are not in furtherance of acts immunized from, liability by this Act.
    (c) The court shall grant the motion and dismiss the judicial claim unless the court finds that the responding party has produced clear and convincing evidence that the acts of the moving party are not immunized from, or are not in furtherance of acts immunized from, liability by this Act.
(Source: P.A. 95-506, eff. 8-28-07.)

Cases to read–US Supreme Court:  1) Citizens United (FEC prohibited any movies from coming out 60 days before an election.  Citizens United made trashy “Hillary” movie which even the US Supremes said was repugnant.  The Court ruled that free speech is subject to “strict scrutiny” and the US govt cannot tell anyone when to speak, what to speak or to refrain from speaking.
“strict scrutiny” means the govt must have a compelling interest, the ends must justify the means, the least restrictive guidelines must be imposed, and the law must actually work to prevent harm.  Strict scrutiny means the govt will never win.  The FEC rule was struck down as being unconstitutional facially under the First Amendment

None of that is present in my case.  I am a blogger about corruption.  People report it to me, I write to the authorities, pursuant to my duties as a lawyer and civilian, and I publish the example so others know how to do this.  The govt cannot and must not regulate the media.  Since this is all under 320 ILCS 20/4, my good faith is presumed.

2) False SpeechAlvarez.  In Alvarez, a man went around with a fake Medal of Valor to entice the ladies to sleep with him.  He also gave speeches on heroism at local VFW’s and got free meals.  Congress had passed a law saying no one could say they had a Medal of Valor when in fact they did not.  The US Supreme Court said that Mr Alvarez’s right to lie about his fake Medal of Valor was covered under free speech.

Federal Appellate case:
Rosemont v. Markham.  Mr. Rosemont was a popular therapist with a masters degree in Psychology.  He was a licensed therapist in NC but not Kentucky.  One day a Kentucky therapist reported his blog and column to the disciplinary authorities for practicing psychology without a license in Kentucky because he wrote a column giving some Kentucky parents some general advice in dealing with a lazy teen son.  The Kentucky Federal Dist  court ruled that the state government had no jurisdiction to regulate a professional column/blog/media under the first amendment.

Illinois Appellate case:
In re Weddigen:  Mr. Weddigen was unhappy with the judge in his divorce.  He went on fb and told everyone how the judge was wrong and how to record court proceedings and which apps to get and how to file complaints about lawyers and judges.
Mrs. Weddigen’s attorney reported this to the court. The court sanctioned Mr. Weddigen thousands of dollars and told him to remove his fb posts about the divorce case.  In a concurring opinion, a 4th district justice said that this was covered by the 1st amendment,
he was shocked that esteemed lawyers and judges did not know this, and that the trial court had no jurisdiction to regulate blog posts regarding court case activities. In the main opinion, the sanction was vacated for failure to comply with rules and procedure.

I am up to nearly 400 “friends” on my facebook.  I only friend people who complain that they were in court and the proceeding was corrupt (and elder or family member was abused, a child rep was bought, a judge made a decision clearly contrary to all evidence).

I do my duty and I must be touching nerves because things are happening:

To wit:

During the last two months:

1) Largest nursing home operator in California indicted and removed on millions in Medicare Fraud;
2)  Largest nursing home operator in Miami Dade county indicted and removed for millions in Medicare Fraud;
3) Seth Gillman of Passages did $1 billion in business with Medicare and the State of Illinois in fake “hospice” work.  The feds indicted him in January for $100 million in fraud.  Last month, he pled guilty to one count of Medicare Faud and one count of govt fraud and his sentence will be 10 years min.

Fraudsters in nursing home business Draiman and Esformes have been taken out.

You did good asking this question.




JoAnne Denison, Executive Director
Justice 4 Every1, NFP
5940 W. Touhy Ave, #120
Niles, IL 60714
Patents, Trademarks & Copyrights
Email me at
Cell Phone 773-255-7608
Work Ph 312-553-1300 or 847-600-3421
efax 312-376-8842
See our website at

Please note that this message may contain confidential or attorney client communications.  If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender and destroy all emails you have received in both your inbox and trash or other folders which may contain same.  Thank you.

Taking away a patient’s right to sue via the Arbitration Clause

from Ken Ditkowsky

The article from the Register addresses the situation in which a senior is placed in a nursing home = it does not specifically address the placement by a guardian for profit (i.e. a Court appointed guardian).

It you follow the political news, when political figure finds himself/herself in an unfavorable limelight the weaseling begins which results in the drip, drip, drip torture of expose after expose.   The ‘elder cleansers’ all have been playing the system for a long time and the growth of opposition parties to the War on the Elderly and the Disabled has not gone un-noticed.
These are very smart people.   The have enlisted cadres of corrupt jurists, judicial officials, and public officials to do their dirty work.     As Trump and Clinton both have pointed out – dollars talk.    Here in Illinois a simple request for an HONEST INVESTIGATION gathers outraged ire and even disbarment of the attorneys making such a First Amendment Request.   Not even the Court’s of last resort have the integrity to resist the miscreants.   The State is bankrupt, but tax collectors look the other way as billions of dollars are extorted, more billions are stolen, and government coffers are raided for additional billions.  The Watchdogs of the public house are deaf, dumb, blind, and out to lunch.
The state of affairs is about to change.   Even without media attornment or publicity the general public is learning that Mr. Jerome Larkin (as an example) owes taxes on his conspiratorial receipt of billions of dollars stolen from seniors and disabled people by the corrupt lawyers and judges he protects. The public is upset that Larkin is immune from paying the very taxes that they would have pay and little by little outrage is building.
The promulgators of the health care fraud syndromes whether nursing home operators (and owners) or just run of mill criminals know that once the public gets to know the facts they will be the focus of some very aggressive law enforcement.   In the last century tar and feathers was a favor method of dealing with the miscreants.   Thus, their ‘wired’ Courts are going to either do the jobs that the public expects or become unwired.
These facts may be obscured to us, but not our opponents.   Thus, they are ‘short circuiting’ the outrage by redirecting it.    Janet Phelan alerted us to the licensing gambit.  (NB. licensing only the guardians for profit and providing the public with another benign regulatory body that is designed to protect the elder cleansing industry).    The arbitration ploy with proper safeguards to protect the pre-determination for the health care provider is a easy sell.    
Who could complain to the following formula:
1) the parties agree to pick from a panel of arbitrators their arbitrator – i.e. a retired judge!
2) from a panel of arbitrators each side picks an arbitrator and the two arbitrators pick a third.
Think for a minute?   Who do you know who is an arbitrator?    For that matter – who do you know who is lawyer who does arbitration?    Let me assure you – the nursing home operators know quite a few of those fellows.   The well is “salted” from day one.
Let’s go a step further.   YOU are not a party – the party is Grandma.   She has been adjudicated incompetent and her guardian – appointed by that corrupt judge – is going to pick the arbitrator.    Do I have to draw the picture any further!
The object is to frustrate your protestations and create a delusion – suggesting that your complaint is frivolous and you are ‘nut!’     Article alerts us to yet another aspect of the War on the Elderly and the Disabled and why we have to urge Attorney General Lynch to start making some meaningful indictments that will encourage the health care industry (and in particular the elder cleansers) to just follow rule of law.
As I’ve stated many times before – I like the idea of Jerome Larkin and his co-conspirators being required by the Civil branch of the Department of the Treasury to just pay the income taxes, interest and penalties that they owe jointly and severally.