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?

Advertisements

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.

Testing the Mettle of Rockford Probate Court

Dear Readers;

As you are aware, this blog is about helping others in probate court.  Letting everyone know what works and what does not work.  Pleadings, emails and other documents are published here and on other probate blogs (which I might or might not have control over) regarding better tactics to protect YOU and your beloved grandpas, grandmas and the disabled.  These are often the poor of the poor, or they will be after probate court gets to them via a fee for this and a fee for that and often two or more attys churning the bill, liening the paid for family home, the savings that were never used on family trips and vacations and vacation homes, etc.– then granny goes into a nursing home, isolated and never seeing the light of day again.  You will note it is rare to see ANYONE from a nursing home going outside ever again.  And the food isn’t healthy by a long shot. Whole Foods is NOT doing the catering.

Getting back to Probate court in Rockford, after lengthy argument, the court did NOT decide in John Wyman’s favor.  Oh, the record was clear and the court even admitted notices were not served,  but Judge Fabiano said during hearing (and we did have a private court reporter and I do have a record and transcript I will publish ASAP), 1) constructive notice is enough due process for the Wyman family; 2) the entire family knew of the proceeding and did not file anything soon after the fact; 3) laches applied (see my email to SRR below regarding THAT legal theory) and 4) Carol Wyman’s injuries in the nursing home where she was severely beaten and sexually abused could not possibly have been the fault of poorly picking a Guardian that was an infamous abuser in his family and the local community (but she did not explain why that was, SRR and KMT said it was not the right time period, but it is my understanding she suffered at a horrid nursing home–one of the worst in Rockford during the July to Sept. 2009 time period and then she escaped.)

The moral of this story is:  if you don’t like your spouse and no longer have any need or want for them around the house, drug them, take them to a nursing home and get a temporary guardianship over them in court.  When they “awake” from all the drugs and start protesting and want to go home, the nursing home will physically hold them down and shoot them up with Halodol (a drug NOT FDA recommended for seniors due to stress on all the internal organs) and then you will never have to deal with your “spousal problem” again.  And all with the blessings of the Rockford Probate court and 2 court appointed attorneys.  All you have to do is tell all the attys involved that your house is paid for in full.  They will then attack anyone and everyone to get to where they are going.

All this actually happened to Carol Wyman — and more, get the book “Against Her Will” or just email John Wyman for a copy at johnhowardwyman@gmail.com. It’s a 5 star book on Amazon you won’t be able to put down.

So SRR is supposed to draft up an order for the court to sign on Monday. Because I have been involved in, or have heard of, most of the dirty tricks in probate, I was extremely well prepared for the hearing and could shoot down just about every single dirty lie, trick, ruse — you name it, I had the answer for the court.

However, it did not seem to do much good.  SO onto the emergency appeal, soon as I get the order.

Take care all and read the email I sent to SRR below regarding what to put in the order for findings of fact and conclusions of law.

JoAnne

now for my email to Sharon Rudy:

Subject: Court yesterday In re Wyman 09 P 127
Date: Sep 29, 2012 1:04 PM

Dear Sharon;

Please make sure you put in the order tomorrow, the following findings by Judge Fabiano:

1) That the case, In re Steinfield held that notices could be excused if the movant had been significantly involved in the case post appointment of  a plenary guardian (perhaps you can find the page cite for that holding, I could not)

2) that laches applies to defeat a finding of lack of jurisdiction under the Probate Act (I believe that would be new law because laches is an affirmative defense which is only pled as an Answer to a Claim–but maybe the Illinois App. Ct will change that centuries old law, what do I know?)

3) that the Probate Act allows for constructive notice to be served on all “close relatives”.  The notice need not be in writing and it need not be personally served or served by mail.
The sisters were served via phone call to one and that was adequate notice.

4) that John Wyman and William Wyman were represented by the OPG or Heckinger in early July and that excused notice.  (Willaim Wyman was NOT represented by the OPG except early on in the case when the OPG was only defending him and did so successfully regarding the OOP.  The OPG only filed an appearance for that issue and William Wyman will submit an affidavit to the court regarding that issue, but you can put in the order that it was a finding from the hearing because that’s what happened).

5) that the sisters had constructive notice by phone or upon information and belief and statements from KTM that she remembers calling one sister sometime before the hearing.

Yes, I think that those were the most important points that both you and Judge Fabiano made yesterday.

As we discussed, my client is willing to post a supercedas bond pending appeal for half the estimate costs of appealing. Please send me a good faith estimate of those costs which may consist of:  1) utilities, taxes, insurance; 2) an estimate of the FMV of the personal property, which I believe is negligable looking at the inventory list.

If the judge is still interested in awarding sanctions, I would like the opportunity to brief that separate issue, so please put in the order a briefing schedule, ie, 1) when you will submit your motion for sanctions, 2) a 3 week response for me and 3) whatever you need for reply and then set it for hearing.  You can just call me on my cell or text me for hearing dates and let me know what day and time you will be in court to set that.  I believe that is a separate motion that must be in writing, properly served and the respondent is entitled to a briefing schedule.

Also, I did make the statement that the court appeared to making a ruling that “hearsay, innuendo and rumor” satisfied the Probate Court Act notice standards in accordance with Sodini/Steinfeld and you can put that in the order and I don’t mind.

thanks

joanne

Let’s see which Probate Court does better–Rockford or the 18th floor of the Daley Center

Dear Readers

As you may or may not know, John Howard Wyman has written an excellent book on the Probate court in Rockford, and his harrowing experiences there.  If you don’t have a copy, please go out and get a copy.  Out of stress and strife, John Wyman has done a great deal of good by writing a book on his experiences in order to help YOU, the people who have been denied justice in an Illinois Probate Court.

While I am not going to provide you with much comment on this case because there’s no reason–the pleadings speak for themselves, I did want make sure you have the pleadings in case you face a similar situation.  Therefore, I am publishing all the documents in that case, namely,

John’s original Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Sodini)

JHW – Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction – filed Aug 31, 2012

Attorney Sharon Rudy’s Brief in Response

SRR – Response to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction – filed Sept 14, 2012

My Reply Brief, filed yesterday:

JMD Reply Brief–Motion to Dismiss, Lack of Jurisdiction (Soldini)
The transcript from the last hearing in which I argued that the Motion to Dismiss IS in fact an emergency because everyday someone lives under a guardianship without jurisdiction is a day she has been deprived of life, liberty, property, human rights and civil rights without due process of law, which is a constitution violation under the US and Illinois state constitutions.

Transcript of hearing 8/31/12 re Emergency Motion to Dismiss or Nonsuit due to lack of Jurisdiction.

I will be ordering all the transcripts today.

I am also publishing the hearing date, time and place of September 28th, Court room 217, 400 West State St, Rockford Illinois, Judge Fabiano  at 11:00 am so all the Probate groups can come out and watch and publish.  This should be a major victory for the Probate groups.  If the Honorable Judge Fabiano does her job, this should be a dismissal/nonsuit QED.

Judge Fabiano will be our heroine.  She can then tell all the other Illinois probate judges to carefully check and question that all adult children, siblings and parents have been given notice of the date, time and place of hearing, in writing, 14 days in advance of the hearing.

thanks

JoAnne

I am publishing this because PLEADINGS SHOULD BE PUBLIC.  The Rockford Court house has been given about 80 million dollars so far to get their court records computerized, and so far, nada.  Attys cannot upload, the public cannot download and the system, like the Cook County system, is an electronic dinosaur.

I hope to also get all the transcripts and publish them for you in the Rockford case.

While I am actively involved in the case, I will refrain from commenting on it, you can still get the book (on Amazon), and read the pleadings and transcripts because I intend to do the job of the Illinois county courts and make them all public, as they should be.

thanks

joanne
PS – If you are having any problems opening the above links, try downloading the software for Google Drive–just google it.  If that does not work, please email me and I will try to help.

This is what happens when Justice comes “from a list”

Dear Readers;
This is in response to my assertions that Mary should not have to continually beg and plead for an attorney to get one, or make a complete stink, that she should be allowed to see her former attorney Ken Ditkowsky freely, that he should be allowed to help her and the Probate Court’s assertions that a Probate Judge, such as the august Judge Connors requires that a ward “really need” an attorney then she would appoint one.  Of course, the GAL’s are appointed “from a list”, any independent counsel, if some ward really made a stink and it somehow got back, would not have their counsel of choice, but would have someone appointed “from a list”–which does absolutely no good, may as well have two GAL’s, oh that right, that already happened– and Judge Stuart’s assertions before a tribunal and Adam Stern’s that a ward cannot contract for an attorney is absolutely not supported by the case law.  Of course, they’re both “from a list.”
Further, court supervisors are appointed “from a list” and are not chosen for their thriftiness, nor do they work for free, as here where the court has taken away all of the other daughter’s money, and the GAL’s threaten family members they cannot see Mary if they don’t tow the line.
The court is “from a list”, the GAL’s are “from a list”, anyone who speaks out if there is something wrong will require a supervisor “from a list” and you can’t get independent counsel because they won’t be “from a list”.
But the $1 million is well documented, not investigated and everyone “from the list” sticks together to deny an elder of her life, liberty, property, human rights and civil rights–clearly those must only come “from a list.”
I submit for your consideration that when justice “comes from a list” it is justice denied.
Read on for further ideas from KDD.
JoAnne
Now, from Ken:
The probate act is intended to be non-adversarial.   In other words, the community is intended to come together to protect the elderly, the lame, the sick, and all who are unable in one way or another to help themselves.   The intentions of the act are good.   The history of the act goes back to basic Judio/Christian dogma.
The idea of fiefdom for any individual is alien and the idea that the civil rights of an individual would be forfeit by the Act is heresy.  Unfortunately, the GAO report, the Sykes case and the others related thereto,i.e. Gore, Tyler, etc  illustrate the avarice is a cancer that has pervaded the best of intentions.    The idea that is advanced by Farenga, Stern, Schmiedel, et al that these guardianship proceedings are ‘secret’ rituals to be closely supervised by the elite (obviously themselves) is nothing short of pornographic.    755 ILCS 11a -18 makes it clear that if a guardian is to appointed the guardian does not have carte blanche – the guardian is an ‘angel’ whose appointment is intended to carry out the wishes of the ward in the highest fiduciary manner possible.
As Mr. Stern testified – the guardian is given absolute discretion to govern the life of the ward, including but not limited to isolating the ward (elder abuse) from family friends, willy nilly making the assets of the estate vanish, and punishing the ‘Gloria Sykes” who oppose the arbitrary governance of the ward’s estate.
The letter of NASGA to Judge Stuart that called attention to infamy that was being perpetrated in the Sykes case should have been welcomed by the Court and an immediate investigation should have followed.    The idea of ignoring the citizen report was and is intolerable.   Persons paid by the public are not anointed.   The are not better than the rest of us peons.    The government employee whether a judge, a guardian ad litem, etc is a ‘public trust’ and impacts a duty.    The fact that Farenga, who ignored her duty repeatedly, made denials that Carolyn had sequestered and ignored not inventorying approximately a million dollars in collectibles (Au Coins), when Carolyn has not denied the same is obscene.    The fact that Farenga and Stern knew that Carolyn was drilling the safety deposit box and could not be bothered to find out what was in the box is equally obscene; however, to not report the allegation to the Court and suggest that the allegation is imaginary when both neglected to observe or properly call for an investigation is pernicious.    I do not have to state what I think of the attempts to deny First Amendment rights and to silence the protest of the alleged “theft” and the what followed.
In these cases in which a senior citizens rights, privileges and immunities are compromised (and in many cases forfeited)  the failure of a Court to give credence to all public protestations of possible corruption is reprehensible.   The attempts at ‘cover up’ are intolerable and require law enforcement at all levels to conduct ‘honest’, comprehensive, and complete investigations instanter.    Justice Marshall, and Lord Mansfield are turning over in their graves!   Buck vs. Bell and Dred Scott are alive and well in the Probate Division.   Shame!
Ken Ditkowsky