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

SECTION 4. FREEDOM OF SPEECH
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

-STATUTE-

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;

or
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.

Also:

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

STATUTE
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.

 

Thanks.

Joanne

JoAnne Denison, Executive Director
Justice 4 Every1, NFP
5940 W. Touhy Ave, #120
Niles, IL 60714
Patents, Trademarks & Copyrights
Email me at JoAnne@Denisonlaw.com
Cell Phone 773-255-7608
Work Ph 312-553-1300 or 847-600-3421
efax 312-376-8842
See our website at http://www.justice4every1.com

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.

Protesters continue to block streets in Chicago over corrupt case of Laquan McDonald

Today I heard on the news reports for traffic that protestors continue to block Chicago streets, and espcially the shops on North Michigan Avenue, over the heinous shooting of a 17 year old child.

And in the wake of that cover up, we see another 13 videos that need to be released:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-police-cedrick-chatman-shooting-video-20151209-story.html

and we also see hundreds of protestors at the Board of Trade Building:

https://theta360.com/s/k3648UicRV6PdHRlNrxu6A2Vc

and protestors here:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/hundreds-chicago-protesters-demand-mayors-resignation/story?id=35678105

States attorneys say the videos may prejudice the jury, but it does not seem that’s all they are worried about.  Videos are often dereguier during bond hearings, and they come out at that time in a public space.  Why, then, the need to suppress them when it might lead to more eye witnesses at the scene who can explain what they saw when a Chicago citizen, apparently unarmed, is gunned down by Chicago Police.

But what everyone needs to know, from Father Pfledger to Jessee Jackson, Jr, the leader of many protests, is that it is not just IDPR or the Internal Department of Police Review which is corrupted.  We have string of people covering up and refusing to prosecute corruption in derogation of their official duties from Lisa Madigan’s offices, who have refused to investigate the Mary G Sykes case and who wrote me a letter saying her offices “don’t do” court corruption to the same from Anita Alvarez (heavily implicated in the L. MacDonald cover up) to Diane Saltoun, the inspector general who must investigate thefts from the state, in this case, the millions due in tax liability to both the feds and to a lesser extent the State of Illinois.

Why it is that the State of Illinois is broke and cannot pay its debts, to the Federal Government which allows 20% of all children to live in the US in abject poverty, and no one collects the crimes that are 100% taxable, is unknown at this time.

Corruption affects us all, and for certain, with Jerome Larkin, head of the Atty Regn and Disc. Comm. forcing lawyers such as myself, Ken Ditkowsky and Lanre Amu to shut up on all corruption, never disclose it to the public, (despite the fact the GAO –US govt accounting office–writes entire booklets on it, and Chicago Crain’s Business confirms problems with sitting judges), lawyers are to keep all crimes, all strings of felonies covered up until others publish about them.

It is corruption and coverups like this, a code of silence amoung the cops, politicians and lawyers in Chicago that have directly led to the cover up of dash cam police videos, and the deaths of teens in Chicago for merely having the wrong skin color.

Insidious racism and discrimination must end.  LaQuan MacDonald is now dead for being a black teen.  Mary G Sykes was narcotized to death by the guardian and nursing home staff (the nursing home doctor would not even sign the death certificate, it had to be signed by a doctor that had no seen Mary G Sykes for years) because she was too old at age 95 so her estate had to be fleeced and the crimes covered up by the court and the ARDC.

The current Pope has made it clear that deaths of the very young and very old will not be tolerated because this is clearly immoral and unethical, yet Chicago covers it all up.

Write to the Mayor’s offices and let him know it is not accpetible to kill off the very young and the very old.  Their lives matter.

Mary G Sykes needs a tox screen and autopsy.  Her death and the loss of 90% of her assets needs to have an honest investigation.  The ARDC has to be investigation in all of this.

The Mayor admitted investigations have to go further than the police department, and that is true.  Where are the lawyers and judges in  all of this unethical and immoral conduct?  Why does the Mayor and the Illinois Supreme Court let the ARDC discipline lawyers for speaking up and speaking out that corruption is wrong and unethical and immoral?  Why can’t we get investigations into deaths all over the place by corrupt officials, incluiding the police and the court system?

At some point, the FBI has to acknowledge and investigate the police, the lawyers and the judges.  They are all guilty of hundreds of deaths per year, and a typical Chicago investigation just covers everything up.

We must return to a free, open and democratic society.  No more cover ups.  Lawyers that protest and disclose must be declared protected Whistleblowers.

JoAnne

 

From the younger daughter–take a close look at the file–it’s been fudged with. And not just a little….

I would estimate that about 70 to 90% of the Sykes file on appeal has “added material”–that’s right, stuff that was not there in the original appeal.  You can tell because the original appellate bates numbering system was first lined out with thick black marker so new numbers could be put on for the new numbering system.

Click on the page where you can find the “appellate records” on this website.  You will see that about 70% to 90% of pages were “added” and bear no thick black marker redactions.

How does this happen when court files are supposed to be inviolate and the ultimate in trustworthiness?

That’s right!  Is this crazy or what?  You will note that items that were copied and sent on the first appeal have a bates number that is simply blacked out by the clerk with marker.  I would estimate that 90% of items found in those first volumes DO NOT HAVE ANY BLACK MARKER REDACTIONS OF THE ORIGINAL APPELLATE BLACK MARKER meaning tons of items were “recently added” for this appeal.

How DOES that happen, Ms. Dorothy Brown, clerk of court!?!?!?

The younger daughter is esp furious over the fact the “notice of rights” to  Mary Sykes was sent to Naperville, once again, bringing up the question, WHY IS MARY BEING SERVED NOTICES TO THE WRONG VENUE from the Cook County Clerk of Court (logically, the case should have been transferred to Naperville), and why did Judge Stuart and Connors say repeatedly they “did not look at things in the file” and yet the notice to Mary says, of course, write to the Presiding Judge if there are any problems in your guardianship.

GJS has written to the Presiding judge over and over.  Mary has letters placed in the file asking (begging) for an attorney so her rights may be protected.  The court repeatedly ignored these.  the Presiding Judge was informed by GJS about these.

Why bother to send out these notices and waste good postage if the is only a lip service provided by the Cook County Court system?

It’s amazing that when all of these miscreants start to lie and fudge, again, I note that a 10 YEAR OLD GIRL SKIPPING SCHOOL CAN DO A BETTER JOB FORGING A NOTE FROM MOM SHE WAS SICK than Farenga and Stern can lie about the court having jurisdiction and the court strictly following the Probate Act.

Note to miscreants:  your (obvious) tracks will be exposed.  There will be many, many things you will not remember to cover up and many you will not be able to even if you wanted.

I want to personally thank Ms. Pat O’Brien, Chief Clerk of Appeals for bringing this serious file fudging and tampering issue to light.  Ms. O’Brien is doing her job.

What Ken and I want to know is WHY ARE WE BEING PROSECUTED AND PERSECUTED, when the miscreants get a “free parking/get out of jail” card?

JoAnne

Breaking news! SCOI refuses to intervene in my/our case regarding the ARDC and this blog!

Dear Readers;

On Sunday, for some reason, both Ken and myself were in the office and what did we each receive?  A notice from the SCOI (Supreme Ct of Illinois) that they had dismissed our petition for a supvervisory order.

Well, being the eternal optimist, I hope that SCOI might promulgate a new rule that attys 1) are allowed to blog; and 2) blogging regarding content based (non commercial) speech will be afforded the greatest and widest protection; and 3) commercial speech where lawyers claim only victories and no losses will require only one disclaimer on the front page “results not typical, consult a lawyer for greater details on your particular case.”

I talked to KDD, and he says we should just wait and see.  But I already have my Summary Judgment Motion file for when the ARDC allows dispositive motions (for some reason the ARDC rules are backwards.  In the rest of the nation’s courts, dispositive motions only have a deadline so they don’t interfere with the work load required for trial prep, and further they are welcome even at an early stage of the proceeding.  The rule was recently changed coincidentially when KDD started filing a number of dispostive motions in his case.  I’m just noticing.  I’m just saying.)

While my case was dismissed at SCOI, I hope they will take a long, hard look at blogs, esp. those that want to stop and root out corruption in the courts at all levels–and give us some well needed protection.

I still can’t get a copy of KDD’s transcript from his 2 day hearing were allegedly his hearing panel found him guilty of “misconduct” (but nothing official yet), and all for just writing one letter to Mary’s doctor Patel and on the reasonable belief 1) that the court lacked jurisdiction because Mary and the sisters were never properly served and 2) the younger daughter held a valid POA of atty granting her the right to allow KDD to ask for this information.  The rest of the accusations against KDD were for merely calling for an investigation–clearly protected by the US and Illinois constitutions.

Let’s hope that the SCOI will DO THE RIGHT THING and issue some good rules protecting attorneys — an especially those that protect attorneys that speak out against corruption in the Illinois court system and

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Apr 2, 2013 9:41 AM
To: GLORIA Jean SYKES , richard busse indiana attorney , JoAnne Denison , probate sharks , NASGA , “acluofillinois@aclu-il.org” , matt senator kirk , Janet Phelan , AARP , states attorney , Cook Sheriff , “michael@activistpost.com” , Michigan Advocacy Project
Cc: H Heckert , j ditkowsky , Ron Keller , Joseph Hosey , GLORIA SYKES , scott evans
Subject: Re: TRO — Sykes

 Unless I missing something very basic we have a scenario that has been approved that is very un-american  –  i.e. the Courts have abdicated to a small group of individuals their jurisdiction.   These people are allowed to seize the property and the liberty of any senior citizen they desire.    If any friend, relative, or other person intervenes that person is also stripped of his/her rights as an American citizen.   All statutory and constitutional protections are forfeit!    If that person happens to be a lawyer – disbarment or other disciplinary proceedings are commenced.
It is apparent that if Nasga, probate sharks and all the other groups seeking to protect elderly and disabled persons from being explited and/or abused by “judicial officials” and their cronies do not get together and seek an immediate remedy everyone will be ‘fair game.’
The Illinois Legislature has decreed that it is jurisdictional to require notice to be given to new (close) relatives before an individual can be guardianized.    The Courts of last resort in the State of Illinois have ruled that it is indeed jurisdictional however, Mary Sykes for 3 1/2 years has been denied her property, her liberty and her civil rights.  Gloria Sykes cannot even obtain the protections of the Bankruptcy Court, and when she is beaten up by the guardian’s husband and files a criminal complaint she is told to bring the matter to the probate court!
Ok – my friends – this is the Warsaw ghetto all over again!    It is also Birmingham and Bull Connor!  The distinction is that they pick us off one at time rather than in group, but it is just as insidious.
The fact that the victims are chosen not because of their religion or the race is not an exculpation.   The fact that we are not inclined to take up arms is not an exculpation.    The fact that we appeal to chorus and are all talk and no action is an exculpation and empowers those who would and are separating us from our basic American Rights.
I purpose that the leaders of NASGA, Probate Sharks, et al set a time and place for a meeting which we can be Syked (or whatever) and we can prepare action.   Our opinions are:1)  The ballot box is a weapon against the miscreants and those who support them.   2) The Courts are an escape value which have been reluctant to protect ‘senior citizens’ and their friends who are being victimized, but, they have to be addressed. 3) force of numbers.  Every one is a potential victim.   Senator Kirk – who suffered a stroke and is now recovering will face opposition in the next election  –  he is vulnerable to the miscreants.   If we can get him to examine the Sykes case if he is 1/2 the man I believe him to be he will have empathy and recognize – like each of us does – there but for the grace of God there go I.
(Of course if I was the guardian and I did not inventory a million dollars in assets you can bet your bottom dollar that the IRS would have filed a jeopardy assessment against me.    If I was responsible for an old lady’s teeth being removed and her estate being reduced by a 1.5 million dollars I would see so much of the States attorney investigators that my neighbors would be gossiping that I was having an affair with her etc.   however – with the Clout no one is interested!)
Right now the exploiters and abusers recognize that they have the ‘clout’ and we are all talk.   It is time that we are a group fight back.
The first step is to meet, the second step is to organize, the third step is to articulate the issues, the fourth step is to determine which issues are most important, the fifth step is to reach an agreement as to how to address the issues, the sixth step is determine the costs of addressing the issues and raising the funds, and the seventh step is to actually do what we say we are going to do.
Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

Where is Ken Ditkowsky’s Transcript? An inquiring public wants to know!

Dear Readers;

One of the things which you all know is going on is my Petition (via KKD) to the Supreme Court of Illinois asking for a supervisory order that lawyers can freely blog about corruption in the Illinois court system without interference from the ARDC which somehow finds the subject embarrassing, denigrating, that it brings “disrepute” onto the judges, lawyers and court system that engage in it with impunity.  They are permanently on the “free parking” monopoly space of the Daley center monopoly game.

All the while, the probate blogs have gone mad for years reporting story after story of corruption, theft, embezzlement, uninventoried assets–even murder and all the while looking the other way,

The chasm between the two worlds has to be the width of the average black hole in space.  The length of the Milky Way, half way to infinity.  But I digress into engineering, my first love.

I grew up believing in first amendment rights.  My mother regularly wrote the newspapers regarding any injustices she found in the world and supported them with historical information. She taught me from a very young age that slavery was wrong, equal rights for women and persons of color was right and correct, and there were many, many injustices to fight in a world of corruption and negativity.  Of course, we lived in Chicago–a regular hotbed of injustices to fight.  She was very busy, either reading or writing.  Getting published in the editorial section of the SunTimes was a highlight of her day.

And then along came Greylord and the issues in our Illinois courts were far from over.

And when I first walked into a juvenile court in Illinois and onto the 18th floor of the Daley center, I have to admit, I was quite shocked by the fact that a juvenile client I was representing was told I could not represent her because juvenile attys came “from a list.”  I provided them with US Supreme court caselaw on that and got an apology.  Then, in probate I found my first transcript either “had disappeared”, then it “was lost”, then it was “stolen”.  I asked the court reporter for the police report and all I got was silence.  I talked to the supervisor and he told me that was impossible, because they were kept safely under lock and key so that could not happen.  So I asked him for this transcript.  A few days later I got an apology, but he would not be getting back to me for some time soon–and it was already 3 months after the hearing date!  I never did get that transcript.  After a call and fax to the state’s attorney and US attorney, suddenly the case went away.  Just showed up in court one day and the judge told me she had reconsidered and all was fine.  Imagine that.

So, maybe I’m suspicious.  Atty Ditkowsky has respectfully asked the ARDC for his transcript after his infamous hearing in which I was not only dismissed from the proceeding (I believe it was a set up by Atty Stern and for blogging) and KDD assures me that at numerous times he “wrapped himself in flag” (metaphorically speaking), and provided an eloquent speech on how first amendment rights were assured the public, and even lawyers, and especially lawyers asking for an investigation where families had reported open and obvious court corruption or a wide divergence from rules of law, statues and procedure.

He assures me that he was asked the incredulous question “are you repentant for repeatedly calling for an investigation from the authorities?”  He assures me he answered “certainly not.”

As an US citizen, I want to see that transcript.  I want to publish and frame that answer.

I was once asked if I was repentant about this blog and would I stop (by a reporter).  I replied “certainly not, and I will not stop the blog or be shut up until I stop hearing (verifiable) stories of corruption in the (Illinois) court system.”  This quote (although she got it backwards at first), has been published perhaps a 100 or more times around the internet.

Just recently I asked Attys Jessica Haspel and Sharon Opryszek at the ARDC for the transcript from KDD’s September 2012 hearing.

Silence.

But they did manage to get the transcript of the disqualification of my attorney and confidant and dear friend Atty Kenneth Ditkowsky to the Supreme Court of Illinois tout d’suite! I believe it was 2 or 3 weeks.

How is it that some transcripts appear right away whereas others (this one from Sept of 2012)  the ARDC won’t reply and  doesn’t even have a speck on the horizon 6 months later?

Isn’t the ARDC embarrassed by all of this?  I mean, a continuing theme on the blog is that you have to bring your own court reporter to a probate proceeding because you can’t trust the official court reporters on the 9th floor of the Daley Center who lose, alter, destroy, disappear, claim the transcript ended at X, when you know a few minutes later Y is chock full of all sorts of stuff the court shouldn’t have done– or whatever it is they do with transcripts.  (And if the ARDC doubts me on this, I have my own story and about half a dozen more regarding this.  Oh, I know I will post all the declarations and affidavits on my blog so they can prepare yet another complaint about this alleging, once again, that I lied, and they didn’t, and they can’t be bothered to read all the affidavits and declarations on this blog).  I get that.  It’s embarrassing and inexplicable.

So here’s another greasy mud ball at the ARDC.  If you guys can manage to get the transcript of Ken’s (bogus) disqualification in my ARDC case sent off to the ARDC promptly and within 2 or 3 weeks, then just where is Ken’s transcript 6 months later.

He asked you for it.  I asked you for it for my case.  I know Ken is an eloquent speaker on human rights, civil rights, property rights, preventing the loss of these via a corrupt court system (oops! said that again).

So, the transcripts the ARDC wants get out right away (and I have to tell you and I will publish it), I don’t think this one helps their case, I do believe they have sniffed a few too many meth lab fumes or whatever they do just before they ordered and sent that one to SCOI, but the ones Ken and I want are long, long delayed.

Well, were they lost, destroyed, stolen without a police report, did you ask the court reporter to stop recording as soon as Ken spoke or what?

You guys can do this.  Explain away.  I’ve heard them all from the 9th floor.  Many probate victims have reported even more colorful tales from the 9th floor.  I would LOVE to hear the excuse.  I bet Ken’s transcript was lost, stolen, the dog ate it, the cat peed on it, the court reporter got drunk and passed out, — I don’t know. What new excuse can they come up with?

The citizens of Illinois are waiting for this one.

And sorry about the blog.  It’s one of those annoying things about the First Amendment. People just tend to publish all the stuff you just don’t want to hear, and especially when you ordered a copier with CYA, office space with CYA, a rug with CYA, a new filing system with CYA, and still, the darned stuff leaks out when people, esp. lawyers start asking questions.

And you know you want to get a gag order.  You want to silence us.  You want us to put our tail between our legs and creep away.

John Wyman called me today and read to me a blog comment where a lawyer said “good for you, I would do that, but I want to keep my (good paying job).

Well, I got some news for that lawyer.  Go take out a loan and buy a back bone.  Go get some cajones or ova or whatever it is that will get you to the side of justice and honesty.

Again, for the attorneys at the ARDC, Atty Larkin, Atty Smart and Atty Ospryszek:  DO THE RIGHT THING AND DISMISS THE COMPLAINTS AGAINST MYSELF AND KEN.

For Attorneys Stern and Farenga, DO THE RIGHT THING AND NONSUIT/DISMISS the Sykes Probate!

For Atty Sharon Rudy and Kim Timmerwilke McKenzie, DO THE RIGHT THING AND DISMISS/NONSUIT the Wyman Case!

There is no ultimate glory, laud or honor prosecuting and persecuting honest and ethical attorneys such as KDD and myself.

Quit your jobs.  Come work for and with me as we clean up the courts in Probate and Illinois.  I may be broke, I might not have food, heat or whatever, but I do what is right.  I listen to the probate victims and I promise to help them without money up front and everything based upon faith and good intentions.

JoAnne

What to know BEFORE you step into Probate court–Rules for attys and non attys alike

Dear Readers;

After all that has happened, after all of my 350+ posts warning everyone–esp. miscreant lawyers to DO THE RIGHT THING IN PROBATE and don’t act without jurisdiction, do not isolate the senior, do not allow a guardian to continue on who isolates the senior, listen to and invite family reports on the behavior of the guardian, I am still getting reports of cases where 1) seniors are thrown against their will into nursing homes and being (illegally) drugged; 2) the court is telling “interested parties” to shut up in court–even attorneys–who are trying to report that the proposed temporary guardian is an abuser and is specifically excluded from prior written directive of the ward to ever act as guardian; 3) closed court proceedings without rhyme or reason on the transcript and all sorts of other shennagins.

Rule No. 1.  Most important. Before you step into Probate Court know the Probate Act regarding disabled adults.  Read it thoroughly.  Know who and “interested party” is, who needs to be served.  Find all the adult siblings, children and parents, or if none, then next of kin.  Know who holds the POA for a senior.  If there is no POA, the relatives should get together and elect the most honest, trustworthy caring person as guardian who will carry out any advance directives.

Rule No. 2 Bring your own court reporter.  There are dozens of fully electronic, licensed court reporters who are unbiased, unbribable and will deliver you a transcript by the end of the week in any e-format you desire, fully searchable for about the same cost as the court’s “official reporter”.   Be forewarned the “official reporters” from the Daley Center often lose, alter, stop reporting, etc. transcripts.  I have dozens of stories of this, one for me for sure, so don’t go there.  Hire an outside court reporter.  If nothing else, it puts a chill on nonsense in the courtroom, even if she never records a single word–you need to know that just by her being there she has done a great job to get you a fair and just agreed order that day and her sitting fee of $125 can save you millions of an entire estate in the end.  Don’t skimp on this step.

Rule No. 3.  Be prepared to argue the constitution and against closed proceedings and doctor’s reports.  Be aware that Dr. Rabin and Dr. Amdur and other “recommended docs from the court list”  declare everyone incompetent.  Get your own work up write up whatever.  Don’t let the senior be drugged with strong psychotropic drugs.  It’s illegal and none are approved by the FDA for those over age 60 (or teenagers).  Threaten to report the doc if you must, but there is a legal procedure for giving a person psychotropic drugs that must be strictly followed (In Re Tiffany). Be sure to read this case and follow the mandate re psychotropic drugs if you are GAL or PG and doing this.

Rule No. 4 Expect anything in Probate, from closed proceedings, to having a case with a large estate being called last after everyone is gone so the judge can arrange a slew of “friends” to ensure the senior is declared disabled, that a $500 to $600 per hour atty is involved, that you, even as an “interested party” will not be allowed to speak about something important including abuse, isolation and drugging,  etc.

Rule No. 5 If a guardian has been appointed, make sure there is a summons, petition, affidavit of service and Sodini notices to the adult siblings, children and parents of the disabled 14 days in advance of the hearing, notifying the interested parties of the time, date and place of hearing.

Rule 5.  If you weren’t allowed to speak in court, file a “Bystander’s Report” together with a “Report to the Court and GAL” detailing your knowledge of who is an abuser and who should not become guardian.  Detail what you know about the Ward’s written advance directives and demand the court follow that, as provided for by the Probate Act.  Do not let abusers become guardians.

All of this is based upon my story from yesterday.  After 350+ posts on this blog, which I know the GAL’s read, the judges read, etc.  IT IS STILL HAPPENING

From an atty yesterday, one of my favorite court rooms: 1) closed proceedings without notice or reason; 2) the POA holder’s atty was told to “shut up” and not speak; 3) the case involved a lot of money (est. $10 million in property plus a mansion).  4) the ward was put in a nursing home by an out of state son for having a messy, cluttered home (anyone hear of a cleaning lady); 5) the ward is being drugged and is acting like a zombie; 5) she has been put in a nursing home against her will (this is a continuing theme in these cases); 6) she has stated in writing her abusive son is not to be made guardian, but the court did just that yesterday; 7) the court tied in doc said she is “incompetent” after a 5 minute conversation where at the start he told her 5 important words, and then at the end of the conversation she could not recall all of them, so she is incompetent; 8) proceedings were closed where the judge would only talk to the “tied in” attys and GAL and abusive son.

Don’t be shocked in Probate.  Never be shocked.  Be prepared to argue, present and preserve what happens.  Bring a court reporter.  Demand everything be on the record.  No closed proceedings, no closed doors.  If the GAL’s come from the “judge’s area” which was prohibited by court order after Greylord–report them to the ARDC.

Corruption in probate has to stop, and this starts with concerns by everyone.  Let the court know via a Bystander’s Report and Report to the Court and GAL.  Let the ARDC and JIB (Judicial Inquiry Board) know via a written complaint.  If there is a theft, conversion, embezzlement–put it in your Report to the Court AND report it to the authorities–the local police, the State’s atty, the FBI and don’t stop complaining until there is a thorough, complete and honest investigation.

If the court won’t let you speak, contact me and I’ll publish what you have to say on this blog.  The disabled have rights also, and the public needs to know and be forewarned.  If you don’t get justice in court, I will give you a forum to demand justice via this blog.

Some have asked me when the blog will stop.  I always respond, when the corruption has ended and I get no further reports of it.

So far, no such luck.

Joanne

Another Letter ignoring the US Constitution from the ARDC and our response

Dear Readers;

While I think you all know that in the US we have the right to association, the right to have people draft up letters and emails for us, and the right to associate with them, the control freak attitude of the ARDC does not acknowledge those rights.

For those of you that forgot your US history, it was commonplace in the colonies for the British to sue people, throw them in prison, take away rights and liberties–all without due process of law.  They would also impose gag orders and orders against associating with rebels who would organize citizen protests.

All of that was simply disposed of with the drafting and implementation of the US Constitution in 1790 and more recently enforced by the Illinois Consitution.

Apparently the ARDC has not read these plainly worded doucments.  See the incredulous letter I recently received and my/our response to it.  Yes, I still talk with, email and associate with KDD even though the ARDC wrongfully disqualified him as my counsel.  I can do this because the US Constitution says that I can.

Note how our Constitutional rights, when understood protect our basic human and civil rights.  These are not mere writings on an ancient piece of paper but they serve us well even today — and even against such august and venerable attorneys that spend their work hours at the ARDC.

Once again, KDD and I are calling for honest, ethical and complete investigations of the Sykes, Gore, Tyler, Bedin, Wyman, Spera cases and that charges by the ARDC brought against us only to protect the honeypot of Probate be dropped.

Letter from the ARDC Mar 17, 2013

My/our Response to Mar 20, 2013 Letter

see the letters below also.

JoAnne

(I apologize if the OCR isn’t perfect, but the ARDC rejects modern emails for some reason)

ATTORNEY REG ISTRATION AND DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION
of (he
One PrudclIliall’ laza
1′>0 1′:”sI Ralldolph ilri ve. Suite 1500
Chica1\o, II. G060 1·6219
C\ 12) 56′).2600 (800) (\26 862′)
Fax () 12) S(J5 ·m o
JoAnne Marie Denison
Denison & Associates
1512 N. Fremont Street, Suite 202
Chicago, Illinois 60642
Dear Ms. Denison:
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS
http://www.iardc.org
Chicago
March 20, 2013
Re: JoAnne Marie Denison
Commission No. 20 13PROOOO I
🙂 161 \X’est IX·ilite Oaks Drive, Suite :)01
SprinKlieid. IL 62704
(2 17) 546· .)52) (800) 252· 8048
Fax (2 17) 546·)785
As you are aware, on February 22,2013, the Chair entered an order disqualifying Mr. Ditkowsky from representing you in the above-captioned manner. Pursuant to the Chair’s order, Mr. Ditkowsky is not currently authorized to act as your attorney in Commission No. 2013 PROOOO I. I note this in this letter because we have received correspondence from Mr. Ditkowsky related to this matter since February 22, 2013, and you have sent us e-mails which have included Mr. Ditkowsky. As Ms. Haspel advised you in her letter of February 5, 2013, we have not consented to service of pleadings via e-mail. Similarly, we have not consented to correspondence via e-mail and will not respond
to e-mail cOITespondence. Please send any and all correspondence related to Commission No. 2013PROOOOI to my attention at the address listed above or via facsimile to (312) 565-2320. 1 will make every eff0l1 to promptly reply to correspondence related to the matter at hand. However, please be advised that no response will be f0l1hcoming as to questions unrelated to Commission No. 20 13PROOOO I.
On February 26, 2013 , you wrote in an e-mail that “1 have some questions about the case and I was wondering if you all might have some time to answer my questions.” You subsequently wrote, “I was w0Doering when you will he sble to ?nswer I’1″)Y priol’ ern2 😉 feg?rdiof’ ;J. time to talk and answer questions regarding my case[ … ]” and, “I’m also looking forward to a little chat about this case with you ladies
soon, so Jet me know when we can do a little coffee or tea talk.” On March 4, 2013, at approximately 1:56 p.m., I placed a call to the telephone number listed as your registered business number, (312) 553-1300, and left a voicemail message inviting you to contact me regarding Commission No. 2013 PROOOO ITo date; I have not received a return call from you . On February 28, 2013 , you asked whether the Commission requires your compliance with the Illinois Rules of Civil Procedure in any fiied pleadings. Please note that I cannot provide you with any legal advice related to this matter. You may wish to review the Commission Rules and Illinois Code of Civil Procedure to insure your pleadings comply with the Rules. AI1icie IV of the Rules of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission outlines the Commission rules related to the matter before the
Hearing Board. You may also wish to review Commission Rule 251 (a) which relates to discovery and states, in part, “Except as provided herein, discovery practice shall be in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure and the Rules of the Supreme Court.” Pleadings filed in attorney disciplinary proceedings must comply with Commission rules as well as the Illinois Rules of Civil Procedure.
Finally, please be advised that any request for investigation of an attorney should be
made, in writing, by mailing the request to either the Chicago or Springfield office of the ARDC.
The Commission does not accept requests for investigations submitted via e-mail. Please consult the Commission’s website: http://www.iardc.org for instructions on how to submit a request for investigation. Please note that requests for an investigation of an attorney should not be sent directly to my, or Ms. Haspel ‘ s, attention.
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.
SDO:dnm

Very truly yours,

Sharon D. Opryszek
Litigation Counsel

I apologize for the poor formatting, but if SO wants to email me correct formatting, I will update this post.

Now for my reponse:

FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET
To: Atty Sharon Opryszek;
Atty Jerome Larkin, Director; Atty Jessica Haspel, ARDC,
Fax No. 312-565-2320    From:                      Admitted Ill., N.  Carolina and Patent Bars
JoAnne M. Denison, Pat.      Atty.  Reg.  No.  34,150
DENISON & ASSOCS., PC    FAX 312-553-1307
1512 N Fremont St, #202    CELL PH 773-255-7608
CHICAGO, IL 60642    PHONE 312-553-1300
JoAnne@DenisonLaw.com  or WWW.DenisonLaw.COM
Federal Patents, Trademarks & Copyrights
Yusuf Naqvi, of counsel
Important Notice
This facsimilie message contains attorney privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone, collect, and return the original message to the above address.  You will be reimbursed.  Your cooperation is immensely appreciated.
For transmission problems, please call 312-335-1300
A confirmation copy       WILL   ✔   will NOT be sent.
Pages in fax, including this coversheet – ( 9  )
March 22, 2013

Re:    Complaints against KDD and myself, and the Sykes, Gore, Tyler and Wyman Complaints

Dear Attys Larkin, Opryczek and Haspel;

This is in response to your recent letter I received in the snail mail late yesterday.

Let me set the record straight for you.    As a citizen I have the right to the attorney of my choice.    Because of your ethically challenged and the improper actions initiated by you, Ken and I have been wrongfully forced to petition the Supreme Court of Illinois for a supervisory order.     Mr. Ditkowsky is my attorney and my friend and confidant in relation to the matter before the Supreme Court of Illinois.  If I want to call him, email him, visit with him, have lunch with him–that is my right and his right also.  It’s in the US constitution, if you have not read it recently, it was a fine document carefully drafted to alleviate the long sufferings of people under the highly oppressive monarchy of England.  These drafters knew their oppressors and how they rip apart society causing great harm and suffering to a land of people without rights.  We no longer have court in the US that are secret courts, secret off with your head courts, gag orders preventing us from disclosing certain topics, restraining orders preventing our association with other honest citizens to fight an oppressive government in a civilized orderly manner.  Because if we do not have those rights, society otherwise deteriorates into civil war and lawlessness.

Telling me that I adopt KDD’s writings, that I include him in correspondence and my cc’s and insisting that I not associate with him smacks of over reaching and restraints not imposed by our venerable US and Illinois constitutions.  It’s bullying, pure and simple.

Even if KDD is disqualified, all that means is that he cannot appear in court and speak for me (he can be my friend in the galley and watch), he can in fact write for me, but I have to sign the pleading when filed and review it.  He cannot speak to you on my behalf.  But if I adopt and approve of his writings, I can then send them to you.  The reality of the situation is, he does more to help the ARDC understand and appreciate the law than any of you and the other ARDC attorneys combined.

This morning Mr. Ditkowsky drafted and sent to the ARDC a Himmel complaint in which you all are the attorneys who are referred to for discipline.    The reason that you all are involved is the fact that pursuant to Rule 137 prior to bringing the disciplinary action against me the attorney for the ARDC was  required to do some kind of investigation.    It is has been called to your attention that the Probate Division had no jurisdiction in the Sykes and therefore the assertions made against me were totally meritless.    The statement that I made any untrue averment was totally false and a direct violation of Rule 137 and a demonstration of your ethically challenged behavior.     Indeed, if you had done a scintilla of due diligence you would have discovered that 1) you are intentionally violating not only my First Amendment Rights, but 2) my fifth, sixth and 14th Amendment Rights as well.  The Federal Constitution plainly and directly prohibits the action that you are prosecuting.

All that aside, even if the ARDC has jurisdiction the averments made against me are not sustainable and without merit and you either know or should know that fact.   Ergo, this morning Mr. Ditkowsky filed a Himmel complaint against you all and forwarded to the Administrator a disk that reproduced by scanning  the first four volumes of the Sykes common law record.     The record clearly demonstrates that the Supreme Court and Legislative jurisdictional  mandate are being continuously ignored by you.      I respect you, and therefore I am sending you the FRCP 11 ‘safe harbor’ letter demanding that you immediately dismiss the meritless proceedings filed against me.     (Mr. Ditkowsky is not so generous – he is requesting that the United States of America investigate and prosecute those persons who have violated my civil rights, Mary Sykes’ civil rights, Gloria Sykes’ civil rights and the Civil Rights of all persons similarly situated–including Josephine DePietro and Yolanda and Kathie Bakken who are continuously and vigorously being isolated from a family member they held dear and visited frequently and called on a near daily basis).

Please be advised that the fact that you are an attorney employed by the State of Illinois as part of the ARDC staff does not insulate you from your responsibilities as a lawyer and as an officer of the court.   The pending petition is not privileged as you and the Administrator are both aware that there was no delegation under American law to you or the ARDC to regulate my First Amendment Rights.    Indeed in the New York Times vs. Sullivan case the specific prohibition is clearly stated.     In the recent Alvarez and Brown cases the prohibition is reiterated and in Hunter  the Virginia Supreme Court explains very clearly that ‘content’ based speech is protected.     Let me make it very clear – this is not a ‘game’ and the stakes are very high.    Mary Sykes has had her Constitutional Rights, civil rights, property rights and human rights taken from her by the Attorneys who have promulgated these complaints against me that the ARDC is pursing.   The attempt to silence me is certainly not authorized by any delegation to the ARDC and clearly a violation of 42 USCA § 1983.    I call upon you as an alleged ethical and honest  attorney to comply with your oath taken when you were sworn in as an attorney and your responsibilities inherent to your role as an attorney and DO THE RIGHT THING.  Dismiss the ARDC actions against KDD and myself and conduct a complete, thorough and honest investigation of all miscreants involved in jurisdictionless proceedings in Probate–Sykes, Wyman, Taylor, Gore.  Conduct a thorough investigation as to why Atty Sharon Rudy swiped $150,000 from join accounts held in the names of both Dominick Spera and his mother, leaving Dominic on the streets for over a year–sleeping in the park and on the streets of Rockford, eating out of trash cans, all the while SRR swiped $150,000 with impunity and unnoticed out of joint accounts by the GAL Peter Savitsky or Judge Fabiano.  How does this happen in the US?  A relatively well off gentleman is rendered homeless and penniless by the Rockford Probate Court system.  I just pointed this out to Atty SRR and got him $5,000 “until next month” when she has all the facts and records. Disgusting.

You challenge myself and KDD with lying, yet all I have found in the Probate system when people complain via my blog is just what is stated, uninvestigated garden variety theft, embezzlement, conversion, (elder financial exploitation) isolation (elder abuse), lack of jurisdiction–all attorneys acting badly and judges acting badly and corruption.  A clear deviation from the laws, cases, thoughts and opinions that is in any sense of the concept of justice.

The Probate system is so utterly devoid of justice in some cases, I have people “secretly” calling me with verified inventories in the hundred of thousands, homes sold, forced nursing home placements, they escape and live in boarding and rooming houses, hiding from the Probate court.  They call me and engage in complicated, lucid thoughts clearly establishing competency.  They talk of stories of court sanctioned murder plots.  Of course, I would never believe them EXCEPT FOR THE FACT, I have found instances of court sanctioned murder.  Forced nursing home placements, slapping DNR’s and holding people down to inject them with strong psychotropic drugs so they start and dehydrate, plus the sales of expensive homes–all to go to probate atty and tied in servicing fees.

You might think you can shut these people up and their relatives, but you cannot.  There is the internet and they post not just on my blog but a myriad of other long established blogs.  I bring no disrepute to the legal profession with my blog because all of the miscreants I have mentioned have been long and well established as “miscreants” on other probate blog sites. The difference is, I can help explain court procedures and methods to people who really need this advice and cannot afford it.

I hope you will consider all of this seriously and get some relief for these probate victims.

Quit you job and work for me.  You will not have money or insurance, but you will have ethics and a great sense of self esteem.  Saving the world is the highest calling anyone can undertake.

Working at the ARDC and being told to prosecute and persecute honest attorneys is no way to live.  It only ends in abject misery.

Sincerely

JoAnne Denison

JoAnne Denison

cc: I will also deliver to you soon paper copies of everything because you insist on killing trees and putting as large a footprint as you can on the environment.  However, please be aware, if I email or fax you THAT IS ONLY CC SERVICE to ensure you get the papers I mail or deliver.  IT IS NOT THE ACTUAL SERVICE.

I will continue to deliver/mail service you with cc’s via fax and email.

So please do not write me and tell me I am serving you by email/fax.  That is only your cc.  You WILL get everything on paper and just let me know if you don’t get it and I will resend over more paper.