First Amendment Retaliation for running this blog

Posted on March 7, 2016 by Joanne M Denison

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.

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 Speech. Alvarez. 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

Posted on December 10, 2015 by Joanne M Denison

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….

Posted on April 2, 2013 by Joanne M Denison

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!

Posted on April 2, 2013 by Joanne M Denison

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!

Posted on March 29, 2013 by Joanne M Denison

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

Posted on March 27, 2013 by Joanne M Denison

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

Posted on March 22, 2013 by Joanne M Denison

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

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.

From KDD and myself–a letter to the ARDC to supplement our evidentiary files on Harris case

Posted on March 21, 2013 by Joanne M Denison

FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET

To: Atty Jerome Larkin,
Administrator
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
Yusuf Naqvi, of counsel, associate
Federal Patents, Trademarks & Copyrights
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 – ( see header )
March 21, 2013

Re: Your Complaints against atty Ken Ditkowsky and Joanne Denison merely for reporting corruption in Probate court and blogging about Illinois Court corruption
Dear Atty Larkin;

Memorandum to ILLINOIS ARDC

To: Mr. Jerome Larkin, Administrator

From: Kenneth Ditkowsky

Subject: Evidence of Misconduct by ‘Judicial Officials and Staff of the ARDC

Dear Mr. Larkin,

This was written by Atty Ditkowsky and I agree with it and am adopting it. Please put it in my “evidentiary record.”

Pursuant to my Himmel obligation, I have written many times to the ARDC concerning the Mary Sykes case and detailed the fact that the Illinois Legislature has promulgated a legislative scheme to protect senior citizens such as Mary Sykes from being exploited and abuse. The System if implemented protects the ‘due process’ rights of allegedly disabled persons and most important prevents exactly what has happened not only in the Sykes case, but in a large number of similar matters.

Unfortunately, the citizen complaints concerning the nefarious Financial Exploitation of seniors and persons alleged to be disabled has fallen on deaf ears. One excuse or another has been promulgated to thwart any investigation. Lawyer complaints have fallen into the pattern of ARDC staff making a false allegation that the complaints written the lawyers are false and in my situation and in the situation of JoAnne Denison disciplinary cases have been filed. What is frustrating is the fact that the only frugality with the truth emanates from the Staff of the ARDC who apparently refused to make even a casual investigation of the Court File in Sykes. Had they done so they also would have asked the question: “How could this happen in the United States of America.”

As I stated supra, Illinois has a Legislative formula for preventing the ‘railroading’ of seniors into the loss of their liberty by inappropriate guardianships. Illinois recognizes that providing notice to a person who has not mental capacity (permanent or temporary) is a sham and a fraud. Ergo, the Legislature in its wisdom provided a jurisdictional criterion of notification of ‘close and/or near’ relatives. The Supreme Court of Illinois explained:

“The court acquires jurisdiction over the allegedly disabled person by personal service upon him of a copy of the petition and summons not less than 14 days before the hearing. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, Ch. 110½, Par. 11a–10(e); see McCormick v. Blaine (1931), 345 Ill. 461, 178 N.E. 195.) It is also a jurisdictional requirement that the petitioner give notice of the time and place of the hearing by mail or in person to the nearest living relatives of the allegedly disabled person not less than 14 days before the hearing. Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, Ch. 110½, Par. 11a–10(f); see In re Guardianship of Sodini (1988), 172 Ill.App.3d 1055, 123 Ill.Dec. 67, 527 N.E.2d 530.” In re Estate of Steinfeld, 158 Ill. 2d 1, 13, 630 N.E.2d 801, 807 (1994)[1]

There is a second phase to this situation. Section 17 and Section 18 set forth a criterion that limits the ability of the guardian (or guardian ad litem) to dominate the ‘ward.’ This aspect of the Act has been totally ignored by many appointed guardians and in many instances by the Judges themselves. This has allowed situations to occur such as Mr. and Mrs. Cooper have complained, to wit: A 1.5 million dollar estate reduced to zero. Mr. and Mrs. Cooper and others have in vain cried for help from the ARDC in attempting to obtain a remedy concerning the alleged avarice etc. of Miriam Solo. Ms. Gloria Sykes and her two aunts have cried out concerning the non-inventory or valuables including approximately a million dollars in gold coins belonging to the Mary Sykes’ estate. Mr. Scott Evans has written to the ARDC concerning the non-reporting of deplorable conditions he witnessed Mary Sykes subjected to by “court officials” appointed by a Court lacking jurisdiction. The list is endless. The Evidence Deposition of a Judge administrating the Mary Sykes estate is an eye-opener.

The mission of the ARDC is to protect the public. It is respectfully suggested that this mission has been abandoned and instead has been amended to protect the interests of the few guardian ad litem and certain attorneys. In the Sykes case attorneys Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern, and Peter Schmiedel appear to be protected persons as the Common Law Record is clear that the legislative mandate has been ignored, yet, these lawyers have proceeded to use the Probate Division as a weapon against not only the relatives and friends of Mary Sykes (and especially Gloria Sykes) but as a vehicle to fend off lawyers who are appalled by the public Spector of a 90 year old senior citizen being openly and notorious deprived of her liberty and property.

In the Sykes case it is of record that Stern, Farenga and Schmiedel, knowing there was no jurisdiction over me by the Probate Divisions prosecuted a Rule 137 sanction motion against me. The Appellate court reversed the sanction. Ms. Denison was disqualified on the suggestion that she notarized a document. Ms. Sykes reports that just about every lawyer that she engaged was scared off by a threat. The record in Sykes reveals that the threats (even though no jurisdiction has been had) were real.

Enclosed please find a disk. We have scanned the first four volumes of the Common Law Record of the Sykes case prepared by the Circuit Court of Cook County Clerk. A copy is being forwarded to you for three purposes:

1. To provide you with evidence that the Disciplinary Complaints filed in your name by your staff in which it is alleged that Ms. Denison and I are accused of being untruth is in fact an untrue statement that your staff knew or should have known was untrue. (Yes this is an ethical complaint against the Staff of the ARDC).

2. To supplement the Citizen complaints filed against Farenga, Stern, Schmiedel that were summarily ignored. The 14 volume record in Sykes has been filed with the Appellate Court of Illinois by Ms. Gloria Sykes. In particular, these scanned copies of the first four volumes memorialize the fact that the 755 ILCS 5/11 – 10(f) 14 day jurisdictional notices were never served. This is proven by the fact that the record contains no affidavits of service, certificates of service, return of service on Gloria Sykes or her two aunts. Thus, the affidavits of Gloria Sykes and others filed with the ARDC are un-contested and are true. The allegations made in your name are false, deceptive, and *****. The ARDC in light of the gross violations of Civil Rights of Mary Sykes, Gloria Sykes, Yolanda Bakken, JoAnne Denison et al in not investigating these allegations is abusing its position. More seriously it is respectfully suggested aiding and abetting the actions of certain lawyers in the parochial deprivation of senior citizen Rights, Privileges and immunities. Simply and bluntly put – aiding and abetting criminal activity.

3. To make certain that these four volumes do not disappear and when Law Enforcement requires copies there will be a copy available to assist the prosecution of the miscreants.

I take my First Amendment Rights very seriously. I did not appreciate being asked at the hearing on my alleged ethical deficiency in complaining about the matters contained in this letter if I was repentant for my writing the United States Attorney a complaint concerning this Mary Sykes matter. As you can observe, I am not. With the information contained on the Disk that is enclosed there is now no excuse for the ARDC to continue to defame both Ms. Denison and me with the allegation that our averment that Mary Sykes’ deprivation of liberty and property by a Court is in any way not true.

You have in your hand as you read this letter the evidence that the statements that both Ms. Denison and I have made are true. You have in your hand the evidence that certain “judicial officials” were knowingly appointed by a Court lacking jurisdiction and they have acted in derogation (under color of law) of the Civil Rights of Mary Sykes and Gloria Sykes. 42 USCA 1983.

Kenneth Ditkowsky

AND joined in by JoAnne Denison /esignature/

[1] It is interesting and ‘telling’ to note that the Illinois ARDC is silent as to the Illinois Supreme Court statement in Steinfeld and the Appellate Court in Sodini. It is axiomatic that even in the adversary situation lawyers, like ethical members of the public, are required to inform a “trier of fact” of significant adverse precedent. As the Court record in Sykes has absent from the evidence that the Sodini 14 day notices were appropriately served on the nearest (closest) relatives of Mary Sykes and it appears in violation of 11a -8 that two of the four persons entitled to notification are not disclosed, and all three of the persons entitled to notices claim not to have been served with the 14 day notices it would seem that this oversight by the ARDC is an ethical violation of the Canons of Professional Conduct 8.4.

PS–you will note that Ken has not mentioned the John Howard Wyman case, which is currently up on appeal and he is equally furious that nothing has been done by the ARDC regarding the likes of your venerable, august, and highly protected Atty Sharon Rudy and Atty Kim Timmerwilke.

Once again, you protect the attorneys that lie, cheat and steal, but you go after the attorneys that while not mandatory reporters, take the directions to report when ever possible seriously and as a part of their duties as officers of the court.

Elder abuse and financial exploitation should and MUST be reported by attorneys who are opposing counsel and pursuant to their Himmel duties. The King v. Harris case is not dicta to be ignored but is the mandate as passed down by the Illinois Court of Appeals, first district.

Ken Ditkowsky
http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

Very Truly Yours,

/esignature/JoAnneMDenison/
JoAnne M. Denison

cc: Ken Ditkowsky, via email
http://www.marygsykes.com

A reminder to Miscreant Attorneys–your pleadings DO have limits

Posted on March 21, 2013 by Joanne M Denison

According to the recent decision of the First District Court of Appeals

Attorneys are NOT supposed to be filing utterly groundless proceedings that have no basis in merit or fact. Now that the Record on Appeal has been published on this blog and it clearly shows no jurisdiction to each of the attorneys at the trial court level–Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern, Peter Schmeidel, Deborah Jo Sohleig AND the attys at the ARDC–Jerome Larkin, Sharon Opryszek and Jessica Haspel NOW HAVE THE DUTY TO DO THE RIGHT THING. The attorneys involved must ask for a dismissal. The ARDC must investigate fully, completely and honestly these attorneys. The ARDC must dismiss complaints against myself and Ken merely for calling for an investigation. We might not be mandatory reporters, but if the ARDC keeps up its antics, even the Illinois State Legislature won’t put up with this sorry state of affairs against the mentally infirm and disabled.

See below:

King v. Harris, 2013 IL App (1st) 120316-U (01-23-13)

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County
No. 11 OP 72205 Honorable Patrice Ball-Reed, Judge Presiding

Petitioner-appellee Reava King filed a petition for a stalking no contact order against
respondent-appellant Jason Harris. Shortly after taking petitioner’s deposition in connection with the petition, respondent moved for summary judgment, which was granted.Respondent then moved for sanctions against petitioner’s counsel pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137, 1-12-0316 arguing that opposing counsel pursued this petition despite knowing it had no factual basis. The circuit court denied the motion for sanctions, and respondent now appeals.
Petitioner and respondent first became acquainted when petitioner’s house suffered a fire
in January 2009. Respondent, who operates as a public adjuster and general contractor as well as an attorney, offered to adjust petitioner’s insurance claim and oversee the rehabilitation of her house. Petitioner agreed, but the parties’ relationship deteriorated after work had gone on for one year. On or about November 2010, petitioner brought suit against respondent in the Law Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County, alleging that despite her payments to respondent, the work had not been completed. In response, respondent filed a mechanics lien suit against petitioner in the Chancery Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County.
¶ 4 While both causes of action were being litigated, in April 2011, petitioner filed a pro
se petition for a stalking no contact order against respondent. Her petition alleged a single
incident of stalking in December 2010 when, according to petitioner, respondent drove to her residence and asked to speak with her. Petitioner’s pro se emergency motion for no contact based upon this petition was denied on May 2, 2011, and the matter was continued for status and discovery. In his motion, respondent argued that Pollack improperly pursued the petition for a no contact order despite knowing it was both untrue and legally insufficient. The circuit court denied the motion on January 5, 2012, ruling that 31-12-0316 Pollack had an obligation to continue litigating the petition so long as his client wished to move forward. Respondent timely filed this appeal.
In the case sub judice, the circuit court, in denying respondent’s motion for sanctions, erroneously held that Pollack was obligated to continue pursuing the petition where petitioner directed him to do so. Specifically, the court stated:
“I do not believe that Mr. Pollack instigated this. *** This petition was
filed by Ms. King. Counsel came in subsequently; and if Ms. King wished to go
forward, as his client that was his obligation to go forward, Counsel. If she chose
not to step away, then he had the obligation to go forward in this matter.
*** I do not believe that Mr. Pollack has in any form or fashion attempted to
cause vexatious acts or false proceedings. He proceeded on behalf of Ms. King
because she chose to go forward. *** I’m not going to grant your motion for 137.”
(Emphases added.) This is not the law. Rather, it has long been held that an attorney has a “professional duty to promptly dismiss a baseless lawsuit, even over the objections of his client, when the attorney learns that the client has no case.” Cmarko v. Fisher, 208 Ill. App. 3d 440, 446 (1990) (emphasis added); see also Walsh v. Capital Engineering and Manufacturing Co., 312 Ill. App. 3d 910, 916 (2000) (holding that an attorney may not avoid Rule 137 sanctions by pleading that he was merely following his client’s directions). The court’s comments make clear that it did not apply
this rule of law and instead premised its decision to deny sanctions on the mistaken belief that an attorney is bound by the whims of his client when determining whether to pursue litigation. “Based upon what [King] testified to in the deposition, she could have – clearly could not have proceeded with the case or proven that Mr. Harris had stalked or harassed her in any form or fashion, so, I granted the motion for summary judgment and that should have ended it right there because the case was resolved.”
Respondent maintains this is evidence of the court’s belief that continuing to proceed with the case after the deposition would have been sanctionable were it not for the fact that Pollack was following his client’s directions. We do not agree that this conclusion necessarily follows from the court’s statement.
¶ 15 Accordingly, we remand to the circuit court with directions to consider whether, at any time after Pollack agreed to represent petitioner, a reasonable investigation would have revealed that the petition was factually or legally baseless. If so, sanctions against Pollack for continuing to pursue the litigation are appropriate. Importantly, this is an objective inquiry; an attorney’s subjective honest belief that the case has merit is insufficient. See Fremarek v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co., 272 Ill. App. 3d 1067, 1074-75 (1995).

ONCE AGAIN, KEN AND I ARE REMINDING THE MISCREANT ATTYS IN THE PROBATE CASE TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND DISMISS THIS LAWSUIT. I have just published the ROA and now you know the First District Appellate Court of Illinois will soon know you had no jurisdiction.

WE ARE ALSO CALLING UPON THE ARDC TO INVESTIGATE ITSELF. How does this case get to such high levels and THE MISCREANTS ARE GIVEN THE “GET OUT OF JAIL CARD” on the Monopoly board of Probate while honest attys like KDD and myself who report wrongful activities repeatedly to the US AND STATE’S ATTORNEYS are being prosecuted instead. Myself for publishing this blog. Ken for attempting to find out where Mary Sykes’ gold coins went and why a million dollars of assets were not inventoried, a concerned note to her beloved Dr. Patel and emails which were published on this blog warning LAW ENFORCEMENT to investigate.

How does this happen in the US that numerous probate cases are running without jurisdiction for years, seniors tossed in nursing homes against their will, their homes liened and assets drained and YET THERE IS NO INVESTIGATION.

What happened in King vs. Harris that the appellate court warned about sanctions for attys filing groundless cases and pleadings. This was apparently a one time shot against Defendant Harris, BUT THESE PROBATE CASES drag on for years and years, terrorizing families and ripping them apart.

I have a lot of good questions for the Illinois Probate Court and the ARDC, but as of yet, no good answers.

joanne

PS — and I have one more tidbit of information for you all. About a year ago when I first received Cynthia Farenga’s complaint, I asked Atty Leah Black at the ARDC about emailing her questions. After all, discipline of attys is NOT supposed to be adversarial, but informational and guiding so we always do the right and ethical thing. She told me that I have to send my questions by fax or snail mail until the complaint is filed, and she would respond by snail mail when she had time because pre-complaint inquiries are not a priority. So now the complaint against me is filed. We are in active litigation. I have emailed Sharon Opryszek and Jessica Haspel numerous times about my questions and I get no emails back. Oh, sometimes I get those “I’m out of the office and will respond in X days.” But nothing. I wonder why? Oh, that’s another question that I bet will go unanswered. Ciao.

And the House of Cards Continues to Crumble and Blow away While the ARDC fiddles….

Posted on March 20, 2013 by Joanne M Denison

Dear Readers;

We all know that there comes a day when the stuff hits the fan. With civil servants and attorneys coming “from the list”, the only question is, who will be the scape goat? Who will take the fall?

At some point the ARDC ladies will have to be faced with the fact KDD and I are telling the truth, the Sykes case is a corruption and aberration of justice beyond anyone’s belief, and their complaints against us are about the most bogus of all pleadings we have both see come out of the typewriters (KDD is that old, I’m not), and CPU’s of lawyers we have ever seen in our combined 75 years of practice.

So, see below, the evidence is now insurmountable and irrefutable. By the TRIAL COURT’S OWN RECORDS, by the RECORDS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS–SYKES HAS NO JURISDICTION.

NEW! Links to the Sykes Case Record on Appeal–the entire record which shows

1) There was no proper Summons and Petition and Notice of Hearing on the Petition served upon Mary G Sykes 14 days prior to the hearing. I challenge anyone to find this and the Afft of service from the process server, whether it was the sheriff or a special process server; and

2) No Notice of Hearing to the younger daughter daughter GJS nor the elderly sisters Yolanda and Josephine!

The links:

File 1, Vol 4 a p 751 to 814

https://docs.google.com/file/d/1jvLWwBbUZKmnW4m048F-XAfw_cZ7SJUCAikqyuUyp8abUG0EcxIiNQcXK60B/edit?usp=sharing

File 2, Vol 1 b p 122 to 250

https://docs.google.com/file/d/1U4TJOaU26Dc7cT2z3nPzDjt9ib4mJYh59SAZc_xIZNcMUY_yTr82PzsFpduz/edit?usp=sharing

File 3 Vol 1a-2 p 57 to 121

https://docs.google.com/file/d/1DFWESuOe5s626PTVBSbFbcoTrNcZoeevpk7ByH8GjG4AZDEiX1OTw52bN6vo/edit?usp=sharing

File 4 Vol 1a-1 p1 to 56 MOST IMPORTANT – NO SERVICE ON MARY OR ADULT DAUGHTER OR SIBLINGS!

https://docs.google.com/file/d/1JP63zzNH93OBW-And1VGpyFL03Nh8x7UeL3FQZa6-PVeQQUADuQ3x6KOqMjM/edit?usp=sharing

File 5 Vol 4a-2 p815 to 885

https://docs.google.com/file/d/14xtaXNXByM9NpMu1i1Mc1PskiTMIU1HKRjqi6bpdc0U0n-kuLsQ0x7uIPe1w/edit?usp=sharing

File 6 Vol 4b p886 to 1000

https://docs.google.com/file/d/1-Tb8AqZapJmsic0yd4VkmPCBbedBeRDJtWnl_FkgcT3hkR-fW7LR1UT3l6Po/edit?usp=sharing

File 7 Vol 3b p 625 to 750

https://docs.google.com/file/d/1MnC0CCM5daEerj1k-NoakYwL4P1P5Gw_dGGdaJYBw_HEX8uXSBjtDAhzYrkx/edit?usp=sharing

File 8 Vol 2b p 376 to 500

https://docs.google.com/file/d/16QJHlKZjawgKxpxzgmp9rqsUjQnqfXs29UzEc1dbET5j8oD52y6kwLl6lSeK/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/file/d/1-Tb8AqZapJmsic0yd4VkmPCBbedBeRDJtWnl_FkgcT3hkR-fW7LR1UT3l6Po/edit?usp=sharing

From John Wyman – His Letter to the ARDC venting his frustrations for lack of an investigation

Posted on March 20, 2013 by Joanne M Denison

To the ARDC

You don’t know me but you will, my name is John H Wyman. My mother was put into a nursing home in Rockford IL against her will, without due process of law, right to an attorney ,etc…and only through her own SELF DETERMINATION is she alive today!
The journey I’ve been on is well documented in a book I’ve written, ”Against Her Will”. Because of a Governor appointed public guardian Sharon Rudy, Guardian Ad Litem’s Ruth Robinson and Kim Timmerwilke/McKenzie and Judge Lisa Fabiano, my mother was sexually assaulted and severely beaten, two days before her wrongful adjudication of incompetence without due process of law–no service upon her, no 14 day prior notice of the time, date and place of hearing to all her adult children and siblings.
Furthermore, like these high powered lawyers, I too was very renowned in my profession, but because of their self serving greed, my life was turned upside down! Having taken four years out of my life to take care of my mom, struggling to make a living and pretty much destroying my social life–I have yet to hear from any law enforcement agency that they are doing their civic and professional duty to investigate my mother’s case and bring justice to our family.
I suffered no fewer than eighteen long distance trips from Colorado to Rockford, IL to be ignored, snubbed and denigrated in a kangaroo court where my rights and the rights of my mother were ignored. I could not find a lawyer to help me, I had to do this Pro Se all on my own, only to have above said miscreants call me a liar, accuse me of contempt and kidnapping, with them taking my mother’s social security, her home, and most of her assets all under the color of law!!! and only to satisfy their alleged “legal fees” and exorbitant billing practices and churning the bill to the estate.
Since I’ve written my book, it has been circulated and well received among IL attorneys, one of which is JoAnne Denison whom through your ARDC board are trying to persecute and wrongfully curtail her freedom of speech rights for publishing public records and giving her opinion on cases like mine–which is only the tip of the iceberg in the Probate Courts of Illinois. It is my sincere belief that your panel has no right to change the constitution of US
or that of IL.
Lawyers like JoAnne have the courage to go up against this system which is broken; seventy to eighty million Americans are all facing the chance to lose their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, because of a broken and corrupt system and the miscreants that run them to line their pockets with gold, not caring for the well being of the seniors or how they leave this world!!
As for me I’ve become an advocate for this cause, as for my freedom of speech, I don’t give a FLYING F**K whose heads have to roll, my eyes have been open and I’ve been forever changed and will use every legal means: media, Hollywood etc. to get my message out!! And if you don’t understand exactly what I’m saying may I suggest you go to your proctologist so he can help you find your heads. Now you know me!! Read my book!!

Sincerely, John Howard Wyman

From JoAnne:

You know, I have never heard from the ladies at the ARDC that they even read John Howard Wyman’s book, despite the fact is it rated with 32 reviews a solid near 5 star rating. Sad, so utterly sad. John’s appeal brief and motions are all published on this site or you can email me for copies.

More for the ARDC to censor–an old joke!

Posted on March 17, 2013 by Joanne M Denison

Old joke UPDATED for censorhsip:

In an effort to determine which among the CIA, the FBI and the Chicago Police Dept was the very best agency for law enforcement, a plan was devised to release a rabbit into the forest and see who could capture the rabbit first.

The FBI went into the forest. They placed animal informants throughout. They questioned all plant and mineral witnesses. After three months of extensive investigation they concluded that rabbits do not exist.

The CIA went into the forest. After two weeks without a capture, they burned the forest killing everything in it, including the rabbit. They made no apologies.
The rabbit deserved it.

The Chicago Police went into the forest. They came out two hours later with a badly beaten bear. The bear was yelling “Okay, I’m a rabbit, I’m a rabbit.

However, feeling left out of “who is the best” in eliminating crime and corruption in the forest, the ARDC begs to be included.

Court appointed probate bunnies CF and AS put on bunny suits and tell the rabbit they will help him, turns out the rabbit in the story stole a million carrots. Solution? They tell the probate court the carrots don’t exist, and the ARDC wants to know which honest forest attorney told the CIA, FBI or CPD anything so they can file a complaint against that bunny!

PS–The ARDC adds to the complaint the fact the forest attorney used the initial FBI, CIA, CPD, CF and AS because that looks suspect to them! And they add it into the complaint….And please, no one EVER give the ARDC a match or gasoline, because that will be next. ARDC bunnies with incendiary devices. Who would’ve thought that?

KDD renews his Motion to Dismiss before the ARDC based upon the Horace Hunter case

Posted on March 14, 2013 by Joanne M Denison

Horace Hunter made it clear that attorneys have the right to post case synopses–even criminal ones that perhaps a defendant is not too proud of an arrest–because all cases in reality belong to the public and constitute public information.

The ARDC has taken the position that the Horace Hunter case is not binding legal precedent. It has not stated what standard it wants for attorneys to blog about cases, other than the fact the royal “it” seems to want to make that decision themselves and just let us attorneys know afterwards.

What words are prohibited by attorneys? What phrases are prohibited? From the survey results on this blog, it would seem that everyone (98%) agree that ARDC must promulgate firm and clear guidelines on what it will censor and what it thinks is okay, yet they have not done that.

They have no blog. They are not transparent, as this blog is.

While they were created in 1978 due to a public outcry regarding corruption in the Illinois Court System, one wonders if any real cure was effectuated, or if this turned into more of the same ole, same ole.

See Ken’s Motion to Renew his Motion to Dismiss his ARDC Complaint based upon the Horace Hunger case, complete with his response to the Objections that the ARDC then filed.

Ken Ditkowsky’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss the ARDC complaint and ARDC Objections thereto

The ARDC claims the Horace Hunter case is not helpful or analogous, yet they cite some other disciplinary decisions which appear to be at the trial court level because they provide no citation from SCOI.

Interesting. Attorneys are not support to cite trial court decisions or tribunals as precedent. An attorney in a brief is only supposed to cite appellate or supreme court authority. Sometimes you have to, as in where there are not citable cases at higher levels because in indigency cases the litigants do not have money to appeal.

But the ARDC citing trial court precedent? Unbelievable.

KDD renews his Motion to Dismiss before the ARDC based upon the Horace Hunter case

Posted on March 14, 2013 by Joanne M Denison

They have no blog. They are not transparent, as this blog is.

See Ken’s Motion to Renew his Motion to Dismiss his ARDC Complaint based upon the Horace Hunger case, complete with his response to the Objections that the ARDC then filed.

Ken Ditkowsky’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss the ARDC complaint and ARDC Objections thereto

But the ARDC citing trial court precedent? Unbelievable.

What does the ARDC want me and Ken to be sorry for?

Posted on March 14, 2013 by Joanne M Denison

Dear Readers;

One of the things that the ARDC always says when you get a complaint, is to be sorry for what you did wrong and and be contrite. Okay, I get that. I have learned (and this is a good lesson for all) pray to not make mistakes but when you do apologize and rectify any problems or troubles right away and put those as top priority. Never put them off, they only get worse.

So, in this case, it’s really hard. I really don’t want to cause any trouble for the nice atty ladies at the ARDC–Jessica Haspel and Sharon Opryszek and Jerome Larkin, but the reality is, their agency was set up to prevent another Greylord back in 1978–they were supposed to root out and eliminate corruption in the court system.

Now, it turns out they “don’t do” judges, like a cleaning lady “doesn’t do” windows, they “don’t do” stuff that happens in court–the judge should rectify those problems and while there is a “Himmel” obligation imposed by the US Supreme Court on attorneys to report corruption and other attorneys engaging it, is their official policy “don’t blog about it” or “don’t warn others” about miscreants either. My survey says 98% of you believe that blogging about corruption is not only important, but I have the right to warn the public.

And while I have a blog to be open, transparent and figure out what the heck is going on, the ARDC doesn’t. It publishes generic and conclusionary “rules” taken from a hodge podge of commonlaw.

For example, they accused me of “making false statements or statements with reckless disregard for the truth.” Now in 1978 the ARDC/SCOI did not suddenly invent that standard, it turns out to be the standard for defamation law taken from a US Supreme Court case. It further turns out that the “malice” or “reckless disregard” is a very high level, so high, that defamation suits are rarely filed or won by attorneys because they run smack dab into the First Amendment–which is to be given the broadest interpretation possible without totally killing off a suit for defamation.

My blog is transparent. I publish the horror stories and then back them up with the transcripts, the documents, the declarations, the statements of the parties at the same time I publish what needs to be said.

KDD is right to tell the authorities what is going on. I only do the blog. I have written to the Dept. of Justice on behalf of my clients with their information and I have advised them to contact the Dept. of Justice, the US attorney’s offices, the Illinois State’s Attys and even the local police. I always thought that was the right thing to do. And as a taxpayer I would expect that these agencies would take the complaints and police reports seriously and conduct a full, honest and complete investigation, but it appears even in cases where millions are uninventoried, there is no account analysis, no one at the police, FBI, etc. seems to care. I guess the Dunkin Donuts coffee and donuts are too good.

Can we blame Dunkin Donuts?

In any case, read on for my email today to the atty ladies at the ARDC:

Dear Sharon and Jessica;

I note in some of your correspondence that you were going to order the transcript from the disqualification of KDD to represent me.

Did you get that transcript and can you please send me copy?

Also, do you have a copy of the transcript from from KDD’s 2 day hearing in early Sept 2012. I’d love to have that one too, but I can’t afford it.

Also, I know the ARDC like to hear it when attorneys are repetant for what they have done, and I’ll tell you this. I am sorry I have to fight with you over all this. I think it’s a waste of taxpayer and lawyer fee monies. But I do believe that lawyers have a first amendment right to blog, and blog in particular about corruption in the court system.

Many attorneys have looked the other way at this and said that “a bit of corruption here and there is okay and you should just live with it.” But I know Mary, Gloria, Fred and Caroly and the entire family, and I tell you, Mary is in a miserable place, the case was horrific, Gloria is now homeless and penniless and her father and mother NEVER intended that. I knew Mary Sykes quite well and she was always a kind and funny and interesting person.

So I blog. I’m sorry about that, but someone has to tell the truth. and this is not just a case of he said/she said–it is a case clearly lacking in jurisdiction with substantial assets uninventoried. I know the family, I know the relatives and family friends.

I don’t understand how in the US all of this can happen. It‘s utterly shameful.

So I hate to cause trouble for you ladies, but I see no way out. Attys have a Himmel duty to report, and I think they also have a duty to contact the authorities when there is elder abuse. While we don’t have mandatory reporting (what would the ARDC do THEN?), I think the best course of action is to report it. And if no action is taken, report it again and again until justice is done.

Sorry about that. I hate to be your messenger of bad news. I truly am sorry for that. But you would not BELIEVE all the horror stories I get on a daily basis.

I think the ARDC also needs an ethics blog if you are in fact trying to censor blogs. What is it exactly that you don’t want attorneys to say? Can you actually phrase any amount of censorship for attorney blogs — esp. those regarding corruption — that would not engender a public outcry from those who have suffered injustices in Illinois court rooms. I‘m just asking?

Should I be sorry to even have to be the one to ask these questions? I don’t think so.

take care and see if you can get me those transcripts.

thanks

joanne

cc: http://www.marygsykes.com

Cost of Corruption October 2012 bill–$363,811!

Posted on March 14, 2013 by Joanne M Denison

See below and enjoy:

CostofCorr-Oct2012-bill

Now even higher! I love publishing these. I think my pro bono time is well spent, don’t you?

The Administrator of the ARDC answer the Petition to the Ill. Sup. Ct. and the Answer reveals some new information.

Posted on March 13, 2013 by Joanne M Denison

First I know you are all waiting to read:

The Response Brief filed by the ARDC to KDD’s Motion for a Supervisory Order filed at SCOI

Finally, I have to hand it to the Administrator, the ARDC seems to be getting better at understanding there are different types of speech and different levels of protection under the First Amendment to the US Constitution. They actually said for the first time ever that my speech is not commercial speech or advertising nor have I been charged with violating any client confidence–and that’s because I religiously ask the poster permission to post and if they want the post redacted or anonymous, I will do that for them. The ARDC still isn’t where they should be, but there seems to be hope on the horizon. I chalk that up to the detailed, you just can’t screw it up step by step instruction guide to constitutional rights and free speech set forth in the Horace Hunter case, so I have to just thank atty Hunter again for braving it out for all us attys in VA>

The Administrator’s Answer to KDD’s Petition to the Ill. Supreme Ct. for a Supervisory Order under Rule 383 is a great one. Still, the SCOI only receives about 200 such petitions per year (as should be because the petition basically is saying that a court or tribunal is acting so way out of line it is actually far exceeding its authority).

Motions to disqualify an attorney based upon a “conflict” are hardly if ever granted. This Complaint is for BLOGGING. Imagine that–blogging. It is not about stealing, failing to appear in court, failing to write a brief, motion or reply, failing to tell a client what is going on–it’s about blogging. Bloggin, one would think, should be put in the category of “priority Z” with the ARDC. Instead, because it’s obviously stepping on toes, denoting severe aberrations and corruptions in the court room, complete with published evidence thereof, and numerous uninvestigated serious citizen complaints, some how it has risen to “priority A” with the ARDC, and yet the ARDC does not understand how, from the get go, it appears to only bespeak of the corruption talk the ARDC is feverously attempting to quash or censor.

Getting back to Motions to Disqualify counsel of record. Like it or not, those are very, very serious and rarely granted in any courtroom I have ever been in. In all but a very few instances, they are a waste of time and money. And in my case, they are deja vu, with my first bogus disqualification in the Mary Sykes case because I merely notarized a document. Attorneys notarize documents all the time and as a matter of routine, and often between squabbling parties. It means nothing. Really. All the notary is supposed to be saying by performing the notarial act is that s/he knew or confirmed the ID of the person signing the document. It does not mean the person underwent a complete psychiatriac exam, a physical exam, took a driver’s road test, or qualified for any task–other than to put pen to paper and sign.

Next, you look at a complaint about blogging. This time the ARDC finally cited the correct standard for my speech–it has to be completely fabricated or made up in order to qualify under the standard “false or made with wanton and reckless disregard for the truth.” In my case, tons of evidence is already on the blog–esp. about the Sykes case. I got the declarations, I got transcripts, the case files–everything and all was published. Why the ARDC can even say this without an LOL ROF, 4PIA it was done without a scintilla of actual evidence is beyond anyone’s imagination. The Sykes case is well documented, well published, well explored on the blog. I can’t think of anything I have left out–and yet the ARDC continues to read my conclusions on one part of the blog (the case is corrupt and without jurisdiction and running for 3.5 years) while on the other part of the blog, all the documents, the transcripts, the pleadings, the declarations and affidavit mean nothing or are allegedly left unread by the ARDC. I don’t know how much more you can possibly publish about a topic.to prove the ARDC is simply full of it with respect to a “scintilla of evidence”. I don’t have a scintilla, as my daughter would say, I have “crap tons” of it. (She made up the following scale of how much something is “crap tons”, “sh** tons” and even “f*** tons” but I can publish that, now can I?” She generally uses these phrases when referring to how much homework or chem lab reports to do, but I digress.)

Here are my comments about the ARDC response:

The Administrator clearly has an interesting take on the entire proceeding.

With respect to your motion to dismiss, I think the Sup.Ct. would more likely make up a new rule that a respondent gets to file a Motion to Dismiss, rather than strike that step. As you point out Ken, it makes no sense not to allow Respondents to file Motions to Dismiss. MTD’s are very important on a number of levels and one is to narrow the issues for trial, and provide for greater judicial economy. I believe they are an important step in every trial court or tribunal process and they should never be skipped, as you have noted.

It is interesting that for the first time, the Administrator actually acknowledges that my speech is not commercial speech nor did I violate any client confidentiality. (Para 10)

Paragraph 15–Mr. Ditkowsky would perform as an “unsworn witness” rather than counsel and THAT would disqualify him? That’s new law. Never heard of it.

The ARDC primarily cites the Palmisano case for it’s position in this regard. But Palmisano clearly states:

If Palmisano had furnished some factual basis for his assertions, then we would need to determine whether either the Constitution or principles of sound judicial administration permit a sanction–for an attorney is not absolutely liable for every statement that turns out to be incorrect. It would unduly quell investigation and exposure of corruption to disbar an attorney who publicized suspicious conduct, just because the suspicions were dispelled. Palmisano lacked support for his slurs, however. Illinois concluded that he made them with actual knowledge of falsity, or with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity. So even if Palmisano were a journalist making these statements about a public official, the Constitution would permit a sanction. False statements, made with reckless disregard of the truth, “do not enjoy constitutional protection.” Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 75, 85 S.Ct. 209, 216, 13 L.Ed.2d 125 (1964). See also Harte- Page 488
Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657, 659, 109 S.Ct. 2678, 2681-82, 105 L.Ed.2d 562 (1989); McDonald v. Smith, 472 U.S. 479, 484, 105 S.Ct. 2787, 2790-91, 86 L.Ed.2d 384 (1985) (same conclusion for claim based on right to petition for redress of grievances). Federal courts are no more willing to tolerate repeated, false, malicious accusations of judicial dishonesty than are state courts. Selection of the sanction is a subject on which appellate review is deferential. Gouiran, 58 F.3d at 56; cf. Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 110 S.Ct. 2447, 110 L.Ed.2d 359 (1990).

It is indeed interesting that the ARDC finally has admitted that there are in fact different types of speech (non commercial (opinions and blogs), commercial (atty ads), and highly regulated–for example drug inserts), it just has to take the next step and properly complete the analysis.

In the Palmisano case, the court found that atty Palmisano made the allegations of corruption because he lost cases in front of these judges. HOWEVER, Atty Denison has not lost any cases in front of Justices Connor, Stuart or any other judge. She is sitting as a mere observer or court watcher, and in addition, she has backed up her allegations with court transcripts, pleadings, declarations and affidavits from those with personal knowledge of the facts of the transactions–all on the very same blog. Again, the ARDC apparently can read portions of the blog in which Atty Denison states that certain courtrooms are and have been operating without jurisdiction for years, but then the ARDC falls short of reading–let alone investigating, the numerous pieces of evidence published on the blog together with numerous citizen complaints that have been left uninvestigated by the ARDC.

Whether or not the ARDC “may require attorneys to speak with greater care and civility than is the norm in political campaigns” is not the question in this case. Atty Palmisano DID in fact appear before the judges he accused of being corrupt, and he lost cases in front of the judges and he further apparently published no blog with no additional supporting documents, pleadings, transcripts, affidavits and declarations, let alone allowed numerous citizens to come forward with their complaints against the miscreants or “judicial officials” involved in the suspect or corrupt actions complained of. The letters he sent out were just that–letters without appropriate supporting documentation, ie, transcripts, affidavits, declarations, pleadings, citizen interviews and confirmations. It is clear from the opinion, had he based his letters on some scintilla of actual evidence, the disciplinary proceedings against him would have not had the outcome they did.

It is further interesting that the ARDC says that Hunter is not binding. It is a well reasoned, well thought out decision by the Virginia Supreme Court and cannot be completely ignored by the ARDC. The ARDC does not argue that First Amendment US Constitutional protections may vary from state to state, nor does it show how the Virginia state bar must be comprised of some wilder bunch of attorneys who may be mouthier than their Illinois counterparts. I’m not exactly sure about what they are saying. Is it because they assume VA has med MaryJane and IL does not? I’m not sure.

With respect to ¶ 15 of the Administrator’s Response, the “unsworn” witness acting as an attorney is a specious argument and not found in any case law, nor has the ARDC cited any relevant case law.

*** End of My Comments***

Now for Ken’s Reply to the ARDC:

No testimony has been taken or received at this point in time in the proceedings before the Illinois ARDC. That said, the movant has presented this Court with the significant documentation necessary to inform the Court as to the factual basis of its motion and plea. The plea is for this Court to order an investigation of the fact that more than one senior citizen has been in derogation of its ruling in Steinfeld (citation infra) and a comprehensive protective plan enacted by the Illinois Legislature (citation infra) separated from her liberty and property by a Court lacking in jurisdiction.

As noted in the Motion for a Supervisory order, the movant has presented affidavits of disinterested persons (disinterested in the JoAnne Denison matter) that connoted the most important reason for the granting of the supervisory order and ordering of a Honest comprehensive investigation of the Mary Sykes and similar cases. These affidavits have not been contested.

Contrary to the impression attempted to be conveyed by the Administrator, the reason for the Petition for a Supervisory order being requested is multi-fold. The most pressing matter is the fact that in Illinois senior citizens are being herded into the Guardianships without concern as to the protections built into the system. Legislative protections are ignored and these senior citizens (such as Mary Sykes) are then denied their liberty and property interests.

The Statement that attorneys made not speak of this terrible situation is an ‘assault’ on the core values of the United States. The Supreme Court of the United States has deplored such a situation and made in clear in Alvarez the even untrue content speech is protected speech. Only the Administrator of the ARDC appears to suggest that an Attorney may not complain concerning the denial of Civil Rights effectuated by “judicial officials”[1] The Virginia Supreme Court rejected the regulation of ‘content’ based speech such as appears in the Denison Blog and publications.

Ms Denison objects to the Administrator’s failure to be completely candid with this Court. The Administrator did not cite In re: Green 11 P 3d 1078 in which it was held that the First Amendment protection included the right to make the allegation that a particular judge was a racist and a bigot, and did not note the distinction in Palmisano, i.e:

“If Palmisano had furnished some factual basis for his assertions, then we would need to determine whether either the Constitution or principles of sound judicial administration permit a sanction-for an attorney is not absolutely liable for every statement that turns out to be incorrect. It would unduly quell investigation and exposure of corruption to disbar an attorney who publicized suspicious conduct, just because the suspicions were dispelled.” Matter of Palmisano, 70 F.3d 483, 487 (7th Cir. 1995)

Ms. Denison has attached affidavits of 3^rd persons as part of her response that confirm the direct miscreant conduct in violation of the clears words of the Supreme Court of Illinois and the Legislative of the State of Illinois[2]. These affidavits have not been challenged.

Discussion

“Disbarment is not an adversarial proceeding” Matter of Palmisano, 70 F.3d 483, 484 (7th Cir. 1995) and therefore, it is respectfully suggested that the Administrator’s objections are groundless and disingenuous. Even in his defense to the clearly erroneous decision to disqualify Ms. Denison’s attorney appearing for her at the ARDC proceeding the Administrator does not suggest a single question that Mr. Ditkowsky can be called as a witness concerning. Conclusions are interesting but irrelevant and it is respectfully suggested that no proper court would have entertained the disqualification motion advanced by the Administrator without specifics. There is no affidavit submitted with the Motion that suggests that Denison’s attorney had any exclusive personal knowledge. (The Common Record in Sykes has been seen by dozens of people. If the Administrator did at Rule 137 examination of the record he also has personal knowledge that the Sykes court acted without jurisdiction).

It should be noted that the Administrator does not state that Mr. Ditkowsky viewed or attended any hearing or other proceeding involving Mary Sykes, Indeed, Attorney Denison has waived any ‘conflict of interest’ she might have with her attorney, as in fact there is none. To eliminate an attorney who does not please the adversary, following the administrator’s reasoning all the adversary has to do is claim that the offending attorney will be called as a witness[3].

The objection filed the administrator is interesting in that he does not display in his appendix the Request to Admit that were filed by Ms. Denison with the Commission. The Administrator’s evasive and unresponsive Responses also are not in his appendix[4]. The significance of the response of the Administration is that the Administrator is so intent on ‘winning’ that Justice is not a consideration. Candid answers to the Request to Admit is respectfully submitted to be the end the Denison case. The death knell occurred years before this case was brought as the Illinois Supreme Court has made it very clear that:

“The court acquires jurisdiction over the allegedly disabled person by personal service upon him of a copy of the petition and summons not less than 14 days before the hearing. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, Ch. 110½, par. 11a–10(e); see McCormick v. Blaine (1931), 345 Ill. 461, 178 N.E. 195.) It is also a jurisdictional requirement that the petitioner give notice of the time and place of the hearing by mail or in person to the nearest living relatives of the allegedly disabled person not less than 14 days before the hearing. Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, Ch. 110½, par. 11a–10(f); see In re Guardianship of Sodini (1988), 172 Ill.App.3d 1055, 123 Ill.Dec. 67, 527 N.E.2d 530.” In re Estate of Steinfeld, 158 Ill. 2d 1, 13, 630 N.E.2d 801, 807 (1994)

The Administrator is not by law supposed to be an advocate for the persons appointed as “judicial officials” by a Court lacking jurisdiction. He is supposed to protect the rights of citizens such as Mary Sykes, Gloria Sykes, Yolanda Bakken, Scott Evans, JoAnne Denison, etc. In not providing this Court with a copy of its responses to the Request to Admit and in not candidly answering the Administrator pursuant to Rule 216 admits that the Circuit Court record does not demonstrate that in Sykes ( as an example) the 14 days’ notice was served upon Gloria Sykes, Yolanda Bakken, et al . It is respectfully suggested that the Administrator was not candid in citing Palmisano for reasons stated infra.

On the other hand the if the Administrator denies the Request to Admit, the Administrator must prove the impossible by clear and convincing evidence[5] that Ms. Gloria Sykes, her two aunts, and all who have viewed the Sykes record are all mistaken. Indeed, if the 14 day notices were not served on Gloria Sykes and her two aunts the statements made in Ms. Denison’s blog are indeed true. Ms. Farenga, Ms. Troepe, Mr. Stern are not “judicial officials” and Mary Sykes has been the victim of the tort of false imprisonment, the non-inventory of her property much more than the breach of fiduciary relationship etc. More seriously, the claimed “judicial officials” are guilty of much more than ethical violations. Indeed, the Administrator may himself have violated Himmel.

The portion of the Palmisano decision that the Administrator in his objections failed to call to the Court’s attention is documented as:

Ms. Denison has provided a significant factual basis for her assertions. She has provided affidavits of the affected persons and the wrongful prosecution of Ms. Denison is a chilling violation of the Free Speech of a citizen protected by the First Amendment.[6]

The Administrator has claimed that statements made on the publication (Blog) maintained by Ms. Denison are untrue as they relate to public officials; however, significantly missing from the appendix attached to the objections is a single certification by anyone that they served the 14 days’ notice required in the Sykes case by 755 ILCS 5/11a -10(f) on Gloria Sykes or the two siblings of Mary Sykes.

Why has the Administrator of the ARDC failed to produce a scintilla of evidence either herein or in the Commission proceedings to suggest, or even imply that 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10(f) was even attempted to be complied with? Certainly copies of the return or certification of the Sheriff, private investigator, attorney, or other person who served the 14 day notices required to vest the Circuit Court probate division with jurisdiction would be persuasive. As the Court file in Sykes is a public record (or at least was a public record) a copy of the return or certification of service of the 14 days’ notice would be easy to present so as to counter the affidavits of Mary Sykes daughter and two sisters. It is respectfully submitted that no return or certification ever existed (prior to today) and the Administrator is fully aware that Ms. Denison’s blog contains no knowingly untrue statements. The Administrator is aware that it is a violation of Rule 8.4 by the Administrator and Rule 137 of the Supreme Court Rules[7] to file documents in any judicial proceeding that are knowingly untrue.

This Supreme Court has the decision in Hunter before it and therefore can determine the scope of the decision and whether or not the Virginia Supreme Court obviated any notion that attorneys are second class citizens to be denied their Free Speech Rights.[8] It is also quite significant and very disappointing that the Administrator does not address the important Constitutional limitations on its jurisdiction . Missing from the objection filed by the Administrator was any mention of this Court’s or the Supreme Court’s decisions that are the strong basis for the request for an investigation and the supervisory order have been over-ruled are not relevant or superseded. Indeed, as an example the Administrator fails to address the 2011 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Brown v. Entm’t Merchants Ass’n, 131 S. Ct. 2729, 2733, 180 L. Ed. 2d 708 (2011), New York Times vs. Sullivan (citation omitted), Alvarez, etc. The recent decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States must be given proper respect. In proportion the respect due them is infinitely more than that to be given to “judicial officials” appointed by a Court lacking jurisdiction.

Unfortunately, the instant Motion for a Supervisory order is not an academic or an athletic exercise. The issue herein is the fact that lawyers are being intimidated by the Illinois ARDC to keep silent as to persons being denied their liberty and property interest because they deemed by certain “judicial officials” appointed by a Court lacking jurisdiction to be in need a guardian. The issue is the Elder Abuse and Financial Exploitation of Senior citizens and persons with diminished capacity. The issue is the concept that a judgment of the need for a guardian is not to protect the individual but to strip him or her of all liberty and property rights.[9]

Equally serious, but not of the same Constitutional moment of the First Amendment issue is the fact that the legislature in 755 ILCS 5/11a – 17 and 11a -18 has determined that guardianship was not the ‘kiss of death’ but a compassionate method of making as little interference into the life of a affected person as possible. Indeed, the legislature decreed that people such as Mary Sykes would not be isolated from family, friends, activities, assets, and liberty.

Conclusion and Summary

Senior citizens and disabled persons are not ‘second class citizens’ and when the Illinois Legislature enacted a legislative scheme to protect them the Illinois ARDC was not delegated the authority to silence attorneys such as Ms. Denison who complained that the protections were being thwarted by certain “judicial officials” who were appointed by a Court lacking jurisdiction. The Administrator of the Illinois ARDC has called attention ( by his prosecution of Ms. Denison for publishing on her ‘blog’) to the fact that a 90 plus year old senior citizen (and others) have been dominated illegally by ‘judicial officials’ who sans jurisdiction of the appointing court have ignored the legislative protections afforded to senior citizens who have either the potential for or actual diminished capacity.

Mary Sykes for one has been stripped of a million dollars (plus or minus) in gold coins that were not inventoried and isolated from her family for more than three years. In an effort to silence JoAnne Denison the Administrator and the ARDC panel disqualified her attorney upon the facade that he might be called to testify. The seriousness of the Sykes case and related cases promulgated Attorney Denison to petition this Court for a Supervisory order requiring the Courts to follow the legislative and jurisdictional mandate and for an honest, complete and comprehensive investigation by law enforcement of how in the United States of America something like the Sykes case could flourish[10].

Ms. Denison prays that this court enter its supervisory order and deny the Administrator’s objections.

Respectfully Submitted,

[1] Following the reasoning of the Administrator there would have been no prosecution of the 15 judges who went to jail as the result of their corruption (in Greylord) and there would be no need for the Judicial Inquiry Board. Indeed, a lawyer who co-operated with the Justice Department in an investigation of Judicial corruption would be subject to Disciplinary action by the ARDC. Ironically the corruptors and the corrupt would be free to operate their nefariousness at will.

[2] The Objection suggests that the Blog contains untrue matter. The burden of proof is upon the Administrator to prove by clear and convincing evidence the facts upon which his claim is based. The affidavits placed of record, and documents on the blog substantiate that the statements have a credible basis and that the petitioner had every right to assert them as facts.

[3] It should be noted that this was the technique was allegedly used to prevent Ms. Denison from protecting the interests of Mary Sykes and Gloria Sykes in the Sykes case. Thus, the Court record reveals that Mary Sykes was in defiance of the Article 11a (755 ILCS 5/11a et seq) Mary had her liberty and property taken from her and no attorney was appointed or allowed to represent her or the assert the jurisdictional deficiency that this court pointed out in In re Estate of Steinfeld, 158 Ill. 2d 1, 13, 630 N.E.2d 801, 807 (1994)

[4] Ms. Denison filed a Motion for Summary Judgment before the ARDC panel based upon the responses filed by the Administrator. The objection suggests that the Commission has adopted a Rule to prevent the termination of spurious and improper disciplinary actions by the Administrator. However, this Court in enacting Rule 137 over-ruled such a tactic to thwart a denial of Equal Protection of the Law toward Legal Professionals. The ARDC should be like Caesar’s wife! It should not be an instrument of intimidation.

[5] A search of the Circuit Court record reveals that not only was the Petition for the Guardianship of Mary Sykes defective as it did not name the two siblings of Mary Sykes (and was brought in the wrong venue) but, it not served in accordance with 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10, Sodini, and Steinfeld.

[6] The recent Supreme Court of the United States Decisions suggest that Palmisano today would not be good law. That is not to say that if Mr. Palmisano insulted the Court while participating in a court proceeding he could not held in contempt, or that he could not be sued for defamation. Government however cannot limit his content based speech. This issue however is not part of the Motion for Supervisory order. The portion of Palmisano not disclosed by the Administrator discloses the weakness of the Administrator’s position and as the Administrator in its objection has quite articulately stated he will not investigate the attorneys accused of Elder Abuse and Financial Exploitation of senior citizens such as Mary Sykes. Thus, a supervisory order is extremely necessary if Senior citizens are going to be protected from court attorned Elder Abuse and Financial Exploitation of Senior citizens.

[7] It is respectfully suggested that had the Administrator a scintilla of proof of jurisdiction being afforded to the Probate Court pursuant to 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10(f) the Administrator would welcome an investigation into the Sykes case. Unfortunately, it is very clear that for more than three years Mary Sykes has had her liberty taken from her. Her personal property which is valued in excess of a million dollars has not been inventoried. The two Guardian ad Litem who are the ‘eyes and ears’ of the court instead of on the record reporting these facts to the Court have authored complaints to the ARDC to investigate the attorneys who have objected to the non-inventory of a million dollars in assets by a plenary guardian who was appointed by a Court lacking jurisdiction. It is respectfully submitted that if this Court were to request the Administrator of the ARDC to produce credible documentary evidence that Gloria Sykes and Mary Sykes two siblings were served with the 14 days’ notice the Administrator could not do so!

[8] The administrator’s attempt to distinguish Hunter exposes his embarrassment. Hunter involved a measure of Commercial speech. The Virginia Supreme Court dealt with the fact that where there is commercial speech the Court has some lee-way to protect the public; however, as to content based speech this Court and the Supreme Court of the United States have evolved their opinions more in line with the opinions of Justice Black and Justice Douglas. It is significant that the Administrator does not address Alvarez or the statement that was the basis of the Brown decision:

“government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U.S. 564, 573, 122 S.Ct. 1700, 152 L.Ed.2d 771 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). There are of course exceptions. “ ‘From 1791 to the present,’ … the First Amendment has ‘permitted restrictions upon the content of speech in a few limited areas,’ and has never ‘include[d] a freedom to disregard these traditional limitations.’ ” United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. ––––, ––––, 130 S.Ct. 1577, 1584, 176 L.Ed.2d 435 (2010) (quoting R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 382–383, 112 S.Ct. 2538, 120 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992)). These limited areas—such as obscenity, Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 483, 77 S.Ct. 1304, 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 (1957), incitement, Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447–449, 89 S.Ct. 1827, 23 L.Ed.2d 430 (1969) (per curiam), and fighting words, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 572, 62 S.Ct. 766, 86 L.Ed. 1031 (1942)—represent “well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem,” id., at 571–572, 62 S.Ct. 766.” Brown v. Entm’t Merchants Ass’n, 131 S. Ct. 2729, 2733, 180 L. Ed. 2d 708 (2011)

[9] The issue is the fact that each one of us is reaching (or reached) senior citizen status and we might find ourselves being railroaded in to guardianship wherein we lose our liberty and property.

[10] The Administrator has pointed out in his objections that he has prosecutor discretion and if he does not wish to investigate the two guardian ad litem appointed by a court lacking jurisdiction et al that is strictly up to him. Indeed, this is the reason that Ms. Denison would appreciate this Court directing law enforcement to examine the facts of the Sykes case and in particular determine:

1. How could Mary Sykes be deprived of her liberty by a Court lacking jurisdiction (because of the failure to serve the 14 day Sodini notices) for so many years.

2. How could a million dollars of uninventoried personal property (gold coins) be obtained by the plenary guardian?

3. Why in Sykes are there two guardian ad litem and why did they not report the non-inventory of the assets of Mary Sykes?

4. Why was an admission of neglect by the plenary guardian not reported to the Court by the plenary guardians

5. Why was Mary Sykes isolated from her two siblings and younger daughter. Why was Mary Sykes removed from her home, her activities, her friends, etc.

As the Illinois Legislature enacted 755 ILCS 5/11a et seq it obviously intended to protect senior citizens. In the case of Mary Sykes and unfortunately many other seniors the protections have not been implemented. The question that must be addressed is why not! It is respectfully submitted that the Administrator’s objections may provide a suggestion. Ms. Denison and her counsel respectfully request an investigation to ascertain the facts. Illinois cannot afford another Greylord.

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

Since the ARDC has problems answering Requests to Admit truthfully, here, I will help them

Posted on March 11, 2013 by Joanne M Denison

Dear Readers;

And in the grand style you have come to expect from this blog, where the ARDC has suggested that perhaps they don’t like it when I make up a pleading that someone cannot just do as an honest, ethical atty (see the blog where CF squeaks when I prepare a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction for her signature–you think she wet her pants that day), let’s try this on for Attys Haspel and Opryszek who seemed to totally flubbed their Answers to KDD”s Requests to Admit that were filed with extraordinary obfuscations, dishonesty and evasion. If this is the best the ARDC can do—I’m just saying.

If any of us were that dishonest to a cop or other judicial official, our butts would be in jail. You all know that. But when the clout that is, asks for a flub, that’s what these two august ladies did–producing a fudging flub.

Now, if you’re an honest atty (and this is for all you new attys out there–unless you’re told to do it or else your job, you might be tempted to do what the ARDCatty-minions did, but I’m telling you, trash your job and quit–it’s better in the long run).

I’ve already told everyone that works for me if they EVER do anything like what the ARDC did, I WOULD HAVE THEIR HIDES! This includes the answers to the RFA, the bogus motion to Disqualify KDD and the Motion to Stike KDD’s discovery. It’s all bogus and has no place in the Illinois court system.

Being dishonest and disingenious has no place in my office. Leave that on the doormat.

So see below what HONEST attorneys do. They KNOW how to say the word ADMITTED. They don’t fudge on it and don’t play ridiculous games.

Disgusting. But if you don’t have the law, the facts or any case, play a lot of games and hope the tribunal is too stupid, mortified or has to go out and buy some ethics, morals and a backbone, and they can’t find the “cash for cars” store or whatever.

JoAnne

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION AND DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION

In Re:
JOANNE MARIE DENISON
Attorney-Respondent
Reg. No. 6192441 Commission No. 2013 PR 0001

PETITIONER ARDC’S ANSWERS TO
ATTY-RESPONDENT’S REQUESTS TO ADMIT
To: Atty Joanne Denison, Respondent
1512 N. Fremont St, #202
Chicago, IL 60642
via email joanne@denisonlaw.com
And Ken Ditkowsky: ken@ditkowskylawoffice.com – who was wrongfully DisQ as my attorney in a rubber stamp proceeding wherein the Tribunal used their “I ♥ ARDC” rubber stamp. Try reading the cases next time.

As to matters referred to in case above-entitled;
1) That in the Sykes case referred to in the Complaint filed herein all the required notices provided for by Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 110½, par. 11a–10(f); see In re Guardianship of Sodini (1988), 172 Ill.App.3d 1055, 123 Ill.Dec. 67, 527 N.E.2d 530.” In re Estate of Steinfeld, 158 Ill. 2d 1, 13, 630 N.E.2d 801, 807 (1994) were not served on the persons who were required to be served with the said notices.
RESPONSE: ADMITTED. The ARDC has carefully reviewed the blog at http://www.marygsykes.com, has finally figured out that the Declarations of the elder sisters and the younger daughter have been published for many long months on this website, they full indicated that the allegations contained in the ARDC complaint filed January 8, 2013 are completely FALSE and made up by persons at the ARDC having a biased interested in the matter and the ARDC humbly apologizes for prosecuting fully innocent and honest attorneys such as the likes of JoAnne Denison and Ken Ditkowsky and promises to never knowingly engage in such nefarious actions again. Further the ARDC ADMITS that the blog, http://www.marygsykes.com is and was fully transparent and publishes supporting domentation, includng pleadings, affidavits and declarations of all probate victims and their families–whereas the ARDC’s blog is biased, one sided and does not permit comments or any supporting documents. It only posts conclusory, self serving statements of nefarious persons such as the likes of Attys Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern, Probate judges Stuart and Connors who have been for many years, listed as “most wanted” which is not a laudatory position on NASGA and other highly respected probate watcher websites and blogs. The ARDC is fully and completely ashamed of the fact it has not before admitted this is the honest and complete truth in the matter.
2) That the facts contained in the affidavits that are attached to the motion to dismiss the instant complaint filed herein and executed by Gloria Sykes are true.
RESPONSE: ADMITTED. The ARDC possesses no information to the contrary and has carefully review this declaration

3) That the facts stated in the affidavit attached to the Motion to Dismiss filed herein executed by Scott Evans are true.

See answer to No. 2 above
4) That the facts stated in the affidavit attached to the Motion to Dismiss filed herein executed by Yolanda Bakken are true.

Ditto and more humble pie.
5) That the facts stated in the affidavit attached to the Motion to Dismiss filed herein executed by Josephine DiPietro are true.

Ditto and extra shame and humility for the fact that the Probate Courts on the 18th floor continue to turn a blind eye when elderly siblings are wrongfully and strenuously prevented from contacting an alleged disabled. Disgusting.
6) That the Circuit Court Common Law Record and Docket maintained by the clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County does not contain any evidence of service of the notices required to be served upon the siblings of Mary Sykes or the younger daughter of Mary Sykes such as a certificate or return of service for the notices required by 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10f.

RESPONSE: ADMITTED. The ARDC has gotten its sorry and lame a** butt over to probate and found that the Blog http://www.marygsykes.com only speaks the truth.
7) The the Administrator of the Illinois ARDC has found or has in his possession any tangible evidence that contradicts the sworn statements (affidavit) authored by Gloria Sykes attached to the Motion to Dismiss as exhibit 2.
See answer No. 6 above.
8) That all citizens, including lawyers, enjoin the privileges and immunities of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

RESPONSE: ADMITTED.: Not only do US citizens enjoy the protections and immunities of the First Amendment to the US constitution and the relevant Article of the Illinois Constitution, but the ARDC will vigorously defend and protect against any miscreants from alleging nefarious and sleazy complaints against honest, ethical Illinois lawyers that blog and speak out against corruption and bring to light corruption in order to eliminate it. The ARDC is not afraid of the words “corruption”, “Greylord” or even “Greylord II” which is the highest priority for the ARDC to investigate–the immunities and protections of Illinois senior citizens and the disabled.

9) That all citizens, including lawyers, have the right to communicate to whomever is willing to listen to the facts involving corruption of judicial officials.
RESPONSE: ADMITTED. This is and should be a highest priority of the ARDC and Attys Denison and Ditkowsky are and shall remain fully protected.

10) That the Administrator of the Illinois ARDC has found no independent tangible evidence that any statement concerning ‘judicial officials’ disseminated by JoAnne Denison and referred to on her blog is not substantially true. By independent we mean not a self-serving statement of Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern, Miriam Solo, Peter Schmiedel et al.
RESPONSE: ADMITTED.

11) That the Illinois ARDC was not given jurisdiction by any agency of the State of Illinois to censor the writings or other First Amendment exercises by lawyers.
RESPONSE: ADMITTED. The free speech of lawyers is one of the greatest and most formidable protections in a democratic country, and when those protections are erroded, the country is likely to sink deeply into fascism and totalatarianism. The ARDC fully agrees that DEMOCRACY IS NOT A SPECTATOR SPORT. (Quote from League of Women Voters–now we are attorneys and we’re only louder and mouthier).
12) That the Illinois ARDC is required to give credence and follow the mandates of the Illinois Supreme Court and the Illinois Appellate Court. (Simply put – we are asking you to admit whether or not Court rulings are the Law or if the ARDC can just ignore the Court Rulings).

RESPONSE: ADMITTED.
13)   That the Illinois Supreme Court in a published opinion wrote:
“The court acquires jurisdiction over the allegedly disabled person by personal service upon him of a copy of the petition and summons not less than 14 days before the hearing. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 110½, par. 11a–10(e); see McCormick v. Blaine (1931), 345 Ill. 461, 178 N.E. 195.) It is also a jurisdictional requirement that the petitioner give notice of the time and place of the hearing by mail or in person to the nearest living relatives of the allegedly disabled person not less than 14 days before the hearing. Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 110½, par. 11a–10(f); see In re Guardianship of Sodini (1988), 172 Ill.App.3d 1055, 123 Ill.Dec. 67, 527 N.E.2d 530.”
In re Estate of Steinfeld, 158 Ill. 2d 1, 13, 630 N.E.2d 801, 807 (1994)
RESPONSE: ADMITTED. While the ARDC is not required to admit statements of law, the ARDC will fully and completely admit that this law should be applied to each and every probate jurisdiction case inquiry–and this will include the likes of Sykes, Bedin, Wyman, Gore, Tyler and others.
14)   That the Circuit Court record in re: the Estate of Sykes contains no documents that indicate that the statement of the Supreme Court was complied with by the Carolyn Troepe prior to the appointment of her as plenary guardian of Mary Sykes.
RESPONSE: ADMITTED. No one has ever supplied us with the crucial evidence, including the likes of the august and vernerable attys Farenga, Stern, Judges Stuart and Connors.
15)   That Illinois ARDC has received numerous citizen complaints concerning the conduct of Cynthia Farenga and Adam Stern.
RESPONSE: ADMITTED. While citizen complaints are typically understood to be protected and confidential, too many have been published on http://www.marygsykes.com that we can ignore. We read the blog to file complaints against KDD and JMD, so we must admit we have read the “numerous” complaints already published on that blog. It is indeed shamefuly that attys and judges act so badly in the hallowed courts of Illinois and we readily admit it and are sorry.
16)   That the Illinois ARDC has taken no action on any of the complaints by citizens (including Gloria Sykes, Scott Evans, Kenneth Ditkowsky, etc) against Cynthia Farenga and Adam Stern.
RESPONSE: ADMITTED. See above.
17)   That the Illinois ARDC has received complaints by Cynthia Farenga and Adam Stern against lawyers who have attempted to investigate the Sykes case or who have requested law enforcement to investigate the Sykes case including but not limited to respondent and her attorney.
RESPONSE: ADMITTED.
18)   That the Illinois ARDC has brought charges against lawyers (including the instant respondent JoAnne Denison) who have requested law enforcement to investigate the Sykes case.
RESPONSE: ADMITTED. Admitted. It was and is a shameful means to shut up and censor lawyers that speak out against corruption and we promise to never do that again.
19)   That in bringing the ARDC charges the ARDC investigators have not attempted to ascertain if the charge that the Probate Division of the Circuit Court from time to time was not in compliance with the Illinois Supreme Court statement, to wit:
“The court acquires jurisdiction over the allegedly disabled person by personal service upon him of a copy of the petition and summons not less than 14 days before the hearing. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 110½, par. 11a–10(e); see McCormick v. Blaine (1931), 345 Ill. 461, 178 N.E. 195.) It is also a jurisdictional requirement that the petitioner give notice of the time and place of the hearing by mail or in person to the nearest living relatives of the allegedly disabled person not less than 14 days before the hearing. Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 110½, par. 11a–10(f); see In re Guardianship of Sodini (1988), 172 Ill.App.3d 1055, 123 Ill.Dec. 67, 527 N.E.2d 530.” In re Estate of Steinfeld, 158 Ill. 2d 1, 13, 630 N.E.2d 801, 807 (1994)

RESPONSE: ADMITTED. And again, this is a shameful and sorry state of affairs in Illinois and it is no wonder that Illinois has the most sitting governors gone to prison for corruption. And it also bespeaks the most lawyers and attorneys in the US gone to prison, retired or surrendered law licenses due to Greylord. SOP and SNAFU are well alive and fully functional in Illinois government.
20) Citizens including lawyers and in particular JoAnne Denison have a first amendment right to request and the investigation of the Sykes case.
RESPONSE: ADMITTED.
21) That the non-compliance with the criterion expressed by the words:
The court acquires jurisdiction over the allegedly disabled person by personal service upon him of a copy of the petition and summons not less than 14 days before the hearing. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 110½, par. 11a–10(e); see McCormick v. Blaine (1931), 345 Ill. 461, 178 N.E. 195.) It is also a jurisdictional requirement that the petitioner give notice of the time and place of the hearing by mail or in person to the nearest living relatives of the allegedly disabled person not less than 14 days before the hearing. Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 110½, par. 11a–10(f); see In re Guardianship of Sodini (1988), 172 Ill.App.3d 1055, 123 Ill.Dec. 67, 527 N.E.2d 530. In re Estate of Steinfeld, 158 Ill. 2d 1, 13, 630 N.E.2d 801, 807 (1994)
Deprives the Circuit Court of jurisdiction and the actions of Farenga, Stern, et al a deprivation of the liberty, property, civil rights and human rights of Mary Sykes, a person entitled to the ‘parens patrie’ protections of the State.
RESPONSE: ADMITTED. And we know that Mary is NOT in a happy situation. We admit her advance directives were to die in her home in Chicago–a home, family, friends and neighborhood she loved and was an intimate part of since the 1950’s. Our not caring one whit about that is extraordinarily shameful and inexcusable. We deeply and humbly apologize for not rectifying that horrible injustice at our earliest opportunity by conducting an investigation sooner and disciplining the likes of Farenga, Stern, Stuart and Connors.
Respectfully Submitted,
________________________

________________________

_________________________

__________________________

______________________________

(How many lines do I have to make for attorneys to apologize for the wrongs and injustices they have propogated against myself, Atty. Ditkowsky and MOST IMPORTANT, the families of Sykes, Wyman, Bedin, etc. and others?) That’s why I’m making this form downloadable in RTF. So the ARDC can add in all the lines they need. I hope every atty at the ARDC will sign and post as a comment on the blog or email to me for posting. )
Each of the attorneys at the ARDC who knew this and did nothing,
including Atty Leah Black, Administrator Jerome Larkin (who should give all his awards back as being no inspiration whatsoever to his future work), Attys Haspel and Opryszek and any others at the ARDC that look the other way and ignore patent injustices in the world of probate that terrorize senior citizens, the disabled and their families.

And here’s the RTF file, just in case they find morals, honesty, forthrighness, can utter the word “admitted”, can take out a loan and buy a backbone or whatever they need to answer Requests to Admit honestly and with the word ADMITTED, which they still can hardly seem to find.

RTF file so the ARDC can answer KDDs Requests to Admit HONESTLY

And what’s playing on the radio? Billy Joel and his song “honesty”

Honesty is such a lonely word
Everyone is so untrue
Honesty is hardly ever heard
And mostly what I need from you

And how apropos, for me, for KDD and for the seniors and their families out there that depend upon HONESTY and JUSTICE from the courts

More on the First Amendment–what can lawyers say to the press?

Posted on March 9, 2013 by Joanne M Denison

Subject: Re: First Amendment

I am not a Brodsky ‘fan’ and mirror your opinions; however, when the judge sentenced Peterson the case was over. The appeal is a separate proceeding which has a low chance of success. In fact if you examine the record you will find that the judge leaned over backwards to give Peterson just about every break. This judge was like Cesar’s wife – 100% pure and judicial. He was faced with lawyers (led by Brodsky) who acted as clowns. they wore similar outfits, sun glasses, gave absurd press conferences, and strutted like ******. Peterson acted like a juvenile delinquent. the judge did not think that they stepped over the line as he did not order them to ‘grow up’ and he did not hold anyone in contempt.

Thus, a jury found Peterson guilty. It is going to be difficult sell to say that the jury verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence and therefore the focus of an appeal is going to purely technical. 1) the hearsay evidence and 2) the incompetence of counsel.

Brodsky is a citizen of the United States of America and therefore protected by the First Amendment. It may be heresy to think this way but the attack on Brodsky’s First Amendment Rights is an attack on our rights. The fact that Brodsky did you wrong and would not stand up to protect your rights is irrelevant. Any attempt to muzzle another citizen is intolerable. The credo of America is “I may disagree with you, but I will fight to death to protect your right to do so!”

This is an really important point in the fight against ‘elder abuse’ and ‘financial exploitation of the elderly’ by “judicial officials” The ARDC and other lawyer regulators was not given any mandate or delegation to silence dissent, protest, or any speech. The idea that lawyers can or should be intimidated is a novel custom but not a new one. A lawyer is engaged to represent his clients best interest in an appropriate manner. He is not engaged to win a popularity contest or develop a ‘fan club.’ The ARDC should spend its time investigating how it is that a Court sans jurisdiction allowed “judicial officials” under its supervision to separate your mother from her liberty, her property, and her human rights. The ARDC and law enforcement should investigate how it is that a million dollars in gold coins was not inventoried by a ‘judicial official’ appointed by a Court sans jurisdiction. The ARDC should investigation how in derogation of the mandate of the Article 11a of the Probate Act and in particular 755 ILCS 5/11a – 17 and 755 ILCS 5/11a -18 Farenga, Stern, Schmiedel and Troepe can isolate, segregate, and prevent your mother from calling you or visiting you (or her two siblings).

I am aware Ms. Sykes that the ARDC apparently finds nothing wrong with the aforesaid acts as it investigates Ms. Denison and myself for complaining about the ‘above’ situation, writing to the Attorney General of the United States and other citizens about this situation. The fact is however, that one wrong does not make another wrong right! The fact is that Democracy is not a spectator sport and we have to stand up and be counted not only when the Civil rights of friends are being violated, but also when those we do not hold in high regard are also threatened.

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

And the breaking news from the ARDC today is…..

Posted on March 1, 2013 by Joanne M Denison

Not very exciting. They basically spend taxpayers dollars to tell me they won’t email anything and they don’t have efiling. As you are aware, I also asked them for some time to chat about the case and get some information from them, but their letter seems to imply they’re not much interested in that.

See the letter below

Letter from ARDC that they DO NOT do email

and my and Ken’s reponse is below.

Dear Jessica and Sharon;

I sent a copy of my email to Ken, and he suggested the below, and you know he’s right, so I’m adopting that too as my response to your letter.

He thinks I should make it clear the two of you need to write up a complaint against yourselves for not investigating Mary Sykes who has been deprived of her liberty, property, human rights, civil rights and deserves to go back home and live with Gloria as she had for 10 years. The missing funds should also be investigated. There is a money trail you know. It’s all on the blog and I know Gloria has sent the ARDC numerous complaints only to have them end up in the huge vortex of ARDC circular files. John Wyman I know has sent complaints to the ARDC, or I have for him.

I also have to add in Carol Wyman and Katherine Spera and atty Sharon Rudy and atty Kim Timmerwilke McKenzie who know these case are without jurisdiction.

Did you get John Wyman’s book? I knew right away when I read that book there was jurisdiction clearly lacking because the hearing was to be on 7-9-09 but on 7-6-09 the hearing was set to that same day, without notice to anyone and Powel Wyman, a known abuser was appointed Guardian. Amazing, utterly amazing.

Dominic Spera’s complaint will be forthcoming soon as we determine the massive damage Sharon Rudy has foisted upon him and his family, and poor Katherine Spera most of all who sits in a nursing home where she never wanted to be.And yet the ARDC does nothing about it.

I hope and pray someday the ARDC will take these horror stories of deprivation of liberty, property, human rights and civil rights seriously. These are not just the elderly, frail and infirm but they are human beings whose rights should never have been violated in the first place.

thanks

joanne

cc: http://www.marygsykes.com

Dear ____,

The Illinois ARDC has a mission to address unethical conduct on the part of attorneys. This mission arose to a great extent out of the Greylord era wherein a large number of ‘judicial officials’ and others were tried and convicted of serious crimes while the mechanism for protecting the public failed.

The mandate to the ARDC was not to ‘lord it over’ the members of the legal profession, but to protect the Rights, Privileges and Immunities of All citizens. As you are totally aware my blog is 99.9% accurate, however, the pleadings that you have filed are misleading and unethically attempt to deny me my Rights, Privileges and Immunities. It is obvious that if you did a scintilla of investigation you would have determined that the ‘so called’ “judicial officials” have for more than 3 years denied a ‘senior citizen’ of her liberty and property rights. Indeed, you would have ascertained the jurisdictional requirement of 11a -10(f) has not been complied with and as determined by the Supreme Court of Illinois the ‘judicial officials’ have been appointed by a Court lacking jurisdiction.

Let me respectfully suggest to you that pursuant to my Himmel responsibility let this letter be a formal complaint against both of you for not informing the panel when you knew or should have known that the jurisdictional criterion of 755 ILCS 5/11a et seq, and in particular 5/11a – 10 had not been following. The ‘games playing’ of nitpicking my discovery request is interesting but just compounds the unethical behavior. The unethical conduct of attempting to deny me my First Amendment Rights is repulsive and abhorrent.

Mr.Ditkowsky on my behalf as filed with the Illinois Supreme Court a motion for a supervisory order. The rationale for this motion is very simple – This is the United States of America and last I heard there were some basic propositions that were in full force and effect i.e. you are I are equal before the law, and I have an absolute right to complain and speak out against the evil of a 90 year old lady being sequestered in the home of a person she appropriate claimed to have abused her so that she (Mary Sykes) could be denied her liberty and property by order of a Court that lacks jurisdiction. I as an America have a right to speak out and ‘blog’ to the public this act of terrorism by the “judicial officials’ who were appointed by a Court lacking jurisdiction.

Simply put – if you have evidence that my blog is untruthful – let’s see it. If you have no evidence as a public employee having a fiduciary relationship to the public admit your error and dismiss this obscene disciplinary action.

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

Dear Jessica;

I just got you snail mail letter today and please confirm that there is nothing else you have sent me since the last pleading I received which I believe was (gotta check those scans) your motion to strike discovery.

The reason why I ask and I have to use email is basically our postal lady I think is blind and walks very slow with a limp. I think she has trouble with our building because she has to walk up 5 stairs. She’s real nice and all, but she does skip days and she often puts the mail in the wrong slot, which wouldn’t normally be a problem, except for the fact that some of the tenants in our building are architects and we have Claire Simon here and many of them are either out of town for days, or they only work a few days a week. I’m sure she has a family to feed and all so I don’t want to complain about her because she’s nice. But statistics are that 95% of the mail gets delivered in 5 days and the rest is unknown as to where that goes.

So please do not depend on my mail because you will be sorely disappointed.

Since I do patent work and deal with high tech companies and inventors most of the time, 95% of my correspondence is via email so I don’t have a problem with the mail situation in my building.

Also, I am adopting Ken’s Discovery because I think he did a really good job and he is a wonderful, wonderful lawyer. Don’t you agree?

Let me know if you want me to file a formal appearance with respect to that Motion to Strike so the discovery can get done.

I can redo the part about not having the warning. Do you really want that?

Of course, if you request it, I can snail mail your stuff. But I hate it when attys tell me (and this happens more frequently than one might think) “I didn’t get it” and then it’s a do over and everything gets pushed back. Arrrrgh.

Besides all of this email and efiling will be coming any day now, I’m sure so we all have to be prepared and Johnny on the Spot (or is that Jane on the Spot too since 1972 and the EEOC!)

Hmm, just wondering.

So, just let me know. And I’m also looking forward to a little chat about this case with you ladies soon, so let me know when we can do a little coffee or tea talk.

And I am looking for a new attorney specializing in First Amendment rights, I send out about 20 emails a day but so far NSL. Most just respond and have a few words (or paragraphs) about your complaint I will not repeat here. Some cannot be published. I also have received quite a few phone calls, but no takers yet on the rep thing. I will let you know first thing though.

thanks and take care and have a blessed day

joanne

cc: MaryGSykes blog

It’s just so refreshing to hear from a supporter that’s a Bar member

Posted on February 27, 2013 by Joanne M Denison

and tells me not to use his name because it’s “too risky.”

Love it, well I’m taking the risk for all of you out there. Keep me in your thoughts and prayers as this case develops.

From: JoAnne M Denison [mailto:jdenison@surfree.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:24 AM
To: C — C—–
Subject: Re: corruption

Dear C_____;

OKay to publish your comments? Withour without your name?

I have a real battle with the ARDC and you know they are on very shaky ground with my blog.

thanks so very much for your support and keep on reading my blog. I unearth more and more stories everyday.

take care

joanne

—–Original Message—–
From: Anonymous
Sent: Feb 27, 2013 11:05 AM
To: joanne@denisonlaw.com
Subject: corruption

Good on you Joanne. I have practiced for 40+ years, during most of which I have been frustrated with courts who, though not patently corrupt, are at the very least guilty of benign neglect while paid fiduciaries, their minions and their representatives looted the estates of the helpless. Until recently, in [state redacted] private fiduciaries were given a free hand until corruption was exposed in M**** [county redacted] County. Corruption is corruption whether active or passive. We need real reform. Hang in there.

Signed [name and address redacted]

From Joanne;

You know its a sorry state of affairs in the “land of the free and brave” when even LAWYERS are afraid to speak out against corruption, patent or covert, begin or active–it’s all the same. JUSTICE WAS NOT DONE. Judges that don’t follow the laws, GAL’s that tell the court uninventoried assets are imaginary rather than conducting an investigation. Seniors kept wrongfully from their homes in guardianships lacking jurisdiction.

Day in and day out I hear these stories, some I can publish, some I can redact, some I cannot because the families are too embarrassed, fear reprisals, whatever, they ask me not to publish their stories so I don’t. I live with their horrors and their injustices.

Atty Ken Ditkowsky’s email to Peter Schmeidel, Cynthia Farenga and Adam Stern

Posted on February 27, 2013 by Joanne M Denison

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Feb 26, 2013 7:05 PM
To: JoAnne Denison , Cynthia Farenga , Peter Schmiedel , Adam Stern
Subject: FYI

JoAnne,

We were surprised when we discovered that we have to wait until March 1 to file things electronically. [Please note, dear readers, the SCOI issued an order but forgot to change the “efiling instructions” online. They still read that efiling to SCOI is available starting 02-12-13 when in fact they issued a subsequent Order to delay this to March 1, 2013] This afternoon, Larry delivered the paper copies to the post office and they will be delivered tomorrow. Yesterday, I caused to be e-mailed to Farenga, Schmiedel and Stern as interested persons a copy of the Motion and the exhibits. We also sent each a paper copy. The postman is going to get a hernia these things are so heavy. We also sent copies to the ARDC attorneys and the Administrator. If there is anything that does not arrive, Larry will be happy to e-mail copies.

That said, copies were electronically sent to law enforcement as the prime purpose of the Motion is to get the Supreme Court to force the legal profession to ‘honor’ the First Amendment as it is core of our civilization and to order an honest, complete and comprehensive investigation of the Mary Sykes affair. As the Supreme Court has acknowledged that jurisdiction cannot exist unless 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10 is followed this situation may also be a fifty and fourteenth Amendment matter. We have therefore forwarded a copy to the Civil Rights division of the Justice Department.

Frankly, I cannot see any justification for this facade to continue on. Everyone knows that the 10(f) Sodini notices were never given and thus our judicial officials were appointed by a Court that lack jurisdiction. Thus, they are not ‘judicial officials.’ For the record – that is not a threat! It is fact and at this point in time they run but they cannot hide. It is still not too late to do the ‘right thing!’ Mary is alive and still wants to go home and still wants to rejoin her sisters, her family, her younger daughter and he garden club. As I told Gloria – there is no percentage in asking the ‘judicial officials’ to do what is right. Too bad. (I copied each of them in the hope that they would allow Mary her life back for the few moments that she has left and so that they know what I sent them and if there is a document that they did not receive all they have to do is call Mr. Chambers at my office)

Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

More flotsam and jetsam from the ARDC

Posted on February 27, 2013 by Joanne M Denison

Well, in the continuing vein, if you don’t have a real case, the ARDC just snail mailed me this (uuugh–snail mail, who uses it unless absolutely forced to do so?)

ARDC Motion to Strike Discovery Requests

You know, most attorneys know you have to answer Requests to Admit so they will not be automatically deemed admitted by operation of law. You’re all supposed to do a Notice of Filing and file them in Cook County Circuit Court and then also file the Answers that way because there have been tons of argument over when they were served and when they must be returned under the seminal case of Bright v. Dicke

The ARDC should know all that.

But apparently, that is their grounds for striking Ken’s perfectly good discovery.

I have never pulled that one before and I’m not going to. Unless opposing counsel answers them late, I’m not going to kick up a fuss. Most of the time, there’s a judge there noting the fact you are just being petty. At least that’s my experience. Unless it’s substantive, don’t mess with it.

One of my biggest issues is not serving everything by email and asking if someone needs a paper copy (ie, a need to waste paper and trees), and if you’re going to serve discovery, at least turn over the original documents so answers can be typed directly in.

Other than that, who cares about trying to get rid of discovery. It gets you to the merits of a case quickly and it SHOULD be used. Freely, without pettiness.

I have no idea why the Administrator is fighting discovery and does not want any. It makes absolutely no sense to me.

And they could have asked me first if I wanted to file an appearance or strike my discovery–I would have replied I’d file an appearance for the purpose of moving along discovery, if they wanted that.

So tomorrow, we need to wast more trees, pixels and what not and get this done–even though I have actual clients to help out who are laboring under a lack of jurisdiction in Probate court.

I have real matters to attend to. And if the ARDC thinks that by flinging paper at me, somehow these cases will suddenly attain jurisdiction because I am distracted, they have another thing come.

I work all day, late every day, late into the night. And then I get up again the next day just to be sure some august senior of ours is not deprived of life, liberty, property, human and civil rights.

Perhaps the lovely ladies at the ARDC think this will never happen to them–they will never be the little old lady with a paid in house, paid up bank account, assets, safe deposit boxes, and along comes a greedy aspiring plenary guardian ready to jump in and engage in all the horror stories you, my readers have written me about. The most shocking by far is operating a court without jurisdiction–no summons and complaint, affidavit of service, no Sodini 10(f) notices to all your relatives. Only the greedy, no need to inventory relatives will get that notice. Someday they might be in Carol Wyman’s nursing home, being sexually assaulted at night for days in a row, wanting to go home, but being shot up with Risperdol, Halodol–held down and fighting it–all against her will. And then finally, with a severe loss of blood (down one pint and near death), she is severely beaten with a face and torso full of bruises and she manages to escape and her beloved sons–John and William drive into the night 1200 miles cross county to save her.

The ARDC ladies say I am lying. I am not. Everything I have said to you all is true and the proof is up on this blog.

Want the proof of the nursing home beatings upon Mrs. Carol Wyman?

Carol Wyman Beating Report

And someday when the likes of Atty Jessica Haspel, Atty Jerome Larkin, and Atty Opryszek are in a nursing home (and we KNOW how dangerous those for profit places are) and they don’t want to be there, and they are beaten and sexually abused and they want to go home, but they have no money because someone uninventoried THEIR wealth conveniently and secretly and the GAL’s pipe “it’s imagined, it’s imagined” to the court,

YOU KNOW I WILL BE THERE FOR THEM AND THEIR CHILDREN.

and don’t think you all are immune, I already know at least 3 attorneys with wealthy fathers and mothers WHOSE PARENTS WERE PUT INTO A NURSING HOME BY A STATE GUARDIAN, THE GUARDIANS ARE FEASTING OFF THE ESTATE, AND MOM AND DAD ARE BEING ISOLATED and their advance directives were they never wanted to go to a nursing home.

Don’t think because you’re an attorney, you are immune. These attorneys did well in court, were well liked by judges, but the minute they stepped into probate their world was turned upside down.

And don’t think for a minute the attorneys at the ARDC will come running to your rescue and do your junk for free and believe in the justice of it all. For every 10 attorneys coming through my office, 95% look the other way and don’t want to get involved in doing something for free that is difficult, complex and with the ARDC on my back, dangerous.

Very few do what Ken and I do.

JoAnne

Copy of Petition to SCOI for a Supervisory Order

Posted on February 26, 2013 by Joanne M Denison

Dear Ms. Farenga, Mr.Stern, Mr. Schmiedel,

Attached hereto is the Motion of attorney JoAnne Denison that was electronically filed by Ms. Denison (via my office) with the Illinois Supreme Court.

Petition to SCOI for a Supervisory Order

This Motion seeks in part that the Illinois Supreme Court order an investigation of the Elder Abuse/Financial Exploitation cases – such as the case of Mary Sykes in which sans jurisdiction a plenary guardian was appointed who is reported to not have inventoried a large number of gold coins and other valuables.

By the United States Postal Service mail a copy of the document is being mailed to the ARDC as it is an interested party.

In the interests of justice and the interest of Mary Sykes and the other persons similarly affected, we invite you to join with us in requesting an HONEST complete and comprehensive investigation of the Sykes matter and in particular, the admitted lack of the service of the 14 day notices required by 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10.

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

From Ken Ditkowsky, as it was in 1961

Posted on February 25, 2013 by Joanne M Denison

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Feb 25, 2013 10:26 AM
To: JoAnne Denison , NASGA , probate sharks , yjd
Cc: states attorney , Cook Sheriff
Subject: Fw: Firing bad judges – NEWS: (Cook County) How clout keeps court cases secret

On November 28, 1961 I took the same oath that every lawyer in the State of Illinois is mandated to take. A few days later I tried my first case in the Superior Court of Cook County and a couple of days later tried a case in the Circuit Court of Cook County. In 1970 by the ‘blue ballot’ Constitutional convention the Superior Court merged with the Circuit Court.

The practice of law in 1961 -62 was quite different from what exists today. Lawyers belonged to the same fraternity. 95% of us were friends and we had an interest in solving our client’s problems rather than churning their files and bankrupting them. When a case came into the office, the lawyers discussed the case and determined what, if anything, could be agreed upon. We then submitted the matters that were in issue to the Judge. Most of the time the ‘Judge’ would cut to the heart of the issue and the matter would be further reduced in complexity. The net result that except of very few cases trial and expense was avoided. Oh, there were clients who would not settle for love or money, but, most of the lawyers could be said to have had an agreement to agree. What we did not have was the ‘take no prisoners’ approach that exists today.

Yes, in 1961 were had corruption and some of it was blatant. The perniciousness of the corruption was as bad as it is today; however, the big difference was that we did not have as many pious public officials and organizations fostering it. When a court file was not open to the public, the lawyers, the judge, and everyone else knew that there was hanky/panky going on. Most miscreants were not anxious to broadcast their “motion to fix.” Most judges wanted no part in the ‘game’ and they acted accordingly. There of course were a few who played the ‘game’ but the Chicago Daily News and the Chicago Tribune reporters made them very nervous. A Sykes case as an example would have been addressed on day one – the guardian ad litem, assuming that they were innocent would have covered themselves with detailed reports to the Court. As an example, Mr. Stern upon observing the extensive remodeling going on at the plenary guardian’s home would have reported this to the Judge and would have reported Ms. Gloria Sykes statement concerning that event. The pending Motion for a Protective order filed by Mary Sykes would have disqualified the plenary guardian on day one, and 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10 would have been carefully observed.

Ms. Gloria Sykes reported the disappearance of the Court file in Sykes. It has now reappeared – so there is hope that it is in the same condition that it was prior to its disappearance!

Mr. Mayor – thank you for forwarding the article. Chicago is not ready for reform – we cannot even obtain an honest, complete and comprehensive investigation. The two Chicago newspapers are apparently disinterested in the fact that senior citizens are being deprived of their liberty, their property, their civil rights and human rights right now in Chicago. Mary Sykes has suffered for more than 3.5 years!

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

The First Amendment and Attys JoAnne Denison and Kenneth Ditkowsky

Posted on February 25, 2013 by Joanne M Denison

From: JoAnne M Denison <jdenison@surfree.com>
To: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 9:11 AM
Subject: Re: The First Amendment and Attorney JoAnne Denison.

okay to publish?and many of these stories act as if these cases are MY grievances that I’m airing and they’re not. (Some of the news stories did get this wrong and said that I was petitioning for guardianship, when I was not, but many corrected that and said I only filed an appearance and then was disqualified because I notarized a document, and then a couple years later started the blog when the Sykes case drug on and was clearly without jurisdiction and then via the probate victims’ blogs I was finding a similar disturbing pattern of cases not following the Illinois Probate Act with large amounts of funds uninventoried, no jurisdiciton, etc.).
I am REPORTING these stories, I am calling for an INVESTIGATION by the authorities and by the ARDC because courts are acting without jurisdiction and the authorities are not investigating and they should. The probate victims come to me AND you Ken and they wonder why they are not getting the basic forms of justice–due process, notice to all relatives so the court can be fully informed and appoint the best guardian, inventory of all assets and possible assets belonging to the estate. Millions in about half a dozen cases reported directly to me are uninventoried and missing. The family and legatees/heirs want to know why.

I am REPORTING on corruption in the Illinois courts so that it can be brought to light and eliminated. The regular news does much of this. Why not me? Why not you?

Subject: The First Amendment and Attorney JoAnne Denison.

Ms. G___ S____ in an e-mail furnished me with a list of some of the blogs that are carrying the JoAnne Denison story. The attack unconstitutional attack on Ms. Denison’s First Amendment Rights by the Illinois ARDC is not unprecedented. The First Amendment is often not held in high regard by government when it decides not to be transparent or decides to obviate the rights of a particular group of people. Government with something to ‘hide’ or that is embarrassed by its own conduct is usually behind the miscreant conduct. A review of the Mary Sykes case 09 P ____, pending in the Probate Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County is clear in disclosing a quagmire of bad behavior by ‘judicial officials.’ In Sykes and in all of these situations, the victims are senior citizens, the disabled (with money) and their families.

It is our belief that the ARDC did not receive a mandate to suppress Attorney speech and therefore lacks jurisdiction. The ARDC’s mandate comes from the Illinois Supreme Court and that Court is bound by the decisions of the United States Supreme Court. The Alvarez, NY Times, et al decisions are clear in pointing out that ‘content’ based speech cannot be suppressed. That is not to say that the same speech might under the right circumstances be subject to defamation suit, but government (including the ARDC) does not have standing to prevent the publication. l

In light of the history of Illinois and the 15+ judges who went to jail in the Greylord scandal and the number of Illinois high ranking political types that are in jail the ban on suppression of free speech is vital and a core basis of America. The blogs who are reported to have carried the story are:

http://www.sofloridaestateplanning.com/2013/02/articles/probate-1/attorney-charged-with-ethics-complaint-over-probate-blog/

http://lberezin.com/2013/02/04/lawyer-faces-ethics-charges-for-blogging-about-corruption-in-illinois-probate-system/

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/PubArticleCT.jsp?id=1202586530125&Attorneys_blogging_prompts_ethics_complaint_&slreturn=20130124210350

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/lawyers_blog_posts_about_sleazy_world_of_probate_bring_ethics_complaint/

http://lawandmore.typepad.com/law_and_more/2013/02/joanne-denison-hit-with-ethics-violation-now-that-blogging-is-mature-medium.html

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202586530125&Attorneys_blogging_prompts_ethics_complaint_

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/trusts_estates_prof/2013/02/attorney-faces-possible-disciplinary-action-for-her-blog.html

http://thedailyrecord.com/ontherecord/2013/02/07/to-blog-or-not-to-blog/

http://lawyerswithtroubles.wordpress.com/category/rules-of-court/

http://www.lexisnexis.com/community/estate-elderlaw/blogs/estateplanningandprobateblog/archive/2013/02/06/attorney-charged-with-ethics-complaint-over-probate-blog.aspx

http://www.globallegalpost.com/global-view/patent-lawyer-in-hot-water-over-blog-64101574/#.USrJQ4WxpZ0

http://themedicalmalpracticecases.com/attorneys-blogging-prompts-ethics-complaint/

http://blog.martindale.com/chicago-attorney-faces-ethics-violation-for-airing-grievances-on-blog

http://quest.law.com/Search/Search.do?Ntt=Illinois+Attorney+Registration+and+Disciplinary+Commission&x=0&y=0&Nty=1&site=nlj&N=8357&Ntk=SI_All&cx=1&sortVar=1

http://www.estateofdenial.com/2013/02/10/attorneys-blogging-prompts-ethics-complaint-il/

http://lberezin.com/2013/02/04/lawyer-faces-ethics-charges-for-blogging-about-corruption-in-illinois-probate-system/

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

The Stated Policy of the ARDC–DO NOT, and I repeat, DO NOT CALL FOR AN INVESTIGATION!

Posted on February 23, 2013 by Joanne M Denison

Yep, that’s it. After Greylord and 2 Illinois governors sitting in club fed med, the ARDC is following along party lines and is telling both myself and Ken, go ahead, do what you want but never call for an investigation! Senior are robbed, deprived of life, liberty, property, forced to enter the worst and most dangerous nursing homes in the nation, BUT NEVER CALL FOR AN INVESTIGATION!

I don’t know about you, but that’s the lamest thing I have ever heard in my life.

That’s what it is all boiling down to. Apparently the ARDC is nothing but part of the official CYA Illinois civil servant club. They must have a lot of CYA in their computers and copiers, that’s all I’m saying.

So my 10 page complaint about censoring me and this blog, ignoring the relatives of Gore, Tyler, Bedin, Sykes, Wyman who are furious with the courts for probate abuse of their grandmas, are supposed to do just what?

In any case, Atty Ditkowsky and my ARDC cases march along.

See below:

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Feb 22, 2013 8:06 PM
To: Tim NASGA , NASGA , GL– , Steven D Schwartz
Subject: You are invited to join with us in our petition to the Illinois Supreme Court

On Tuesday I intend to file on behalf JoAnne Denison the Motion to the Illinois Supreme Court for an HONEST, complete and comprehensive examination of the “judicial officials” who the Illinois ARDC is protecting. In Cook County the rogues gallery is believed to have at the top of the list such illuminaries as: Miriam Solo, Peter Schmiedel, Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga et al.

If you have been allegedly injured by any of the “judicial officials” you are invited to request that the Court give you leave to join with us, incorporate by reference and make part of your petition the JoAnne Denison motion so that you can request the Supreme Court of Illinois to require the Illinois ARDC to actually do its duty and protect the public from miscreants who are reported to have engaged (and are engaging) in a pattern of conduct designed and reasonably calculated to deprive senior citizens of their liberty and property.

As Gore has 1.5 million, Tyler approximately 8 million, and each of the other estates large sums of money there is a real incentive for at least the taxing authorities to be interested. A breach of fiduciary relationship is a ‘taxable event.’ This generates ‘ordinary income.’ The failure to report the income is tax fraud. A civil tax penalty of 50% plus interest at 5% can go a long way to provide the revenue that the president has been seeking. In the Sykes case the United States of America should after all more than 3.5 years should have income taxes due it of at least a million dollars. Aiding and abetting tax fraud is a criminal offense and accessories during the commission of the tax fraud bear the same responsibility as the person responsible.

I do not believe that the Supreme Court delegation to the IARDC was intended to include helping them fend off the victims, the families of victims and a few assorted attorneys (JoAnne and yours truly) who keep raising this point! JoAnne and I both are under the impression that everyone is equal under the eyes of the law and therefore, law enforcement ought to conduct an investigation of Solo, Schmiedel, Stern, Farenga et al and determine who is correct in their assertions. In Sykes as an example it is very clear that Farenga, and Stern were appointed by a Court that lacked jurisdiction – that is most troubling! Mary Sykes therefore has been denied her rights and property for 3.5 years by a court that lacked jurisdiction. If your loved senior is in a similar situation – the time is now to join with us.

Illinois does not need another Greylord or Son of Greylord. Two governors, and a bunch of legislators in jail is enough. If the Illinois ARDC does its job maybe we can have our judges in black robes and sitting on benches deciding disputes rather than in orange jumpsuits in prison cells. Just a thought

Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

What is the standard of the ARDC in free speech? Or, Where is my refrigerator for my Chilled Speech?

Posted on February 22, 2013 by Joanne M Denison

That is what I found in Ken’s case. It was clear the ARDC panel thought that for a lawyer, the burden was on the lawyer to prove the statements were true by clear and convincing evidence and not the other way around.

The the ARDC brought in two miscreant, nefarious lawyers (according to NASGA’s “most wanted list”) who obviously lied through their teeth and said there was “nothing wrong” with the Sykes case. Well, Sykes is on appeal. I doubt that the appeals court would even come close to saying the appeal was frivolous, so are we lawyers all supposed to stand by and say nothing because that’s a safe position? The ARDC won’t slam some time wasting 10 page complaint on our desks at the whim of the lawyers involved.

Think of the unfairness to the families. They don’t want that. They like my blog I have heard.

I think the ARDC is dragging everything out on Ken’s case and they might be doing that on mine too because if GJS wins on appeal, (which should happen hands down if the Ill. Ct. of Appeals does its job), we will both be vindicated we were in fact telling the truth about jurisdiction and the ARDC panel had bricks for brains. I have the Wyman case too up on appeal, and that should be another case clearly lacking jurisdiction.

I believe therefore it will be up to the LAWYERS and the PUBLIC to demand that lawyers have the right to free speech and the ARDC will just have to DEAL WITH blogging.

I maintain a lawyer cannot blog and watch every word. Further, what words are we prohibited from using? What words should be “chilled” in put in the refrigerator? What words and phrases must be frozen, never used and put in my freezer until hell obtains exactly the same temperature? What do they want us to say? And if the warm and cozy words and phrases they will accept and can be put by the fire are outrageous lies but it makes the ARDC attys feel warm, cooey and safe, what then? Must we say them so we have something to say?

Monitoring speech and thought is not only near impossible, it is actually impossible. SCOTUS knows that. It’s clearly the slippery slope, the wedge with the edge, a falling star in a black hole.

What words, what phrases, what inferences?

The ARDC has not said. In Ken’s trial, they seemed to not like the fact he was incessantly calling out for an investigation by the authorities. Well, probably GJS was responsible for most of that, but still they never knew who was pounding Officer Pecks with 500 emails one weekend. Ken clearly wanted to take the credit for that one, but I’m not sure.

Again, exactly how is the ARDC using its $450 annual lawyer fees and tax dollars to investigate and control. SCOTUS says “there must be a problem to solve” if the state wants to control speech. And, there must be a “clear solution.” And finally both must be subject to “strict scrutiny” (which is actually saying “fat chance.”) I see none of that here. Just a whole lot of vague, unsolvable territory. Sham proceedings. Reverse standards of what Congress and SCOTUS has promulgated.

What solution can there possibly be in putting this blog into my freezer?

I can’t make ice cubes out of it, you know!

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

Posted on February 21, 2013 by Joanne M Denison

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can ANYONE answer that one?

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

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

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

Inquiring minds want to know.

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

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

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

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

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

Is the next step book burning?

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

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

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

Posted on February 20, 2013 by Joanne M Denison

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.

MaryGSykes.com

Tag Archives: first amendment rights

First Amendment Retaliation for running this blog

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

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

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

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

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

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

From KDD and myself–a letter to the ARDC to supplement our evidentiary files on Harris case

A reminder to Miscreant Attorneys–your pleadings DO have limits

And the House of Cards Continues to Crumble and Blow away While the ARDC fiddles….

From John Wyman – His Letter to the ARDC venting his frustrations for lack of an investigation

More for the ARDC to censor–an old joke!

KDD renews his Motion to Dismiss before the ARDC based upon the Horace Hunter case

KDD renews his Motion to Dismiss before the ARDC based upon the Horace Hunter case

What does the ARDC want me and Ken to be sorry for?

Cost of Corruption October 2012 bill–$363,811!

The Administrator of the ARDC answer the Petition to the Ill. Sup. Ct. and the Answer reveals some new information.

Since the ARDC has problems answering Requests to Admit truthfully, here, I will help them

More on the First Amendment–what can lawyers say to the press?

And the breaking news from the ARDC today is…..

It’s just so refreshing to hear from a supporter that’s a Bar member

Atty Ken Ditkowsky’s email to Peter Schmeidel, Cynthia Farenga and Adam Stern

More flotsam and jetsam from the ARDC

Copy of Petition to SCOI for a Supervisory Order

From Ken Ditkowsky, as it was in 1961

The First Amendment and Attys JoAnne Denison and Kenneth Ditkowsky

The Stated Policy of the ARDC–DO NOT, and I repeat, DO NOT CALL FOR AN INVESTIGATION!

What is the standard of the ARDC in free speech? Or, Where is my refrigerator for my Chilled Speech?

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

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