In reponse to Horace Hunter, this blog’s new hero–Ken Amends my Petition to the SCOI

Posted on March 3, 2013 by Joanne M Denison

You go Ken, now we have the arsenal we require.

This case explains what I do on this blog, your posts on the blog IN CLEAR AND EASY TO UNDERSTAND LANGUAGE–THIS BLOG AND IT’S CONTENTS ARE PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE HIGHEST LEVELS ALLOWED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

This blog represents political speech and content based speech. This blog does not advertise for business for you or me and my staff. I DO NOT do probate law, except in certain very limited cases (the client must have been rejected by other lawyers for the case being too difficult and/or no money, the client must have no money or limited fund to fight either isolation of a parent and/or lack of jurisdiction).

My main business is elsewhere and I love doing that.

I engage in this blog only to clean up the courts and ensure there is jurisdiction.

Atty Ken’s Motion to Amend my sec 383 SCOI Petition

Thank you Ken. I understand that you have filed a similar Motion to Amend with the ARDC regarding your case.

All you did was speak up for Mary. You did not post emails on my blog to make money, engage in advertising or commercial speech. You found an injustice where attys and judges were acting badly and you started to make a stink and fuss about it. At first you called for an investigation, then you started screaming for an investigation.

Now the blog is screaming, yelling, shouting, kicking up an entire hopping mad toddler tantrum to ensure that justice is done in the following cases: Tyler, Sykes, Bedin, Gore, Wyman, etc. by means of A COMPLETE, HONEST AND THOROUGH INVESTIGATION.

My Response to the ARDC based upon what Horace Hunter did for lawyers….

Posted on March 3, 2013 by Joanne M Denison

Is that guy a hero or what? I don’t care if all he did was blog about a bunch of criminal court wins. By taking his case to the Virginia Supreme Court, this week he helped out myself and Ken with important findings of fact and conclusions of law.

See my response to the the ARDC based upon this case.

sykesblog-ardc-hunter-Mot2ReconMTD-03-01-13

Of course, I used my Motion to Dismiss as a soapbox for letting the ARDC know that many of this issues complained about on this blog by myself and others are in fact true and they need to be investigated. Each of Bedin, Tyler, Gore, Sykes, Wyman and others needs and deserves a full and complete investigation. All of the judges and GAL’s and plenary guardian attorneys land on “free parking” in the ARDC Monoply board game, while Ken and I are screaming our heads off for an investigation, and all we get handed is the “go to jail” card!

I hope that the Horace Hunter case will result in the ARDC giving us the “get out of jail free” card, or I forget, do we have to roll 3 doubles in a row? It’s been sooo long. (Actually, no one in my family will play Monopoly with me because I love making up rules, which the rules allow for, but I make them funny like build a lego person, or give up 3 green m&m’s before you can buy a house or hotel, or get any benefit).

take care my good readers, the Virginia Supremes are on our side and I think they wrote an opinion so plain even the lawyers at the Illinois ARDC can understand it.

JoAnne

New and exiciting gift for this blog–The ARDC gets a lesson from the Virginia Bar Assn

Posted on March 3, 2013 by Joanne M Denison

Dear readers;

As you know I have been amazingly busy with the ARDC complaint filed against me and all the cases I have where jurisdiction has been lacking but I represent YOU on this blog and via this blog–the person without any money or any hope, or I’m just helping you with free legal advice–cleaning up the mess and corruption we all know is rampant in Cook County Circuit court (well, except for the ARDC in their ivory towers).

On Thursday, the Virginia State Bar Assn just gave us a HUGE, huge gift for this blog, in the decision of Horace Hunter v. Virginia Bar. I don’t have the cite, but you can google it–it’s everywhere and I’m attaching it here:

Hunter-v-VA-State-Bar-03-01-13

In the above case, Mr. Horace Hunter was charged with atty rules violations for 1) not providing a sufficient disclaimer on his blog (he only had one on the main blog page and the VBS wanted one of those “results not typical” on EVERY post–incredible burden if you’re a blogger, plus who wants to read THAT more than once per decade; and 2) he published the names of clients (horrors) on cases where he won. The VBS argued this is was “betraying client confidentiality” (as if THAT’s possible on the internet today–get rid of Google search first before you say that one, plus all social media–someone will be yacking about what you did yesterday while drunk or high and can’t recall).

Summary: the Virginia Supreme Court held that 1) relating those names on a blog is NOT confidential; and 2) they adopted the trial court’s finding that publishing a disclaimed requested by the Virginia State Bar ONCE on the blog is enough.

You go, Virginia Supreme Court.

So what does all this do to the ARDC’s position?

To get to the nitty gritty details, if you read the Horace Hunger case (I gotta contact this guy), they said that his speech was commercial and not political. That’s an important difference in the world of SCOTUS and free speech. Commercial speech MAY be regulated as long as you can show 1) the state has a compelling interest to regulate the speech (the Virginia Supremes found that VBS MAY regulate atty blogs consisting of commercial speech); and 2) there is some compelling problem to be solved by doing so; and 3) the problem is solved in the least restrictive manner.

To begin with, Horace Hunter’s blog could easily be found to be commercial speech. 1) it was on his firm website–not an independent web site; 2) it touted 99% of the time the “amazing results” of the case by his firm; 3) on the blog website it provided contact information for his firm under “contact us”; 4) the cases he was bragging about were only ones done by his firm; 5) only he or his firm could post; 6) there were no public comments–moderated or otherwise; 7) it was clear the blog was 95% used as a way to get clients in an area his firm specialized in; 8) it was part of his advertising and means for profit.

You will note on the “www.marygsykes.com” website, 1) I have dedicated this website to eliminating corruption in the circuit court; 2) I do NOT list or advertise anywhere on my posts to contact me or my firm for “probate work” (Yikes–I’m scared even to think about it); 3) on my regular website, I have my firm phone number, fax number, emails of myself and my staff–even cell phone number, but you won’t find it here and I’m not mentioning it again; 4) I NEVER have advertised I specialize or WILL EVEN DO PROBATE (tho, I will do it, IF I am told no other lawyer will take their case they have been to at least a dozen and it is meritorious and they have no money–but shouldn’t ALL lawyers do this?); 5) the vast majority of the time, even if there is a problem in probate, for free or a donation, I can advise people on HOW TO GET THE GAL’S or other attys in court TO DO THEIR JOB. When people contact me, most of the time there’s just a lawyer or two or three that’s not doing their job and I’m just an unseen second opinion, once the attys already on the case-generally the GAL sees the client is savvy and just asking them to do the job they were hired to do, they stop getting away with a crap job and the problems are solved; 6) the posts on my blog come from everywhere and everyone–no one is excluded, I only ask that your stuff be readable and verifiable by sending me court documents which I will post; 7) I allow for and 99% post comments–everyone’s opinion and story is important; 8) my work on this blog is billed (as it should be) to “cost of corruption” published here. At the end of the year when the ARDC asks for my “pro bono” hours, that’s what I put down.

THIS BLOG IS PRO BONO AND INDEPENDENT. I do not solicit clients here or want probate work.

I honest can’t say how I would get profitable work from my blog. It is mostly a drain on me and I do it for you, the reader and for all of us that want honest, decent, lawyers, courts and judges. It is especially important in probate that everyone does an honest, decent job–despite the fact there may be all sorts of money and profiteering to grab. By letting the public know what is going on, hopefully we can encourage everyone to be honest, reasonable, stop the isolation of grandma, stop declaring her incompetent without jurisdiction, stop the nonsense in probate court.

I simply don’t understand how the likes of Miriam Solo, Adam Stern and Cynthia Farenga can keep children from their parents or force them to pay $160 per hour from some wired in agency to isolate grandma. It should be a nationwide scandal and disgrace.

Getting back to Horace Hunter, favorite case quotes:
In this appeal of right by an attorney from a Virginia State Bar (“VSB”) disciplinary proceeding before a three judge panel appointed pursuant to Code § 54.1-3935, we consider whether an attorney’s blog posts are commercial speech, whether an attorney may discuss public information related to a client without the client’s consent, and whether the panel ordered the attorney to post a disclaimer that is insufficient under Rule 7.2(a)(3) of the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct…….

In response to these allegations, Hunter contends that speech concerning the judicial system is “quintessentially ‘political speech’” which is within the marketplace of ideas…..

The VSB responds that Hunter’s blog posts are inherently misleading commercial speech.
“Whether the inherent character of a statement places it beyond the protection of the First Amendment is a question of law over which . . . this Court . . . exercise[s] de novo review.” Peel v. Atty. Registration & Disciplinary Comm’n, 496 U.S. 91, 108 (1990). An appellate Court must independently examine the entire record in First Amendment cases to ensure that “ ‘a forbidden intrusion on the field of free expression’ ” has not occurred…..

Simply because the speech is an advertisement, references a specific product, or is economically motivated does not necessarily mean that it is commercial speech. Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp., 463 U.S. 60, 67 (1983). “The combination of all these characteristics, however, provides strong support for the . . . conclusion that [some blog posts] are properly characterized as commercial speech” even though they also discuss issues important to the public. Id. at 67-68 (emphasis in original).

However, all commercial speech is necessarily advertising. See Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 31 (1993) (defining “advertisement” as “a calling attention to or making known[;]an informing or notifying[;] a calling to public attention[;] a statement calling attention to something[;] a public notice; esp[ecially] a paid notice or
11
announcement published in some public print (as a newspaper, periodical, poster, or handbill) or broadcast over radio or television”). Indeed, the Supreme Court of the United States has said that “[t]he diverse motives, means, and messages of advertising may make speech ‘commercial’ in widely varying degrees.”…….
Here, Hunter’s blog posts, while containing some political commentary, are commercial speech. Hunter has admitted that his motivation for the blog is at least in part economic. The posts are an advertisement in that they predominately describe cases where he has received a favorable result for his client. He unquestionably references a specific product, i.e., his lawyering skills as twenty-two of his twenty-five case related posts describe cases that he has successfully handled. Indeed, in nineteen of these posts, he specifically named his law firm in addition to naming himself as counsel.
Moreover, the blog is on his law firm’s commercial website rather than an independent site dedicated to the blog…….

observing that “[i]n contrast to the interaction possible in some other forms of web-published information, blog readers are most frequently permitted to leave comments and create threads of discussion”). Instead, in furtherance of his commercial pursuit, Hunter invites the reader to “contact us” the same way one seeking legal representation would contact the firm through the website.

When considered as a whole, the economically motivated blog overtly proposes a commercial transaction that is an advertisement of a specific product.
Having determined that Hunter’s blog posts discussing his cases are commercial speech,
we must determine whether the expression is protected by the First Amendment. For commercial speech to come within that provision, it at least must concern lawful activity and not be misleading. Next, we ask whether the asserted governmental interest is substantial. If both inquiries yield positive answers, we must determine whether the regulation directly advances the governmental interest asserted, and whether it is not more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest.

While the States may place an absolute prohibition on inherently misleading advertising, “the States may not place an absolute prohibition on certain types of potentially misleading information, . . . if the information also may be presented in a way that is not deceptive.”

Because the VSB’s governmental interest is substantial, we must now determine “whether the regulation directly advances the governmental interest asserted.”
Finally, we must determine whether the VSB’s regulations are no more restrictive than necessary. Central Hudson, 447 U.S. at 566. The Supreme Court of the United States has approved the use of disclaimers or explanations.

Thus, we are called upon to answer whether the state may prohibit an attorney from discussing information about a client or former client that
19
is not protected by attorney-client privilege without express consent from that client. We agree with Hunter that it may not.

a criminal trial under our system of justice.” Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 573 (1980).
Moreover,
[a] trial is a public event. What transpires in the court room is public property. If a transcript of the court proceedings had been published, we suppose none would claim that the judge could punish the publisher for contempt. And we can see no difference though the conduct of the attorneys, of the jury or even of the judge himself, may have reflected on the court. Those who see and hear what transpired can report it with impunity. There is no special perquisite of the judiciary which enables it, as distinguished from other institutions of democratic government, to suppress, edit, or censor events which transpire in proceedings before it.
Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 374 (1947).

…. a lawyer is no more prohibited than any other citizen from reporting what transpired in the courtroom….

This means that Hunter’s disclaimers “shall be in bold type face and uppercase letters in a font size that is at least as large as the largest text used to advertise the specific or cumulative case results and in the same color and against the same colored background as the text used to advertise the specific or cumulative case results.” Rule 7.2(a)(3). The circuit court, however, imposed the following disclaimer to be posted once: “Case results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each case. Case results do not guarantee or predict a similar result in any future case.”

So my work on this blog is “content speech” or speech which is not regulated and should be afforded the highest protection in all state courts, federal courts and tribunals throughout the nation.

Based upon this decision, both atty Ken Ditkowsky AND myself have filed amendments to our Petitions to the Supreme Court of Illinois AND have filed Motions to Reconsider our Motions to Dimiss!

Clearly all of Ken’s emails regarding the following cases: Bedin, Taylor, Gore, Sykes, Wyman are NOT commercial speech! All they do is call for an investigation by the authorities. Further, each and everyone of our emails, faxes, letters calling for an investigation, letting me blog freely in court, requests to let me blog freely in court, be a court watcher–is protected speech of the highest levels for which the government AND the ARDC has absolutely no interest in regulating.

I am not using this website to advertise for my “real” practice of patents, trademarks and copyrights. I use this website SO THAT WHEN I GO TO COURT THERE WILL BE NO CORRUPTION PRESENT AND JUSTICE WILL BE DONE.

None of the cases that I write about and my readers write about are to brag for advertising for me. Let me make this clear to the ARDC. I have never said I want to be in probate court, I have never advertised to go there. I GO THERE AS A LAST RESORT, GENERALLY WITH NO PAYMENT OF MONEY, AND I DO JUSTICE WHEN AT LEAST 20 OTHER LAWYERS REFUSE TO GO THERE DUE TO THE CORRUPTION, RAILROADING, LACK OF FOLLOWING BASIC COURT RULES.

When asked by the National Law Journal Reporter if I had “plans to take this blog down”, I pretty much screamed at her THERE’S NO WAY I WILL TAKE THIS BLOG DOWN WHILE THERE IS CORRUPTION IN THE COURTS–WHY SHOULD I?

This blog is about injustices and corruption. It is NOT profitable, it is a time waster and money drainer for me and my firm and my staff.

I like writing patents and doing patentability searches, I really do. You can ask my staff. I love it and obsess over it. BUT I will NOT stand idly by and let horrendous crimes of loss of human rights, civil rights, loss of consortium with beloved friends and family members by nefarious tied in guardians that get “watchers” at $150 per hour or more to go on WITHOUT MAKING A STINK.

That’s what this blog is all about MAKING A STINK FOR GRANDMA until justice is done.

This blog is completely separate from what I do as a patent attorney. IT DESERVES THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF PROTECTION BY ALL COURTS AND TRIBUNALS THROUGHOUT THE US–INCLUDING THE AUGUST ARDC ATTORNEYS–ATTY LARKIN, ATTY HASPEL AND ATTY OPRYSZEK.

And I will not rest until the corruption is gone and the ARDC STARTS TO ADMIRE AND RESPECT THE FIRST SPEECH RIGHTS OF LAWYERS IN THE US–myself and Ken included.

We have to promote lawyers speaking out against corruption, on blogs, in the news and in public. That speech cannot and must not be chilled even if the ARDC buys a 1000 refrigerators for it. (I gotta start doing political cartoons too).

Take care my justice loving readers, as Shakespere said “even the worm can turn.”

JoAnne

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

NEW–TAKE OUR SURVEY of lawyers, corruption and the ARDC

Posted on February 27, 2013 by Joanne M Denison

Please go to HERE:

Take Our Survey on Corruption Blogs and Lawyers

and answer 4 short questions that have radio buttons.

Please note if you are a lawyer and what city and state you practice in. You can use initials if you want to remain anonymous.

The poll is restricted to one survey per computer.

Each question has a comments section and results will be updated on our TAKE A SURVEY HERE page.

tell your friends and those that support free speech rights for lawyers!

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

From GJS – a harrowing story of one man’s final days and his death….

Posted on February 27, 2013 by Joanne M Denison

Of a broken heart.

Thanks for sending this along G****, I really LOVED the story.

here is the link to the full story:

Benjamin Alfano’s Harrowing Probate Story

Synopsis of facts:

Benjamin Alfano lived at Raleigh Hills Assisted Living, where he was frequently visited by his granddaughter. He died in February 2011.

Twenty-seven months ago, Probate Judge Cobb dismissed the pleas of Alfano, his four doctors, four of his five children and Cobb’s own court visitor, and awarded control of the veteran’s life to Chris Farley, a professional guardian.

Alfano, a 72-year-old amputee with full benefits, would survive only another six months.
Farley moved the veteran out of the Raleigh Hills Assisted Living facility he loved and eventually into a locked-door dementia-care unit in Gresham, and strenuously isolated him from his children.

Alfano’s heart burst, literally, in February 2011, and he died at the VA Medical Center.

As Judy Bridges, the Raleigh Hills administrator, submitted in an affidavit, “I believe with all my heart that the move killed him.”

Alfano’s death devastated his five children, four of whom retained Portland attorney Michelle Burrows to initiate a federal civil-rights suit against Farley, Pagnano and individuals at ODVA.

Of the $407,000 parked in the account when Farley was appointed guardian in 2010, only $220,000 remains.

And that includes another $44,000 that Alfano received in pension and Social Security before he died.

Where did all the money go?

ODVA “disbursed” $26,784 to Farley and another $27,643 to her attorney, Sibylle Baer.

Pagnano the GAL received $19,022.

D. Kevin Carlson, the assistant attorney general at ODVA, received $25,143.

J. Kevin Shuba — the lawyer representing Alfano’s four children — received $41,560.

But none of those payouts are as galling as Carlson’s suggestion, on behalf of Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, that Cobb must hold another $120,000 of the estate in reserve to defend ODVA and Farley against a potential federal suit.

Think about that.

Four of Ben Alfano’s children — Mary, Steven, David and Lisa –believe the conservator and guardian made decisions that contributed to their father’s “wrongful and untimely death.”

And Carlson wants to pit what’s left of their father’s estate against them.

None of those children plans to be in Guardianship court.

“She has never listened to anything we’ve said,” Steven Alfano notes.

“And we’re beaten down. Dad is dead. We lost him. And the health toll this has taken on Mary and me, especially, has been huge.”

They have, however, filed an objection.

Further degrading the estate, they argue, “would be both an injustice and simply ethically wrong in any code of conduct.”

— Steve Duin is an Oregon reporter on this story

***End of Story****

Does this sound familiar? Haunting echoes of the Illinois Probate court?

I wonder

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.

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

Posted on February 20, 2013 by Joanne M Denison

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can someone please explain all of this to me?

thanks

joanne

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

Posted on February 20, 2013 by Joanne M Denison

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

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

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

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

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

Inquiring minds want to know.

Check out his full bio with a picture at:

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

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

Really. Who would have thought.

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

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

Who gets better First Amendment Speech protection–Children, trash video games or lawyers and the ARDC?

Posted on February 20, 2013 by Joanne M Denison

And exactly what most recently has the US Supreme Court said about the First Amendment.

Inquiring minds want to know. Is the ARDC right? Has the First Amendment been removed from the US Constitution with the passage of the Patriot Act, HIPPA, Obama Health Care, etc.?

Guess not Virginia, please read on:

Brown v. Entertainment Merchants:
No. 08–1448. | Argued Nov. 2, 2010. | Decided June 27, 2011.
Synopsis
Background: Associations of companies that create, publish, distribute, sell and/or rent video games brought declaratory judgment against state under the First and Fourteenth Amendments seeking to invalidate newly-enacted law imposing restrictions and labeling requirements on the sale or rental of “violent video games” to minors. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Ronald M. Whyte, J., 2007 WL 2261546, granted associations’ motion for summary judgment, permanently enjoining enforcement of the law. State appealed.

Holdings: The Supreme Court, Justice Scalia, held that:
[1] video games qualify for First Amendment protection;
[2] while there are limited exceptions to prohibition against content-based governmental restrictions on expression, for obscenity, incitement and fighting words, new categories of unprotected speech may not be added; and
[3] California failed to satisfy burden of showing either that the law was justified by compelling government interest, or that law, which was both over-and underinclusive, was narrowly drawn to serve that interest.

[Looky here–video games are protected by the First Amendment–but NOT the blogs of lawyers? Hmm. Interesting]

While the Free Speech Clause exists principally to protect discourse on public matters, it is difficult to distinguish politics from entertainment, and dangerous to try.

Under the Constitution, aesthetic and moral judgments about art and literature are for individual to make, not for government to decree, even with mandate or approval of majority.

Whatever the challenges of applying the Constitution to ever-advancing technology, basic principles of freedom of speech and press, like the First Amendment’s command, do not vary when new and different medium for communication appears.

As general matter, government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content

[And when the government does, we will have truly arrived at a police state no better than Burma (Mayanmar)]

While there are limited exceptions to prohibition against content-based governmental restrictions on expression, for obscenity, incitement and fighting words, new categories of unprotected speech may not be added to the list by legislature which concludes that certain speech is too harmful to be tolerated

Without persuasive evidence that novel restriction on content is part of long, if heretofore unrecognized, tradition of proscription, legislature may not revise judgment of the American people, embodied in First Amendment, that the benefits of the Amendment’s restrictions on government outweigh the costs

Minors are entitled to significant measure of First Amendment protection, and only in relatively narrow and well-defined circumstances may government bar public dissemination of protected materials to them.

[Great–even children get better protections under the First Amendment than lawyers? Get out my toddler dress! I have dolls in my office, really, does that count?]

[oh oh, I think this was written for the ARDC]

Disgust is not valid basis for restricting expression.

California law prohibiting the sale or rental of “violent video games” to minors, as restriction upon content of protected speech, was invalid under the First Amendment unless California could demonstrate that it passed strict scrutiny, i.e., that the law was justified by compelling government interest and was narrowly drawn to serve that interest; state had to specifically identify an actual problem in need of solving, and the curtailment of free speech had to be actually necessary to the solution.

[my comment: does that mean that the ARDC must first come up with an actual problem in need of solving with my speech before it can prohibit it? Exactly what would that problem be? I am annoying? Irreverent? I can’t say I’m shocking compared with Dishnetwork or Cable TV–that’s a whole other level, I’m sure]

It is rare that a regulation restricting speech because of its content will ever be permissible under the First Amendment.

[Has the ARDC reallio trulio found that elusive rare occurrence to control the content of my speech?]

On First Amendment challenge to California law that restricted speech based on its content, by prohibiting the sale or rental of “violent video games” to minors, California failed to satisfy burden of showing either that the law was justified by compelling government interest, given lack of evidence of any direct causal relationship, as opposed to correlation, between exposure to violent video games and violence by minors, or that law, which was both over-and underinclusive, was narrowly drawn to serve that interest.

[I’m still trying to figure out what, if anything, the ARDC can control or what problem might be solved by controlling the content of my speech on a blog that is regarding corruption in the Illinois courts? It has been made very elusive to me. Further, exactly what did attorney Ken Ditkowsky do by deserving a “misconduct” finding by the ARDC hearing panel when all he did was engage primarily in first amendment protected speech? Did he betray a client confidence? Did he steal money? Did he forget to go to court? Write a brief or pleading for a client? WHAT DID HE DO? Oh, that’s right, he wrote a letter trying to investigate a PROBATE CASE that appeared to be corrupt. Then, he talked about corruption on MY BLOG. Seems protected to me, according to this case.
What right does the ARDC have to discipline either myself or him for any of that?
I am disgusted by all of this.]

The most basic principle—that government lacks the power to restrict expression because of its message, ideas, subject matter, or content, Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U.S. 564, 573, 122 S.Ct. 1700, 152 L.Ed.2d 771—is subject to a few limited exceptions for historically unprotected speech, such as obscenity, incitement, and fighting words. But a legislature cannot create new categories of unprotected speech simply by weighing the value of a particular category against its social costs and then punishing it if it fails the test.

[Why does not the ARDC understand “the most basic principle” of content based speech. Inquiring minds want to know.]

Because the Act imposes a restriction on the content of protected speech, it is invalid unless California can demonstrate that it passes strict scrutiny, i.e., it is justified by a compelling government interest and is narrowly drawn to serve that interest.

***** end of case quotes.****

This case then launches into a very long and detailed history of obscenity, regulating the content of speech and ends with the proposition that the state has almost no interest in regulating speech. I am sure you can google the case to see the entire case on the internet.

It’s a great case–full of great quotes, and thank you Attorney Ditkowsky for bringing this to my attention.

I never thought I would have to read all of these first amendment cases to protect myself, and more particularly, to protect myself from the likes of the ARDC.

I think it’s pretty scary that ARDC attys Jerome Larkin (the “administrator”), Sharon Opryszek and Jessica Haspel file such trash when they should know that my speech is protected.

Unless they support the proposition that children have better first amendment rights that lawyers.

That is the proposition they are supporting, correct?

In any case, I have a “pretrial” conference with the ARDC tomorrow.

I will let you know how it goes.

I am a lawyer blogger and I TELL THE TRUTH. For too long, the courts, the ARDC and your (crazy) lawyer have operated in secrecy. Those days are over.

I struggle every day. I try to help clients that are poor in horrible situations. I try to do it and not beg for money. But it seems every day now is a day I beg for money. For clients to pay a small portion of their bill.

It’s hard, it’s tiring. I have no idea what happens tomorrow.

I am dedicated to telling you all the truth.

I am dedicated to helping those in legal need and I try not to turn people away.

I have not totally figured out how to do this every day, but what there is that holds me up is faith.

So my question today to you all is, SCOTUS has decided that children have a ton of first Amendment rights to play video games–you know the ones advertised on the side of buses in Chicago that allow you to gain points (stolen money), hold up a 7 – 11, then go to the alley, rape and beat up a hooker (come on, you KNOW the name of this game), shoot cops and kill them for more points, but lawyers can’t run a blog speaking out against corruption in the state courts of Illinois?

Can someone PLEASE explain this to me?

And Ken, if you have no idea what game I am referring to, I will explain it to you someday when you are old enough.

Funding to Help Lawyers fight Corruption in the Courts–go to the big guns!

Posted on February 19, 2013 by Joanne M Denison

While the internet continues to burn with dozens–if not hundreds– of websites dedicated full to fighting corruption and the probate blogs report daily on all sorts of nefarious activities by judges and attorneys acting badly, and I am completely stressed out and worn out fighting this from both fronts–the ARDC and those who want relief from me and assistance because they were clearly, patently and obviously burned in probate court, someone has a great idea–get some funding. Get me and the other lawyers fighting this some assistance.

I have to pay bills and rent, I have to pay my associates, I run so low so many months, I wonder how I can do it, but I keep on plugging along. Why? Because I think the courts should be fair and just. I think seniors and the disabled should be protected and I think the internet should be free and everyone can speak out. That’s why.

Please help support this effort and see if you can’t get us do-gooder attorneys the help we need.

Read on below.

Thank you for the information.

The corruption issue in Illinois has risen to extreme levels in reference to court sanctioned elder abuse/financial exploitation of the elderly. The blatant attempt to silence attorneys so that they do not complain about the illegal deprivation of senior citizen’s liberty and property rights is disingenuous and per se corrupt. How can any intelligent person justify the facts that are disclosed in the Sykes case and the attornment thereto of Farenga, Stern, Schmiedel and the judges who rubber stamped the orders presented by the three. The conduct reported to have been demonstrated by Miriam Solo is so outrageous that ****.

How does this occur in the United States of America.

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

From: (email addresses redacted)
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 12:14 PM
Subject: Shelton – partial action plan

Please feel free to forward this to anyone not on above email list that I missed or you think it should go to.

I sent the following letter the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation asking them to fund investigations of and exposure of corruption in the court system.

You all may want to start writing such letters. I have included a list of the foundations with the most funds that you may want to write and all sorts of civil rights organizations that I have not finished investigating.

I am also writing law school Deans, law school professors with specific expertise and I am trying to find the address to law school student organization presidents to write them to see if we can make presentations at their schools and ask for their assistance in our activism and to inform them of the issues.

I don’t think anything will change until the justice department is under pressure from class action suits asking for prospective injunctions to correct constitutional and statutory violations. This won’t happen until foundations, the press, pro bono sections of huge well-known law firms and legislators, are flooded with letters from the public asking them to act and publicize these problems. This won’t happen until we have a grass roots base of students and activists helping us put on this pressure.

Anyone who wishes to help me produce a master list of the above contacts please contact me.

Linda Shelton

________________________________________________________________________

Linda Lorincz Shelton, Ph.D., M.D.

9905 S. Kilbourn Ave.

Oak Lawn, IL 60453-3539 U.S.A.

Home phone/fax (call first) 708 952-9040

Cell phone 708 952-0040

February 16, 2013

Board of Directors

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

500 Fifth Avenue North
Seattle, WA 98109

Dear Board of Directors:

I am writing to suggest that you consider a very important new area of philanthropy that has been sorely neglected. I am also asking for your help in disseminating this information to other foundations who might be interested in these issues. I am a disabled individual, with no talent in business, financial issues, or advertising who has provided pro bono assistance to others despite my inability to assure my needs as I age. I am hoping that some group of philanthropists will consider the following and I will see the fruits of their efforts before I die.

As a physician, civil rights activists, paralegal, and victim of government corruption, I believe I have some insight in the areas that I would appreciate your considering for philanthropic endeavors. I have assisted people in family courts, probate courts, criminal courts, and civil rights courts. In the U.S., we have 5% of the world’s population but 25% of the world’s prisoners. We have become an incarceration nation and this is negatively affecting our productivity and economy, our children and their future, as well as our morality and priorities. When non-violent persons who have made minor mistakes, are innocent, or have made poor choices are penalized with excessive pretrial detention, wrongful or rightful excessive sentences, outrageous post-conviction and post-incarceration social penalties, our whole society suffers. I believe our prison/jail/industrial complex has a much larger negative effect on our economy and social fabric than people realize.

Presently in the U.S., prosecutors have 10 times the budget that defense attorneys receive. Pro bono services provide less than 20% of the need for legal services for the poor, according to the Legal Service Corporation, headed by John Levi, son of Attorney General Levi, under President Ford. This leads to the majority of persons charged with misdemeanors to plea bargain under pressure even if innocent and at least 7 % of defendants are known to be innocent. It leads to huge numbers of wrongful incarcerations, large need for social services for families that are broken up by excessive or wrongful incarceration, failure to provide rehabilitation, children losing their parents, resolving door incarceration, increase in crime, and general moral degradation of our society.

The legal system should be a foundation for society, encouraging mediation, encouraging charity and moral human relationships, paving a way for cooperation and community involvement, and providing a path for self-redemption and then useful contributions to society by a higher proportion of our society. However, presently American Justice is a MYTH!

Please speak with John Levi of the Legal Service Corporation and you will find that the situation is deteriorating and is a crisis in America. If we cannot be leaders in terms of justice in the world, then how can we lead the way in developing countries and in the Arab Spring for others to develop their legal systems to benefit society? China and many expanding and developing countries have very poor legal systems and need to be able to look at our legal system as a shining example to emulate.

I would very much like to talk to you about all this, especially about how our family courts are through felony funding fraud misusing billions of dollars of government funds to line the pockets of corrupt officials, divert family funds to court-appointed attorneys and counselors or evaluators, and actually steal children’s’ college funds and elderly estates causing the elderly, who have funds, to be placed in very poor nursing home facilities while non-relative court-appointed guardians steal their estates through unnecessary fees, and teaching children that families don’t matter and that they should feel entitled.

Please help be a leader in this area. I am available with a group of others I am networking with to speak to you about these matters and share some of the information we have found through diligent use of 100s of FOIA requests and pro bono investigations, paralegal work, and empathy with the many who are suffering from this Myth of American Justice.

I thank you for consideration of my letter. I am asking that you consider ways to:

1) increase the parity between defense attorneys and prosecutors, as well as increase access to our courts for the poor and for all those who wish to exercise their right to remedy under the First Amendment,

2) require judges and lawyers to have greater education similar to doctors who must be certified in specialties after completing residencies,

3) to increase training requirements for officers and prison/jail guards and probation/parole officers,

4) to reduce excessive sentencing and promote restorative justice,

5) to take the profit motive out of the prison/industrial complex and convert it to a professional organization,

6) to root out corruption in the courts among judges and lawyers as well as develop more non-lawyer oversight in our legal system,

7) to educate the public about our prison/industrial complex and its negative effect on our economy and morality,

8) to take the profiteering out of the family and probate court system and make sure decisions on custody and guardianship are made not based on hearsay, but based on facts obtained in due process hearings, and

9) to promote a high level government review of our justice system and reforms to make it transparent, fair, and family oriented.

Most Sincerely and Prayerfully,

Linda Lorincz Shelton, PhD, MD

_______________________

Bill of Rights Defense Committee
8 Bridge Street, Suite A, Northampton, MA 01060
www.bordc.org
info@bordc.org
Telephone: 413-582-0110
Fax: 413-582-0116

_________________________________

Civil Rights Organizations

Links to advocacy and civil rights organizations.

Alliance for Justice

The Alliance for Justice is a national association of environmental, civil rights, mental health, women’s, children’s and consumer advocacy organizations.

American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee

ADC, the national association of Arab Americans, is a grassroots civil rights organization that works in every sphere of public life to promote and defend the rights of the Arab American community.

Citizens’ Commission on Civil Rights

The Citizens’ Commission on Civil Rights is committed to the revitalization of a progressive civil rights agenda at the national level. Its work is grounded in the belief that such an agenda benefits the entire country, not just particular interest groups.

Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)

CAIR is dedicated to presenting an Islamic perspective on issues of importance to the American public. In offering that perspective, we seek to empower the Muslim community in America through political and social activism.

Equal Justice Network

Its mission is to strengthen and expand the provision of civil legal assistance to low-income people through the collaborative efforts of a community of advocates that includes legal services programs, the private bar, social service and community organizations, law schools, courts, advocacy groups at the state and national levels, and poor people as advocates for themselves.

Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights Under Law

The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, was formed in 1963 at the request of President John F. Kennedy to involve the private bar in providing legal services to address racial discrimination. The Committee’s major objective is to use the skills and resources of the bar to obtain equal opportunity for minorities by addressing factors that contribute to racial justice and economic opportunity. Given our nation’s history of racial discrimination, de jure segregation, and the de facto inequities that persist, the Lawyers’ Committee’s primary focus is to represent the interest of African Americans in particular, other racial and ethnic minorities, and other victims of discrimination, where doing so can help to secure justice for all racial and ethnic minorities.

Leadership Conference on Civil Rights/Leadership Conference Education Fund

Civilrights.org’s mission is to empower the civil rights community to lead the fight for equality and social justice in the emerging digital society through the establishment of an online social justice network. Civilrights.org leverages communications technologies to create an online society committed to the continued pursuit of equality and fostering greater understanding and mutual respect for difference.

Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund

MALDEF’s mission is to foster sound public policies, laws and programs to safeguard the civil rights of the 35 million Latinos living in the United States and to empower the Latino community to fully participate in our society.

NAACP

The primary focus of the NAACP continues to be the protection and enhancement of the civil rights of African Americans and other minorities. Membership, the lifeblood of the Association, is open to anyone believing in the basic tenets of the NAACP.

NAACP Legal Defense Fund

For more than half a century, LDF has used the law as a powerful tool to pry open doors of opportunity long closed to African Americans, other people of color, women, and the poor.

National Action Network

The National Action Network (NAN), founded in 1991 by Rev. Al Sharpton, is a civil rights organization whose mission is to be the voice of empowerment for the disenfranchised throughout America. NAN offers a committed national advocacy network of activists, volunteers and religious leaders guided by the non-violent civil protest doctrines of Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., that speak against racism, bigotry and bias.

National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium

NAPALC works to advance the legal and civil rights of Asian Pacific Americans through litigation, public education and public policy.

National Association of Protection & Advocacy Systems

NAPAS, the voluntary national membership association of protection and advocacy systems and client assistance programs, assumes leadership in promoting and strengthening the role and performance of its members in providing quality legally based advocacy services.

National Civic League

The National Civic League (NCL) is a 107-year-old non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to strengthening citizen democracy by transforming democratic institutions.

National Council of La Raza

The National Council of La Raza (NCLR) is a private, nonprofit, nonpartisan, tax-exempt organization established in 1968 to reduce poverty and discrimination, and improve life opportunities for Hispanic Americans.

National Women’s Law Center

The National Women’s Law Center has worked since its inception in 1972 to protect and advance the progress of women and girls at work, in school, and in virtually every aspect of their lives. The Center brings to its work extensive subject expertise in the major areas of family economic security, health, employment and education. The Center uses a variety of tools to maximize its impact in bringing women’s concerns to public policy makers, advocates and the public, including public policy research, monitoring and analysis; litigation, advocacy and coalition-building; and public education.

Native American Rights Fund

The Native American Rights Fund mission is the preservation of tribal existence, the protection of tribal natural resources, the promotion of human rights, the accountability of governments, the development of Indian law and educating the public about Indian rights, laws, and issues.

Rainbow/PUSH Coalition

The National Rainbow/PUSH Coalition (RPC) is a multiracial, multi-issue, international membership organization founded by Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, Sr. We’re working to move the nation and the world toward social, racial and economic justice. From our national headquarters in Chicago and a bureau in Washington, D.C., we’re uniting people of diverse ethnic, religious, economic and political backgrounds to make America’s promise of “liberty and justice for all” a reality.

The Urban Institute

The Urban Institute is a non-profit, nonpartisan policy research and educational organization established to examine the social, economic, and governance problems facing the nation.

_______________________________

Rank	Organization	Country	Headquarters	Endowment ($USD)	Endowment (native currency)	Founded	References
1	Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation	United States	Seattle, Washington	$37.4 billion		1994	^[1]
2	Stichting INGKA Foundation	Netherlands	Leiden, Netherlands	$36.0 billion		1982	^[2]
3	Wellcome Trust	United Kingdom	London	$22.1 billion	£14.2 billion (GBP)	1936	^[3]
4	Howard Hughes Medical Institute	United States	Chevy Chase, Maryland	$16.1 billion		1953	^[4]
5	Ford Foundation	United States	New York City, New York	$10.3 billion		1936	^[1]
6	Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum Foundation	United Arab Emirates	Dubai	$10.0 billion	$36.7 billion (AED)	2007	^[5]
7	J. Paul Getty Trust	United States	Los Angeles, California	$9.6 billion		1982	^[1]
8	Robert Wood Johnson Foundation	United States	Princeton, New Jersey	$9.2 billion		1972	^[1]
9	Li Ka Shing Foundation	Hong Kong	Hong Kong	$8.3 billion	$64.4 billion (HKD)	1980	^[6]
10	The Church Commissioners for England	United Kingdom	London	$8.1 billion	£5.2 billion (GBP)	1948	^[7]
11	W.K. Kellogg Foundation	United States	Battle Creek, Michigan	$7.7 billion		1930	^[1]
12	William and Flora Hewlett Foundation	United States	Menlo Park, California	$7.4 billion		1967	^[1]
13	Kamehameha Schools	United States	Honolulu, Hawaii	$7.3 billion		1887	^[1]
14	Robert Bosch Foundation	Germany	Stuttgart	$6.9 billion	€4.5 billion (EUR)	1964	^[8]
15	Garfield Weston Foundation	United Kingdom	London	$6.5 billion	£4.2 billion (GBP)	1958	^[9]
16	David and Lucile Packard Foundation	United States	Los Altos, California	$6.1 billion		1964	^[1]
17	John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation	United States	Chicago, Illinois	$5.7 billion		1975	^[1]
18	The Pew Charitable Trusts	United States	Philadelphia, Pennsylvania	$5.594 billion		1948	^[10]
19	Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation	United States	Palo Alto, California	$5.585 billion		2000	^[1]
20	Andrew W. Mellon Foundation	United States	New York City, New York	$5.5 billion		1969	^[1]
21	Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation	Sweden	Stockholm	$5.3 billion	kr 32.7 billion (SEK)	1917	^[11]
22	Lilly Endowment	United States	Indianapolis, Indiana	$5.2 billion		1937	^[1]
23	The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust	United States	New York City, New York	$4.1 billion		1999	^[1]
24	Tulsa Community Foundation	United States	Tulsa, Oklahoma	$4.0 billion		1998	^[1]
25	The California Endowment	United States	Los Angeles	$3.7 billion		1996	^[1]
26	Rockefeller Foundation	United States	New York City, New York	$3.6 billion		1913	^[1]
27	Realdania	Denmark	Copenhagen	$3.5 billion	€2.8 billion (EUR)	2000	^[12]
27	Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation	Portugal	Lisbon	$3.5 billion	€2.8 billion (EUR)	1956	^[13]
29	The Kresge Foundation

_________________________________

History

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and its Equal Protection Clause provides Equal justice under law. Beginning in the late 1800s and throughout the early years of the 20th century, the American legal profession expressed its commitment to the concept of free legal assistance for poor people in the form of legal aid societies and bar association legal aid committees.

The first legal aid society, The German Society of New York, was founded in 1876 to protect German immigrants from exploitation. Subsequently, the agency’s protection was extended to others and in 1890 it became the Legal Aid Society of New York.^[4] In 1888, the Ethical Culture Society of Chicago established by the Bureau of Justice was the first agency to offer legal assistance to individuals regardless of nationality, race or gender. Other municipalities followed suit, and in the first decades of the 20th century most major cities had opened legal aid societies.^[5]

In 1911, legal aid societies joined together to form the National Alliance of Legal Aid Societies. Arthur von Briesen of the Legal Aid Society of New York was the first president of the organization that became the National Legal Aid & Defender Association (NLADA) in 1949.^[6]

The concept of free legal assistance for the poor was promoted by the publication of Reginald Heber Smith’s Justice and the Poor in 1919. Smith challenged the legal profession to consider it an obligation to see that access to justice was available to all, without regard to ability to pay. “Without equal access to the law,” he wrote, “the system not only robs the poor of their only protection, but places in the hands of their oppressors the most powerful and ruthless weapon ever invented.^[7]

As a result of Smith’s book, the American Bar Association created the Special Committee on Legal Aid Work. By the middle of the 20th century, virtually every major metropolitan area had some kind of legal aid program. However, the system established was not suffice in meeting the needs of the poor and in the early 1960s a new model for legal services programs emerged. This new model was based on the philosophy that legal services should be a component of an overall anti-poverty effort. The Ford Foundation was one of the original supporters of this model.

Subsequently, in 1964 came the passage of the Economic Opportunity Act, which launched the war on poverty and mandated federal funds to be allocated for the first time to fund legal services to the poor. However, this law did not specifically provide for legal services and it took many years and attempts to finally devise a federal construct to support legal aid for the low-income community. After years of research and advocacy, the Legal Services Corporation Act was enacted in 1974 by President Richard Nixon. This program flourished and has evolved over the years to become the organization nationally recognized as the Legal Services Corporation.

Over the years legal aid has evolved into a comprehensive program that provides legal assistance to low-income people regardless of race, ethnicity or gender. NLADA is the only national membership organization devoted exclusively to ensuring legal representation for individuals who cannot afford an attorney.

NLADA serves the equal justice community in two major ways: providing products and services and as a national voice in public policy and legislative debates on the many issues affecting the equal justice community. NLADA also serves as a resource for those seeking more information on equal justice in the United States.

[edit] Civil legal aid

Civil legal aid refers to the free legal services provided by thousands of attorneys who work through local legal aid offices to help millions of low-income people gain access to justice.

Civil legal aid helps low-income people resolve urgent, non-criminal legal problems that make a difference in their everyday lives, such as protecting the elderly from unlawful evictions, making sure women and children are protected from violence in their homes, and helping veterans receive the financial benefits they have earned and need.

[edit] Funding of civil legal aid

Civil legal aid programs are state-based or community-based organizations funded in a variety of ways. Some receive grants from the United States Congress each year through the Legal Services Corporation (LSC). The LSC is a private, nonprofit organization established by Congress to ensure equal access to justice under the law by providing legal assistance in civil (non-criminal) matters to low-income individuals.

Most federally funded civil legal aid programs also receive support from other sources, including individual donors, foundations, businesses, United Way contributions, state bar foundations and state and local governments.

Many civil legal aid programs do not receive any federal funds and are completely reliant on private donations and state and local government funding.

Many programs now rely on funds provided through Interest on lawyer trust accounts (IOLTA). These accounts are funded through interest accrued on legal trust accounts, which consist of legal fees placed in escrow.

Even IOLTA funds are not safe from legal aid opponents, who have argued that the accounts are not voluntary, opt-in programs for legal clients. They have used this argument as the basis of legal challenges to IOLTA. If these challenges are successful, millions of dollars in funding will be taken away from legal aid programs across the country.

[edit] Client group

Clients of civil legal aid represent the diversity that is America — encompassing all races, ethnic groups and ages, ranging from veterans and family farmers to the urban low-wage workers and victims of natural disasters.

Civil legal aid attorneys handle millions of cases each year, helping the more than 40 million people in this country living at or below the poverty level. Federal funds are used in approximately 1.5 million of these cases.

More than two-thirds of civil legal aid clients are women, and most of them are mothers. Because of this, the legal problems of people living in poverty can have serious implications for children.

In 1996, civil legal aid programs across the country handled more than 50,000 cases in which the primary issue was protection from domestic abuse and violence.

[edit] Need

Despite relatively prosperous times, more than 35 million Americans are still living below the poverty level, and another 10 million have incomes that are less than 25 percent higher than that level. As a result, roughly one in five U.S. citizens is eligible for federally funded legal services.

The need for legal services among the poor is overwhelming. According to a 1994 study conducted by the American Bar Association, at least 40 percent of low- and moderate-income households experience a legal problem each year.

Most low- and moderate-income people feel shut out from the legal system. They do not turn to the courts for solutions because they believe the system will not help them.

Civil legal aid ensures justice for all Americans, regardless of their income. Many people would otherwise not be able to afford access to the courts to resolve their legal troubles.

The American Bar Association has estimated that despite serving 1.9 million clients in 1997, the collective civil legal aid effort is meeting only about 20 percent of the legal needs of low-income people.

__________________________________________

Fact Sheet on the Legal Services Corporation

What is the Legal Services Corporation?

LSC is the single largest funder of civil legal aid for low-income Americans in the nation. Established in 1974, LSC operates as an independent 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation that promotes equal access to justice and provides grants for high-quality civil legal assistance to low-income Americans. LSC distributes more than 90 percent of its total funding to 134 independent nonprofit legal aid programs with more than 800 offices.

LSC promotes equal access to justice by awarding grants to legal services providers through a competitive grants process; conducting compliance reviews and program visits to oversee program quality and compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements as well as restrictions that accompany LSC funding, and by providing training and technical assistance to programs. LSC encourages programs to leverage limited resources by partnering and collaborating with other funders of civil legal aid, including state and local governments, Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Accounts (IOLTA), access to justice commissions, the private bar, philanthropic foundations, and the business community.

The Corporation is headed by a bipartisan board of directors whose 11 members are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

Who is helped by LSC-funded programs?

LSC-funded programs help people who live in households with annual incomes at or below 125% of the federal poverty guidelines – in 2012, $13,963 for an individual, $28,813 for a family of four. Clients come from every ethnic group and every age group and live in rural, suburban, and urban areas. They are the working poor, veterans, homeowners and renters, families with children, farmers, people with disabilities, and the elderly. Women—many of whom are struggling to keep their children safe and their families together—comprise 70 percent of clients.

What kinds of legal issues do low-income people need help with?

Legal assistance is necessary to address many issues that affect low-income individuals and families. The most frequent cases involve:

Family law: LSC grantees help victims of domestic violence by obtaining protective and restraining orders, help parents obtain and keep custody of their children, assist family members in obtaining guardianship for children without parents, and other family law matters. More than a third of all cases closed by local LSC programs are family law cases.
Housing and Foreclosure Cases: As the second largest category of all cases closed, these matters involve helping to resolve landlord-tenant disputes, helping homeowners prevent foreclosures or renegotiate their loans, assisting renters with eviction notices whose landlords are being foreclosed on, and helping people maintain federal housing subsidies when appropriate.
Consumer Issues: Nearly twelve percent of cases involve protecting the elderly and other vulnerable groups from being victimized by unscrupulous lenders, helping people file for bankruptcy when appropriate and helping people manage their debts.
Income Maintenance: More than 12 percent of cases involve helping working Americans obtain promised compensation from private employers, helping people obtain and retain government benefits such as disability benefits to which they are entitled.
Helping Military Families: StatesideLegal.org—the first website in the nation to focus exclusively on federal legal rights and legal resources important to veterans – is funded by an LSC Technology Initiatives Grant. This free service enables military families and veterans to access a wide array of legal information and assistance. The Department of Veterans Affairs, in a directive, encourages use of the website in connection with service to homeless veterans.
Responding to Disasters: LSC has a long history with helping victims of natural disasters. LSC has built a national network of experience and expertise—including legal services providers and national organizations such as the American Red Cross and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)—to help programs better serve victims when disasters strike.

How is assistance provided?

Legal aid programs provide extensive representation in individual cases when required, but they also provide:

Clinics, often staffed by pro bono attorneys, where legal problems can be identified and addressed on-site or scheduled for additional assistance if needed;
Advice and self-help materials (delivered via workshops, telephone help lines, online chat tools, downloadable court forms, etc.) that help people understand their rights and responsibilities, when legal assistance may be needed and where to find it, and get assistance with self-representation when necessary; and
Referrals to other social services as appropriate.

How many are helped?

LSC-funded programs helped approximately 2.3 million people in 2011. However, demand for legal aid far outstrips the resources available. This is known as the “justice gap.” Recent studies indicate that legal aid offices turn away 50 percent or more of those seeking help. The size of the population eligible for legal assistance has increased dramatically from 2007. The U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 statistics on poverty show that nearly one in five—60 million Americans—qualified for civil legal assistance funded by LSC.

ILLINOIS RESOURCES FUNDED BY LSC

Illinois

LAF (Legal Assistance Foundation of Metropolitan Chicago)
Program Phone: (312) 341-1070
Legal Assistance: (312) 341-1070
http://www.lafchicago.org/

They are so overwhelmed by numbers that you should call between 8-10 am to have a chance to get a call back – so many people call that they fail to return 80 % or more of the calls.

Land of Lincoln Legal Assistance Foundation, Inc.
Program Phone: (618) 398-0574
Legal Assistance: (618) 462-0036
http://www.lollaf.org/

Prairie State Legal Services, Inc.
Program Phone: (815) 965-2134
Legal Assistance: (815) 965-2134
http://www.pslegal.org/

_________________________________________

The following 47 pages are in this category, out of 47 total. This list may not reflect recent changes (learn more).

8

8th Day Center for Justice

A

B

C

C cont.

D

Delta Ministry

E

F

G

L

M

N

National African American Leadership Summit

N cont.

P

R

Rainbow/PUSH

S

_______________________________________

The following 33 pages are in this category, out of 33 total. This list may not reflect recent changes (learn more).

A

Association Electronique Libre

B

C

D

D cont.

Digitalcourage

E

F

G

H

Hungarian Civil Liberties Union

I

J

Japan Civil Liberties Union

L

Liberty (pressure group)

O

Open Rights Group

P

People’s Union for Civil Liberties

R

Rosa Parks Feminist Movement for Civil Rights

S

W

Yet another Motion to Dismiss filed for Lack of Jurisdiction filed

Posted on February 19, 2013 by Joanne M Denison

This time again in Rockford.

First there was Wyman, now there is Spera. Thank you Dominic for coming forward finally and contacting me about your case.

Dominic Spera’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Summons and Complaint)

And, as always, if you are in a probate case where you are questioning jurisdiction, use the forms on this website and do not hesitate to contact a lawyer to make sure the proper notices were served in a timely fashion (14 days prior to any notice on a hearing on guardianship, all adult children, parents and siblings must be informed of the time, date and place of hearing)

And while Nero fiddles–Rome is burning

Posted on February 17, 2013 by Joanne M Denison

Dear readers,

As you are all aware, for some reason my opposing counsel at the ARDC that have filed a complaint against me merely for BLOGGING, of all things, then motioned to have my attorney disqualified (bogus), seem to think it is perfectly okay for the ARDC to hound, harass, persecute and parriahcize me.

I think the only thing going on is I am just one more poster child for corruption among the courts, attorneys and judges in the US.

We have already learned that the Judicial Inquiry Board has not filed a single recommendation to discipline a judge in Cook County for YEARS due to infighting, and we KNOW there are plenty of judges acting badly in court — and nothing is done.

I am hearing reports that judges ban laptops, cell phones–even pen and paper–for note taking–and all in our courts which are supposed to the public and free and the banner of a free country and free speech. A civil rights suit against all of this is in planning.

But who is carrying the banner for nationwide elimination of corruption? Bill Windsor and he is making substantial progress. Contact him thru his website if you want to make your particular record of injustice and corruption.

Lawless America goes nationwide after corruption in our nations courts

So while the ARDC is disciplining me for saying there is corruption, this completely ignores the fact that Google reports that corruption with the courts, judges and attorneys is rampant all over the internet, with thousands and thousands of stories and articles abound on the internet regarding attorneys, courts and judges acting badly.

Go write Attys Jerome Larkin, Atty Haskel and Atty (sp?) Ozysprey and let them know it is wrong on so many levels to go after me and atty Ditkowsky while Rome is burning. 1) I have the right under decades, if not 150 years of SCOTUS case law to speak my mind about corruption and the Illinois court system 2) they waste taxpayer money going after us instead of the miscreants–the judges and attorneys working without jurisdiction and 3) by telling me and atty Ditkowsky to shut up, they foster more injustice and corruption in the court system.

Please write the Administrator Jerome Larkin, Atty Haspel and Atty Opryszek and tell them that Ken and I have constitutional rights, we must be allowed to root out corruption in the court.

Honestly, I have no idea how to practice there when all this is going on. What do I tell clients? How can I practice in state court with all this going on? The ARDC has not explained that to any honest and ethical attorney out there. When I first entered practice and took my oath, the ARDC never sent me a disclaimer, “be careful what you wish for–the Illinois State Courts are full of corruption. Good luck in finding any justice there except on rare occasions.”

Well, I guess I’m publishing the disclaimer for them and they don’t like it.

Of course, thousands of other sites and just ask Bill Windsor from “Lawless America” if he finds the courts to be a slice of StonyBrook Farms.

Please support those who speak out against injustice in the court systems. Donate to and be a part of that cause.

The work I am doing now is extremely, extremely difficult and it leads to bar complaints when I just do my job–protecting the elderly and infirm–those that do not have a voice and cannot speak for themselves.

Cook County Court systems–is this a move toward “secret proceedings” and a police state?

Posted on February 14, 2013 by Joanne M Denison

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Feb 14, 2013 9:27 AM
To: matt senator kirk
Cc: Chicago Tribune , SUNTIMES , NASGA , probate sharks , Cook Sheriff , states attorney, probate blogs
Subject: Fw: Court watchers

In examining the e-mails that were recently sent to me, I noted this one and its attachments is most interesting. It fits very nicely into the category of the Son of Greylord. With Sykes, Gore, Tyler, Wyman as horrible examples of the plight of seniors and those individuals who fall into the clutches of some of the “judicial officials” who populate our Court system we appear to be affected by terminal cancer. [Most of the Judicial officials are good, decent, hardworking and caring individuals who take their positions seriously – however, a bunch of well connected miscreants have developed a ‘cottage industry’ that threatens our democracy]

That said, the documents attached allege that our ‘open Courtrooms’ and transparent (and open) legal proceedings are being less so. Viewing the attachments in the light of the Sykes case, and the Denison case if no action is taken we should order the funeral arrangements for the real victim – our Democracy!. It may be beating a dead horse, but the Denison case is particularly troubling as it is impossible that the ARDC is not aware of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and that no matter what JoAnne puts in her blog regarding corruption and unfairness in the court system they cannot stop her publishing it. 47 USCA 230 reiterates that Constitutional prohibition and the Supreme Court cases are legend – however, *****

Jumping forward we now have a new situation – proceedings in which ordinary people are not allowed to take notes so that they can record accurately what they saw and heard. We are getting very close to having ‘secret proceedings.’ I have sent you a copy of these documents as ‘we the ordinary citizens’ who are constituents of Senator Mark Kirk are concerned over what appears a runaway express train reasonably calculated to bring Soviet, Taliban, North Korean, Iranian justice to the United States.

In all candor – can you believe that the Sykes case is not a figment of someone deranged mind? can you believe the ARDC complaint brought against me? Can you believe the ARDC complaint brought against JoAnne? Can you believe that in the United States of America a spectator in a Courtroom can be barred from taking notes or a lawyer observing a case and not disrupting anyone told to close her computer? In the face of Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution this is indeed happening?

While in many parts of the world individual liberties are not important to the government, but in America each individuals personal liberties are extremely important. Or maybe from the responses that government has been making in relation to the anguish of seniors and her families being victimized by certain ‘judicial officials’ who the ARDC refuses to investigate (and repeated acts in derogation of 755 ILCS 5/11a -1 et seq and the Bill of Rights ) maybe our current government has adopted the Taliban credo.

On bended knee I am begging Senator Kirk and our elected representatives to demand that law enforcement do an honest, complete and comprehensive investigation of these very serious allegations. I personally would appreciate law enforcement finding out how any person can obtain a license to practice law in the State of Illinois and suggest that is unethical act for a lawyer writing or otherwise publishing a demand for his/her elected representative to investigate allegations that a 90 year old (plus) senior citizen was actively deprived of her civil rights. When the State of Illinois and the United STates of America are in fiscal crisis I would also appreciate knowing how investigations are justified of the complaining parties and not the alleged miscreants.

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

What do you do if you realize your case is pathetic? Inspirational Fash! Go after the attorney on the other side!

Posted on February 14, 2013 by Joanne M Denison

One of the things I have learned in the sleazy world of probate (and please, don’t write up another stupid paragraph about me saying it’s sleazy–just google sleazy probate and see what you get–dozens and dozens of websites–about 2 mil results in .2 secs!–and they’re not all mine, but they do seem to emanate from around the US.) is if you are being attacked by someone honest and with a good point–go for the attack on the tangent.

That is, if you don’t have the law, then pound the facts, if you don’t have the facts or law, then just pound the table.

A tried and true tactic of sleazy lawyers.

I have had cases when there was no jurisdiction, and I had to tell the client and the court we need to dismiss and nonsuit–as an officer of the court. I don’t want to bring liabiity on the state or the court and the judges and others that depend upon me to be honest

But what do I find in Illinois probate? Exactly the opposite. Judges and GAL’s that desperately and vehemently and even obnoxiously cling to jurisdiction that just isn’t there.

Let me say it again, Tyler, Sykes, Gore, Bedin, Spera and others.

These should have never, never happened. Attys and judges acting badly.

So, if you’ve decided to act badly, file bogus complaints against honest attoneys, what then do you do? Perhaps the authorities are noticing. The pubic is noticing and writing angry letters and they are mightily unhappy.

So how do you go about pounding the table and create a tear gas distraction, not just the red herring, but more of a pink and purple herring?

Go for the motion to Disqualify the person’s attorney! Yah! that will do it. Say the attorney will be a witness, there is a conflict, whatever it takes. Go for the down low and dirty.

see the following

Motion to Disqualify Atty Ken Ditkowsky with Response

You know, I see these a lot in Federal Court where the litigants have a lot of money to burn in litigation but the movant knows the motion is a loser. I see them once in a while in state court, and in the law division, they’re a total loser. But in probate from a litigant and not a GAL? Just another rubber stamp for the day

Remember, see my prior post on how in probate –justice only comes from a List the judge keeps on her desk. it is not contained in briefs or case law or stare decisis which is a ton of work to read all those (boring) cases.

I have no idea how the ARDC can promulgate this stuff for 83,000 lawyers at an annual fee of $450, but it’s a total waste. JMHO.

Keep on writing the ARDC for justice and allow lawyers to blog against corruption in the courts. Write the Director, Atty Jerome Larkin or fax him at 312-565-2320. One prudential Plaza, 130 E Randolph Dr, #1500, Chicago, IL 60601.

Let’s keep this country what the founding fathers and mothers wanted (well, at least the fathers, the mothers wanted equal rights and the vote and that took another 150 years or so).

joanne

Response to ARDC–don’t let them sleep, don’t let them rest until Mary Sykes and Carol Wyman are back in their own homes!

Posted on February 12, 2013 by Joanne M Denison

Mary Sykes wants to go home and live in her own home. So does Carol Wyman. But the State of Illinois sponsors the senior relocation program to another place and sells the home they have loved and wanted to live in until they die–all under a program called “guardianship without jurisdiction.”

The ARDC looks the other way, a source tells me the JIB (Judicial Inquiry Board) is worthless and hopeless.

So what do Ken and I do? We rally! That’s right, when the going gets tough, the tough get going.

Read on and enjoy.

LawOffices
KENNETH DITKOWSKY
February 12,2013
Ms. Myrra B. Guzman
Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Conunission
130 East Randolph Drive, Suite 1500
Chicago, IL 60601-6219
Re: Honest, Complete, and Comprehensive Investigation
Dear Ms. Guzman;
Thank for your letter of February 11,2013.
5940 W. Touhy, Suite 230
Niles, IL 60714
(847) 600-3421 Telephone
(847) 600-3425 Fax
Email: kenditkowsky@yahoo.com
The content of the letter surprises me as quite obviously at this point in time the ARDC knows that for the past 3+ years a senior citizen has been denied her liberty, property, civil and human rights by proceedings that were in direct violation of the law. As a ‘senior attorney’ for the ARDC, you, Ms. Black and the Administrator were all aware ofthe Illinois Supreme Court statement;
“The court acquires jurisdiction over the allegedly disabled person by personal service upon him of a copy of the petition and sununons not less than 14 days before the hearing. (11 1. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 11O~, par. 11 a-lO( 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. 110, par. 11 a-I O(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).
I trust that at this point in time the Administrator has examined the Court file in Sykes and discovered that Ms. Gloria Sykes and her two aunts (all of whom were entitled to 14-days notice) never received the notices and in fact they were not included in the petition to which in fact severed Mary Sykes from her liberty and property interests. It
therefore follows that the actions and conduct of Ms. Cynthia Farenga, Mr. Adam Stern, Mr. Peter Schmiedel and a host of other lawyers is not only questionable but might be criminal.
I note the ARDC is quick, without a scintilla of evidence to aver that the messenger is lying; however, when the transcript of Ms. Farenga’s testimony is written and exposed to clear light of daylight it will be again revealed that she testified that she was not present when Carolyn Toerpe had Ms. Sykes’ safety deposit drilled and the substantial number of gold coins disappeared or at least were not inventoried. (see Ms. Gloria Sykes’ affidavit). Thus, as Ms. Gloria Sykes (who was an owner ofthe safety deposit box) and her aunt both have
pointed out the size and the contents of the container containing the coins that was removed (and not inventoried) and Ms. Farenga (but not Ms. Toerpe) has been denying the existence ofthe collectibles is it not the duty of the ARDC to do an honest, complete and comprehensive investigation of 1) why Ms. Farenga is denying a fact that she has admitted to knowledge concerning, and 2) how attorneys have not investigated the
disappearance of property belonging to a person who has without jurisdiction been deprived of her liberty and property?
• Page 2 February 12,2013
It is rather suspicious that the only disciplinary proceedings that are taking place are those involving the messengers, It is suspicious that ‘judicial officials’ who continue to act for 3+ years in derogation of the clear statement of the Supreme Court of Illinois (cited supra) are given immunity while the rights of both Ms. Denison and myself have been trampled. It is suspicious that the clear prohibition on attempts to silence ‘content’ based speech are ignored by the ARDC in invor of filing groundless disciplinary complaints against
the messengers who are duty bound by Himmel to report the conduct of Farenga, Stern, Schmiedel et al.
Very Truly Yours
Kenneth Ditkowsky
KKD/lgc
Cc: clients

Ken we need to send cc’s to the FBI. I think you are right the FBI had all those documents but kindly returned them when Gloria’s appeal was due. Where else could they have gone?

Letters to the Judicial Inquiry Board–do they really do any good?

Posted on February 12, 2013 by Joanne M Denison

From an anonymous source:

“The JIB has only 2 investigators for the whole State. The problem is that they are over-worked. They pump out reports without any opinions. The reports go to the Board who make recommendations to the Commission. Here is where serious infighting is occurring. The Commission has been refusing to accept recommendations from the Board for punishment of judges. The Board is now refusing to make recommendations because they look stupid with all their recommendations being turned down. So now we have no recommendations for punishment. All rumors.”

So, until the public puts pressure on “the commission” to do it’s job, it looks like the letters are just “rumors” until someone gets in there and kicks butt and stops the infighting.

My suggestion is to write to Senators Kirk and Durbin and let them know the Judicial Inquiry Board is woefully inadequate, has done nothing in the Sykes, Gore, etc. cases.

GJS and her brilliant day in Court

Posted on February 12, 2013 by Joanne M Denison

February 11, 20013

Judge Stuart – JS

Chase attorney is here. No one from Fannie Mae. GJS is complaining that the Chase atty won’t give her a business card or say who he is.

Carolyn’s here.

All the appellate volumes.

Michael Blattner, commissioner they appointed.

Official court reporter present.

GJS tells me the last time she was in court, she overheard CT and company said they were going drill out the locks again and get into the house. Horrors, more criminal activities.

GJS shows me letter that her mom was never served.

Stuart chained GJS to a chair in the back room for about a half hour, threatened her to euthanize her pets–a beloved dog named “Shaggy” and a cute long haired kitty named “Kitty.” Okay, GJS isn’t very creative with pet names.

During GJS’s last hearing in court, Judge Murray let GJS put on atty Gene Moskowitz and he said that mom didn’t file anything in the Lumberman’s case.

GJS relates that Chase has admitted they owe her damages for drilling out locks on her property and creating severe damage to her home. Chase was supposed to negotiate a settlement in the last BK. GJS just filed a new BK case 14 days ago.

GJS is working.

Adversary proceedings need to be reopened in bankruptcy.

Richard Bussee is still representing GJS in the BK.

All of PS and his firm, CT, the Chase atty, Michael Blattner, etc. all walk in and within two minutes the judge walks out. GJS says this happens all the time. It used to be the GAL’s would walk from the judge’s door, then the judge, but since I published on this blog that is unethical and improper, now they are about 10% less blatant about “getting prepared” with the judge. Now only she walks thru that door, but it’s all a coincidence, still.

attorneys step up

GJS objects to jurisdiction.

Sykes is not represented by counsel. PS, CT, AS present CF has another family emergency.

GJS an interested party.

Court lacks jurisdiction.

GJS says that she also had a family emergency like CT but she came to court regardless.

Michael Blattner also present for subdivion of property.

Chase is the mortggee.

GJS says fannie mae is not here and they now they own the note.

PS says they have not been served (with GJS’s new action). GJS has refiled the chapter 13 in January.

This interferes with the ability to subdivide her property.

At this point I am asked by Judge Stuart to shut off my laptop so I just start taking notes on the back of some court orders. Waste of paper and time if you ask me, but if you like pet dinosaurs, you probably like taking notes on paper. Personally, I don’t. I told her that I could type 100 wpm and I prefer to type my notes. This very polite request was ignored by the court. I wonder if we need a federal law that litigants can take notes in any state, federal or hearing tribunal. I don’t understand how this simple request is such a problem for the court. I’m not playing games, I’m not texting anyone. I am admitted to the bar and helping a friend and the pubic rooting out corruption in the courts, and if you ask me, this case is a hot bed of questions on corruption, aberrations from the rules and law, GAL’s that do strange things and are on the case forever.

You name it, this case has got it, but I digress.

PS says they need time to check on the status of the mortgage with chase.

JS asks how long that will will take.

GJS says that there is a bankruptcy she has newly filed.

Then they start looking for dates.

April 4, 2013 is the next date they can agree upon.

GJS suggests April Fool’s day as being more appropriate. I give her the tumb’s up.

JS – says this will be only a status date.
Date selected, everyone stands down.

GJS’s filing are uploaded here:

Pleading 1 filed today (regarding partition)

Pleading 2 filed today (regarding objection to inventory)

I want to thank her for sharing her motions with everyone. They contain important case law and information if you are ever in probate. They are for the most part, well drafted and contain important assertions on behalf of the non Carolyn Toerpe portion of the Sykes family, which is pretty much the rest of the family. I have no idea why the ARDC does not allow the sisters of Mary and the other daughter of Mary to speak out via me on the web. I can’t represent GJS, I was disqualified, but I can be her news reporter and I can go to court and take notes and I can be her blogger, just as you all can.

The ARDC is trying to make blogs “sinister” and disrespectful. They are trying to discredit WordPress and Blogger and/or tell people what they can and cannot post. In a repressive, fascist society, the first thing a dictator does is go after the lawyers telling the truth. That’s what the Gestapo did in Germany in the 1930’s. Take a look at this. Who, other than the ARDC cares about a blog? A blog, for chrissakes. It’s insane.

I have tried and tried, but I can find no other case law about a lawyer getting disciplined for running a blog. Lawyers get disciplined for stealing money, forgetting a client matter, not appearing in court, not writing a brief on time, etc.–but a blog?

Again, I have read hundreds of notes over the years on attorneys that have stolen money–most of it in very large amounts and mostly real estate attys– and they get disbarred or suspended. Then there are the lawyers that forget to come to court, forget to write briefs, forget to email clients. Now, if you are one of my clients or opponents, you know I am a maniac about text and email and will hound you until you get something done. It’s the “mom” nature in me. Anyway the lawyers that don’t steal anything generally get “censured”.

What about the lawyers that write a blog on corruption? What about the lawyers who speak up for the likes of Tyler, Wyman, Gore, Bedin, Spera, etc.?

PS–in the ARDC complaint for BLOGGING filed against me on Jan 8, 2013 (of all things, come on now, blogging? How desperate is that).

In the meanest, most aggressive tone I suppose you can gather for a complaint on BLOGGING on corruption, the ARDC says (you won’t believe how horrifying this is) I use initials! That’s right, initials. The sinister, ARDC mystifying use of intitals.

Well, it’s really I’m typing lazy and then I LOVE LONG FINGERNAILS. Okay, I said it. I get really pretty long fingernails which makes my typing just a tad more difficult and initials a bit easier on my qwerty keyboard, and so I use initials.

Okay, this is a BLOG. For those of you ARDC attys that are too old or too ensconced in your Ivory White Towers of the Prudential Towers and removed from the hoi poli an the unwashed masses that I routinely gather with on the 18th floor and even the 14th floor of FED, horrors of horrors, a blog is supposed to be the immediate impressions, thoughts and stream of conscience that we are supposed to experience via our fingertips.

To show that where the ARDC is located consists of two “ivory towers” see the picture on wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Prudential_Plaza

I have never seen the likes of Ms. Leah Black or any ARDC atty there. Just the litigants.

JoAnne

Exactly what are the words of the laws that entitle us to free speech that the ARDC should be aware of

Posted on February 9, 2013 by Joanne M Denison

Courtesy of Atty Ken Ditkowsky and his wonderful wife Judy who also “gets it”.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the “Bill of Rights.”

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.

Constitution of the State of Illinois

ARTICLE I

BILL OF RIGHTS

SECTION 1. INHERENT AND INALIENABLE RIGHTS
    All men are by nature free and independent and have
certain inherent and inalienable rights among which are life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these rights
and the protection of property, governments are instituted
among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)

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.)

**************************

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

Amendment I

*******
Dear "non believer in free speech"

The question is not what YOU believe a delegated agency of the Illinois Supreme Court is empowered to do.

This country and this state have Constitutions which DEFINE what the rights of people are and what the government through its agencies can and cannot do.


There have been U.S. and Illinois Supreme Court cases which enlarge specifically on what the rights governmental agencies have 
under the Constitution: an agency of the government DOES NOT HAVE POWERS that the government does not have.


When something has become part of the GOVERNMENT RECORD, through
 some court procedure, be it deposition, trial, affidavit, it is subject to public comment.

Judy Ditkowsky

Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

Will this hope on the Horizon spread to Probate in Illinois?

Posted on February 9, 2013 by Joanne M Denison

From New Jersey:

February 5, 2013

Last week, New Jersey Supreme Court Chief Justice Stuart Rabner Announced that teams of volunteer watchdogs will monitor the legal guardians for tens of thousands disabled and elderly people. They’ll be on the lookout for theft or abuse of power.

The Volunteer Guardianship Monitoring Program will train people to scan the annual expense reports all legal guardians are required to file with the county and look for any “red flags” that suggest possible mismanagement, as The Star-Ledger’s Susan Livio reported last week.

GJS sent this article and thank you very much!

It would be nice to have courtwatchers in Illinois that CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE!

Perhaps we need to organize the ones we already have in our courtrooms (we can identify them by the closed laptops) and let’s get some action going with Presiding Judge Timothy Evans.

We need courtwatchers to go through the probate files making sure that there was a summons and complaint upon the respondent 14 days in advance of the hearing, that all close relatives–adult siblings, children and parents–were notified 14 days in advance of any guardianship.

The files should have annual reports on the ward indicating she or he is well and happy, that the finances do not look suspicious or missing.

Great idea and thanks

Can the First Amendment be beaten to death with the powers-that-be

Posted on February 9, 2013 by Joanne M Denison

From: JoAnne M Denison <jdenison@surfree.com>
To: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 9, 2013 11:25 AM
Subject: Re: what is so difficult understanding the First Amendment.

excellent! okay to publish? I guess you and I have to just keep on reading cases and publishing them until L****** and the ARDC gets it.

She’s kind of funny. She obviously follows my blog, but is highly critical of it–generally I think for just being a bit outrageous with my phraseolgy from time to time, but then again, I am nothing compared to the 1000 stations of trash we have on our home Dishnetwork satellite dish. She isn’t going to like you using F and stars, that’s for sure. But I grew up with 4 brothers, I have 3 sons and there’s something about swearing and fighting that goes with testosterone. I throw them all outside for it.

North Korea bans cell phones. Saudi Arabia does not let women drive and they cannot travel without a male relative, they cannot vote. Women lawyers in Iran fighting for democracy and women’s rights are having their parental rights terminated and children taken away by the state.

In 1932, the German government kicked out all the Jewish lawyers from the city courts.

But the ARDC is worried about my blog I have looked at the results of hundreds of ARDC disciplinary actions over the years. Yours and mine are only for free speech and a blog–the only ones.

Mary had a right to your investigating her case. Connors never had jurisdiction over you. Then you spoke out. Where was the misconduct? Justice must not come from “a list”.

If disciplining me for a blog is sooo important to the ARDC then why aren’t there other decisions they can cite (perhaps you need to send them an interrogatory on this), for writing a blog, for publishing a book, for writing a movie, a screen play–what lawyer gets disciplined for that? None, those are the lawyers. None A and None B.

But talk honestly about what you hear and see in and around Probate, the ARDC gets its undies in a bunch, wets them and spits out a first amendment violating complaint against the messenger and not the miscreant.

—–Original Message—–
From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Feb 9, 2013 10:36 AM
To: JoAnne Denison
Subject: what is so difficult understanding the First Amendment.

The discourse that we all have been having is interesting as we all have the very same interest, i.e. protecting the senior citizen from being the victim of ‘judicial officials’ who based upon avarice have or are attempting to deprive a senior of his/her liberty and property rights.

The current discussion involves whether lawyers can be muzzled by the State ARDC and be punished for speaking out.   As the subject has never been addressed head on by the United States Supreme Court an analogy seems appropriate:

The best analogy is the public university setting.   Can a university student on his blog use an obscene word to describe university action as an example. Papish 410 US 667 involved the University publication (written) that came out with the word MF in its headline.   The Supreme Court following its prohibition of ‘content’ based censorship ruled the University censorship violated the First Amendment.

The cases are well established that the attempt to regulate speech is a ‘no – no’ This includes:

Keywbian 354 US 234 refusual to discuss content of course

Swezzy 354 US 234 Attempt to prevent teachers from expressing non-mainstream views

Healy v James 408 uS 169 – baring group because of reputation for violence

these are older cases, but with Alvarez recently decided it is clear that government cannot regulate directly or indirectly what we think, what we say, or how we express it.    *&^*()() F***ing x, y, and z cannot do a F ***ing thing about the fact that I think it is corrupt that there are judges outthere administrating laws that they should have read and have not. As long as the words are content based the ARDC has absolutely no right to make the determination that my words interfere with the administration of justice or reflect badly on the justice system.

Indeed, I have the right to speak out whenever and where-ever I want and point out that it is F***ing corrupt for the ARDC to use public funds to attempt to deny a lawyer of his/her First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights.   I also have the right not to use impolite phrases in English Spanish or any other language I desire.    Content based censorship is illegal – the use of any government funds to aid and abet such action is a misuse of public funds and in my opinion may (and should be) subject to criminal penalties.

Let me make this very clear – you and I have an absolute right to disagree loudly and openly.   No one has a right to deny the First Amendment Right to our content based speech.

Now let us go one step further as we beat this subject to death.    University conduct codes one after another have been struck down by the lower Courts.   The Supreme Court has not had to express and opinion on the subject.   Of course, as the latest exchange of e-mails has developed it is a good thing I never chose to be a teacher – I cannot make the point to choir.   Fortunately, except for the miscreants most lawyers feel and obligation to stare decisis and follow the law.

Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/