Anything you can donate would be appreciated. You can send me a check, paypal or credit card payment via our website. Please mark your payment “Christian Woman”. Thanks so much for your caring.
From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Oct 21, 2013 6:31 AM
To: Reporter 1, Reporter 2, “IllinoisLawyerNow@isba.org” , “email@example.com”
, “firstname.lastname@example.org” <email@example.com>, “firstname.lastname@example.org” , SUNTIMES , “email@example.com” , “firstname.lastname@example.org”
Subject: Illinois [authority] investigation
And I would personally like to thank the investigative reporters who are donating their time and efforts to spend countless hours pouring over information and analyzing it for review. Of course, the information will have to be carefully preserved so it does not “disappear” or “suddenly changes” like transcripts in probate.
We are hoping to find some relief for these families and probate victims. So far, the system and authorities continue to ignore their pleas, yet heaping another level of abuse upon these poor innocent victims.
Any help or information anyone can donate will be greatly appreciated.
I am going to trial next week on this blog. I don’t take it personally. I am not the blog and the blog is not me. It is a living, breathing, collection of thoughts, experiences, opinions and information donated over this past 16 months from a wide variety of readers and fans. I am only one small part in it. You channel your concerns, your past problems, abuses and troubles here. I understand that and respect that. I am only your channel and I am not what you are or who you are. I am most certainly not what the [the authorities] wants me to be, but they have not submitted any input into this blog. The blog speaks honesty and the truth and it is what the relevant marketplace wants and it is the truth.
Let’s see if the [authorities] do.
As my trial quickly approaches, and the “funny stuff” continues (KDD has a strange email in his exhibits that “must be struck” because it instructs IARDC investigators to pull credit reports on “two Illinois” attorneys, etc.–which is illegal) and we’re starting to pull pubic records (unlike this IARDC we do not pull clandestine credit reports without written authorization from anyone), reporters are asking me what they consider “typical” questions about who and what the IARDC is, and you know what? I’ve come to realize, what I thought was true wasn’t.
For example, we have previously published that the IARDC apparently isn’t in compliance with state laws requiring annual ethics/financial reports. We talked to the Sec. of State where they are to go, the IARDC itself and most of the attorneys we have contacted, were rude about it yet admitted they did not do this.
Who is running this place? Atty Jerome Larkin through SO and MS is the atty that initiates all of the pleadings filed against myself and Ken, but I have googled for that information and a reporter has asked, but we have yet to find his ethics/reporting disclosure.
Is there a reason for this?
And then, after smelling that fish that appears to be old and stinky, we ask who are these people and how are they “appointed” as declared on their website. Are they appointed by one party or both? Does the IARDC comply with the Shakman rule that requires a state organization must not hire based upon politics. I spoke with Atty Shakman, who appears to be the expert in this area and he says he knows nothing about the IARDC and Shakman compliance.
So, who are these people? How did they come by their jobs, and most important, what salaries do they make? Other state websites report on salaries paid (google Illinois state employee salaries, the Illinois Controller publishes the checks she writes–good for her–and Gov. Quinn publishes–good for him). After all the IARDC does not hold a bake sale to regulate the professional licenses of attorneys. And you know if you want to control money and power, start with the attorneys, for sure. That’s what the Nazis did. They learned from prior totalitarian regimes to kick out any law provider that might oppose one’s fascist policies, leaving the people powerless to fight for their rights and for the court system to become a non-entity in a tripartite government system that is supposed to have checks and balances built in (executive, legislative and judicial branches)
The IARDC has no transparency in this area. It does not publish salaries (though I have heard they are in the reasonable range of $50,000 to about $180,000 for the jobs there). They are said to have about 50 employees, then they have non paid Inquiry Board (that votes on whether to file a complaint), a non paid Tribunal (that hears disciplianry complaints) and a Review Board that approves decisions made by the Tribunals.
But if there is no transparency, and we don’t know how these 50+ people are selected and we don’t ask them to do yearly ethics and financials disclosures, then no matter how many levels you can dream up to “look authentic” pack it with your friends and co-conspirators, you are left with something that is dysfunctional at it’s very roots.
Maybe I grew up in Chicago, have read the Chicago Tribune and Suntimes for decades and seen dozens and dozens of politicians, judges and lawyers going to club fed med for outright bribes, payola and “pay to play” schemes I’m just paranoid and skeptical. BUT if there is really transparency at the IARDC, they would publish salaries, they would publish they are in compliance with Shakman and show how that is, they would publish.
The [this agency] annual report for 2012 is published on their website. It does not talk about ethics/financial disclosures (some employees at the [this agency] have told us they are exempt because they are a private organization and not part of the state at all–but they regulate a public monopoly–law licenses), some attorneys were upset they were not told they had to do this when they looked up the law, others were rude and slammed the phone down.
I guess if you talk enough about other’s unethical behavior and post rules for everyone else, that can easily hide the fact you don’t do the same.
I challenge the IARDC today to do the right thing and publish those reports online for each employee for each year they worked at the IARDC. If it’s a bad report, so be it. Also, they should publish annual salaries and how much has been paid to each employee for past years.
THEN, if all that turns out okay, then they will be qualified to judge ME.
But watch and see, they won’t do that, they will charge ahead.
And that’s exactly the type of behavior everyone on the probate blogs is questioning.
The answer: 1) When someone put a document in your file which is an email to one of your staff asking they “pull credit reports on two Illinois attorneys” (when you have no written authorization from them, and this is a violation of federal law), and
2) when every other attorney who is an office holder, a judge, in a judicial position, on a board, commission and the like, but for some reason you and your office and staff do not file the requisite annual “Report of Economic Interests” online with the Secretary of State in response to an Ethics Law revised in 2009!
Ken pointed this out to me today that the request to destroy an important document in a file and make sure neither you nor your staff is reporting annually on “Economic Interests” is just like taking the 5th amendment, right?
Their rule: If you break the law, do NOT tell anyone.
From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Oct 14, 2013 9:40 PM
Cc: JoAnne Denison , “lawrence@Lhyman.com” , Eric Holder , Harry Heckert , j ditkowsky , Tim NASGA , NASGA , probate sharks , , jim , “ACLU@ACLU.ORG”
Subject: Re: F2F–Radio segment on government attorneys violating law, shutting down ethical lawyers
The winner will get a Whole Food $20 gift card if they also can document they told the [an agency] this too at the same time.
If you go to the website: http://www.ilsos.gov/economicinterest/economicinterest
You will see where you can get a copy of all the ethics reporting forms filed with the Secretary of State in relation to the Government Ethics Act of 2009 where 900 state agencies and boards and offices have to file an annual detailed Ethics Form.
There is a pull down menu, so I thought I would look for all the agencies, boards, offices and positions that an attorney can or must hold.
I cam up with this list from the pull down menu:
1) attorney general
2) states attorney appellate prosecutor
3) candidate for: — appellate court judges
4) — supreme court judge
5) — attorney general
6) Judicial Inquiry Board (staff, I presume)
7) Judicial Inquiry Board Member
8) Professional Registration Committees and Boards (IDPR)
9) State Appellate Defender
10) State Appellate Prosecutor.
Yep, you would think that would cover all those attorneys out there that should file a 3 page form to show they don’t do unethical things like get bribes from lobbyists, have others take out or pay off their mortgages, give them interesting things–like cash.
So, who is missing from the list? First accurate answer gets the $20 gift card.
How is it all these other attorneys and agencies are on this list, and the judges do extremely detailed reports to the Ill. Supreme Ct. under Ill. Sup. Ct. Rule 68.
Who or what is giving this group of about 50+ attorneys who are in charge of a very powerful agency, a complete pass. Like free parking money. Like go around the board over and over for free and collect $200.
Who is doing this?
Can anyone answer that question? All judges have to do it. All Boards and Commissions have to do it per Ill. State Law and the Illinois Constitution.
What IS going on at the ARDC and can anyone get an answer out of them other than “we are exempt?” Because they say so?
Download and listen to Janet Phalen’s comments on Blog Talk Radio about the ARDC and the “funny stuff” that is going on. If you think they have some explaining to do, CALL THEM.
cite the Illinois Constitution. The ARDC stands for (and I won’t tell you what my probate victims say that it stands for) Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission. The Illinois Constitution creates a Court System in the document and the Ill. Supreme court creates the ARDC which is a state “Commission”
SECTION 1. DISQUALIFICATION FOR PUBLIC OFFICE
SECTION 2. STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS
All candidates for or holders of state offices and all
members of a Commission or Board created by this Constitution
shall file a verified statement of their economic interests,
as provided by law. The General Assembly by law may impose a
similar requirement upon candidates for, or holders of,
offices in units of local government and school districts.
Statements shall be filed annually with the Secretary of
State and shall be available for inspection by the public.
The General Assembly by law shall prescribe a reasonable time
for filing the statement. Failure to file a statement within
the time prescribed shall result in ineligibility for, or
forfeiture of, office. This Section shall not be construed as
limiting the authority of any branch of government to
establish and enforce ethical standards for that branch.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)
Note that supervision of the courts (and therefore attorneys) also comes from the Illinois State Constitution.
ARTICLE VI – Judiciary
SECTION 16. ADMINISTRATION
General administrative and supervisory authority over all
courts is vested in the Supreme Court and shall be exercised
by the Chief Justice in accordance with its rules. The
Supreme Court shall appoint an administrative director and
staff, who shall serve at its pleasure, to assist the Chief
Justice in his duties.
And from state law:
For Judges, these detailed records at kept under Rule 68 at the Illinois Supreme Court Clerk’s offices and must be available to review during normal business hours in both Chicago and Springfield. You can’t get the information on the internet yet.
For other state employees, they file with the Secretary of State’s offices here:
Both the Secretary of State and the Illinois Supreme Court say they have no reporting from the ARDC Commission.
The real question is, how is that?
Under the state link: Report Misconduct:
It gives a link to the Inspector General for the State of Illinois, but when we write, email, fax and call about the Sykes case, at first they say “they will look into it, thanks for contacting us” but a few weeks later we get, “sorry, we don’t do that.”
From the 2009 Illinois Ethics Act:
DISCLOSURE OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS.
(from the Illinois Governmental Ethics Act & State Officials and Employees Ethics Act as amended in 2009)
S 4A-101. Persons required to file. The following persons shall file verified written statements of economic interests, as provided in this Article:
(a) Members of the General Assembly and candidates for nomination or election to the General Assembly.
(c) Members of a Commission or Board created by the Illinois Constitution, and candidates for nomination or election to such Commission or Board.
(e) Holders of, and candidates for nomination or election to, the office of judge or associate judge of the Circuit Court and the office of judge of the Appellate or Supreme Court.
(4) have authority for the approval of professional licenses;
(5) have responsibility with respect to the financial inspection of regulated nongovernmental entities;
(6) adjudicate, arbitrate, or decide any judicial or administrative proceeding, or review the adjudication, arbitration or decision of any judicial or administrative proceeding within the authority of the State; or
(7) have supervisory responsibility for 20 or more employees of the State.
It looks like the ARDC is instantaneously violating several of these laws, and upon a cursory glance of just SOME public records (will be published later), it looks like the ARDC actually has some house cleaning to do.
Living in Chicago and Illinois for 90% of my life has made me nothing but disgusted will all of this, and I think most of us will agree
and before you think it’s unusual or strange to “report on your ethics in detail and yearly” and the let world know what you have been up to:
from David Orr’s website:
Ethics Filing Online
In accordance with the Illinois Governmental Ethics Act, more than 900 units of government and 22,000 public officials and employees must submit ethics filings to the Clerk’s office. Government agencies provide a list of people who must file a Statement of Economic Interests. Beginning spring 2011, those people will be able to file their questionnaires online. Finally, the public will have instant access to both sets of filings.
Go ahead and CALL THE ARDC, FAX THEM, EMAIL THEM, ASK THEM WHY THE ATTORNEYS THERE DO NOT REPORT–unlike 22,000 other state employees and hundreds of state judges.
Then, I think you will find the answer of why the ARDC does not report, and why they are prosecuting HONEST and ETHICAL attorneys who BLOG about corruption.
IF THIS IS NOT A SCANDAL AND A PUBLIC OUTRAGE, A BREACH OF THE PUBLIC’S TRUST IN THE LAWS AND LAWYERS, I HONESTLY DO NOT KNOW WHAT IS. Write or call the ARDC, demand they become HONEST and report.
Hearing for KDD
Exceptions have been filed by the appellant.
Mr. D has 20 min to present, administrator 20 min to respond and then 10 min response.
I am here as an atty as a private citizen. I was never involved in Sykes as an atty in until I was brought in on the sanction motion. This was vacated and they ruled that I was a private citizen in that case. I am a private citizen and as such I am entitled to a full complement of rights under the first amendmentto the US constitution
My position is recognized by not only by most jurists, but also by the state of Illinois and ask that you please read 750 ILCS sec 110 (refers to the Illinois Citizens Participation act) wherein a statement has been made by the Illinois Legislature. It is stated therein that public policy of the State of Illinois is to foster free speech, arguments, debates, positions, opinions, etc. and that this is vital to the preservation of an open and free democracy.
Illinois has a guardianship law that deems to protect senior citizens from abuse, in particular the abuse of being railroaded, just as Mary Sykes was, and this statute exists so that judges and attorneys can try to avoid the improper imposition of guardianship. I have gone into those guardianship issues in great detail in my brief and else where.
Referring now to 720 ILCS 4. In particular it says that if I make an abuse claim I am given immunity from prosecution and even disciplinary action.
The position of the ARDC here in this case is in fact 100% out of phase. The commission never received the right to deal with my first amendment rights.
The supreme court has said nothing about allowing lawyer disciplinary boards being allowed to interfere with my constitutional rights, and there is stare decisis, and this commission is bound by those rules of law, just like everyone else is so bound.
The Gentile case was never cited by the Administrator because of the statement by Justice Renquist that disciplinary rules cannot publish actions protected by the first amendment.
I as a citizen am entitled to these first amendment rights.
I am a private citizen in relation to the Sykes case.
All I have done is I made a demand for an honest, complete and comprehensive investigation of elder cleansing. It is the first cousin to racial and ethnic cleansing–and I need not define those for anyone in this room. I have the right to make that demand to investigte, I have the right to email Mr. Holder, or any other official concerning the Sykes case. Nonetheless, I was in a hearing room where I as asked to repent for writing that letter–a letter merely requesting that a complete, honest and thorough investigation be made of the Sykes case.
It is firmly my constitutional right to write that letter.
The US Supreme Curt has reviewed a number of first amendment rights, the latest case is one of the most liberal cases: under Alverez, as a private citizen, I have the right to claim I earned the congressional medal of honor, when in fact I have not.
My first amendment rights extend to virtual child porn under X case.
In the Brown case, violent video games are allowed.
In Snyder, I can go to a funeral and I can say things that are absolutely appalling to the mourners present.
Citizens United clearly wraps this all up and says that first amendment and content based speech is totally protected and the government may not intrude upon my first amendment free speech rights.
The Supreme Court says that in order to take a case it must be investigated. Rule 127 says I cannot file a case recklessly. I must investigate. In April 2010, when Mary’s friends and family came in and they told me Mary had been unfairly railroaded into a guardianship she opposed, I knew I first had to follow this Rule 127 requirement. However, Rule 127 is not meant to be a catch 22. It cannot be argued that I must investigate but if I do, other attorneys may complain I am acting unethically. This is only an ethical obligation and not a trap for the unwary.
How can it ever be unethical to follow the rules of the court?
If you look at the Sykes case, these statements are backed up by affidavits and declarations, by Gloria Sykes, the sisters and the transcripts of the proceeding. You will notice that not a single person who had actual knowledge was called to testify. No person who had actual knowledge of the facts of the theft. No actual person was asked about the 6 trips to the emergency room.
If you want to look at the gold coins, Gloria Sykes was a signatory on the safe deposit box. She had an ownership interest in the box. Yolada Bakken had told me that the bag of coins was about (gestures) 10″ high and 6″ around and it that it had 6 inches of gold coins in it.
Carolyn Toerpe was never called, yet she has been accused of stealing from the estate.
What they did was they called GAL Stern who said he served a subpoena. In this case, because it was a safe deposit box, serving a subpoena means nothing because the bank cannot legally know the contents of a safe deposit box..
Gloria should have testified, Yolanda should have testified, and Kathie should have testified.
The appellate court in Soldini declared that the petitioner had to serve prior 14 days service upon the near relatives to attain jurisdiction. But in Sykes it should be noted court that two sisters were never disclosed, yet the ARDC did not call Gloria Sykes or Yolanda.
During my hearing there was never any search for the truth, any due process, and search for fairness or justice, was ever undertaken.
In the hearing board’s decision, they said the sisters had knowledge of the (12/07/13) hearing. But it has to be prior knowledge.
Section 5/11a is to protect the due process rights of Mary Sykes and people like her.
There is supposed to be a hearing. There was no hearing held. What there was was an agreement between the two GAL’s and Toerpe’s attorney to have Mary declared incompetent and then Toerpe appointed, which then became part of the findings.
Witnesses were not called. Testimony was not taken.
Referring to the transcript of Aug 2009, there was no ccp211, this judge had to find Mary Sykes incompetent by clear and convincing evidence, it must meet requirement of 5/11a which has specific requirement to have someone declared incompetent, but according to the evidence deposition of Judge C, she states for the record, if counsel is having trouble getting a CCP211 done, the “why don’t we just get another doctor that can do it.”
That is about as close to an announcement promoting doctor shopping as you can get.
If you look at the 14 days notice requirement, you will find something very similar.
Not only that, but Judge Connors, in her deposition was asked, What would happen if there was no jurisdiction? And she answered: If I found out about it, I would vacate and then I would get the same result.
As a citizen I have right to complain about that.
This is a state where 2 governors were recently .put in prison, 15 sitting judges in Greylord went to prison.
Everyone know in order to get someone before the court you have to serve them with a summons.
It says in the Illinois Probate Act what you have to do to serve a summons.
The sheriffs office denies they served a summons.
There is no evidence of any summons.
You will see they directed an employee to serve at a place in Chicago; however, mary was living in DuPage county so that was an impossible duty.
The summons must have been in large bold print with a statement of rights, that was never done.
Rule of law equally implies to you I, the probate court and Mary.
The Rules of law have been set forth by the US Supreme Court:
I can make statement untrue about my qualifications,
I can make and propagate virtual child porn, I can provide violent video games to people, I can harass mourners with terrible signs and speeches.
According to this commission I can not complaint about a little old lady being railroaded into a guardianship and deprive her of her human and civil rights.
Let me read the First Amendment to this panel…. Congress shall make no law prohibiting (First amendment read to Board)….and I have the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. That’s why I wrote Mr. Holder, the AG’s and whomever I could get to take action.
We need to get the Alice Gore investigated. Why were here gold teeth removed but not inventoried? (This was after she was isolated for 6 months! This is what M. Solo did to 99 year old Alice Gore.
I have a responsibility to speak out, and it’s the right thing to do. The people who want to take my license away for doing the right thing are wrong, clearly wrong.
We need to get a complete comprehensive and thorough investigation of these probate cases.
Initial argument ends, the ARDC attorney for the Administrator steps up:
He cites all these cases are all good law with respect to citizens. However he explains that KDD’s rights are not the same as an ordinary citizen: rather KDD’s rights have been circumscribed. The US Sup Ct has never said that you can make false allegations regarding a judge.
Gentile arises out of a Nevada disciplinary action. The lawyer who represented a criminal defendant, had made a public statement during trial implying that the chief of police had stolen the cocaine. The NV bar said that the statement would have materially prejudiced a judicial proceeding.
However, the statute had a safe harbor provision and therefore the US Sup Ct said that the statute was not unconstitutional. What the us supreme court decided was the that the safe harbor was not too vague so as to harm Mr. Gentile’s first amendment rights and therefore the US Sup. Ct. Said the statute would stand and I was not unconstitutional.
Garrison made false statements in his case and the court said constitutional provisions did not protect this.
A lawyer cannot say something false about a court or judge, the lawyer cannot attack a judge.
Everyone understands there are instances when an atty disagrees with the decisions of a judge.
The first amendment protects the person from saying the judge was wrong, but to jump to the idea that the judge was corrupt is entirely different. If you have no way to jump to corruption based upon the evidence you have knowledge of, that is wrong.
He does not have a objectively fair and reasonable way to claim Stuart and Connors were corrupt. Both testified that they were not corrupt and did not take any assets from Mary Sykes.
He said that the GAL’s were splitting assets with the judges. (Really?)
Moreover, the Sykes appeal was dismissed because the brief format was in error (Now this is strange, because it’s not in the record), the litigant was given plenty of chances to correct the brief. (Really? Where is that in the record?)
No court has even ruled these judge were even wrong.
He was given a responsibility to follow through on the appeal, the appeal was dismissed, they could not file a brief that could follow the rules, and so it was all dismissed.
Lawyers have done this for a number of years, tried to allege corruption and protection under free speech. This has been going on for a half century in Illinois.
One lawyer immediately jumps to the judge is corrupt. He jumps to it. No evidence, no cause.
The first amendment does not protect the false statement when in fact it is false and reckless.
The hearing board concluded KDD’s statements were in fact false.
The testimony of administrator’s witnesses were credible. Judges Stuart and Connors denied receiving any compensation, and AS and CF denied responsibility for wrongdoing.
Justice Connors denied everything KDD said about her.
He didn’t come up with anything unreasonable or unjust in the Sykes case.
He never showed during his trial any objectively reasonable basis for his statements.
The finding were not erroneous or against the manifest weight of the evidence.
The sanction was appropriate.
He has not denied it.
A half century of law, and multiple instances of harming a judge’s integrity with baseless statements are grounds for discipline.
And in these case, they always end with a long suspension or disbarrment.
He then cites Kozel and other cases–cases where the attorneys called the judges names and insulted them–these are not apposite to KDD’s case.
The sanction recommendation comports with disbarrment.
One of the Board asks about the Duzen case and is there a burden type of shifting. Splitt responds that there is no burden shifting used in this case. It talked about burdens of proof, but not shifting. The administrator did not go to hearing and say you cannot go to hearing and try to prove all of your allegations made as true.
There was no reasonable basis to say these were true. He had no reasonable, factual basis.
KDD is back on for ten minutes.
In 1961 I was first sworn in I took an oath to defend the constitution. It is still my assertion that the Supreme Ct has not granted the ARDC rights to deal in this particular type of case, and determine whether or not (with respect to the first amendment) that attys are second class citizens. In the Gentile case, Justice Rhenquist made it clear that attorneys have first amendment rights. That’s a non issue.
As far as appeals are concerned, I have no standing. I have never filed an appearance in that case or an appeal. I stand as an ordinary citizen to the Sykes case.
The fact that a lay person can’t get an appellate brief formatted propertly doesn’t make all the wrongdoing at the trial court level right or make it go away..
You have deposition of Judge Connors. Read what is required to be done. Judge Connors made it clear she did not have to follow all those laws and rules.
The appellate courts says I am a private citizen with respect to the Sykes case. I am a citizen. There is nothing in there that makes an attorney second class citizen. There is nothing that says a citizen cannot complain about an elected official, and as the Gillespie case points out, public officials are subject to free reign as to discussion of (the quality or lack thereof with respect) their job performance in office and they cannot complain. The Gillespie case was right.
The Administrator cites the Sawyer case in his favor, but it is not.
The Sawyer case involved an attorney who was trying a case and when the case was over she gave a lecture about her experiences, and she was very critical of the judge and the law and the Hawaii bar got all hot and bothered about it.
The US Supreme Court said that she had a right to do this under the First Amendment
There has been no indication that a lawyer is a second class citizen whatsoever.
And a 4 year suspension for a 77 years old lawyer is preposterous.
And the suspension is being imposed only for doing what the Ill. Sup. court rules requires me to do.
Court one says I wrote a benign letter to Dr. Patel. They said that he was intimidated by my letter. They didn’t even ask him if he was intimidated. (It appeared during trial that he didn’t remember the letter or even reading it).
They have the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence.
How do you protect the public when the court is saying openly, “let’s find another doctor” when the first won’t cooperate, or Judge Connors says in her deposition with respect to jurisdiction it does not matter because if the case were dismiss for lack of jurisdiction we just would have held another hearing and come to the same result. That is about as clear a case as you can get of impropriety.
Since the judge is an elected official, I have the right to complaint that this is wrong.
No one can come to you (as a lawyer) and say to you you can’t talk (openly and honestly) to about this case.
If you are not involved in the case then you can say what you want until the cows come home.
You don’t even have to look at whether the words are true or false. (Or if the GAL’s might cry and wet their pants later over what you said).
The whole situation revolves around a complaint I made to the US AG and other people complaining about a little old laday being taken out of her home, brought into another facility and placed there in derogation of her liberty and property rights and placed in jeopardy.
If you look at the statue of what a guardianship is supposed to be it is only to be used to the extent necessary to protect the ward, orders and decisions should be made only to the extent that the ward herself cannot make a reasoned decision.
When this lady was taken from her home and place in Du Page (without her consent or approval), this was tantamount to giving her a death sentence. As a lawyer, you have a duty to speak out. As a judge you have a duty to speak out and say this is wrong. As a moral person you have a duty to speak out. I have to face myself in the mirror and if I see what is going on in this case and I see Mary Sykes removed from her home, and isolated and attys should speak out and judges should speak out. Do you know what that judge did to Mary Sykes, do you know what this judge did to Mrs. Gore and Mrs. Wyman?
There is nothing in our constitution that says lawyers cannot speak out, they must speak out.
What about the limits of our free speech. What about the cases cited by the Administrator in his argument?
Well, the cases he cited were clearly over ruled in recent U.S. Sup. Ct. decisions Alvarez, Ashcroft, by Citizens United, I believe have clearly overruled any unnecessary restrictions on content based speech.
Also those cases the Administrator can all be distinguished because in each of those cases, the attorney was a lawyer on the case.
Just because I am a lawyer and I comment on a case, does not make me a second class citizen.
Bussy v Ferguson is no longer the law, because just people rejected the idea of creating a 2nd class of citizenship for certain undesireable people.
Buck v. Bell likewise has rejected the notion that certain disabled people should be considered second class in society.
Going back to when I first investigated this case at the behest of Mary and friends and family, at that time I was looking to being an attorney . Under FRCP Rule 11 and Ill. Sup. Ct. Rule 127 I had a duty to investigate, I heard what Mary’s friends and family were saying about railroading Mary. So I sent out a letter to her doctor. The letter was very benign. Dr. Patel was never in any way intimidated.
From the court: Whatever the letter says it says, did you speak with Mary before that?
KDD replies that he was hired by Mary thru Gloria.
Ding the correct answer is: Mary asked Gloria to hire KDD and he responded. FURTHER, Gloria was the POA for Mary and she had the right to do so.
If I did not investigate then I would be sanctioned under Rules 127
No further questions or comments and the oral argument concludes
BUT AS THE BOARD WAS WALKING OUT THE ROOM, AND ASK KEN TURNED TO US, EVERYONE IN THE GALLEY STOOD UP AND GAVE KEN A STANDING OVATIONS.
Okay, it took me awhile, I would have dropped my laptop.