From Ken Ditkowsky – Yes, some judges are honest and must be commended and are an example to the others

Subject: Re: sound familiar?
Date: Sep 1, 2016 4:46 PM
Since I was forced to retire I have had a chance to try to slow my world and take a good look at it.     Yesterday on MaryGSykes blog a Texas Lawyer’s piece concerning an honest judge is revealed.    No, JoAnne has not mellowed!    Every jurisdiction has many honest judges and wonderful people who make our communities terrific places to live.     The Jerome Larkins and their ilk are an annoying minority who rise up from the cesspool from time to time to be an annoyance.     Even in an era when the polls suggest that 2/3s of us do not believe that either candidate for president is trustworthy or honest our world is still a wonderful place to live and work.      Indeed, every day I send e-mails to some of the nicest people in our world who not only care for the elderly and the disabled, but care for each other.
When we received an e-mail from a citizen that read in part:
“Last night I had many flash-backs during my sleep — of being isolated, force-drugged, spoken to and about like I was a non-person, feeling again insecure even when in my own home [is it mine, do I have legal rights to my own property, I do not, I not even my Legal Right to vote but I did receive a Jury Notice this morning] it just goes on [the veiled and not so veiled threats by those non-family predators] and on it goes, all of this — and recovering from another UTI infection, again, due to being hospital-forced to take IV antibiotics for 52 Days & Nights [while being denied ample drinking water] <http://www.drdeborahmd.com/solutions-urinary-tract-infections&gt;, <http://safepatientproject.org/posts/5609-a-cautionary-tale-dangers-of-antibiotic-overuse&gt; — along with the electronic mails that continued on and on late into the night last night and well past my normal bed-time, and this morning, still being reluctant to continue opening them all — leaves me feeling rather re-victimized at this exact point-in-time.”
Most, if not all, of the people on this e-mail chain had a first thought: “how can I help!”      In fact, the Justice Department, the FBI, and other law enforcement agencies received a few minutes later a DEMAND for an HONEST INVESTIGATION!
We as a group understand that we have a responsibility to ourselves and our families to make a concerted effort to protect America’s core values.     In spite of the perfidy, assaults on the human rights, constitutional rights and infamy of corrupt judges, corrupt lawyers, corrupt political people ***** we are carrying on the fight to end ‘elder cleansing.     We are serving the core values of America.   When we stand with the elderly and their families who are being euthanized by the corrupt nursing home operators and their political and judicial co-conspirators we fulfill our duties as citizens.      No amount of intimidation by the Political and the Judicial elite can cease our call to Honest Law enforcement for a comprehensive and vigorous Investigation into the criminal behavior of all those miscreants who are engaged in a War against the elderly and the disabled!
When each of you who have joined in the effort to protect the Constitution of the United States from those who seek to destroy its meaning and efficacy looks up they will see someone that they like!     Our goal is to, within the law, bring each elder cleanser to the Bar of Justice.       The spectacle in the Circuit Court of Cook County of a sitting judge, conspiring with an ethically challenged lawyer, infamous nursing home operator ****** to harvest the gold filing from a 90-year-old widowed grandmother haunts every decent human being.     The avarice and inhumanity exhibited taint Cook County, Illinois (Chicago) and leave a stench than cannot be sanitized.     The failure of the legal profession and the 2nd oldest profession to stand up as one and demand CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONs is beyond reprehensible.     It tars irrevocably every Judge and every lawyer in Cook County, Illinois who does not demand JUSTICE!
Indeed – we are demanding JUSTICE for all including the miscreants who would take from us our humanity.      We may not get much recognition – but, justice is its own reward.
All that said – we need right now an HONEST INVESTIGATION of the elder cleansing scandal and vigorous prosecution of all the criminals involved in ‘elder cleansing’ including those, such as Jerome Larkin, who maintain the cover-up that protects the corrupt judges, lawyers, guardians *****.     IT IS NOW TIME!
Lawyers in particular have a responsibility to stand up be counted.   Sometimes standing up and being counted has some adverse personal consequences.    I understood when I took the oath to be a lawyer that I was going to make a few enemies and some would have ethical deficiencies.  I knew I would not be alone and am grateful to the many who have stood by me – and stood up for the core values of America.   The Jerome Larkins of this world no matter how much clout they have or how many of the political and judicial elite assist him in his 18 USCA 371 conspiracy still has to face his conscience and ultimately his maker.   Every night I pray in thanksgiving that I am not him!
Advertisements

The Fraud Business as usual–Billing Medicare multiple times for many drugs

To: Eric Holder <askdoj@usdoj.gov>, “FBI- ( (” <civilrights.cv@ic.fbi.gov>,……
Subject: The HHS Inspector General report on hospice billing, released today, found Medicare was billed inappropriately for $268 million in 2012 for hospice general inpatient care.
Date: Apr 5, 2016 4:34 PM
The link that I underlined in yellow is another indication of the massive health care fraud that the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission administered by Jerome Larkin is attempting keep lawyers from making public.   The exposure of this fraud in the MaryGSykes blog warranted – according to the Illinois Supreme Court and Mr. Larkin — an interim suspension of one attorney followed by a three year suspension.   Just calling for an Honest Investigation of the Mary Sykes case was worth a four year law license suspension.    Of course, Seth Gillman’s participation in the Hospice fraud and admitted theft of medicare/medicaid funds does, not according to the IARDC warrant even disciplinary proceedings.   (He was indicted in Jan 2014 of $100 million in Medicare, Medicaid and Illinois Health Care Fund fraud, pled guilty to 3 counts last month, agreed to make restitution of the $100 million, and the IARDC has yet to discipline him.)
To the general public the question must have arisen as to why would the Illinois Supreme Court, Judges in secure positions, and lawyers who have clout would jeprodize their careers to steal a few dollars from the Medicare/Medicaid program on the backs of sick old people?    The answer is money.    In 2012 $268 million was billed inappropriately for hospice care.   It was estimated that the enterprises of Attorney Seth Gillman bilked the government out of a billion dollars.
Unfortunately this almost $300 million in theft from the government is chump change!  Once a guardian for profit gets involved in an elder cleansing program every dime of savings of the elderly victim is fair game and you can rest assurred will be stolen or redistributed to the guardian and/or his 18 USCA 371 co-conspirators.  With the help of a gullible public and dishonest political figures who are saving the social security of the elderly the miscreants obtain not only the social security payments, but pensions, trust funds etc.   In the Sykes case,  $3 million dollars was never inventoried.   In Gore $1.5 million dollars disappeared.  In Lydia Gore, $8 milion domestic.   In Wyman *******.    Answer 1:  there is ton of money available to be stolen with little or no consequences.   (Yes – these funds are taxable – but do you see Attorney General Lisa Madigan banging on Jerome Larkin’s door to collect the taxes that are due to the State of Illinois?   Larkin as a co-conspirator has joint and several liabilty!)
The last Illinois election provided another revelation.   Answer 2:   To be a Judge in Illinois requires a very substantial payment to the party organization (reported to now be $150,000)   It also take money to get elected.   Judge jobs pay well, but the investment may mean raiding college funds, retirement, or prevent the wife from getting a new Lexus.    Therefore, more than one judge is reported to be open to a little persuasion.   The Sykes jurist on page 90 and following of her evidence deposition admitted that she was wired!   The IARDC took the deposition and certainly read it, but ignored it as part of the cover-up.   To prevent further dissemination of their participation in the health care fraud, the IARDC and their co-conspirators have trashed the Illinois and the United States Constitution.    They openly misrepresented in presentations to the Court the SCOTUS case decisions.   For instance, to the Illinois Supreme Court, they represented an rejected argument in the Alvarez case and ignored the last pargraph of the Sawyer case.  (Alvarez held that even lies are protected by the First Amendment and in Sawyer the SCOTUS rejected sedition as a ground for lawyer discipline.)
The net net is if the USA desires to provide health care to the public it is going to have to enforce the law and put Jerome larkin and his co-conspirators out of business.   The guardianship laws, Americans With Disabilities, and the First Amendment will have to be more than laws on the books to placate  gadflies and assorted do-gooders.   The guardianship situation is per se a deprivation of civil rights!    It is justified on the basis of protecting the rights of the disabled person to participate as fully as possible in the American experience.   New flash!   being a non-person who is routinely exploited, abused and deprived of the rights of citizens is not the American experience.
We need instanter an HONEST INVESTIGATION  of this serious corruption.   We cannot wait until ******* is President!

More indicted in Heathcare and Medicare Fraud from FBI/HHS

$6 million was involved this time

https://www.fbi.gov/chicago/press-releases/2015/owners-and-nurses-of-chicago-home-health-care-company-among-seven-indicted-in-medicare-fraud-and-kickback-scheme

Here is the indictment:

https://www.fbi.gov/chicago/press-releases/2015/owners-and-nurses-of-chicago-home-health-care-company-among-seven-indicted-in-medicare-fraud-and-kickback-scheme

 

The Defendants and Related Companies
g. HCN Home Healthcare, Inc., was a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Illinois. HCN was located in Chicago, Illinois. HCN offered home health care services to Medicare beneficiaries who purportedly were confined to their homes, and through its
officers and agents submitted claims to Medicare for reimbursement for home health care services purportedly provided to Medicare beneficiaries.
h. Berzen Home Care Services, Inc., was a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Illinois. Berzen was located in Bensenville, Illinois.
i. Defendant ESTRELLITA DUQUILLA, a resident of Cook County,
Illinois, was the president and ran the day-to-day operations of HCN.
j. Defendant MIGUEL DUQUILLA, a resident of Cook County, Illinois,
was the secretary and registered agent of HCN.
k. Defendant DANIEL FAJARDO, a resident of Cook County, Illinois, was
a registered nurse and director of nursing for HCN at certain times.
l. Defendant ZENAIDA DIMAILIG, a resident of DuPage County, Illinois,
was a registered nurse and an employee of HCN.
m. Defendant ROBERTO JONSON, a resident of DuPage County, Illinois,
was the president and ran the day-to-day operations of Berzen.
n. Defendant GRACE MENDEZ, a resident of Cook County, Illinois, was an employee of HCN.
o. Defendant SHERROD HARRIS, a resident of Cook County, Illinois, was a certified nursing assistant and employee of HCN.

2. Beginning in or around June of 2008, and continuing through in or around July of
2012, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere,
ESTRELLITA DUQUILLA,
MIGUEL DUQUILLA,
DANIEL FAJARDO,
ZENAIDA DIMAILIG,
ROBERTO JONSON,
GRACE MENDEZ, and
SHERROD HARRIS,
defendants herein, together with others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, did conspire:
a. to knowingly and willfully offer and pay any remuneration, including kickbacks and bribes, directly and indirectly, overtly and covertly, from defendants ESTRELLITA DUQUILLA, MIGUEL DUQUILLA, and DANIEL FAJARDO to defendants ZENAIDA DIMALIG, ROBERTO JONSON, GRACE MENDEZ, SHERROD HARRIS and others, in return for them to refer patients to HCN for the furnishing and arranging for the
furnishing of services for which payment may be made in whole or in part under a Federal health  care program, namely, Medicare, in violation of Title 42, United States Code, Section 1320a- 7b(b)(2)(A); and
b. to knowingly and willfully solicit and receive any remuneration, including kickbacks and bribes, directly and indirectly, overtly and covertly, from defendants ESTRELLITA DUQUILLA, MIGUEL DUQUILLA, and DANIEL FAJARDO to defendants ZENAIDA DIMALIG, ROBERTO JONSON, GRACE MENDEZ, SHERROD HARRIS and
others, to induce the referral to patients to HCN for the furnishing and arranging for the furnishing of services for which payment may be made in whole or in part under a Federal health care program, namely, Medicare, in violation of Title 42, United States Code, Section 1320a-
7b(b)(1)(A).
Overview of the Conspiracy
3. It was part of the conspiracy that defendants and their co-conspirators agreed to unlawfully enrich themselves by (i) offering, paying, soliciting and receiving kickbacks in return for referring Medicare beneficiaries to HCN to serve as home health patients, (ii) using the referred Medicare beneficiary information to obtain payments from Medicare for home health
services purportedly provided to those beneficiaries by HCN, and (iii) concealing the offer, solicitation, payment and receipt of kickbacks…..

You get the picture.  $6 million of the picture.

And you wonder why Ken and I have been suspended for 3 years when there is $6 million to be made in medicare kickbacks and bribes.

This document speaks for itself.  It also explains why Jerome Larkin, James Grogin and my Chair Sang Yul Lee do not see or hear corruption from the lies of Peter Schmeidel, Debra Jo Soehlig or David Inlander, all from Fischel and Kahn.  David Inlander had a meeting with the pope in 2013.  I wonder if he has told the Pope yet about the death  (univestigated murder) of Mary G Sykes in May 23, 2015.  It is my understanding that it was Sang Yul Lee that fixed my case.  What a jerk.

I think atty Inlander can now skip those flights to the Vatican.

JMHO.

Two new lows from the ARDC and Review Board–Banning Mr. Amu and Lying about case law

First, my decision from the Review Board today:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwbEhhNnNfVUN1aFE/view?usp=sharing

Next, the comments of Ken Ditkowsky

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: May 28, 2015 10:46 PM
To: “JoAnne M. Denison” , Probate Sharks , Tim NASGA , Nasga Us , Matt Senator Kirk , Eric Holder , “J. Ditkowsky” , “FBI- ( (” , KRISTI HOOD , Chicago FBI , BILL DITKOWSKY , Bev Cooper , “newseditors@wsj.com” , ISBA Main Discussion Group , “information@iardc.org” , “postmaster@iardc.org” , Federal Bureau of Investigation , Jay Goldman
Subject: Re: Banning Mr. Amu from the ARDC — questions?

Given the state of the Illinois Supreme Court and the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission filing anything with the IARDC is a waste of time and effort.     I read the opinion of Larkin’s kangaroo committee and was shocked that the lawyers on the committee intentionally and deliberately misrepresented the Alvarez case.     
What occurred was not just intellectual dishonesty – it was actual prevarication as to the ruling of the Court.
Ignorance of the Law is said to be no excuse, and lawyers are presumed to know the law.       In the opinion of the Review Board of the Illinois Disciplinary Board it appears that the Administrator and his kangaroo panel intentionally misrepresented the ruling in the recent Supreme Court cases that Ms. Denison cites including but not limited to United States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 2537, 2544-2545, 183 L. Ed. 2d 574, 587-588, 2012 U.S. LEXIS 4879, *16-18, 80 U.S.L.W. 4634, 40 Media L. Rep. 1953, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 468, 2012 WL 2427808 (U.S. 2012)  
 
In the most dishonest, disreputable, and wrongful manner the panel takes the following words are an exact quote from the Alvarez decision that the Administrator and his stooges misrepresent:
 
The Government disagrees with this proposition. It cites language from some of this Court’s precedents to support its contention that false statements have no value and hence no First Amendment protection. See also Brief for Eugene Volokh et al. as  Amici Curiae  2-11.  HN6 LEdHN[6]   [6] These isolated statements in some earlier decisions do not support the Government’s submission that false statements, as a general rule, [2545]  are beyond constitutional protection. That conclusion would take the quoted language far from its proper context. For instance, the Court has stated “[f]alse statements of fact are particularly valueless [because] they interfere with the truth-seeking function of the marketplace of ideas,” Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 52, 108 S. Ct. 876, 99 L. Ed. 2d 41 (1988), and that false statements “are not protected by the First Amendment in the same manner as truthful statements,” Brown v. Hartlage, 456 U.S. 45, 60-61, 102 S. Ct. 1523, 71 L. Ed. 2d 732 (1982). See also, e.g., Virginia Bd. of Pharmacysupra, at 771, 96 S. Ct. 1817, 48 L. Ed. 2d 346 (“Untruthful speech, commercial or otherwise, has never been protected for its own sake”); Herbert v.Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 171, 99 S. Ct. 1635, 60 L. Ed. 2d 115 (1979) (“Spreading false information in and of itself carries no First Amendment credentials”); Gertz,supra, at 340, 94 S. Ct. 2997, 41 L. Ed. 2d 789 (“[T]here is no constitutional value in false statements of fact”); Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 75, 85 S. Ct. 209, 13 L. Ed. 2d 125 (1964) (“[T]he knowingly false statement and the false statement made with reckless disregard of the truth, do not enjoy constitutional protection”).
These quotations all derive from cases discussing defamation, fraud, or some other legally cognizable harm associated with a false statement, such as an invasion of privacy or the costs of vexatious litigation. See Brief for United States 18-19. In those decisions the falsity of the speech at issue was not irrelevant to our analysis, but neither was it determinative. The Court has never endorsed the categorical rule the Government advances: that false statements receive no First Amendment protection. Our prior decisions have not confronted a measure, like the Stolen Valor Act, that targets falsity and nothing more.
HN7  LEdHN[7]   [7] Even when considering some instances of defamation and fraud, moreover, the Court has been careful to instruct that falsity alone may not suffice to bring the speech outside theFirst Amendment. The statement must be a knowing or reckless falsehood. See Sullivansupra, at 280, 84 S. Ct. 710, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 (prohibiting recovery of damages for a defamatory falsehood made about a public official unless the statement was made “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not”); see also Garrisonsupra, at 73, 85 S. Ct. 209, 13 L. Ed. 2d 125 (“[E]ven when the utterance is false, the great principles of the Constitution which secure freedom of expression . . . preclude attaching adverse consequences to any except the knowing or reckless false-hood”); Illinois ex rel. Madigan v. Telemarketing Associates, Inc., 538 U.S. 600, 620, 123 S. Ct. 1829, 155 L. Ed. 2d 793 (2003) (“False statement alone does not subject a fundraiser to fraud liability”).
 
This section is a discussion of the government’s arguments – not the Court’s decision.   Thus to  claim that the Alvarez Court carved out an exception to content related speech is clearly dishonesty on the part of the Administrator, his attorneys, and his rubber stamp panels.      Let me make the allegation perfectly clear, to wit:    The Hearing panel, the Administrator and the Review panel openly and notoriously misrepresented in their opinion the Law.    Such is intolerable and is totally unprofessional and unethical.     Certainly whomever wrote the opinion in the Denison opinion was aware that he/she was acting fraudulently,      The Supreme Court of the United States has clearly made political and content related speech to be protected by the First Amendment.     It did not single out untruthful statements and it is fair to say that the Supreme in Alvarez rebuked the statement that the Disciplinary Board advances with the words:
 
The First Amendment itself ensures the right to respond to speech we do not like, and for good reason. Freedom of speech and thought flows not from the beneficence of the state but from the inalienable rights of the person. And suppression of speech by the government can make exposure of falsity more difficult, not less so. Society has the right and civic duty to engage in open, dynamic, rational discourse. These ends are not well served when the government seeks to orchestrate public discussion through content-based mandates.

United States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 2537, 2550, 183 L. Ed. 2d 574, 593, 2012 U.S. LEXIS 4879, *32, 80 U.S.L.W. 4634, 40 Media L. Rep. 1953, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 468, 2012 WL 2427808 (U.S. 2012)
 
For the Record the Court ruled:
 
The Nation well knows that one of the costs of the First Amendment is that it protects the speech we detest as well as the speech we embrace. Though few might find respondent’s statements anything but contemptible, his right to make those statements is protected by the Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of speech and expression. The Stolen Valor Act infringes upon speech protected by the First Amendment.

United States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 2537, 2551, 183 L. Ed. 2d 574, 594, 2012 U.S. LEXIS 4879, *35, 80 U.S.L.W. 4634, 40 Media L. Rep. 1953, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 468, 2012 WL 2427808 (U.S. 2012)
 
The disgraceful act of Mr. Larkin’s kangaroo committee has reached new lows of dishonesty and corruption.    
 
Unfortunately, the Illinois Attorney Registration of Disciplinary Commission, Mr. Larkin, and those who act in concert with them are mostly lawyers and mostly paid by the public.    As public employees they commit their crimes in the course of their employment and very often are able to get away with serious criminal acts by claiming immunity etc.    The mantel of legitimacy hides many felonies; however, this opinion in the Denison case is so wrong and ethically challenged as to mandate not only an HONEST investigation, but the forfeiture of the licenses of every attorney involved in the prosecution.      Rule 8.3 requires lawyers to complaint of this type of unconscionable acts by lawyers to Disciplinary authorities.      8.3. is thwarted as the ethically challenged lawyers are the Disciplinary authorities!.       18 USCA 4 requires felonies to be reported to law enforcement.     This particular criminal act committed in derogation of the Civil Rights of JoAnne Denison is being reported herewith to law enforcement.
 
 
It is proper to the challenge the law, custom, usage, and even habits.       However, if Mr. Larkin and those he acts in concert with want to challenge a law it is respectfully suggested that the judicial authority of the Supreme Court of the United States should not be challengeable by blatant misrepresentation of the cases and the law!      Indeed, some honesty should be demanded of agents of the Supreme Court of Illinois! 

Next, we have Mr. Lane Amu, an unfairly prosecuted HONEST attorney who was suspended for three years for making honest statements about corruption in three of his cases–statements which were never denied by the judges involved, and all three judges reversed their decisions.  Most notably, one of the judges Lynn Egan, had to resign from her position on the Board of Directors of a corporate entity whom her brother-lawyer represented and appeared before her on behalf of that same corporate entity.  It is most interesting she resigned from that Board, but not as a Judge for her ethical violation.  Mr. Amu’s assertions are showing effects–but the effects are ignored by the Judiciary and the ARDC, but not the corporation involved.

So, what does the ARDC do?  Reverse his decision. Write an apology to him?  Of course not!  They ban him from filing motions with the Clerk of Court of the ARDC.
See the letter:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwbzg3THJZVmVmalk/view?usp=sharing

——————————————-
From: JoAnne M Denison[SMTP:JDENISON@SURFREE.COM]
Sent: May 28, 2015 4:08:12 PM
To: loamu@aol.com; Kenneth Ditkowsky [Ditkowsky Law]; Atty Barbara Stone;
Atty Candice Schwager
Subject: Re: Banning Mr. Amu from the ARDC — questions?
Auto forwarded by a Rule

This is interesting.  So many questions.

1) Why is Lanre Amu being denied access to a Government State of Illinois office?
2) Was there a court order issued?  If so, why was he not served? Who received a copy of the court order, if anyone?
3) What happened to Mr. Lanre Amu is Fraud on the Court.  All orders issued during a Fraud on the Court tained case are void ab initio.  Has there been a ruling on the Fraud on the Court issues he suggests?
4)  Did Mr. Jerome Larkin ban Mr. Lanre Amu from the premises, if not, who did this?  What were the grounds?
5)  Does not Mr. Amu have a constitutional right to gain admittance to the ARDC to file motions?

let me know if you have further questions.  I would like to publish.

joanne

And I have to add, this smacks of the underhanded tactics used in corrupt cases.  I can’t tell you the number of cases I have seen where a probate victim, for whatever reason, loses an attorney, then all victim’s pleadings are struck on oral motion, or they are ignored or lost and forgotten (Sykes, Jones, et alia).  This is not supposed to happen.  It is a constitutional right to be pro se and have one’s pleadings respected.
Orders to ban the filing of further pleadings are simply unconsitutional. They should never be entered, and they never are, by HONEST judges.  And HONEST attorneys don’t move to strike them simply because the litigant is now pro se.  An honest judge is supposed to protect pro se litigants and not summarily strike and ignore pleadings.
And Mr. Tim Lahrman, a probate victim himself, I wish to direct this new article to Mr. Larkin today:
The fight for freedom, democracy, civil and human rights and liberties for senior citizens and the disabled in the US is NOT over.  We will fight.  We will be vociferous.  We will ask those who lie, cheat and steal, take kickbacks, supress Democracy, supress the First Amendment to step down and resign.  We will ask the States Attorneys to do their jobs — or resign.  We will ask the FBI and federal monitors to step into the State Court system and do their job until we achieve justice and dignity for the elderly and disabled persons in Illinois and across the nation.
Justice is Truth in action.