From Gloria Sykes today–the IARDC decision against Ken Ditkowsky was wrong and not supported by the facts

Dear Ken,

 
I am most saddened by how the IARDC has treated you and the ISC has sanctioned such treatment: when I saw my Mother on the 22nd of June, 2013, I told her you too were trying to help her.  As you know, she contacted me I believe in Feb. 2010 and begged me to “find” you and “hire” you to “save” her life.  The conversation is stoned in my memory: if you need money to pay (attorney), my Mother told me, take it from my mattress. The next day the mattress was gone and so was the at least $20,000 cash (mostly $100 bills).  You are correct that there is a pack of attorneys who parade around on the 18th floor empowered by a few judges who do what needs to be done to protect them.  For at least 4 years I have learned a lot about this Cottage Industry of Attorneys, complete with Guardians Ad Litem, who use the Probate Division to launder money.  It’s easier than you have described.  
 
As you know every year the court appointed guardian must provide the court with an inventory of the Ward’s assets.  In the Sykes case, Carolyn Toerpe would claim, for example, she paid the property taxes, insurance and mortgage on Mother’s home.  I would object and provide the Court good evidence that the taxes, insurance and mortgage was not paid (in this case, mother’s home was put into foreclosure).  The amount of money equaled at least $18,000.  Judge Stuart role plays so the record gives the impression she gives a damn, but after putting Toerpe under oath and asking a series of question to her, she would then allow GAL Stern to ask questions too.  Satisfied that Toerpe paid the mortgage, property taxes and insurance on the home, approves the inventory: no proof of payments are required.
 
Another example is medical expenses.  My mother has very good insurance with Blue Cross Blue Shield and of course Medicare.  However, one year Toerpe inventories medical and medication expenses totaling at leas $10,000.  I objected, providing the court proof that mother has insurance coverage for all of the medical, dental, and pharmaceutical expenses.  Again, the show goes on: Judge Stuart places Toerpe under oath asks a few questions then Adam Stern (GAL) asks a few questions, and the inventory is approved.  Two years ago Toerpe got approved $5000 to pay for dental and new partials for my mother and yet when I saw her on June 22, 2013, her teeth were rotting and she had no front teeth and could not chew.  The loss of weight and rotting teeth evidence no new partials were purchased and the money Toerpe claimed when for my mother’s dental care, was not spent on mother’s health.  Mother has had pyorrhea for most of her life and she had great dental care and healthy teeth until she was forced under Toerpe’s care.
 
This is how the money is laundered under the nose of the Judges and with the Court’s rubber stamp.  One last fact.  My mother’s home was worth at least $425,000: Toerpe sold it for cash for $238,000. Not one penny was inventoried. The home and mother’s assets were a part of a Living Revocable Trust — 
 
Stern, Farenga and Schmiedel admitted under oath that they were paid attorney fees from mother’s assets: Stern $15,000: Farenga $15,000 and Schmiedel $12,000 with Schmiedel testifying that mother owes him and the law-firm of Fischel and Kahn where he is associated yet another over $200,000 (the exact amount he stole from my medical funds/bankruptcy estate from the Lumberman’s settlement).  The law of the Probate is that the attorneys and GAL’s must file fee petitions within 90 days — there has never been any fee petitions filed — until now.  Since the Court converted all of my assets to my bankruptcy estate into the possession of Toerpe and granted Stern, Farenga and Schmiedel to file fee petitions *****
 
So for the sake of this email, let’s do the math. In plain sight, at least $500,000 cash has been laundered through the Probate case of In Re. the Estate of Mary G. Sykes.  Half of it is my money!  Mother had gold and silver coins in the US Bank safe box, but I had at least $350,000 of my own coins stored in the safe box.  Mother had her will and new trust in the box with a laundry list of who got what?  Toerpe did not inherit any of the coins from Daddy or All Bibby — Al Bibby gave me all of his coins.  Daddy left his to Mother and me and Mom left me as the sole beneficiary to the valuables in the box.
 
But the Probate Court is able to live above the Law and so the Cottage Industry of Probate attorneys and guardian ad litem’s are empowered to launder the estates of the elderly, disabled and all people, such as myself, who dare to stand up and say, “No. You can’t do this”.
 
 
I don’t mean to sound so cavalier, Ken, but the end game is always the same in these situations, and I need to stay focused on my next move(s): the end game being that once Stern, Schmiedel, Farenga, and Toerpe have all of Mother’s money (which they already do) and all of my money and assets, which they almost do, then they will either over medicate or suffocate my mother.  Although my mother has her last resting place paid for at All Saints Cemetary in Morton Grove, I am certain Toerpe will cremate her, sell mother’s site (will get at least $15000) and bury mother’s ashes next to her mother (grandma) where there is a lot available. This was of course not my mother’s wishes, but thus far, none of my mother’s advance directives have been acknowledged — and clearly it was my mother’s wish, desire, and intent to have an order of protection placed on Toerpe which would have prevented Toerpe from doing all that she had done.
 
I imagine Ken that had Schmiedel, Stern, and Farenga won the sanction claim against you (the appeal) they would have been each many thousands of dollars happier — and, would have done to you to other attorneys who tried to step in and help the elderly and disabled. That said, now the IARDC and the ISC has sent a clear and loud message to any attorney who would do the right thing, to not accept a probate case where the alleged disabled person has wealth.  It was a sad day for me, and I know my mother, to learn that you have been suspended from practicing law — but it’s a sadder day for all of the people of Illinois knowing that we have no protections from a highly active and aggressive cottage industry of attorneys who are empowered by the IARDC, ISC and of course the Probate Judges who wish to partake in the laundering of the well-earned assets/money of the elderly and disabled.
 
 
Gloria Jean Sykes 
Bon Ami Productions, Inc. 
BELIEVE (BeLive) LLC
773.910-3310(cell)
 773-751-1310 (fax)
855-376-0040 (business)

 

From Ken Ditkowsky — Still fighting for Mary G Sykes’s human and civil rights

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Mar 27, 2014 10:48 AM
To: Eric Holder , Marty Prehn , “PRESIDENT@messages.whitehouse.gov” , matt senator kirk
Cc: Tim NASGA , NASGA , Diane Nash , probate sharks , Jo Anne M Denison , Cook County States Attorney , “sheriff@dupagesheriff.org” , Cook Sheriff , Harry Heckert , j ditkowsky , GLORIA SYKES
Subject: The WAR ON THE ELDERLY AND DISABLED

To:  Attorney General Holder
Dear General Holder,
A friend referred me to the following:
(2) Money laundering and related financial crime.–The term “money laundering and related financial crime”–
(A) means the movement of illicit cash or cash equivalent proceeds into, out of, or through the United States, or into, out of, or through United States financial institutions, as defined in section 5312 of title 31, United States Code; or
(B) has the meaning given that term (or the term used for an equivalent offense) under State and local criminal statutes pertaining to the movement of illicit cash or cash equivalent proceeds.  31 U.S.C.A. § 5340 (West)
Reviewing the abusive guardianship cases across the United States a common pattern exists.
1) a senior citizen is railroaded into a guardianship.    In our posterboard case, it is Mary Sykes.   The provisions of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 1 et seq.  have been ignored in the effort to obtain control over the body and the property of the victim.    It should noted that mostly seniors with substantial assets are targeted.
2) a senior citizen is stripped of his/her assets.     These funds disappear into the ‘cloud!”      The funds obtained by the perpetrators are clearly illicit.    Except for Mr. Jerome Larkin and the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission few public officials have been know to defend the people (in this case attorneys) who act either for themselves or associates to garner control over the funds of the elderly and thereby either enrich themselves of others.    In the Sykes case over a million dollars in collectibles (gold coins) was taken from a safety deposit box and never inventoried.
3) Obviously these illicit funds are moved – in the case of the elder cleansing victim the movement is to the pockets of the favored.
Thus, the definition is met.     General Holder = Do you agree?
Do you agree the RICO statute concept applies?     Are the proceeds obtained by the abusive guardianship and the corrupt courts such illicit funds so as to be mony laundering?      Do you agree that the usurpers have to address the Federal and State Income tax laws – the breach of fiduciary relationship is a taxable event – but forfeitures (civil constructive trusts) etc.    Pursuant to 18 USCA 371 a broad brush is appropriate as the only way for a Democratic Society to win the War on the Elderly and the Disabled is to make it pecuniarily unattractive for the bad acting guardians, judicial officials and those who aid and abet them in the struggle.
Getting down to specifics.    1.5 million dollars was exhausted in a few short month in the Alice Gore estate.    (We have no valuation on the gold fillings in her teeth!).  Someone owes to the United States of America taxes and penalties on those funds.   Somehow these illicit funds were translated in an expensive home for ****, etc.   According to the definition this is money laundering.   The culpable people engaged are:  1) the plenary guardian, 2) the guardian ad litem, 3) the judge who assisted the enterprise by entering orders that she knew or should have know were reasonably calculated to separate the family of Alice Gore from Alice Gore.    In addition the IARDC people who fended off Ms. Gore’s family’s complaints are part and parcel of the scheme.     A similar situation occurred in the Sykes case.    This time Mr. Larkin and the IARDC were more overt ****
I do not know if the $60,000 Federal Tax Lien placed on Adam Stern relates to his activities in the War on the Elderly and the disabled, but it that were to be related let me thank you on behalf of the Sykes family, the Community in which Mary Sykes resided before she was taken hostage for this positive step.
The Congress and the Legislature have provided the tools to address this official corruption – What we need now is an Honest intelligent complete and comprehensive investigation by a Grand Jury of the Alice Gore/Mary Sykes/ Tyler, et al Estates.
Justice for the elderly is wasted when it comes after death!
Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

From Lanre Amu–his Supreme Court Brief

Dear Readers;

Please take a look at the following:

Mr. Lanre Amu did a great job on his brief to the SCOI, and in his brief he mentions “First Amendment” rights about 20 times and he also carefully lays out the facts of why he is alleging corruption against 5 judges.  He is also following my advice to investigate, investigate, investigate and turn it all over to the authorities.

Now, the obvious problem with all of this, if the ARDC is limiting one’s right to evidence (Mr. Amu finally mentions the fact he served notices for the depositions of the 5 judges and his Notices of Deposition were all quashed.  Then he served 5 trial subpoenas and those were all quashed), then what’s a poor black immigrant to do?

In my case, I took the depositions of Gloria Sykes, Scott Evans, Kathie Bakken and Yolanda Bakken. The IARDC failed to show up and just claimed the Notices “weren’t good enough”.  I offered they could come back and cross examine, but they refused.  Nonetheless, they continued to claim “discovery violation” to the Tribunal.  To add more insanity to their behavior, they repeatedly wanted to strike the depositions, but then they used them at trial!  MPD anyone?

There are many similarities.

Now all that Mr. Amu has to do is cite the 5 major cases that are in his favor with respect to First Amendment rights and he will be there:  Peel/Ibenez (advertising credentials on letterhead okay), Citizens United (strict scrutiny standard for curtailing political speech), Loving v. IRS (IRS has no jurisdiction/authority to regulate), Brown Entertainment (Violent video games unrated okay), Gentile (statements made during press conference by attorney protected by First Amendment)

Optional, excellent cases: Alvarez (false Medals of Valor protected by the First Amendment); Virginia Bar Assn v. Hunter (truthful statements regarding attorney’s criminal law blog cases protected by First Amendment), Karavidas v. IARDC (attorneys private activities not within authority of ARDC to discipline), etc.

The only thing Mr. Amu needs is a few cases and he will be there.

During my trial, the ARDC cited and gave me copies of their cases which were not appealed to the SCOI or SCOTUS.  On the otherhand, we did not need any case copies because everyone should be aware (esp. if they are a lawyer), of the First Amendment case which have issued from SCOI and SCOTUS.  These should be famous cases and all lawyers should be familiar with them.

Only a lawyer has the unique ability to spot when law, procedure and case law is not being followed in the courtroom.  To report these activities promptly and substantially accurately protects the public and other lawyers from being sandbagged by miscreant behavior in a court room.

We have two very important rights in this country.  The first is access to free, open and democratic courtrooms, the second (and esp. when that first right fails), is access to a free, open and democratic media.

And being in the media is no piece of cake.  But the reality is, certain individuals, by their own actions foist themselves into the media and public light.  Certainly a judge foists themself into the public light and especially those that are elected.  Next, are the behavior of attorneys in the courtroom.  There has been plenty of negative publicity about many, many lawyers in the courtroom in highly visible cases.

When one starts to judge speech in a courtroom, as Atty. Nejla Lane said during my ARDC trial, the court automatically becomes biased in favor of one side of the story.  At that point, the court automatically loses its credibility as an impartial, blind judge of facts as applied to law.  Accordingly, by its very nature, speech is nearly impossible to regulate.

Take a look at the following case which many are urging Mr. Brewington to take his case to the Supreme Court of Indiana and I hope that he does:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15376113416450889254&q=Brewington&hl=en&as_sdt=4,15

In this case, Mr. Brewington hired a child evaluator (psychologist) and agreed to have him evaluate his family situation during a custody battle.  When Mr. Brewington didn’t like the report, he then sent the doctor many communications letting the doc know in no uncertain terms what Brewington felt regarding the report and he created a scathing blog.  But he did not threaten the doctor with physical harm or any crime against person or property.

The trial court found Brewington committed the crime of “intimidation” with “threats” based upon the following definition of “threat”:

The (Indiana) General Assembly has defined a “threat” as:

an expression, by words or action, of an intention to:

(1) unlawfully injure the person threatened or another person, or damage property;

(2) unlawfully subject a person to physical confinement or restraint;

(3) commit a crime;

(4) unlawfully withhold official action, or cause such withholding;

(5) unlawfully withhold testimony or information with respect to another person’s legal claim or defense, except for a reasonable claim for witness fees or expenses;

(6) expose the person threatened to hatred, contempt, disgrace, or ridicule;

(7) falsely harm the credit or business reputation of the person threatened; or

(8) cause the evacuation of a dwelling, a building, another structure, or a vehicle.

Ind.Code § 35-45-2-1(c). Whether conduct amounts to a threat is an objective question of fact for the jury to decide. Owens v. State, 659 N.E.2d 466, 474 (Ind. 1995).

Now, I don’t have a problem with the above, except no. 6.  No. 6 is purely criminalizing trash talk and it’s completely subjective.  The last sentence regarding what amount to a threat which can possibly be objective is purely outrageous.  There is absolutely nothing about speech that is “objective”.  Objective is a litmus test, evaluating speech is a matter of preference, bias and prejudice.  To deny that is to engage in day dreaming.

So, poor Mr. Brewster let the doctor know he was unhappy and demanded the doctor change or retract the report.  That was the basis for an “obstruction of justice” count.  It was opined that a scathing blog and string of faxes and letters would prevent the poor doc from coming to court and taking the witness stand.

Let’s go back and read in between the lines here.  We know that probate and divorce courts have their “go to doctors” where you simply get the opinion you want based upon the name of the doc.  Most of the time, therefore, the courts keep “private” or “proprietary” lists.  Even the New Mexico state legislature has had problems with court connected psychologists, such that, in 1995 they were able to pass a bill in the senate that they dress like wizards prior to testifying (true story, check it out):

http://overlawyered.com/2012/01/dressing-psychiatrists-like-wizards-on-the-witness-stand/

the bill stated:

When a psychologist or psychiatrist testifies during a defendant’s competency hearing, the psychologist or psychiatrist shall wear a cone-shaped hat that is not less than two feet tall. The surface of the hat shall be imprinted with stars and lightning bolts. Additionally, a psychologist or psychiatrist shall be required to don a white beard that is not less than 18 inches in length, and shall punctuate crucial elements of his testimony by stabbing the air with a wand. Whenever a psychologist or psychiatrist provides expert testimony regarding a defendant’s competency, the bailiff shall contemporaneously dim the courtroom lights and administer two strikes to a Chinese gong…

Perhaps Mr. Brewington should have repeated this story in opening argument or closing.

Mr. Brewington’s story is indeed troubling. Let’s hope he appeals. With respect to emails and faxes, I know where the block feature is, where the delete key is and once in a while I might use those, but most of the time, I ignore/do not read trash talk and tell the sender they are wasting their time. That’s my constitutional right.

For an upbeat story on Free Speech rights, try this case from the Indiana Supreme Court where an apparently drunken woman told the nice police officer in a loud voice where to go and what to do.  The Indiana Supreme Court said the speech was political and protected by the First Amendment:

Price v. Indiana

http://www.leagle.com/decision/19931576622NE2d954_11518.xml/PRICE%20v.%20STATE

The court upheld the drunken woman charge but struck down the other charges of resisting arrest and obstructing justice for her speech.  Apparently she said “F U, I didn’t do anything wrong.”  I wonder if the Indiana Supreme court knew that if you said that statement was in and of itself obstructing justice and disorderly conduct, the Indiana prisons would soon be full to the busting point!  Isn’t that what everyone says or at least thinks at the time of arrest?

This was a 1993 case and I wonder if free speech rights are simply eroding.

Mr Amu’s recent brief can be found here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwOUhueld6RHp4Z2s/edit?usp=sharing

But my hero right now is Indiana’s first lady of loud, drunken, obnoxious speech, Ms. Colleen Price.  “F U, I didn’t do anything wrong” as she was being arrested.

You go, girl.

From a probate victim writing a book, should we mince words?

Dear Readers;

I had a probate victim write me to day and ask the ultimate question–should I mince words.  She opined no one would believe her story, and many probate victims ask if they should write their stories as works of fiction.

My answer.  Heck no!  If you are indeed a probate victim, believe it or not, your story is a precious gift, and you must tell it, if you are a writer or if you know a writer.

And of course, Ken and I must ask ourselves constantly in light of threats from the ARDC, certain attorneys and court, that we must not reveal publicly some shameful behavior we have observed in and out of the courtroom, and we should not tell our truths as we see it, putting aside the Bill of Rights and our First Amendment rights to reveal this insidious evil–the trashing of civil rights and human rights of disableds.

But I always, always ask the Divine Ones for the answer–not the confused, lonely and corrupted souls on this earth about where I need to go and what I need to say, knowing I can have the protection of 1,000 angels, something NOT available to them who hide in fear chasing greed and money.

See my answer to her below.

JoAnne

Dear Friend;

You asked if you should change your book so that it is 1) more believable; 2) more politically correct; 3) less harsh and not your true feelings.  My answer to you is no, no, no.  You must speak your truth and no one else’s. It does no one any good for you to not speak up.  I believe there is a plan and purpose for everything.  You defeat the purpose and plan when you do not go where your heart tells you to go and say what your heart tells you to say, honestly and completely.  It is not up to you to mince your truth because you are afraid, you think the recipient might not take it so well, etc.  You have to put those fears aside and still speak your truth.  It is your truth and not someone else’s.  No one is here to judge you, so let that one go.  The righteous will stand by you and those that are still learning but cannot yet comprehend or stand the truth, will fall away.  You will see.  Your only job is to go and deliver and go and speak out.

 Review the Sarah Barrielles song on this point.

lyrics are at http://www.metrolyrics.com/brave-lyrics-sara-bareilles.html

what does Ms. Sarah have to say on these points?

You can be amazing
You can turn a phrase….. you can start speaking up
Nothing’s gonna hurt you…..(but)
Kept on the inside and no sunlight
Sometimes the shadow wins

There are other songs on this point, but she is right.  Don’t hold it in, get it out.  Speak your truth, your justice–what you need to say.  The only danger is in not speaking up and out.  Not speaking your truth and holding it in, clogs up your throat chakra!
But I wonder what would happen if you

Say what you wanna say
And let the words fall out
Honestly I wanna see you be brave

the people that don’t speak out and don’t say what needs to be said, are all too common.  There are millions of them. But those that are the best will speak out against injustice, evil and greed.

Everybody’s been there, everybody’s been stared down
By the enemy
Fallen for the fear and done some disappearing
Don’t run, stop holding your tongue

and we’ve all done it.  we’ve all walked away when we should have said something, done something, written something.  But you can make up that karma today.  Today is a new day to do something about this.
Maybe there’s a way out of the cage where you live
Maybe one of these days you can let the light in
Show me how big your brave is

And this song goes on with more truths and more sustenance for the soul, most notably:

And since your history of silence
Won’t do you any good
Did you think it would?
Let your words be anything but empty
Why don’t you tell them the truth?

I don’t think I could have said it better.  I know too many probate victims, downtrodden, fearful, maligned, beaten up, abused–who will no longer speak up and out.

Time to stop that nonsense.

On the days when you cannot speak out, publish on a blog what you want to say, please listen to the song Brave by Sarah Bareilles.  She packs a whole lot of wisdom into one 3 minute song.


(they actually play this in the church where I go)

You have been given  a great gift of a life and karma that no one else has.  You survived it.  It’s your experience and only you own it.

Reach in your heart and then write what your heart tells you.  It is actually your obligation to deliver your truth.  It is not up to you to figure out how the recipient takes it or if they like it, believe it or will stand up and support your need for righteousness.

If you write so that you are not speaking your truth, then you haven’t learned this lesson and there will be more lessons.

You have been given a precious and valuable gift, whether you know it or not.  Now you have to tell your truth.

I will for sure promote your book and anyone else’s that tells these stories properly, with the unvarnished truth.

Thank you for all you do for the probate victims.

I wish you many blessings, peace and love.

JoAnne

Copyright notice:  the above lyrics are used based upon a license found at:

https://www.sonyatv.com/index.php/contact which allows for use of Sony/ATV lyrics for personal/noncommercial use on blogs and in other manners.  This is a non-commercial blog which is not sold or otherwise distributed.

Pravda and Izvestia–Russian news and truth, is this what the Illinois ARDC wants?

In the US, we enjoy greatly our first amendment rights including the right to say what we want and the right to a free press which is the core of a sound democratic society.

Contrast.  I had a thermomechanical professor once named “Minkowicz” who, while he came from Russia, he knew a lot about the country and would give us lectures, for example when it was 20 below in Chicago, he would say, “ah, where is everyone?  this is nice spring day in Siberia?”

To add to his colorful character he would talk about “Pravda” meaning “truth” and “Izvestia” meaning “news” and he would say there is no Pravda in Izvestia nor was there any Izvestia in Pravda!  This quote would be quickly followed by “In Russia, you see many people, most people taking Pravda into the bathroom.  But THEY’RE NOT READING IT! (they’re saving money on toilet paper.

So on that basis, I’ll leave you with some more funny quotes for the day:

1) there is no gravity, life sucks, and

2) (got this yesterday from a probate victim) fair?  you want fair?  that happens once per year for a week at the county seat!

love it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But the ARDC citing trial court precedent?  Unbelievable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But the ARDC citing trial court precedent?  Unbelievable.

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

Dear Readers;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can we blame Dunkin Donuts?

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

Dear Sharon and Jessica;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

thanks

joanne

cc:  http://www.marygsykes.com

 

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

See below and enjoy:

CostofCorr-Oct2012-bill

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

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

First I know you are all waiting to read:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are my comments about the ARDC response:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*** End of My Comments***

Now for Ken’s Reply to the ARDC:

No testimony has been taken or received at this point in time in the proceedings before the Illinois ARDC.     That said, the movant has presented this Court with the significant documentation necessary to inform the Court as to the factual basis of its motion and plea.   The plea is for this Court to order an investigation of the fact that more than one senior citizen has been in derogation of its ruling in Steinfeld   (citation infra) and a comprehensive protective plan enacted by the Illinois Legislature (citation infra) separated from her liberty and property by a Court lacking in jurisdiction.
As noted in the Motion for a Supervisory order,  the movant has presented affidavits of disinterested persons (disinterested in the JoAnne Denison matter) that connoted the most important reason for the granting of the supervisory order and ordering of a Honest comprehensive investigation of the Mary Sykes and similar cases.     These affidavits have not been contested.
Contrary to the impression attempted  to be conveyed by the Administrator, the reason for the Petition for a Supervisory order being requested is multi-fold.    The most pressing matter is the fact that in Illinois senior citizens are being herded into the Guardianships without concern as to the protections built into the system. Legislative protections are ignored and these senior citizens (such as Mary Sykes)  are then denied their liberty and property interests.
The Statement that attorneys made not speak of this terrible situation is an ‘assault’ on the core values of the United States.     The Supreme Court of the United States has deplored such a situation and made in clear in Alvarez  the even untrue content speech is protected speech.   Only the Administrator of the ARDC appears to suggest that an Attorney may not complain concerning the denial of Civil Rights effectuated by “judicial officials”[1]    The Virginia Supreme Court rejected the regulation of ‘content’ based speech such as appears in the Denison Blog and publications.
Ms Denison objects to the Administrator’s failure to be completely candid with this Court.     The Administrator did not cite In re: Green  11 P 3d 1078 in which it was held that the First Amendment protection included the right to make the allegation that a particular judge was a racist and a bigot, and did not note the distinction in Palmisano, i.e:
“If Palmisano had furnished some factual basis for his assertions, then we would need to determine whether either the Constitution or principles of sound judicial administration permit a sanction-for an attorney is not absolutely liable for every statement that turns out to be incorrect. It would unduly quell investigation and exposure of corruption to disbar an attorney who publicized suspicious conduct, just because the suspicions were dispelled.”   Matter of Palmisano, 70 F.3d 483, 487 (7th Cir. 1995)
Ms. Denison has attached affidavits of 3rd persons as part of her response that confirm the direct miscreant conduct in violation of the clears words of the Supreme Court of Illinois and the Legislative of the State of Illinois[2].      These affidavits have not been  challenged.
Discussion
 “Disbarment is not an adversarial proceeding”  Matter of Palmisano, 70 F.3d 483, 484 (7th Cir. 1995) and therefore, it is respectfully suggested that the Administrator’s objections are groundless and disingenuous.      Even in his defense to the clearly erroneous decision to disqualify Ms. Denison’s attorney appearing for her at the ARDC proceeding the Administrator does not suggest a single question that  Mr. Ditkowsky can be called as a witness concerning.    Conclusions are interesting but irrelevant and it is respectfully suggested that no proper court would have entertained the disqualification motion advanced by the Administrator without specifics.     There is no affidavit submitted with the Motion that suggests that Denison’s attorney had any exclusive personal knowledge.     (The Common Record in Sykes has been seen by dozens of people.    If the Administrator did at Rule 137 examination of the record he also has personal knowledge that the Sykes court acted without jurisdiction).
It should be noted that the Administrator does not state that Mr. Ditkowsky viewed or attended any hearing or other proceeding involving Mary Sykes,     Indeed, Attorney Denison has waived any ‘conflict of interest’ she might have with her attorney,  as in fact there is none.     To eliminate an attorney who does not please the adversary, following the administrator’s reasoning all the adversary has to do is claim that the offending attorney will be called as a witness[3].
The objection filed the administrator is interesting in that he does not display in his appendix the Request to Admit that were filed by Ms. Denison with the Commission.   The Administrator’s evasive and unresponsive Responses also are not in his appendix[4].      The significance of the response of the Administration is that the Administrator is so intent on ‘winning’ that Justice is not a consideration.    Candid answers to the Request to Admit is respectfully submitted to be the end the Denison case.      The death knell occurred years before this case was brought as the Illinois Supreme Court has made it very clear that:
“The court acquires jurisdiction over the allegedly disabled person by personal service upon him of a copy of the petition and summons not less than 14 days before the hearing. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, Ch. 110½, par. 11a–10(e); see McCormick v. Blaine (1931), 345 Ill. 461, 178 N.E. 195.) It is also a jurisdictional requirement that the petitioner give notice of the time and place of the hearing by mail or in person to the nearest living relatives of the allegedly disabled person not less than 14 days before the hearing. Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, Ch. 110½, par. 11a–10(f); see In re Guardianship of Sodini (1988), 172 Ill.App.3d 1055, 123 Ill.Dec. 67, 527 N.E.2d 530.”  In re Estate of Steinfeld, 158 Ill. 2d 1, 13, 630 N.E.2d 801, 807 (1994)
The Administrator is not by law supposed to be an advocate for the persons appointed as “judicial officials” by a Court lacking jurisdiction.     He is supposed to protect the rights of citizens such as Mary Sykes, Gloria Sykes, Yolanda Bakken, Scott Evans, JoAnne Denison, etc.     In not providing this Court with a copy of its responses to the Request to Admit and in not candidly answering the Administrator pursuant to Rule 216 admits that the Circuit Court record does not demonstrate that in Sykes ( as an example) the 14 days’ notice was served upon Gloria Sykes, Yolanda Bakken,  et al .     It is respectfully suggested that the Administrator was not candid in citing  Palmisano  for reasons stated infra.
On the other hand the if the Administrator denies the Request to Admit, the Administrator must prove the impossible by clear and convincing evidence[5] that Ms. Gloria Sykes, her two aunts, and all who have viewed the Sykes record  are all mistaken.     Indeed, if the 14 day notices were not served on Gloria Sykes and her two aunts the statements made in Ms. Denison’s blog are indeed true.     Ms. Farenga, Ms. Troepe, Mr. Stern are not “judicial officials” and  Mary Sykes has been the victim of the tort of false imprisonment, the non-inventory of her property much more than the breach of fiduciary relationship etc.     More seriously, the claimed “judicial officials” are guilty of much more than ethical violations.      Indeed, the Administrator may himself have violated Himmel.
The portion of the Palmisano decision that the Administrator in his objections failed to call to the Court’s attention is documented as:
“If Palmisano had furnished some factual basis for his assertions, then we would need to determine whether either the Constitution or principles of sound judicial administration permit a sanction-for an attorney is not absolutely liable for every statement that turns out to be incorrect. It would unduly quell investigation and exposure of corruption to disbar an attorney who publicized suspicious conduct, just because the suspicions were dispelled.”   Matter of Palmisano, 70 F.3d 483, 487 (7th Cir. 1995)
Ms. Denison has provided a significant factual basis for her assertions.    She has provided affidavits of the affected persons and the wrongful prosecution of Ms. Denison is a chilling violation of the Free Speech of a citizen protected by the First Amendment.[6]
The Administrator has claimed that statements made on the publication (Blog) maintained by Ms. Denison are untrue as they relate to public officials; however, significantly missing from the appendix attached to the objections is a single certification by anyone that they served the 14 days’ notice required in the Sykes case by 755 ILCS 5/11a -10(f) on Gloria Sykes or the two siblings of Mary Sykes.    
Why has the Administrator of the ARDC failed to produce a scintilla of evidence either herein or in the Commission proceedings to suggest, or even imply that 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10(f) was even attempted to be complied with?    Certainly copies of the return or certification of the Sheriff, private investigator, attorney, or other person who served the 14 day notices required to vest the Circuit Court probate division with jurisdiction would be persuasive.   As the Court file in Sykes is a public record (or at least was a public record) a copy of the return or certification of service of the 14 days’ notice would be easy to present so as to counter the affidavits of Mary Sykes daughter and two sisters.      It is respectfully submitted that  no return or certification ever existed (prior to today) and the Administrator is fully aware that Ms. Denison’s blog contains no knowingly untrue statements.    The Administrator is aware that it  is a violation of Rule 8.4 by the Administrator and Rule 137 of the Supreme Court Rules[7] to file documents in any judicial proceeding that are knowingly untrue.
            This Supreme Court has the decision in Hunter before it and therefore can determine the scope of the decision and whether or not the Virginia Supreme Court obviated any notion that attorneys are second class citizens to be denied their Free Speech Rights.[8]    It is also quite significant and very disappointing that the Administrator does not address the important Constitutional limitations on its jurisdiction .      Missing from the objection filed by the Administrator was any mention of this Court’s or the Supreme Court’s decisions that are the strong basis for the request for an investigation and  the supervisory order have been over-ruled are not relevant or superseded.     Indeed, as an example the Administrator fails to address the 2011 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Brown v. Entm’t Merchants Ass’n, 131 S. Ct. 2729, 2733, 180 L. Ed. 2d 708 (2011), New York Times vs. Sullivan (citation omitted), Alvarez, etc.     The recent decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States must be given proper respect.     In proportion the respect due them is infinitely more than that to be given to “judicial officials” appointed by a Court lacking jurisdiction.
Unfortunately, the instant Motion for a Supervisory order is not an academic or an athletic exercise.     The issue herein is the fact that lawyers are being intimidated by the Illinois ARDC to keep silent as to persons being denied their liberty and property interest because they deemed by certain “judicial officials” appointed by a Court lacking jurisdiction to be in need a guardian.      The issue is the Elder Abuse and Financial Exploitation of Senior citizens and persons with diminished capacity.        The issue is the concept that a judgment of the need for a guardian is not to protect the individual but to strip him or her of all liberty and property rights.[9]
            Equally serious, but not of the same Constitutional moment of the First Amendment issue is the fact that the legislature in 755 ILCS 5/11a – 17 and 11a -18 has determined that guardianship was not the ‘kiss of death’ but a compassionate method of making as little interference into the life of a affected person as possible.    Indeed, the legislature decreed that people such as Mary Sykes would not be isolated from family, friends, activities, assets, and liberty.
Conclusion and Summary
Senior citizens and disabled persons are not ‘second class citizens’ and when the Illinois Legislature enacted a legislative scheme to protect them the Illinois ARDC was not delegated the authority to silence attorneys such as Ms. Denison who complained that the protections were being thwarted  by certain “judicial officials” who were appointed by a Court lacking jurisdiction.      The Administrator of the Illinois ARDC has called attention  ( by his prosecution of Ms. Denison for publishing on her ‘blog’) to  the fact that a 90 plus year old senior citizen (and others) have been dominated illegally by ‘judicial officials’ who sans jurisdiction of the appointing court have ignored the legislative protections afforded to senior citizens who have either the potential for or actual diminished capacity.
Mary Sykes for one has been stripped of a million dollars (plus or minus) in gold coins that were not inventoried and isolated from her family for more than three years.     In an effort to silence JoAnne Denison the Administrator and the ARDC panel disqualified her attorney upon the facade that he might be called to testify.      The seriousness of the Sykes case and related cases promulgated Attorney Denison to petition this Court for a Supervisory order requiring the Courts to follow the legislative and jurisdictional mandate and for an honest, complete and comprehensive investigation by law enforcement of how in the United States of America something like the Sykes case could flourish[10].
Ms. Denison prays that this court enter its supervisory order and deny the Administrator’s objections.
Respectfully Submitted,


[1] Following the reasoning of the Administrator there would have been no prosecution of the 15 judges who went to jail as the result of their corruption (in Greylord) and there would be no need for the Judicial Inquiry Board.    Indeed, a lawyer who co-operated with the Justice Department in an investigation of Judicial corruption would be subject to Disciplinary action by the ARDC.   Ironically the corruptors and the corrupt would be free to operate their nefariousness at will.
[2] The Objection suggests that the Blog contains untrue matter.   The burden of proof is upon the Administrator to prove by clear and convincing evidence the facts upon which his claim is based.    The affidavits placed of record, and documents on the blog substantiate that the statements have a credible basis and that the petitioner had every right to assert them as facts.
[3] It should be noted that this was the technique was allegedly used to prevent Ms. Denison from protecting the interests of Mary Sykes and Gloria Sykes in the Sykes case.   Thus, the Court record reveals that Mary Sykes was in defiance of the Article 11a (755 ILCS 5/11a  et seq) Mary had her liberty and property taken from her and no attorney was appointed or allowed to represent her or the assert the jurisdictional deficiency that this court pointed out in In re Estate of Steinfeld, 158 Ill. 2d 1, 13, 630 N.E.2d 801, 807 (1994)
[4] Ms. Denison filed a Motion for Summary Judgment before the ARDC panel based upon the responses filed by the Administrator.    The objection suggests that the Commission has adopted a Rule to prevent the termination of spurious and improper disciplinary actions by the Administrator.    However, this Court in enacting Rule 137 over-ruled such a tactic to thwart a denial of Equal Protection of the Law toward Legal Professionals.    The ARDC should be like Caesar’s wife!   It should not be an instrument of intimidation.
[5] A search of the Circuit Court record reveals that not only was the Petition for the Guardianship of Mary Sykes defective as it did not name the two siblings of Mary Sykes (and was brought in the wrong venue) but, it not served in accordance with 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10,  Sodini,  and Steinfeld.
[6] The recent Supreme Court of the United States Decisions suggest that Palmisano today would not be good law.    That is not to say that if Mr. Palmisano insulted the Court while participating in a court proceeding he could not held in contempt, or that he could not be sued for defamation.     Government however cannot limit his content based speech.    This issue however is not part of the Motion for Supervisory order.    The portion of Palmisano not disclosed by the Administrator discloses the weakness of the Administrator’s position and as the Administrator in its objection has quite articulately  stated he will not investigate the attorneys accused of Elder Abuse and Financial Exploitation of senior citizens such as Mary Sykes.   Thus, a supervisory order is extremely necessary if Senior citizens are going to be protected from court attorned Elder Abuse and Financial Exploitation of Senior citizens.
[7] It is respectfully suggested that had the Administrator a scintilla of proof of jurisdiction being afforded to the Probate Court pursuant to 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10(f) the Administrator would welcome an investigation into the Sykes case.    Unfortunately, it is very clear that for more than three years Mary Sykes has had her liberty taken from her.    Her personal property which is valued in excess of a million dollars has not been inventoried.     The two Guardian ad Litem who are the ‘eyes and ears’ of the court  instead of on the record reporting these facts to the Court have authored complaints to the ARDC to investigate the attorneys who have objected to the non-inventory of a million dollars in assets by a plenary guardian who was appointed by a Court lacking jurisdiction.   It is respectfully submitted that if this Court were to request the Administrator of the ARDC to produce credible documentary evidence that Gloria Sykes and Mary Sykes two siblings were served with the 14 days’ notice the Administrator could not do so!
[8] The administrator’s attempt to distinguish Hunter exposes his embarrassment.    Hunter involved a measure of Commercial speech.    The Virginia Supreme Court dealt with the fact that where there is commercial speech the Court has some lee-way to protect the public; however, as to content based speech this Court and the Supreme Court of the United States have evolved their opinions more in line with the opinions of Justice Black and Justice Douglas.   It is significant that the Administrator does not address Alvarez or the statement that was the basis of the Brown decision:
“government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U.S. 564, 573, 122 S.Ct. 1700, 152 L.Ed.2d 771 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). There are of course exceptions. “ ‘From 1791 to the present,’ … the First Amendment has ‘permitted restrictions upon the content of speech in a few limited areas,’ and has never ‘include[d] a freedom to disregard these traditional limitations.’ ” United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. ––––, ––––, 130 S.Ct. 1577, 1584, 176 L.Ed.2d 435 (2010) (quoting R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 382–383, 112 S.Ct. 2538, 120 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992)). These limited areas—such as obscenity, Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 483, 77 S.Ct. 1304, 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 (1957), incitement, Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447–449, 89 S.Ct. 1827, 23 L.Ed.2d 430 (1969) (per curiam), and fighting words, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 572, 62 S.Ct. 766, 86 L.Ed. 1031 (1942)—represent “well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem,” id., at 571–572, 62 S.Ct. 766.”  Brown v. Entm’t Merchants Ass’n, 131 S. Ct. 2729, 2733, 180 L. Ed. 2d 708 (2011)
[9] The issue is the fact that each one of us is reaching (or reached) senior citizen status and we might find ourselves being railroaded in to guardianship wherein we lose our liberty and property.
[10] The Administrator has pointed out in his objections that he has prosecutor discretion and if he does not wish to investigate the two guardian ad litem appointed by a court lacking jurisdiction et al that is strictly up to him.    Indeed, this is the reason that Ms. Denison would appreciate this Court directing law enforcement to examine the facts of the Sykes case and in particular determine:
1.       How could Mary Sykes be deprived of her liberty by a Court lacking jurisdiction (because of the failure to serve the 14 day Sodini notices) for so many years.
2.       How could a million dollars of uninventoried personal property (gold coins) be obtained by the plenary guardian?
3.       Why in Sykes are there two guardian ad litem and why did they not report the non-inventory of the assets of Mary Sykes?
4.       Why was an admission of neglect by the plenary guardian not reported to the Court by the plenary guardians
5.       Why was Mary Sykes isolated from her two siblings and younger daughter.     Why was Mary Sykes removed from her home, her activities, her friends, etc.
As the Illinois Legislature enacted 755 ILCS 5/11a et seq it obviously intended to protect senior citizens.    In the case of Mary Sykes and unfortunately many other seniors the protections have not been implemented.   The question that must be addressed is why not!    It is respectfully submitted that the Administrator’s objections may provide a suggestion.    Ms. Denison and her counsel respectfully request an investigation to ascertain the facts.   Illinois cannot afford another Greylord.
Ken Ditkowsky

 

 

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

Dear Readers;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JoAnne

BEFORE THE  ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION  AND DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

________________________

_________________________

__________________________

__________________________

______________________________

______________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subject: Re: First Amendment

I am not a Brodsky ‘fan’ and mirror your opinions; however, when the judge sentenced Peterson the case was over.    The appeal is a separate proceeding which has a low chance of success.   In fact if you examine the record you will find that the judge leaned over backwards to give Peterson just about every break.      This judge was like Cesar’s wife – 100% pure and judicial.    He was faced with lawyers (led by Brodsky) who acted as clowns.   they wore similar outfits, sun glasses, gave absurd press conferences, and strutted like  ******.    Peterson acted like a juvenile delinquent.    the judge did not think that they stepped over the line as he did not order them to ‘grow up’ and he did not hold anyone in contempt.    
 
Thus, a jury found Peterson guilty.    It is going to be difficult sell to say that the jury verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence and therefore the focus of an appeal is going to purely technical.   1) the hearsay evidence and 2) the incompetence of counsel.
 
Brodsky is a citizen of the United States of America and therefore protected by the First Amendment.     It may be heresy to think this way but the attack on Brodsky’s First Amendment Rights is an attack on our rights.    The fact that Brodsky did you wrong and would not stand up to protect your rights is irrelevant.    Any attempt to muzzle another citizen is intolerable.    The credo of America is “I may disagree with you, but I will fight to death to protect your right to do so!” 
 
This is an really important point in the fight against ‘elder abuse’ and ‘financial exploitation of the elderly’ by “judicial officials”      The ARDC and other lawyer regulators was not given any mandate or delegation to silence dissent, protest, or any speech.   The idea that lawyers can or should be intimidated is a novel custom but not a new one.    A lawyer is engaged to represent his clients best interest in an appropriate manner.     He is not engaged to win a popularity contest or develop a ‘fan club.’    The ARDC should spend its time investigating how it is that a Court sans jurisdiction allowed “judicial officials” under its supervision to separate your mother from her liberty, her property, and her human rights.     The ARDC and law enforcement should investigate how it is that a million dollars in gold coins was not inventoried by a ‘judicial official’ appointed by a Court sans jurisdiction.       The ARDC should investigation how in derogation of the mandate of the Article 11a of the Probate Act and in particular 755 ILCS 5/11a – 17 and 755 ILCS 5/11a -18 Farenga, Stern, Schmiedel and Troepe can isolate, segregate, and prevent your mother from calling you or visiting you (or her two siblings).    
 
I am aware Ms. Sykes that the ARDC apparently finds nothing wrong with the aforesaid acts as it investigates Ms. Denison and myself for complaining about the ‘above’ situation, writing to the Attorney General of the United States and other citizens about this situation.    The fact is however, that one wrong does not make another wrong right!     The fact is that Democracy is not a spectator sport and we have to stand up and be counted not only when the Civil rights of friends are being violated, but also when those we do not hold in high regard are also threatened.    
 
Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

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

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

See the letter below

Letter from ARDC that they DO NOT do email

and my and Ken’s reponse is below.

Dear Jessica and Sharon;

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

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

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

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

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

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

thanks

joanne

cc:  http://www.marygsykes.com

 

Dear ____,
The Illinois ARDC has a mission to address unethical conduct on the part of attorneys.    This mission arose to a great extent out of the Greylord era wherein a large number of ‘judicial officials’ and others were tried and convicted of serious crimes while the mechanism for protecting the public failed.
The mandate to the ARDC was not to ‘lord it over’ the members of the legal profession, but to protect the Rights, Privileges and Immunities of All citizens.    As you are totally aware my blog is 99.9% accurate, however, the pleadings that you have filed are misleading and unethically attempt to deny me my Rights, Privileges and Immunities.      It is obvious that if you did a scintilla of investigation you would have determined that the ‘so called’ “judicial officials” have for more than 3 years denied a ‘senior citizen’ of her liberty and property rights.    Indeed, you would have ascertained the jurisdictional requirement of 11a -10(f) has not been complied with and as determined by the Supreme Court of Illinois the ‘judicial officials’ have been appointed by a Court lacking jurisdiction.
Let me respectfully suggest to you that pursuant to my Himmel responsibility let this letter be a formal complaint against both of you for not informing the panel when you knew or should have known that the jurisdictional criterion of 755 ILCS 5/11a et seq, and in particular 5/11a – 10 had not been following.     The ‘games playing’ of nitpicking my discovery request is interesting but just compounds the unethical behavior.  The unethical conduct of attempting to deny me my First Amendment Rights is repulsive and abhorrent.
Mr.Ditkowsky on my behalf as filed with the Illinois Supreme Court a motion for a supervisory order.   The rationale for this motion is very simple – This is the United States of America and last I heard there were some basic propositions that were in full force and effect i.e. you are I are equal before the law, and I have an absolute right to complain and speak out against the evil of a 90 year old lady being sequestered in the home of a person she appropriate claimed to have abused her so that she (Mary Sykes) could be denied her liberty and property by order of a Court that lacks jurisdiction.    I as an America have a right to speak out and ‘blog’ to the public this act of terrorism by the “judicial officials’ who were appointed by a Court lacking jurisdiction.
Simply put – if you have evidence that my blog is untruthful – let’s see it.   If you have no evidence as a public employee having a fiduciary relationship to the public admit your error and dismiss this obscene disciplinary action.
Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

Dear Jessica;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hmm, just wondering.

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

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

thanks and take care and have a blessed day

joanne

cc:  MaryGSykes blog

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

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

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

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

ARDC Motion to Strike Discovery Requests

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

The ARDC should know all that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carol Wyman Beating Report

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

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

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

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

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

Very few do what Ken and I do.

JoAnne

Copy of Petition to SCOI for a Supervisory Order

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.
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

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

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:
Ken Ditkowsky

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

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?

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!

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?

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

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?

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.

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!

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?

Where to comment on my blog—

While my blog is exploding, there are some places that everyone can comment.

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

Is a great place to post your comments.  Do you know anything about corruption in probate?  Better yet, what do you know about first Amendment rights and the right of an attorney to blog in court so the public knows what is going on?

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

another place to comment–

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

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

http://blogs.delphiforums.com/glenashman?entry=1191

http://www.globallegalpost.com/global-view/patent-lawyer-in-hot-water-over-blog-64101574/index.cfm#.URMrMPIYqd4

Post away and have fun.

I was also on “Cooper’s Corner” tonight with Bev Cooper and that show was live and will air 250,000 North Shore households over the next week or so.

I will post the video here when it becomes available.