Tag Archives: Illinois court corruption

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

Posted on by
1

First, my decision from the Review Board today:

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

Next, the comments of Ken Ditkowsky

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

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


 United States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 2537, 2544-2545, 183 L. Ed. 2d 574, 587-588, 2012 U.S. LEXIS 4879, *16-18, 80 U.S.L.W. 4634, 40 Media L. Rep. 1953, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 468, 2012 WL 2427808 (U.S. 2012)
 
This section is a discussion of the government’s arguments – not the Court’s decision.   Thus to  claim that the Alvarez Court carved out an exception to content related speech is clearly dishonesty on the part of the Administrator, his attorneys, and his rubber stamp panels.      Let me make the allegation perfectly clear, to wit:    The Hearing panel, the Administrator and the Review panel openly and notoriously misrepresented in their opinion the Law.    Such is intolerable and is totally unprofessional and unethical.     Certainly whomever wrote the opinion in the Denison opinion was aware that he/she was acting fraudulently,      The Supreme Court of the United States has clearly made political and content related speech to be protected by the First Amendment.     It did not single out untruthful statements and it is fair to say that the Supreme in Alvarez rebuked the statement that the Disciplinary Board advances with the words:
 
The First Amendment itself ensures the right to respond to speech we do not like, and for good reason. Freedom of speech and thought flows not from the beneficence of the state but from the inalienable rights of the person. And suppression of speech by the government can make exposure of falsity more difficult, not less so. Society has the right and civic duty to engage in open, dynamic, rational discourse. These ends are not well served when the government seeks to orchestrate public discussion through content-based mandates.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is interesting.  So many questions.

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

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

joanne

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

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

Posted on by
Reply

Dear Readers;

One of the things which you all know is going on is my Petition (via KKD) to the Supreme Court of Illinois asking for a supervisory order that lawyers can freely blog about corruption in the Illinois court system without interference from the ARDC which somehow finds the subject embarrassing, denigrating, that it brings “disrepute” onto the judges, lawyers and court system that engage in it with impunity.  They are permanently on the “free parking” monopoly space of the Daley center monopoly game.

All the while, the probate blogs have gone mad for years reporting story after story of corruption, theft, embezzlement, uninventoried assets–even murder and all the while looking the other way,

The chasm between the two worlds has to be the width of the average black hole in space.  The length of the Milky Way, half way to infinity.  But I digress into engineering, my first love.

I grew up believing in first amendment rights.  My mother regularly wrote the newspapers regarding any injustices she found in the world and supported them with historical information. She taught me from a very young age that slavery was wrong, equal rights for women and persons of color was right and correct, and there were many, many injustices to fight in a world of corruption and negativity.  Of course, we lived in Chicago–a regular hotbed of injustices to fight.  She was very busy, either reading or writing.  Getting published in the editorial section of the SunTimes was a highlight of her day.

And then along came Greylord and the issues in our Illinois courts were far from over.

And when I first walked into a juvenile court in Illinois and onto the 18th floor of the Daley center, I have to admit, I was quite shocked by the fact that a juvenile client I was representing was told I could not represent her because juvenile attys came “from a list.”  I provided them with US Supreme court caselaw on that and got an apology.  Then, in probate I found my first transcript either “had disappeared”, then it “was lost”, then it was “stolen”.  I asked the court reporter for the police report and all I got was silence.  I talked to the supervisor and he told me that was impossible, because they were kept safely under lock and key so that could not happen.  So I asked him for this transcript.  A few days later I got an apology, but he would not be getting back to me for some time soon–and it was already 3 months after the hearing date!  I never did get that transcript.  After a call and fax to the state’s attorney and US attorney, suddenly the case went away.  Just showed up in court one day and the judge told me she had reconsidered and all was fine.  Imagine that.

So, maybe I’m suspicious.  Atty Ditkowsky has respectfully asked the ARDC for his transcript after his infamous hearing in which I was not only dismissed from the proceeding (I believe it was a set up by Atty Stern and for blogging) and KDD assures me that at numerous times he “wrapped himself in flag” (metaphorically speaking), and provided an eloquent speech on how first amendment rights were assured the public, and even lawyers, and especially lawyers asking for an investigation where families had reported open and obvious court corruption or a wide divergence from rules of law, statues and procedure.

He assures me that he was asked the incredulous question “are you repentant for repeatedly calling for an investigation from the authorities?”  He assures me he answered “certainly not.”

As an US citizen, I want to see that transcript.  I want to publish and frame that answer.

I was once asked if I was repentant about this blog and would I stop (by a reporter).  I replied “certainly not, and I will not stop the blog or be shut up until I stop hearing (verifiable) stories of corruption in the (Illinois) court system.”  This quote (although she got it backwards at first), has been published perhaps a 100 or more times around the internet.

Just recently I asked Attys Jessica Haspel and Sharon Opryszek at the ARDC for the transcript from KDD’s September 2012 hearing.

Silence.

But they did manage to get the transcript of the disqualification of my attorney and confidant and dear friend Atty Kenneth Ditkowsky to the Supreme Court of Illinois tout d’suite! I believe it was 2 or 3 weeks.

How is it that some transcripts appear right away whereas others (this one from Sept of 2012)  the ARDC won’t reply and  doesn’t even have a speck on the horizon 6 months later?

Isn’t the ARDC embarrassed by all of this?  I mean, a continuing theme on the blog is that you have to bring your own court reporter to a probate proceeding because you can’t trust the official court reporters on the 9th floor of the Daley Center who lose, alter, destroy, disappear, claim the transcript ended at X, when you know a few minutes later Y is chock full of all sorts of stuff the court shouldn’t have done– or whatever it is they do with transcripts.  (And if the ARDC doubts me on this, I have my own story and about half a dozen more regarding this.  Oh, I know I will post all the declarations and affidavits on my blog so they can prepare yet another complaint about this alleging, once again, that I lied, and they didn’t, and they can’t be bothered to read all the affidavits and declarations on this blog).  I get that.  It’s embarrassing and inexplicable.

So here’s another greasy mud ball at the ARDC.  If you guys can manage to get the transcript of Ken’s (bogus) disqualification in my ARDC case sent off to the ARDC promptly and within 2 or 3 weeks, then just where is Ken’s transcript 6 months later.

He asked you for it.  I asked you for it for my case.  I know Ken is an eloquent speaker on human rights, civil rights, property rights, preventing the loss of these via a corrupt court system (oops! said that again).

So, the transcripts the ARDC wants get out right away (and I have to tell you and I will publish it), I don’t think this one helps their case, I do believe they have sniffed a few too many meth lab fumes or whatever they do just before they ordered and sent that one to SCOI, but the ones Ken and I want are long, long delayed.

Well, were they lost, destroyed, stolen without a police report, did you ask the court reporter to stop recording as soon as Ken spoke or what?

You guys can do this.  Explain away.  I’ve heard them all from the 9th floor.  Many probate victims have reported even more colorful tales from the 9th floor.  I would LOVE to hear the excuse.  I bet Ken’s transcript was lost, stolen, the dog ate it, the cat peed on it, the court reporter got drunk and passed out, — I don’t know. What new excuse can they come up with?

The citizens of Illinois are waiting for this one.

And sorry about the blog.  It’s one of those annoying things about the First Amendment. People just tend to publish all the stuff you just don’t want to hear, and especially when you ordered a copier with CYA, office space with CYA, a rug with CYA, a new filing system with CYA, and still, the darned stuff leaks out when people, esp. lawyers start asking questions.

And you know you want to get a gag order.  You want to silence us.  You want us to put our tail between our legs and creep away.

John Wyman called me today and read to me a blog comment where a lawyer said “good for you, I would do that, but I want to keep my (good paying job).

Well, I got some news for that lawyer.  Go take out a loan and buy a back bone.  Go get some cajones or ova or whatever it is that will get you to the side of justice and honesty.

Again, for the attorneys at the ARDC, Atty Larkin, Atty Smart and Atty Ospryszek:  DO THE RIGHT THING AND DISMISS THE COMPLAINTS AGAINST MYSELF AND KEN.

For Attorneys Stern and Farenga, DO THE RIGHT THING AND NONSUIT/DISMISS the Sykes Probate!

For Atty Sharon Rudy and Kim Timmerwilke McKenzie, DO THE RIGHT THING AND DISMISS/NONSUIT the Wyman Case!

There is no ultimate glory, laud or honor prosecuting and persecuting honest and ethical attorneys such as KDD and myself.

Quit your jobs.  Come work for and with me as we clean up the courts in Probate and Illinois.  I may be broke, I might not have food, heat or whatever, but I do what is right.  I listen to the probate victims and I promise to help them without money up front and everything based upon faith and good intentions.

JoAnne

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

Posted on by
2

Dear Readers;

After all that has happened, after all of my 350+ posts warning everyone–esp. miscreant lawyers to DO THE RIGHT THING IN PROBATE and don’t act without jurisdiction, do not isolate the senior, do not allow a guardian to continue on who isolates the senior, listen to and invite family reports on the behavior of the guardian, I am still getting reports of cases where 1) seniors are thrown against their will into nursing homes and being (illegally) drugged; 2) the court is telling “interested parties” to shut up in court–even attorneys–who are trying to report that the proposed temporary guardian is an abuser and is specifically excluded from prior written directive of the ward to ever act as guardian; 3) closed court proceedings without rhyme or reason on the transcript and all sorts of other shennagins.

Rule No. 1.  Most important. Before you step into Probate Court know the Probate Act regarding disabled adults.  Read it thoroughly.  Know who and “interested party” is, who needs to be served.  Find all the adult siblings, children and parents, or if none, then next of kin.  Know who holds the POA for a senior.  If there is no POA, the relatives should get together and elect the most honest, trustworthy caring person as guardian who will carry out any advance directives.

Rule No. 2 Bring your own court reporter.  There are dozens of fully electronic, licensed court reporters who are unbiased, unbribable and will deliver you a transcript by the end of the week in any e-format you desire, fully searchable for about the same cost as the court’s “official reporter”.   Be forewarned the “official reporters” from the Daley Center often lose, alter, stop reporting, etc. transcripts.  I have dozens of stories of this, one for me for sure, so don’t go there.  Hire an outside court reporter.  If nothing else, it puts a chill on nonsense in the courtroom, even if she never records a single word–you need to know that just by her being there she has done a great job to get you a fair and just agreed order that day and her sitting fee of $125 can save you millions of an entire estate in the end.  Don’t skimp on this step.

Rule No. 3.  Be prepared to argue the constitution and against closed proceedings and doctor’s reports.  Be aware that Dr. Rabin and Dr. Amdur and other “recommended docs from the court list”  declare everyone incompetent.  Get your own work up write up whatever.  Don’t let the senior be drugged with strong psychotropic drugs.  It’s illegal and none are approved by the FDA for those over age 60 (or teenagers).  Threaten to report the doc if you must, but there is a legal procedure for giving a person psychotropic drugs that must be strictly followed (In Re Tiffany). Be sure to read this case and follow the mandate re psychotropic drugs if you are GAL or PG and doing this.

Rule No. 4 Expect anything in Probate, from closed proceedings, to having a case with a large estate being called last after everyone is gone so the judge can arrange a slew of “friends” to ensure the senior is declared disabled, that a $500 to $600 per hour atty is involved, that you, even as an “interested party” will not be allowed to speak about something important including abuse, isolation and drugging,  etc.

Rule No. 5 If a guardian has been appointed, make sure there is a summons, petition, affidavit of service and Sodini notices to the adult siblings, children and parents of the disabled 14 days in advance of the hearing, notifying the interested parties of the time, date and place of hearing.

Rule 5.  If you weren’t allowed to speak in court, file a “Bystander’s Report” together with a “Report to the Court and GAL” detailing your knowledge of who is an abuser and who should not become guardian.  Detail what you know about the Ward’s written advance directives and demand the court follow that, as provided for by the Probate Act.  Do not let abusers become guardians.

All of this is based upon my story from yesterday.  After 350+ posts on this blog, which I know the GAL’s read, the judges read, etc.  IT IS STILL HAPPENING

From an atty yesterday, one of my favorite court rooms: 1) closed proceedings without notice or reason; 2) the POA holder’s atty was told to “shut up” and not speak; 3) the case involved a lot of money (est. $10 million in property plus a mansion).  4) the ward was put in a nursing home by an out of state son for having a messy, cluttered home (anyone hear of a cleaning lady); 5) the ward is being drugged and is acting like a zombie; 5) she has been put in a nursing home against her will (this is a continuing theme in these cases); 6) she has stated in writing her abusive son is not to be made guardian, but the court did just that yesterday; 7) the court tied in doc said she is “incompetent” after a 5 minute conversation where at the start he told her 5 important words, and then at the end of the conversation she could not recall all of them, so she is incompetent; 8) proceedings were closed where the judge would only talk to the “tied in” attys and GAL and abusive son.

Don’t be shocked in Probate.  Never be shocked.  Be prepared to argue, present and preserve what happens.  Bring a court reporter.  Demand everything be on the record.  No closed proceedings, no closed doors.  If the GAL’s come from the “judge’s area” which was prohibited by court order after Greylord–report them to the ARDC.

Corruption in probate has to stop, and this starts with concerns by everyone.  Let the court know via a Bystander’s Report and Report to the Court and GAL.  Let the ARDC and JIB (Judicial Inquiry Board) know via a written complaint.  If there is a theft, conversion, embezzlement–put it in your Report to the Court AND report it to the authorities–the local police, the State’s atty, the FBI and don’t stop complaining until there is a thorough, complete and honest investigation.

If the court won’t let you speak, contact me and I’ll publish what you have to say on this blog.  The disabled have rights also, and the public needs to know and be forewarned.  If you don’t get justice in court, I will give you a forum to demand justice via this blog.

Some have asked me when the blog will stop.  I always respond, when the corruption has ended and I get no further reports of it.

So far, no such luck.

Joanne

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

Posted on by
Reply

Dear Readers;

While I think you all know that in the US we have the right to association, the right to have people draft up letters and emails for us, and the right to associate with them, the control freak attitude of the ARDC does not acknowledge those rights.

For those of you that forgot your US history, it was commonplace in the colonies for the British to sue people, throw them in prison, take away rights and liberties–all without due process of law.  They would also impose gag orders and orders against associating with rebels who would organize citizen protests.

All of that was simply disposed of with the drafting and implementation of the US Constitution in 1790 and more recently enforced by the Illinois Consitution.

Apparently the ARDC has not read these plainly worded doucments.  See the incredulous letter I recently received and my/our response to it.  Yes, I still talk with, email and associate with KDD even though the ARDC wrongfully disqualified him as my counsel.  I can do this because the US Constitution says that I can.

Note how our Constitutional rights, when understood protect our basic human and civil rights.  These are not mere writings on an ancient piece of paper but they serve us well even today — and even against such august and venerable attorneys that spend their work hours at the ARDC.

Once again, KDD and I are calling for honest, ethical and complete investigations of the Sykes, Gore, Tyler, Bedin, Wyman, Spera cases and that charges by the ARDC brought against us only to protect the honeypot of Probate be dropped.

Letter from the ARDC Mar 17, 2013

My/our Response to Mar 20, 2013 Letter

see the letters below also.

JoAnne

(I apologize if the OCR isn’t perfect, but the ARDC rejects modern emails for some reason)

ATTORNEY REG ISTRATION AND DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION
of (he
One PrudclIliall’ laza
1′>0 1′:”sI Ralldolph ilri ve. Suite 1500
Chica1\o, II. G060 1·6219
C\ 12) 56′).2600 (800) (\26 862′)
Fax () 12) S(J5 ·m o
JoAnne Marie Denison
Denison & Associates
1512 N. Fremont Street, Suite 202
Chicago, Illinois 60642
Dear Ms. Denison:
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS
http://www.iardc.org
Chicago
March 20, 2013
Re: JoAnne Marie Denison
Commission No. 20 13PROOOO I
🙂 161 \X’est IX·ilite Oaks Drive, Suite :)01
SprinKlieid. IL 62704
(2 17) 546· .)52) (800) 252· 8048
Fax (2 17) 546·)785
As you are aware, on February 22,2013, the Chair entered an order disqualifying Mr. Ditkowsky from representing you in the above-captioned manner. Pursuant to the Chair’s order, Mr. Ditkowsky is not currently authorized to act as your attorney in Commission No. 2013 PROOOO I. I note this in this letter because we have received correspondence from Mr. Ditkowsky related to this matter since February 22, 2013, and you have sent us e-mails which have included Mr. Ditkowsky. As Ms. Haspel advised you in her letter of February 5, 2013, we have not consented to service of pleadings via e-mail. Similarly, we have not consented to correspondence via e-mail and will not respond
to e-mail cOITespondence. Please send any and all correspondence related to Commission No. 2013PROOOOI to my attention at the address listed above or via facsimile to (312) 565-2320. 1 will make every eff0l1 to promptly reply to correspondence related to the matter at hand. However, please be advised that no response will be f0l1hcoming as to questions unrelated to Commission No. 20 13PROOOO I.
On February 26, 2013 , you wrote in an e-mail that “1 have some questions about the case and I was wondering if you all might have some time to answer my questions.” You subsequently wrote, “I was w0Doering when you will he sble to ?nswer I’1″)Y priol’ ern2 😉 feg?rdiof’ ;J. time to talk and answer questions regarding my case[ … ]” and, “I’m also looking forward to a little chat about this case with you ladies
soon, so Jet me know when we can do a little coffee or tea talk.” On March 4, 2013, at approximately 1:56 p.m., I placed a call to the telephone number listed as your registered business number, (312) 553-1300, and left a voicemail message inviting you to contact me regarding Commission No. 2013 PROOOO ITo date; I have not received a return call from you . On February 28, 2013 , you asked whether the Commission requires your compliance with the Illinois Rules of Civil Procedure in any fiied pleadings. Please note that I cannot provide you with any legal advice related to this matter. You may wish to review the Commission Rules and Illinois Code of Civil Procedure to insure your pleadings comply with the Rules. AI1icie IV of the Rules of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission outlines the Commission rules related to the matter before the
Hearing Board. You may also wish to review Commission Rule 251 (a) which relates to discovery and states, in part, “Except as provided herein, discovery practice shall be in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure and the Rules of the Supreme Court.” Pleadings filed in attorney disciplinary proceedings must comply with Commission rules as well as the Illinois Rules of Civil Procedure.
Finally, please be advised that any request for investigation of an attorney should be
made, in writing, by mailing the request to either the Chicago or Springfield office of the ARDC.
The Commission does not accept requests for investigations submitted via e-mail. Please consult the Commission’s website: http://www.iardc.org for instructions on how to submit a request for investigation. Please note that requests for an investigation of an attorney should not be sent directly to my, or Ms. Haspel ‘ s, attention.
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.
SDO:dnm

Very truly yours,

Sharon D. Opryszek
Litigation Counsel

I apologize for the poor formatting, but if SO wants to email me correct formatting, I will update this post.

Now for my reponse:

FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET
To: Atty Sharon Opryszek;
Atty Jerome Larkin, Director; Atty Jessica Haspel, ARDC,
Fax No. 312-565-2320    From:                      Admitted Ill., N.  Carolina and Patent Bars
JoAnne M. Denison, Pat.      Atty.  Reg.  No.  34,150
DENISON & ASSOCS., PC    FAX 312-553-1307
1512 N Fremont St, #202    CELL PH 773-255-7608
CHICAGO, IL 60642    PHONE 312-553-1300
JoAnne@DenisonLaw.com  or WWW.DenisonLaw.COM
Federal Patents, Trademarks & Copyrights
Yusuf Naqvi, of counsel
Important Notice
This facsimilie message contains attorney privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone, collect, and return the original message to the above address.  You will be reimbursed.  Your cooperation is immensely appreciated.
For transmission problems, please call 312-335-1300
A confirmation copy       WILL   ✔   will NOT be sent.
Pages in fax, including this coversheet – ( 9  )
March 22, 2013

Re:    Complaints against KDD and myself, and the Sykes, Gore, Tyler and Wyman Complaints

Dear Attys Larkin, Opryczek and Haspel;

This is in response to your recent letter I received in the snail mail late yesterday.

Let me set the record straight for you.    As a citizen I have the right to the attorney of my choice.    Because of your ethically challenged and the improper actions initiated by you, Ken and I have been wrongfully forced to petition the Supreme Court of Illinois for a supervisory order.     Mr. Ditkowsky is my attorney and my friend and confidant in relation to the matter before the Supreme Court of Illinois.  If I want to call him, email him, visit with him, have lunch with him–that is my right and his right also.  It’s in the US constitution, if you have not read it recently, it was a fine document carefully drafted to alleviate the long sufferings of people under the highly oppressive monarchy of England.  These drafters knew their oppressors and how they rip apart society causing great harm and suffering to a land of people without rights.  We no longer have court in the US that are secret courts, secret off with your head courts, gag orders preventing us from disclosing certain topics, restraining orders preventing our association with other honest citizens to fight an oppressive government in a civilized orderly manner.  Because if we do not have those rights, society otherwise deteriorates into civil war and lawlessness.

Telling me that I adopt KDD’s writings, that I include him in correspondence and my cc’s and insisting that I not associate with him smacks of over reaching and restraints not imposed by our venerable US and Illinois constitutions.  It’s bullying, pure and simple.

Even if KDD is disqualified, all that means is that he cannot appear in court and speak for me (he can be my friend in the galley and watch), he can in fact write for me, but I have to sign the pleading when filed and review it.  He cannot speak to you on my behalf.  But if I adopt and approve of his writings, I can then send them to you.  The reality of the situation is, he does more to help the ARDC understand and appreciate the law than any of you and the other ARDC attorneys combined.

This morning Mr. Ditkowsky drafted and sent to the ARDC a Himmel complaint in which you all are the attorneys who are referred to for discipline.    The reason that you all are involved is the fact that pursuant to Rule 137 prior to bringing the disciplinary action against me the attorney for the ARDC was  required to do some kind of investigation.    It is has been called to your attention that the Probate Division had no jurisdiction in the Sykes and therefore the assertions made against me were totally meritless.    The statement that I made any untrue averment was totally false and a direct violation of Rule 137 and a demonstration of your ethically challenged behavior.     Indeed, if you had done a scintilla of due diligence you would have discovered that 1) you are intentionally violating not only my First Amendment Rights, but 2) my fifth, sixth and 14th Amendment Rights as well.  The Federal Constitution plainly and directly prohibits the action that you are prosecuting.

All that aside, even if the ARDC has jurisdiction the averments made against me are not sustainable and without merit and you either know or should know that fact.   Ergo, this morning Mr. Ditkowsky filed a Himmel complaint against you all and forwarded to the Administrator a disk that reproduced by scanning  the first four volumes of the Sykes common law record.     The record clearly demonstrates that the Supreme Court and Legislative jurisdictional  mandate are being continuously ignored by you.      I respect you, and therefore I am sending you the FRCP 11 ‘safe harbor’ letter demanding that you immediately dismiss the meritless proceedings filed against me.     (Mr. Ditkowsky is not so generous – he is requesting that the United States of America investigate and prosecute those persons who have violated my civil rights, Mary Sykes’ civil rights, Gloria Sykes’ civil rights and the Civil Rights of all persons similarly situated–including Josephine DePietro and Yolanda and Kathie Bakken who are continuously and vigorously being isolated from a family member they held dear and visited frequently and called on a near daily basis).

Please be advised that the fact that you are an attorney employed by the State of Illinois as part of the ARDC staff does not insulate you from your responsibilities as a lawyer and as an officer of the court.   The pending petition is not privileged as you and the Administrator are both aware that there was no delegation under American law to you or the ARDC to regulate my First Amendment Rights.    Indeed in the New York Times vs. Sullivan case the specific prohibition is clearly stated.     In the recent Alvarez and Brown cases the prohibition is reiterated and in Hunter  the Virginia Supreme Court explains very clearly that ‘content’ based speech is protected.     Let me make it very clear – this is not a ‘game’ and the stakes are very high.    Mary Sykes has had her Constitutional Rights, civil rights, property rights and human rights taken from her by the Attorneys who have promulgated these complaints against me that the ARDC is pursing.   The attempt to silence me is certainly not authorized by any delegation to the ARDC and clearly a violation of 42 USCA § 1983.    I call upon you as an alleged ethical and honest  attorney to comply with your oath taken when you were sworn in as an attorney and your responsibilities inherent to your role as an attorney and DO THE RIGHT THING.  Dismiss the ARDC actions against KDD and myself and conduct a complete, thorough and honest investigation of all miscreants involved in jurisdictionless proceedings in Probate–Sykes, Wyman, Taylor, Gore.  Conduct a thorough investigation as to why Atty Sharon Rudy swiped $150,000 from join accounts held in the names of both Dominick Spera and his mother, leaving Dominic on the streets for over a year–sleeping in the park and on the streets of Rockford, eating out of trash cans, all the while SRR swiped $150,000 with impunity and unnoticed out of joint accounts by the GAL Peter Savitsky or Judge Fabiano.  How does this happen in the US?  A relatively well off gentleman is rendered homeless and penniless by the Rockford Probate Court system.  I just pointed this out to Atty SRR and got him $5,000 “until next month” when she has all the facts and records. Disgusting.

You challenge myself and KDD with lying, yet all I have found in the Probate system when people complain via my blog is just what is stated, uninvestigated garden variety theft, embezzlement, conversion, (elder financial exploitation) isolation (elder abuse), lack of jurisdiction–all attorneys acting badly and judges acting badly and corruption.  A clear deviation from the laws, cases, thoughts and opinions that is in any sense of the concept of justice.

The Probate system is so utterly devoid of justice in some cases, I have people “secretly” calling me with verified inventories in the hundred of thousands, homes sold, forced nursing home placements, they escape and live in boarding and rooming houses, hiding from the Probate court.  They call me and engage in complicated, lucid thoughts clearly establishing competency.  They talk of stories of court sanctioned murder plots.  Of course, I would never believe them EXCEPT FOR THE FACT, I have found instances of court sanctioned murder.  Forced nursing home placements, slapping DNR’s and holding people down to inject them with strong psychotropic drugs so they start and dehydrate, plus the sales of expensive homes–all to go to probate atty and tied in servicing fees.

You might think you can shut these people up and their relatives, but you cannot.  There is the internet and they post not just on my blog but a myriad of other long established blogs.  I bring no disrepute to the legal profession with my blog because all of the miscreants I have mentioned have been long and well established as “miscreants” on other probate blog sites. The difference is, I can help explain court procedures and methods to people who really need this advice and cannot afford it.

I hope you will consider all of this seriously and get some relief for these probate victims.

Quit you job and work for me.  You will not have money or insurance, but you will have ethics and a great sense of self esteem.  Saving the world is the highest calling anyone can undertake.

Working at the ARDC and being told to prosecute and persecute honest attorneys is no way to live.  It only ends in abject misery.

Sincerely

JoAnne Denison

JoAnne Denison

cc: I will also deliver to you soon paper copies of everything because you insist on killing trees and putting as large a footprint as you can on the environment.  However, please be aware, if I email or fax you THAT IS ONLY CC SERVICE to ensure you get the papers I mail or deliver.  IT IS NOT THE ACTUAL SERVICE.

I will continue to deliver/mail service you with cc’s via fax and email.

So please do not write me and tell me I am serving you by email/fax.  That is only your cc.  You WILL get everything on paper and just let me know if you don’t get it and I will resend over more paper.

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

Posted on by
Reply

FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET

To: Atty Jerome Larkin,
Administrator
ARDC,
Fax No. 312-565-2320    From:                      Admitted Ill., N.  Carolina and Patent Bars
JoAnne M. Denison, Pat.      Atty.  Reg.  No.  34,150
DENISON & ASSOCS., PC    FAX 312-553-1307
1512 N. Fremont St, #202    CELL PH 773-255-7608
CHICAGO, IL 60642    PHONE 312-553-1300
JoAnne@DenisonLaw.com  or WWW.DenisonLaw.COM
Yusuf Naqvi, of counsel, associate
Federal Patents, Trademarks & Copyrights
Important Notice
This facsimilie message contains attorney privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone, collect, and return the original message to the above address.  You will be reimbursed.  Your cooperation is immensely appreciated.
For transmission problems, please call 312-335-1300
A confirmation copy       WILL   ✔   will NOT be sent.
Pages in fax, including this coversheet – ( see header  )
March 21, 2013

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

Memorandum to ILLINOIS ARDC

To:  Mr. Jerome Larkin, Administrator

From:   Kenneth Ditkowsky

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

Dear Mr. Larkin,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kenneth Ditkowsky

AND joined in by JoAnne Denison /esignature/

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

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

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

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

Ken Ditkowsky
http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

Very Truly Yours,

/esignature/JoAnneMDenison/
JoAnne M. Denison

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

A reminder to Miscreant Attorneys–your pleadings DO have limits

Posted on by
1

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

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

See below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

joanne

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

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

Posted on by
Reply

Dear Readers;

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

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

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

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

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

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

The links:

File 1, Vol 4 a p 751 to 814

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

File 2, Vol 1 b p 122 to 250

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

File 3 Vol 1a-2 p 57 to 121

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

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

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

File 5 Vol 4a-2 p815 to 885

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

File 6 Vol 4b p886 to 1000

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

File 7 Vol 3b p 625 to 750

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

File 8 Vol 2b p 376 to 500

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

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

 

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

Posted on by
1

To the ARDC

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

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