Janet C. Phelan
Activist Post

When I was in grade school, the alarms would begin and, whether we were in instruction or at lunch or recess, we knew what those sirens meant. We would put down whatever was in our hands — pencils, forks, a softball — and file into the auditorium. There we would put our heads between our knees, cover our little necks with our forearms and wait for either doomsday or the all clear.

Some little girls would always begin to sob. We never knew whether it was a drill or not until the all clear sounded.

Unlike so many of my classmates, I was never worried. A small voice inside me told me there was no real danger from Soviet missiles and, bolstered by this, I remained aloof, calm.

But the small still voice told me something else. Later, it told me. The danger will come later.

We are no longer children, those of us who lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Red Threat. We have accumulated layers of knowledge, wisdom and, unlike seven year olds unable to quite stifle their terror, we have learned methods to deal with a sense of imminent threat.

Or have we?

At the core of the sensibility of weeping children, filing into an auditorium for an unknown conclusion, was fear. Fear for self and fear for those we loved.

That fear is still ostensibly at the core of what drives our most personal and political of actions. This fear could also be called the “survival instinct,” “fight or flight” and forms a substantial tributary into how we form our lives. Do we speak out when we see someone being hurt? Do we first take stock of the personal ramifications for so doing? Do we post anonymously on the Internet, attacking or supporting others under a comfortable veil of hidden identity? Do we give of our time and energies when there is no ostensible personal gain attached? Does our work take us into realms of information access that would be safer for us to not acknowledge having?

The human heart has always been divided in its desire to protect itself, set against its desire to expand, to embrace and identify with others — to be of use. The list of those whose lives were dictated by the latter mandate reads like a list of the crucified — Martin Luther King and Gandhi may be two of the most distinguished modern day martyrs — but the actual list of names casts back to the beginnings of history and many of the names of those martyred for love — and isn’t that what we are talking about? — love vs. self obsession — have been buried in the wake of their extreme acts of goodness — a goodness which has always been perilous to possess.

But the stakes are higher now. Joan d’Arc went up in flames because she obeyed the voice of God and angered the British. Her crimes of heresy and insubordination echo both backwards and forwards through history. Karen Silkwood took on a chemical Goliath and paid for it with her very breath—once again, defying the powerful in acts of both heresy and disrespect for authority. Random acts of rebellion seem less random and garner more attention because the world is smaller now. The density and focus of accumulated power gives every gesture of goodness, every act of self transcendence a concomitant greater potential for tipping the balance.

In the wake of Edward Snowden’s revelations of the degree and extent to which the U.S has constructed a Stasi like surveillance society, we can see again how the two competing desires of the human heart — self protection and self expansion — are duking it out. Some individuals will want to retract even further, given the shocking knowledge that what they thought were private and secure communications may have lit up the NSA computers like a pinball arcade. Others may react as if a gauntlet has been thrown down. You are listening to WHAT? You are keeping files on me for WHAT? — and as a result only multiply efforts to establish connections and reach out to others, defying the watchers.

The most revolutionary act has always been an act of self transcendence. There is no upheaval, no paradigm shift attached to bean counting, whether in monetary transactions or in how we relate energetically to others. To activate one’s knowledge, one’s potential for making the leap from “ME” to ”NOT ME” may be one of the most radical acts possible, given the pervasiveness of the politics of fear and self protection.

We live in exceptional times. We are faced with exceptional opportunities — to change the course of history, which is tunneling deeper and deeper towards global totalitarianism This challenge is being delivered to each and every one of us. We can shut ourselves down and hope we have escaped attention, all too understandable in light of the human propensity for self protection. This decision will only ensure the success of the global lockdown being thrust upon us.

Or, we can take another route. This other route is bathed in the incandescence of something we have been taught to scoff at — a moral absolute. It is both thrilling and sobering to realize that one is participating in the resistance against something so enormous, baffling in its complexity and shadowy reach. This other road defines in the most fundamental sense what it means to be human. It also redefines a symbol — the crossroads — which we have been taught to accept as the sign of the death and resurrection of God.

The crossroads, however, is also a symbol of the intersection between earth and sky, the juncture at which what is flesh connects with that which is greater and more enduring. This is the opportunity that has been afforded us — to participate in the future of our world in ways that provide the possibility that there will be a future.

The crossroads is also a symbol of choice. This other road — the road of fearlessness and love — invites us to live largely. It does not ensure our personal safety and security. It only offers us something far greater than that.

From Janet Phelan, and thanks soooo very much.  Good inspiring words in times of trouble.

good email, okay to publish?

and now that the miscreants have threatened us, the blog is still going okay, I have emailed everyone the password — “freespeech” so I guess it’s all okay.

Now the miscreants won’t know what we’re up to.

I can even move the blog and let them guess.

another day, another shell game with them.

eventually, they will run out of shells and peas tho.

joanne
—–Original Message—–
From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Jun 19, 2013 1:25 PM
To: john wyman
Cc: JoAnne Denison , GLORIA SYKES
Subject: Re: ACLU’s disinterest in the Mary Sykes and other elder cleansing cases In re: Mary Sykes, Circuit Court of Cook County 2009 P4585

Dear Ken
I received a similar response from the ACLU ,I,m not sure what they do at this point!!
however they did refer me to an organization called equip for equality,they have a office near you,you might want to give them a call!!

yours truly
John Howard Wyman

On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 9:07 AM, kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Jun 18, 2013 9:11 AM
To: GLORIA Jean SYKES
Cc: JoAnne Denison , “IllinoisLawyerNow@isba.org” , Kathie Bakken , scott evans , Bev Cooper , “johnpresta@att.net”
Subject: Re: IARDC and fairness are strangers.

One of my contacts told me that the sugar in my gas tank and Ken’s tail light being shot out was a warning over this blog.

Apparently the blog has attracted some dark, negative and violent energy that is intent on harm if the stories and posts don’t “go away”.

I was told to “stop it” and “lay off”.

So with great reluctance, I pulled the blog this morning to make most of it private.  Until further notice, all posts naming names and providing “too much information” will be password protected to protect the innocent.

I will definitely check back from time to time with “my sources”, but I am warning the rest of the blogs and anyone posting information on the names named here, to check out with a reliable source if you have publish about any of these cases, are experiencing “unexplained troubles” and just pull your stuff until further notice.

Someone getting hurt is not worth it.  While I think the blog has done a lot of good, it has raised a lot of eyebrows and opened up a whole lot of eyes, I don’t want any harm from it, so posts will eventually be made password protected with high level security until further notice.

We will continue to post, but it will only be on issues of law, caselaw and forms.  When I get further information, posts may be released for public view when it is safe.  Please continue to send me your general probate case law questions, and we will respond.

I hate to do this, but I see no other way out.

My heart goes out to those that have been probate victims too, because for many of them, death is the only way out.

joanne

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwbmhuZU1GUWtNeFU

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwbmhuZU1GUWtNeFU

(if link breaks, just cut and paste)–doct. no. 100 for a 60 to 90 day extension of time.

While not just two days ago, Chase asked to quickly hold a hearing so they could lift the stay in bankruptcy to file a foreclosure against Gloria’s property, they then turned around and immediately filed a motion to extend the time for hearing?!?!?!?

So which is it?  They want the hearing in 2 weeks at first–but then the very next day they want another 60 to 90 days to get their own personnel to testify.

Of course, now this would be a terriffic opportunity to serve full discovery on Chase–ask a number of embarrassing questions, interrogatories, requests for all their documents, ask what happened to that safe deposit box of Gloria’s that was drilled and emptied, probably by Carolyn because she looks a lot like Gloria, but the bank should have known better.

As many of you know, Gloria’s home was trashed by Chase when someone (PS?) called them and told them that Gloria’s home was “abandoned.”  So what did Chase do?  The hired goons to put a lock box on the house, they smashed out walls on both floors, dumped all of Gloria’s home furnishings into the snow in the alley–and the weirdest thing is, they went into the garage and disabled her 4 camera security system–which my son Matt and I helped put back together for her and set up properly with a password.  They messed with the recording and pulled out all the cabling to the cameras in the back.

How much does Popjoy know about all this?  How far does the corruption in the circuit court go to?  As noted before, the bankruptcy judge Donald Cassling was not buying Chase’s assertions they needed to lift the stay to file a foreclosure without first proving they held the note and Gloria did not have valid defenses.

Are the miscreants having problems in a court system where the judges are not elected and wired into the system, and so they are slowing everything down.

Turns out in this case it was a very good move for Gloria to file that bankruptcy.

You go, girl!

Another favorite case of mine:

Hustler Magazine and Larry C. Flynt, Petitioners v. Jerry FalwellNo. 86-1278SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES485 U.S. 46February 24, 1988, Decided
LINK TO DISPUTED CAMPARI PARODY AD

REHNQUIST, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, O’CONNOR, and SCALIA, JJ., joined. WHITE, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. KENNEDY, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.

[I know many of you may not find this to be significant, but Justice Rehnquist was on the other side of the first amendment case in the Pentagon Papers case in 1971, so old dogs can learn new (helpful and first amendment) tricks.The inside front cover of the November 1983 issue of Hustler Magazine featured a “parody” of an advertisement for Campari Liqueur that contained the name and picture of respondent and was entitled “Jerry Falwell talks about his first time.” This parody was modeled after actual Campari ads that included interviews with various celebrities about their “first times.” Although it was apparent by the end of each interview that this meant the first time they sampled Campari, the ads clearly played on the sexual double entendre of the general subject of “first times.” Copying the form and layout of these Campari ads, Hustler’s editors chose respondent as the featured celebrity and drafted an alleged “interview” with him in which he states that his “first time” was during a drunken incestuous rendezvous with his mother in an outhouse. The Hustler parody portrays respondent and his mother as drunk and immoral, and suggests that respondent is a hypocrite who preaches only when he is drunk. In small print at the bottom of the page, the ad contains the disclaimer, “ad parody — not to be taken seriously.” The magazine’s table of contents also lists the ad as “Fiction; Ad and Personality Parody.”

[and from a jury and court that “didn’t get” the first amendment in 6th grade civics, read on]

Soon after the November issue of Hustler became available to the public, respondent brought this diversity action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia against Hustler Magazine, Inc., Larry C. Flynt, and Flynt Distributing Co. Respondent stated in his complaint that publication of the ad parody in Hustler entitled him to recover damages for libel, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The case proceeded to trial. At the close of the evidence, the District Court granted a directed verdict for petitioners on the invasion of privacy claim. The jury then found against respondent on the libel claim, specifically finding that the ad parody could not “reasonably be understood as describing actual facts about [respondent] or actual events in which [he] participated.”  The jury ruled for respondent on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, however and stated that he should be awarded $ 100,000 in compensatory damages, as well as $ 50,000 each in punitive damages from petitioners.

But what does the SCOTUS say about all this?

At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern. “The freedom to speak one’s mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty — and thus a good unto itself — but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole.”  We have therefore been particularly vigilant to ensure that individual expressions of ideas remain free from governmentally imposed sanctions. The First Amendment recognizes no such thing as a “false” idea.  As Justice Holmes wrote, “When men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas — that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market . . . .”

The sort of robust political debate encouraged by the First Amendment is bound to produce speech that is critical of those who hold public office or those public figures who are “intimately involved in the resolution of important public questions or, by reason of their fame, shape events in areas of concern to society at large.”  Justice Frankfurter put it succinctly  when he said that “one of the prerogatives of American citizenship is the right to criticize public men and measures.” Such criticism, inevitably, will not always be reasoned or moderate; public figures as well as public officials will be subject to “vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks.”

It is the intent to cause injury that is the gravamen of the tort, and the State’s interest in preventing emotional harm simply outweighs whatever interest a speaker may have in speech of this type.

“Debate on public issues will not be uninhibited if the speaker must run the risk that it will be proved in court that he spoke out of hatred; even if he did speak out of hatred, utterances honestly believed contribute to the free interchange of ideas and the ascertainment of truth.”

Thus while such a bad motive may be deemed controlling for purposes of tort liability in other areas of the law, we think the First Amendment prohibits such a result in the area of public debate about public figures.

Were we to hold otherwise, there can be little doubt that political cartoonists and satirists would be subjected to damages awards without any showing that their work falsely defamed its subject.

The Court of Appeals interpreted the jury’s finding to be that the ad parody “was not reasonably believable,” and in accordance with our custom we accept this finding. Respondent is thus relegated to his claim for damages awarded by the jury for the intentional infliction of emotional distress by “outrageous” conduct. But for reasons heretofore stated this claim cannot, consistently with the First Amendment, form a basis for the award of damages when the conduct in question is the publication of a caricature such as the ad parody involved here. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly Reversed.

From JMD:

Also, from another website, scroll down this page and look at the section on first amendment rights:

Letter from Sheriff’s Ofices–No service on Mary

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Jun 17, 2013 9:24 AM
To: JoAnne Denison , Lawrence Hyman , Don Johnson , “Christine Christine T. Cody”
Cc: GLORIA SYKES , Eric Holder , matt senator kirk
Subject: Information from the Sheriff of Cook County

As many of you are aware, when Gloria contacted me again in late fall of 2010, while she did NOT want me to represent her, what came out of those conversations was that I would blog for her, try to get organized, work on the file which she said was a disaster.  AND this was ALL due to the fact that KDD emails every and anyone when he smells a rat. In this case, a dead stinky, decaying rat the miscreants were trying to pass of as a Channel purse or Manolo Blahnik shoes.  No thank you, please.

Attorneys are supposed to do FRCP 11 investigations and Rule 137 investigations BEFORE they take on any case.  You try to do this quickly, up front before the client starts to spend any real money on a case.  The problem is, I’ve noticed, where there are large law firms, tie ins and corruption, this makes a case much, much harder.  As AS so adeptly said in his testimony in KDD’s trial, it produces “work” that takes away from his “work”.

Now if you are like Ken and I that are tirelessly dedicated to justice, and you are highly offended by cronyism, tie ins, corruption and the like, what you do is clear your calendar and free time unless and until justice is done.  You don’t leave a 90 year old woman and her daughter a cancer survivor twisting in the wind.  You get your butt over to court when you can and you catalog the file, examine it closely and try to figure out where the dead rats, mice and vermin are–you know the type, blood sucking leeches and lice.  That’s what I did, the file was a disaster with about 70% of the documents missing, but what my due diligence found in fall of 2011, was strikingly, Mary was not served and there were no notices or waivers to the relatives.  Ken listened to me, but it’s hard to prove lack of service when someone has filched most of the file.

I started getting all the transcripts I could and as much of the file as I could.  Orders from microfiche, the file I learned had been imaged on the court’s computer system since March of 2011 and I got as much as I could of that.

What did I do with all this?  Publish it on the blog.  The miscreants had already poisoned staff at the court telling them Gloria was swiping the file.  I responded to them that can’t be true because SHE asked me to blog about the case and WE agreed to publish and and I have a ton of stuff I have published on the internet.  I told them first sign of corruption is portions of the file are missing and no one  (attys or parties)i nsists on “reconstructing” the file.  I asked her to ask the judge and nothing ever came of that.  (Reconstructing a file happens when it is lost or portions lost, then the judge can order the attorneys to bring in copies of THEIR file stamped pleadings and those are used to “reconstruct” a file).

I’m just glad this is getting better, much, much better.

And Judge Stuart, if you are listening or hear this, and you really didn’t know, I’m sorry you got handed this bomb for Christmas in 2010 (12/23/10–date of case transfer to her).  You looked truly upset on August 16, 2012 when Gloria presented a motion for to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.  BUT look at the good side, as least KEN and I are there, reminding the courts to check for a summons and complaint and the certificates of service upon all close relatives–adult parents, siblings and children.  So now you know. Check the file when you get a new case and BLAME the last judge when it’s a stinker, but get it dismissed ASAP.  In late December 2010 you could have found a ton of scape goats for blowing the whistle then.

I hope this will all be over soon, mine and KDD’s discipline which just turned out to be a cover up for lack of service but who knows.

Atty Grant Goodman said he spoke out against corruption publicly and WON during his proceeding and hearing because all he did was tell the truth.  They still gave him a 2 year suspension, which is supposed to be lifted next month, be he doubts that will happen.  He says the disciplinary board in Maricopa county Arizona is still wired in and ticked off as all Golgatha against him.

Further, I just learned from some attorneys who were “disciplined” for speaking out against corruption in THEIR states that their states have “whistleblower acts” that are supposed to protect them against their disciplinary boards for speaking out against corruption, BUT the disciplinary boards say those acts don’t apply to them! (Just like my chair Lee and my request to be protected under the Illinois reporter’s shield act see http://www.dmlp.org/blog/2012/reconsideration-illinois-judge-holds-blog-protected-shield-law).

Sounds like they have a Chair Lee of their own.  I can hear it on the phone now, “before you use that Whistleblower Act, you better be sure it applies to YOU.”  Oh, thank you very much Mr. Chair for that wonderful little pep talk from you.

I’ll publish the letter on this page and perhaps set up another page just for that letter.

AND if any of you (besides fighting your own demons in probate court) have time to write me a letter of reference for being a good, honest, ethical attorney and great blogger, please do so now and send a copy to myself and the ARDC.

thanks and take care

joanne

that are fathers, fathers to be, or like a father to someone in need.  Your talents, abilities, warmth and caring are much appreciated and I wish you all peace, blessings and a wonderful day.

And for you probate victims out there that cannot see their father because someone claimed “you agitated him”, you said the wrong words, you complained about abuse or neglect at a nursing home and got banned, you were told all of  a sudden no one can see dad, or you can only see him once per month for an hour and that’s $150 to $200 for a court tied in supervisor–esp. those that come from “secret lists”, my heart goes out to you and I pray for peace and blessings that that will one day change.  Many of you loved your fathers and were supportive, seeing your father daily or near daily for several hours, but then someone got greedy, someone got jealous, someone didn’t lke the extra pairs of eyes watching for neglect or abuse and wham, you were locked out.

Rest assured, you are not alone and I understand.  I pray for you and I pray for justice to be done.

And for those of you out there making out your Power of Attorney forms today, be sure to specify that your close friends and family must be allowed to see you after incompetency and list them and put in consequences for failure to do so by a court appointed guardian.

Please and blessings to you all.

joanne

Below are Ken’s comments on a recent case that he ran across and there are great cites to other cases indicating that service on a disabled or alleged disabled is very, very strict.  I did not know before this you cannot serve a disabled by publication for anything.

The Sheriff’s record is that there was no service on Mary as she never appeared.    The procedure that is followed for bench service is:

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

From O’Halloran v. Luce, 2013 IL App (1st) 113735

“(c) The guardian of the estate of a ward shall appear for and represent the ward in all legal proceedings unless  [18] another person is appointed for that purpose as guardian or next friend. This does not impair the power of any court to appoint a guardian ad litem or next friend to defend the interests of the ward in that court, or to appoint or allow any person as the next friend of a ward to commence, prosecute or defend any proceeding in his behalf.” 755 ILCS 5/11a-18(c) (West 2010)

 “In Illinois, personal jurisdiction may be obtained by service of process as provided by statute.” In re Marriage of Schmitt, 321 Ill. App. 3d 360, 367, 747 N.E.2d 524, 530, 254 Ill. Dec. 484 (2001). Section 2-203(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-203(a)(1), (2) (West 2010)) provide for service of process on individuals by leaving a copy of the summons with the defendant personally, or by leaving a copy at the defendant’s usual place of abode with a family member or person residing there over the age of 13. Schmitt, 321 Ill. Section 2-203.1 of the Code states that if personal service under sections 2-203(a)(1) and (a)(2) is impractical, the plaintiff may file a motion requesting that the court authorize another method of service to be made in any manner consistent with due process. 735 ILCS 5/2-203.1 (West 2010). “‘Notice is a fundamental requirement of due  [25] process.'” Hwang v. Illinois Department of Public Aid, 333 Ill. App. 3d 698, 707, 776 N.E.2d 801, 809, 267 Ill. Dec. 429 (2002) (quoting East St. Louis Federation of Teachers, Local 1220 v. East St. Louis School District No. 189 Financial, 178 Ill. 2d 399, 420, 687 N.E.2d 1050, 1062, 227 Ill. Dec. 568 (1997)). In order to satisfy due process, “notice must be reasonably calculated ‘to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.'” Hwang, 333 Ill. App. 3d at 707, 776 N.E.2d at 809 (quoting Stratton v. Wenona Community Unit District No. 1, 133 Ill. 2d 413, 432, 551 N.E.2d 640, 648, 141 Ill. Dec. 453 (1990)).

 [P33]  We note that in support of his argument, the Public Guardian cited numerous cases decided by the United States Supreme Court, and one Illinois Appellate Court case. See Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791, 800, 103 S. Ct. 2706, 77 L. Ed. 2d 180 (1983) (holding that statutory provision regarding tax sale that required only notice by publication was invalid because notice by mail or other means to ensure actual notice is a minimum constitutional precondition to a proceeding that will affect the property interests of a party); Covey v. Town of Somers, 351 U.S. 141, 146, 76 S. Ct. 724, 100 L. Ed. 1021 (1956) (holding that  [26] compliance with statutory notice requirements for a tax lien foreclosure violated due process because it did not afford notice to an incompetent person who was not protected by a guardian); Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 319-20, 70 S. Ct. 652, 94 L. Ed. 865 (1950) (holding that notice by publication was inadequate to inform known beneficiaries of a common trust fund of the proposed judicial settlement of certain accounts by the trustee); In the Matter of the Application of the County Collector for Judgment, 188 Ill. App. 3d 1068, 1077, 545 N.E.2d 145, 150, 136 Ill. Dec. 621 (1989) (holding that service on an incompetent person in compliance with statutory requirements regarding a tax sale violated due process because the incompetent person was without a guardian and could not understand that she was being served). However, none of the cases cited by the Public Guardian are analogous or applicable to the case at bar. Thus, we cannot look to these cases for guidance.

  The parties have not cited any cases and this court is not aware of an Illinois case that contains facts, circumstances and ultimate resolution which is analogous to the case at bar. However, HN7 it is clear that sections 2-203(a) and 2-203.1 of the Code and the principles of due process are applicable to the instant case. As previously discussed, the notice requirement for due process is: “notice must be reasonably calculated ‘to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.'” Hwang, 333 Ill. App. 3d at 707, 776 N.E.2d at 809 (quoting Stratton, 133 Ill. 2d at 432, 551 N.E.2d at 648).  [28] O’Halloran is correct in stating that section 2-203.1 of the Code allows for service by any manner consistent with due process when personal service is not possible. However, under the specific and unique circumstances of this case, service by publication was not consistent with due process. Therefore, the trial court erred in allowing service by publication.

  The parties have not cited any cases and this court is not aware of an Illinois case that contains facts, circumstances and ultimate resolution which is analogous to the case at bar. However, HN7 it is clear that sections 2-203(a) and 2-203.1 of the Code and the principles of due process are applicable to the instant case. As previously discussed, the notice requirement for due process is: “notice must be reasonably calculated ‘to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.'” Hwang, 333 Ill. App. 3d at 707, 776 N.E.2d at 809 (quoting Stratton, 133 Ill. 2d at 432, 551 N.E.2d at 648).  [28] O’Halloran is correct in stating that section 2-203.1 of the Code allows for service by any manner consistent with due process when personal service is not possible. However, under the specific and unique circumstances of this case, service by publication was not consistent with due process. Therefore, the trial court erred in allowing service by publication.

O’Halloran claims that Luce has been living as a homeless person since 2004. Luce’s whereabouts were unknown at the time when the notice of suit appeared in local newspapers. After the notice of suit was published, an investigator who was familiar with Luce attempted to locate him at the soup kitchens that Luce previously frequented. Volunteers and patrons at the soup kitchens stated that they had not seen Luce for years. There is no evidence to suggest that Luce was even living in the area where the newspapers published the notice of suit. Moreover, if Luce had somehow accessed the newspapers containing the notice of suit, there is no evidence that he would have understood the  [29] notice of suit if he saw it. Luce had long since been adjudicated a disabled person and the Public Guardian had been appointed to manage all of his assets valued at over $1,000. Clearly, the reason for the adjudication of disability was because Luce was incapable of managing his affairs. Under these circumstances even if he had seen the published notice, he likely would not have understood what it meant. We acknowledge the difficulties O’Halloran experienced in attempting to locate Luce. However, those difficulties do not change the fact that service by publication cannot be reasonably calculated to apprise an individual in Luce’s circumstances of the legal ramifications of a lawsuit. Therefore, we answer the certified question in the negative and hold that service by publication in this case did not satisfy due process.

First, the link:

If you read the article closely, it says he charged cards without prior notice and on a continuing basis.

I have news for you all–large corps do it all the time!  The problem isn’t even the recurring charges, but try to get that nonsense off your bank account debit card or a credit card and you see where the real scam is.  It’s a huge hassle and pain in the butt that often does work when you attempt ti.

The banks and credit card companies must be complicit when it takes months and months and many emails to get these charges off.  Further, they must be well aware of these scam companies, having received hundreds to thousands of complaints.

To me, this guy is only part of the problem.  Mega banks are part of it too.  You should be able to just email your bank or call them up or fax them and a banker should get it off and keep it off. Instead, the banks and credit card companies transfer you from person to person, put you thru long menus, do not guarantee to take them off your “not okay to charge” list (why DON’T they have this to make sure these scams are shut down, etc.)

the recurring charge is a national problem and scandal for most Americans.

the article is misleading.  but thanks for passing it along.  I will post this on my denisonlaw.com blog.

joanne

—–Original Message—–
From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Jun 16, 2013 9:07 AM
To: NASGA , probate sharks , JoAnne Denison , j ditkowsky , Harry Heckert , “IllinoisLawyerNow@isba.org” , SUNTIMES , Chicago Tribune , Tim NASGA , “foxnews_7D7B711AF105DCA690AB56169C0FF242@newsletters.foxnews.com”
Subject: Fw: NYTimes.com: In Utah, a Local Hero Accused

There is a sucker born every minute.    Look what Schmiedel, Farenga, and Stern were able to sell to the IARDC, assuming that the IARDC is not part of the ‘elder cleansing’ from day one.

What is interesting is the fact that the Federal Judge upheld Mr. Johnson’s FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS even though his sole purpose appears to intimidate the Federal Prosecutors and try his case in the press.    It is refreshing to know that the FIRST AMENDMENT IS NOT DEAD.

Ken Ditkowsky
http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

In Utah, a Local Hero Accused
By NATASHA SINGER
A wealthy Web marketer was known for acts of generosity. But the government, which has charged him with defrauding customers, sees him in a different light.
Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://nyti.ms/11Hqwwu

On Thursday, during my pre-trial/hearing converence with Chair Sang Yul Lee, I learned a few amazing things.

One of the things I have discussed with you my readers is the fact 1) a whole lot of you are probate victims and have told me you do NOT want your names disclosed to the probate “goons and thugs” and I have no intention of doing that; 2) also a whole lot of you don’t really fit the definition of being my client, maybe you are my blogging client or whatever, but what’s great about the Illinois shield law for reporters is that a) you don’t have to be my client, you just have to be a source or potential source of information; b) you don’t have to claim the privilege, I GET TO CLAIM IT because it’s what I do to be a successful blogger/journalist; c) it covers my methods and types of collections and how I do it and what I use and what I don’t.  It’s perfect for this blog because many attorneys have told me they are 10000% behind me, but DO NOT WANT THEIR names mentioned to the ARDC, and won’t go up against the ARDC.  Good for them (weenies).

So, getting back to what Chair Lee said, it was either in a snotty manner or in a threatening manner, I’m not sure, but he said “you better be sure that you’re entitled to claim that before you do.”  Imagine that!  I have to be sure.  No motions, no rulings, no briefing, nothing.

Just like probate court where everything is down the rabbit hole.

Someone else told me the ARDC struck all of his witnesses and he wasn’t sure for what.

So now we have ARDC tribunals that say you can’t have Interrogatories to find out what you are charged with, you can’t control depositions, your witnesses may be struck for whatever.  Many attorneys I have talked to about this say it’s likely unconsitutional, but what care the ARDC attys for the US constitution.  Chair Lee would just say, “you’d better be sure you can use that Constitution before you claim it.”

So mark your calendars.  If you want to see an event, come to the ARDC 130 E Randolph 12th Floor and ask for the hearing.  I want it to be public.  I have no idea what I’m going to do for an opening statement, but it will be interesting.

Oh, and btw, one former witness for the ARDC just posted that she reviewed her testimony and found out that some had been CUT!  So I guess I have to bring my own court reporter too.  Sigh.  Another similarity to probate. Bring your own court reporter.

You can see the accusation here:  http://thepursuitoftruthandjustice.blogspot.com/2013/03/more-bullshit-from-ardc.html

Maybe this woman isn’t the best witness, or perhaps there are other things going on, but when you read about altered transcripts, TIME TO BRING YOUR OWN COURT REPORTER.

I have not seen any transcripts yet that have been altered, but it’s not trial time and I don’t think anything important has gone on yet.  Everything is really over this blog and what I say and how I hate the fact I get so many emails documenting attys and judges acting badly.  It’s very upsetting to me.  I expect honor, ethics, the truth, integrity and justice when I go to court.  If it’s not there, I just don’t know what to say to my clients.

Blogging, there’s blogging going on in here.  Ma’am, your winnings–is all I can say.

I will probably blog during the hearing, even though I haven’t found counsel yet.

The ARDC says they have WiFi but last time I was there, there was none that I could detect or get to work, so I doubt that and I bet they turn it off for me and I’m too cheap to get a Cricket air card because my kids take those and lose them all the time.  Half the time they don’t work anyway and are slow.  I think they’re only for internet addicts.

So, if you volunteered to be an expert for me, I will get the order posted soon as I get it, but July 31, 2013 is the close of discovery.  While I shared all my documents with the ARDC on gmail, of court the ladies at the ARDC told the chair they didn’t get anything.  They also never mentioned it took them several weeks for me to get back the disks I sent them anyway.

I’ll just put it in my next “Report to the Court” — that’s what you do with all that nonsense.

I think we need to get some church groups out there praying and all sorts of things.  Works for me.

I have to do a privileged documents list of the thousands of emails I get from you all, and esp. Ken and Gloria every month, so what I’m doing is currently taking pictures of computer screens with my Samsun Galaxy at 10 megpixels and will print out and send to them and blank out names you have told me to and claim Illinois shield law.

you can read about the Illinois shield law.  I’m sure Chair Lee will read it and say it doesn’t apply to me for whatever reason and I’ll get “she doesn’t understand the seriousness….[of running a stupid blog]’  It’s a blog.  get it and get over it.

you see me and my blog are transparent.  i tell YOU the reader exactly what goes on in a blow by blow description.

Do you see the ARDC–any of them doing the same?

Have a good evening and I will publish the Order when it comes through.

Oh, and I also have the appeal which was filed with the appellate court for my Motion to Dismiss the ARDC proceeding based on the fact the entire complaint is about a blog, all I did and all I do is blog, my blog should be protected under Citizen’s United as content oriented speech, and I’m hoping the Ct of Appeals will dismiss this insanity on an expedited basis with my attorney’s fees.

take care all and I will keep you up to date.

joanne

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Jun 15, 2013 7:36 AM
To: JoAnne Denison , Cook Sheriff
Cc: Peter Schmiedel , Eric Holder , matt senator kirk , NASGA , probate sharks , Harry Heckert , Lawrence Hyman , “IllinoisLawyerNow@isba.org” , JoAnne Denison , GLORIA SYKES , mary richards
Subject: Service on Mary Sykes of process, copy of petiton to hold her incompetent etc. Aug 31, 2009

Sheriff Dart,

I received a disturbing communication.    We are investigating whether or not in reference to Mary Sykes there was service of process and apparently our further investigation has been thwarted by the statement from your office that the records are ‘secret.’    I do not understand why the Sheriff’s office had been so co-operative and shared with us (office of JoAnne Denison)  the fact that there was no return of service on Mary Sykes would suddenly turn away and refuse to further elaborate.

Let me lay out the facts, Mr. Schmiedel , who is the attorney for the ‘de facto plenary guardian’ has pointed out that there is a memo on a document that he found that indicates that a deputy 1065 may have served summons on Mary.    As no return (under oath or certification) is of record, and the previous contact with the Sheriff’s office furnished a print out showing that there was no service on Mary Sykes as she did not appear we have a loose end.     This loose end is important as we are in a search for the truth.    If the information that we previously received were to be wrong, we have to know it and correct the record.     (If the deputy filed a return under oath we would also like to known why it was not filed with the Court).

In the late spring or early summer of 2009 Mary Sykes was spirited off by her older daughter who has kept her a virtual prisoner for the last four years.   Mrs. Sykes has been almost totally isolated and kept from having contact with her two surviving siblings and her younger daughter.    Her substantial estate has been pillaged and a safety deposit box containing hundreds of good and mint condition Au coins has been removed and not inventoried.    (Ms. Sykes’ husband and another relative were collecting these gold coins and purchasing them at auctions and at a local coin shop).   The short story is that some very unusual events have occurred and our investigation has indicated that the provisions of 755 ILCS 5/11a -10) have been totally ignored.    Thanks to your office we confirmed that the basic element of jurisdiction – i.e. the service of process was also ignored.    This means that for four years without a warrant of authority Mary Sykes has had her liberty and property taken from her under color of statute.

As you are aware from the Conference that you sponsored ‘elder cleansing’ has become a National Scandal.    Here in Illinois there are dozens of seniors whose families (and in some case – they themselves) aver that they have been deprived of their liberty and property by ‘judicial officials’ who enjoy clout and the ability to pervert the Justice System.    I invite you to examine the Sykes case.    No human being can walk away from that case without saying:  “how could this happen in America!”    I invite you to examine the Gore case.  It is alleged that  Mrs. Gore was even stripped of the gold in her teeth!

The only way to end this “elder cleansing” and prevent the retro-active abortion of senior citizens is to pick one case and fully investigate it, leaving no loose ends, and make an example out of the miscreants.     The Sykes case is a perfect vehicle as it has all the elements.    This is the reason that we have copied you on so many e-mails and we are so annoying in making certain that Mary Sykes was indeed not served with process, even though your records affirm that she was not afforded such an ‘enjoyment.’

Thank you for your efforts in this matter.

Ken Ditkowsky

All that appears in the record is some obscure stamp that says “Mary Sykes, age 90, race W, sex F and “writ served.”

The server is supposed to do an affidavit, declaration, verification or certification of service that is worded akin to this:  On X date at X time, Mary Sykes presented ID (or I called her name and she responded) appeared before me AND you state age, sex, “race” and I served her with a copy of the attached summons, petition, and notice of rights” and sign it.

What is in the file is clearly inadequate.  There IS a printout with the correct wording, but typed upon it is “window service” and “reason not served”.  It is not signed at all.  The only thing we have is a stamp and a stamp is not verification, certification or an affidavit or declaration saying who when and what was served.   This was a window service attempted upon Mary, and it would be highly scrutinized.

It is further fishy when you go to Deputy 1065 he responds “I can’t talk about service except to a plaintiff”!  Court records are NOT secret.  An open and honest court is essential to the democratic process and an open and free society.

Again, even assuming for the sake of argument Mary did get her papers, there were still numerous continuances between the date stated in the “summons for Sept 21, 2012” and the actual adjudication which occurred on Dec. 7, 2009.  There were 2 dates in October, 2 dates in November and then December 7, 2009.  In FED court they make the PARTIES sign each order or the judge orders the attorneys to serve with a certificate of service any continuances upon a date any party is not there.

They “get it” on the 14th floor, but the 18th floor is all over the place on summons, petition, notice of rights, making sure all interested parties get a copy of every order, making sure notice to the ward and next of kin is served in writing with a certificate of service 14 days in advance of hearing.

What a mess.  And Adam Stern and Cynthia Farenga go to KDD’s hearing and blame Ken and Gloria for “work” that added to “their work.”  What kind of an excuse is that?  Mary appeared, told people she wanted to fight this, told the court she wanted an attorney and nothing happens.  Gloria has a POA which is ignored.  The case then goes up in flames, and AS and CF blame everyone except where the blame belongs which is CT and Harvey Waller.

What Ken and I are fighting for is justice.  What the miscreants are fighting for is a cover up.

See letter below.  CF is brilliant at asking the ARDC to cover up and they do it.

Farenga’s smoking gun letter.

Oh, and if you want to know about Sheriff Dart’s reputation in all of this, see below.

Again, I publish the truth and statements and back up of what REALLY goes on at the Daley center.  Not to create “more work” that takes away from anyone’s “work” but so people can see this is not the way to go.  It puts cases in flames, and the public and the families go nuts publishing all over the internet.  What does the ARDC want Ken and I to say, bad service is good?  The sky is green the Chicago River purple?

http://19thwardpolitics.blogspot.com/2011/03/sheriff-dart-and-untold-eviction.html

(please excuse errors in formatting and typos–these are from OCR’ing)

you can find the original brief at:

Click to access conway_response.pdf

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
TI]E FLORIDA BAR,
Complainant,
V.
SEAN WILLIAM CONWAY,
Respondent
Supreme Court Case No. SC08-326
Lower Tribunal
RESPONDENT SEAN WILLIAM CONWAY’S RESPONSE
TO THIS COURT’S RULE TO SHOW CAUSE ORDER
Pursuant to the order of this court dated June 23,2008 the Respondent, Sean
William Conway, files this response to the order of the Court requesting that he show
cause whether any of his comments which form the basis of the Florida Bar’s
complaint against him should be considered protected speech under the First
Amendment of the United States Constitution.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Prior to October 18, 2006, Broward Circuit Judge Cheryl Alemana ppointedth e
respondentC, onway,a Floridal awyer,t o represenat defendanitn herc ourtr oomf or
a pendingf elony.l Througha written pleat he defendanwt as arraignedin absentia
tAll of the facts contained within this Statement of Facts have been acquired from the
material which was posted by the respondent on the JAAB Blog.
on October 18, 2006. Six days later on October 24e the clerk of the court sent a
Notice of Trial to the respondent. On October 25’h the Notice of Trial was received
by the Respondent advising him that his client’s trial was scheduled to begin three
business days later on October 30, 2006. Of equal importance, this date was only
eight business days after his client’s araignment.
On October 30fr Conway and his client appeared before Judge Aleman. When
the case was initially called Judge Aleman asked counsel, “[t]rial or continuance?”
If counsel and client wanted time to serve witnesses with subpoenas or to engage in
reasonable discovery, Judge Aleman insisted that defendants, including Conway’s
client, waive their right to a speedy trial as a condition of granting their request for
a continuance.
When the case was recalled approximately two hours later Conway directed
Judge Aleman’s attention to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.160(d) which specifies that, “[a]fter
a plea of not guilty has been entered the defendant is entitled to a reasonable time
in which to prepare for trial.” (Emphasis added). The trial judge did not directly
respond to counsel’s suggestion that the language of the rule should guide the court
in the matter. As a consequencec, ounsel reluctantly advised the Court that he was
moving for a continuance, as it was the only prudent option available. Judge Aleman
then directed her attention to Conwav’s client and had him affirmativelv waive his
rights to a speedytr ial. The next day, Halloween 2006,C onwayp ostedo n the
JAAR blog2h is viewsc oncerningw hath adt ranspiredin JudgeA leman’sc ourtroom
with respect to his client’s case, as well as all other cases which had been arraigned
on October 18, 20A6 and were thereafter set for trial on October 30, 2006. See
Exhibit -A- Respondent’s JAAB posting dated October 31, 2006. Conway
acknowledgest he following remarks: (1) ooal long with severalo ther attorneys,h ad
to endure her ugly, condescending attitude as one-by-one we all went up to the
podium and noted that our respective clients had just been arraigned on Oct. 18fr as
she forced us to decide between saying ready for trial – or need a continuance”; (2)
“Every atty tried their best to bring reason to that ctroom, but, as anyone who has
been in there knows, she is clearly unfit for her position and knows not what it means
to be a neutral arbitec’; (3) “Evil, unfair witch (“hereinafter “witch”)”; (4) “As my
case was on recall for 2 hours, I watched this seemingly mentally ill judge
condescend each previous attorney”; and (5) “Judge (not your honor b/c there’s
nothing honorable about that malcontent) there seems to be a mistake in this
case.” (Hereinafter the “five remarks”).
2 JAABlog stands for Justice Advocacy Association of Broward blog. It is a forum about
the justice system in the l7h Judicial Circuit.
sTAr\pABp oF REVTEW
The typical standard of review for findings of fact in bar disciplinary
proceedingiss setf orth in Fla.B ar Reg.R . 3-7.6(m)(l)(A):
Ther eferee’sre ports halli nclude:( A) a finding of fact ast o each
item of misconducto f which the respondenits charged,w hich
findings of fact shall enjoy the same presumption of
correctness as the judgment of the trier of fact in a civil
proceeding…
(Emphasisa dded).
However,i n casesin volving the First Amendmentt,h e standardo f review is
de novo:
[O]ur review of petitionersc’ laim that their activity is indeedi n
then atureo fprotecteds peechc arriesw ith it a constitutionadl uty
to conducta n independenet xaminationo f the recorda sa whole,
withoutd eferenceto thet rial court.S ee,BosCe orp.v . Consumers
Uniano f UnitedS tates,Inc.,46U6 .S.4 85,4 99,1 04S .Ct.1 949,
1958,8 0 L.Ed.2d5 02( 1984).T he “requiremenot f independent
appellater eview … is a rule of federalc onstitutionalla w,” id., at
510, 104S .Ct.,a t 1965,w hich doesn ot limit our deferencteo a
trial court on matters of witness credibiliff . . .
Hurley v. Irish-AmericanG ay,L esbiana ndB isexualG roupo f Boston,5 15U .S.5 57,
567, | 15S .Ct.2 344,l 32L.Ed.2d 487( 1995).T hes tandardo f reviewi s no different
in bar disciplinaryc asesin volving expressionG. entilev . StateB ar of Nevada,5 01
U.S.1 030,l l l S.Ct.2 720,2726,11L5. Ed.2d8 88( 1991X”[A]na ppellatceo urth as
an obligationt o omakea n independenet xaminationo f the whole record’ in ordert o
makes uret hat ,thej udgmentd oesn ot constitutea forbiddeni ntrusiono nthe field of
freee xpression”.’) (quotingB oseC orp’,s upra’))’
In Gentile, the Bar’s case, tike this case, rested solety on the lawyer’s own
statements:
Neither the disciplinary board nor the reviewing court explains any
sensein which pltitioner’s statemenths ad a substantialli kelihood of
causingm ateriaiprejudiceT. he only evidencea gainstG entilew ast he
videotapeo f his statementsa nd his own testimonya t the disciplinary
hearing.T he Bar’s whole caser estso n the fact of the statementsthoe
time theyw erem ade,a ndp etitioner’so wnj ustifications’F ull deference
to these factual findings does not justify abdication of our
responsibilityt o determinew hether petitionerfss tatementsc an be
porrirh”d consistenwt ith First Amendments tandards.
Rather this Court is’
.compelledto examinefo r [itselflt hes tatementsin issue
andthecircumstancesunderwhichtheyweremadeto
see whether or not they do carry a threat of clear and
present danger to the impartiality and good order of the
courts or whether they are of a character which the
principles of the First Amendment”‘ protect’
Id. at 1038.( Citationo mitted’e mphasias dded)’
III. LEGAL ARGUMENT
The only factsb eforet he refereew eret hoset hat conway admitted posting on
the JAABlog. The referee conducted no evidentiary hearing’ made no credibility
determinationsa,n dr eceivedn o evidenceth at what Conwayp osted was false’ The
five remarfu found by the referee to have been “false or to have been posted with
recklessd isregarda st o their truth or falsity” arew ithout anys upporti n ther ecorda s
to their falsity. They were opinion or rhetorical hyperbole protected by the First
Amendmenot f the United StatesC onstitution.3
A. Free Speech Is Often Provocative And Challenging
TheF irstA mendmenot owafsa shionedtoa ssureu nfetteredin terchangeo fideas
fortheb ringinga bouto fpoliticala nds ocialc hangedse siredb y thep eople.”C onnick
v.M yers,461U .S.1 38,1 45( 1983)”.s peechisoftenprovocativeandchallenging…
[But it] is neverthelesps rotecteda gainstc ensorshipo r punishmentu, nlesss hown
likely to producea cleara ndp resendt angero f a seriouss ubstantive vil thatr isesf ar
3
Seef l 10o f Reporto f RefereeC. ompareR ayv . Florida Bar,797 So.2 d 566( 2001),w here
therew as an evidentiaryh earing,c redibility determinationsa, nd evidencet hat what Ray said was
false.F urther,R aya ssertedfa cts( i.e.,t he ImmigrationJ udgeli ed andt amperedw ith evidencet)h at
were capableo f determinationa s to their true or falsity.
Rayw asu ltimatelyr eprimandedfo r writing lettersa bouta n immigrationj udge. Further,a nd
unlike this case,t he refereei n Ray mades pecificf indings that the accusationws ere false and
reckless:
The lettersc ontaineda ccusationsw hich are utterly falsea nd they were madei n my way of
thinking at a minimum-at a minimum-with reckless disregard for the truth.
Indeed,if therei s onew ord that characterizethse sel etters,i t is reckless.
I have read that transcript and I have listened to the tape and there w:N
nothing-nothing-thatr anspiredi n that hearingt hat would justiff such outrageouslyfa lse
accusationsA. nd I am utterly appalledt hat this kind of languagew ould be useda gainst
anybodyo n evidenceth at barelyq ualifiesa s sketchy.
Id. at557,n. l. Heret herew eren o suchf indingsb eyonda very generabl oiler-platefi nding.E ven
weret heres pecificf indingsh erel ike thosei n.l?ayt,h is Courtc ana nds houldr eviewt hosef indings
de novo. The factual record here shows no falsity in Conway’s blog postings.
above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest.” Terminello v. City of Chicago,
377 U.S. r,4 (t949).
B. Attorney Criticism of Judges- Especially Truthful Criticism
or Opinion — is Protected by the First Amendment
Judges are public figures. Garrison v. Louisiana,379 U.S. 64, 85 S.Ct. 209,
2l5,13L.Ed.zd,I25 (1964);RepublicanPartyvW. hite,536US7 65,781,I22S .C t.
2528,2538;153L . F,d.694( 2002x”[d]ebateo n the qualificationso f candidatesis at
the core of our electoral process and of the First Amendment freedoms, not at the
edges.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Attorneys are in a unique position to understand, and criticize,the functioning
of ourjudicial system and itsjudges. Attorney criticism ofjudges is protected forthe
same reason that criticism of other public officials is protected. In Re Green, 11 P.
3d 1078,1 085( 2000xthe oore asont hat the protectiono f attorneyc riticism ofjudges
is similar to the protection of criticism of other public officials…[is to] safeguard []
public discussion of governmental affairs.”)(citations omitted). See also Standing
Committee on Discipline v. Yagman, 55 F.3d 1430,1438 (9’h Cir. 1995); Fieger v.
Michigan Supreme Court, 2007 WL 2571975 (E.D. Mich.); Oklahoma Bar
Association, v.Porter, 766P.2d958, 1988 OK 114 (1988); and State Bar v.
Semaan,508 S.W.zd429 (Tex. Ct. App. 1974).
7
C. Truth is an Absolute l)efense to Factual Statements
ForFirstAmendmentpu{postehse,l ineb etweenfa ctando pinioni s notalways
obvious.S tatementcsr iticizing aj udge mayn ot be punishedu nlesst hey arec apable
of being proved true or false; statementso f opinion are protectedb y the First
Amendmenut nlesst hey “imply a falsea ssertiono f fact.” SeeM ilkovich v. Lorain
JournalC o.,497U .S.1 , 19,l l0 S.Ct.2 695,27061, 11L .Ed.2d| (1990)E. ven
statementsth at at first blush appear to be factual are protectedb y the First
Amendmenitf they cannotr easonablby ei nterpreteda ss tatinga ctualf actsa bouttheir
targetS. eeH ustlerM agazineI,n c. v.F alwell,485U .S.4 6,5 0, 108S .Ct.8 76,879,99
L.Ed.2d41(1 e88).
While Conway submits that his postings which led to these disciplinary
proceedingsw erep ure opinion or, in somec aseso, pinion in the form of rhetorical
hyperbolet,h e factsu nderlyingt hoseo pinionsw eret ruthful. Therei s no disputea s
to what transpiredin JudgeA leman’sc ourtroomr egardingC onway’sc lient or the
other defendantsw ho were arraignedo n October 18, 2006.N or are there factual
disputesa boutJ udgeA leman forcing defendantsto trial without adequateti me to
prepareo, r the fact that shei gnoredF la. R. Crim. P. 3.160(d) which entitlest he
defendan”tt o a reasonablteim e in which to preparef or trial.”
Notably, the refereem aden o findings that the underlying statementsp ostedo n
the blog were false or that Conway’s account of the trial judge’s conduct during the
period of October 2006 implied a false assertion of fact. There simply has been no
showing or attempt by the Bar to show that those facts were anything but truthful.
Attorneys may be sanctioned for impugning the integrity of ajudge or the court
only if their statements are false; truth is an absolute defense. See Garrison v.
Louisiana,379 U.S. at 74. Moreover, the Bar bears the burden ofproving falsity. See
PhiladelphiaN ewspapersI,n c. v. Hepps,475 U.S. 767,776-77, 106 S.Ct. 1558,
1563-643, 9 L.Ed.2d7 83( 1986).4
D. Opinions and Rhetorical Hyperbole are Entitled to First
Amendment Protection
Statementso fo’rhetoricalh yperbole”a ren’ts anctionablen, or ares tatementsth at
use language in a “loose, figurative sense.” See National Ass’n of Letter Carriers v.
Austin,4l8 U.S.2 64,284,94S .Ct.2 770,2781,41L.F,d.2d74(51 974)( useo f word
‘otraitor’could not be construed as representation of fact); (use of word “blackmail”
4
The respondennt otest hat in footnote 3 of Ray this Court statedt hat *[tay also arguest hat
the burdeno f proof was improperlys hiftedt o him to substantiateh is statementsH. owever,t herei s
no debatet hat the statementsa t issuec oncerned’t he qualificationso r integrity of a judge,’ R.
RegulatingF la. Bar 4-8.2(a)a, ndw e seen o error in the burdent hen shiftingt o Ray to providea
factualb asisi n supporto fthe statements.”R espondenrte spectfullys ubmitst hat the burdens hifting
specifiedi n Ray is inconsistenwt ith Heppsa nd its progeny.
could not haveb eeni nterpreteda s chargingp laintiff with commissiono f criminal
offense).B resler,398 U.S. at 14. Seea lso,J usticeso f AppellateD ivision, First
Departmenvt. Erdmann3, 3 N.Y.2d 559,560 347 N.Y.S.2d4 4I,301 N.E.2d
426(1973)(Wherlea wyerw asq uoted inmagazinea rticlet o effectt hatt herew eref ew
trial judgesi n certainj udicial departmentws ho left guilt or innocenceto jury, that
appellateju dgesi n samed epartmenwt ere “whoresw ho becamem adams,”a ndt hat
only way to become a judge was “to be in politics or buy it,” lawyer was improperly
censuredi;s olatedin stanceso f disrespecfto r law andc ourtse xpressebdy vulgara nd
insultingw ordso r otheri ncivility, utteredw, ritten,o r committedo utsidep recinctso f
court,w ithoutm ore,a ren ot subjecto professionadl iscipline.).
1. All of Conway’s Postings were Opinions
or Rhetorical Hyperbole
All of Conway’s postings were opinions, some in the form of rhetorical
hyperbole.T hose opinions were: “Evil, Unfair Witch”; ‘oseeminglym entally ill”;
“ugly, condescending attitude”; “unfit for her position and knows not what it means
to be a neutral arbiter,” and’othere’sn othing honorable about that malcontent.”
The statement’oEvilU, nfair Witch” is an opinion in the form of a rhetorical
hyperbole. “Hyperbole” is defined as meaning”Rhet. An extravagant statement or
figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as in ‘to wait an eternity.”‘
t0
Random House Dictionary of the English Language 698 (1’t Printing 1966)- On
Hallowee n,2006,the respondent referred to Judge Aleman as a mean spirited witch.
His comment that Judge Aleman was a o’witch” is an example of figurative speech-
Conway’s use of the words “evil” and “unfairo’ are also protected by the First
Amendment. As noted in Austin,
to use loose language or undefined slogans that are part of the
conventional give-and-take in our economic and political controversies
– like ‘unfair’ or ‘fascist’ — is not to falsify facts. Such words were
obviously used here in a loose, figurative sense’.’
Austin,4lS U.S. at284 (Emphasisa dded).
The statement” seeminglym entally ill” is an opinion becauseit too is in the
form of rhetorical hyperbole. In Tech Plus, Inc. v. Ansel,59 Mass. App. Ct.12,16-
l7;793 N.E.2d 1256,1267(2003t)h e plaintiff soughtc ompensationa fter one of his
superiors told a third party that he was “sick” and “mentally ill.” In reviewing the
matter the court found that, “[v]iewed in the context in which they were made, these
statementsc ould not reasonablyh ave been understooda s assertionso f acfual fact …
as distinct from orhetorical hyperbole.”‘ Id. at t267. Further, in Keller v. Miami
Herald publishing co., 77gF.2d7lI,7l7 (1ld’cir. 1985) the court noted that
,,Florida courts have adopted the rule…[that] [t]he court must… accord weight to
cautionary terms used by the person publishing the statement.” (Internal quotation
1l
markso mitted).T hew ord’oseeminglyf”a lls squarelyin to thec ategoryo fcautionary
termsw hich shouldb e weightedt owardsa finding of First Amendmenpt rotection.
The statements” tgly, condescendinagt titude,” “unfit for her positiona nd
knowsn ot whati t meansto bea neutrala rbiter,”a nd” there’sn othingh onorablea bout
that malcontent”e xpresso pinionsb ecausen one of the phrasesc an reasonablyb e
understootdo be an assertiono f actualf act.F alwell,485U .S.a t 50. Additionally,
all threes tatementesm ploy” loosel anguage”w hich arepartofthe” give-and-takein
our…c ontroversiesA.ou’s tin,4l8 U.S. at284. Givent he contexti n whicht hese
statementsw ere made, each of them expresso pinions protectedb y the First
Amendment,a s long as they had an objectiver easonableb asis in fact for their
issuance.
2. Conway had an Objectively Reasonable
Basis in Fact for his Opinions
Conway’s postings reflected that Judge Aleman was setting trials eight
business days after arraignments and with only three business days notice.
Reasonable people can disagree on what constitutes a reasonable amount of time to
preparef or trial, but it is occasionally next to impossible to find reasonablenessin
some positions. For instance, the Sixth Amendment ofthe United States Constitution
providesi n relevantp art that “[i]n all criminal prosecutionst,h e accuseds hall enjoy
t2
the right…t o havec ompulsoryp rocessfo r obtainingw itnessesin his favor…”
(Emphasisa dded).
At a minimum, proper trial preparation includes insuring that compulsory
processis obtainedo ver witnessesh avingt estimonyf avorablet o an accusedfa cing
imprisonmentD. efendantso ftenn eedt o subpoenafo r trial law enforcemenot fficers
involved in the investigationo f their cases.H owever,t he October3 0ft defendants
werep recludedf rom obtainingc ompulsoryp rocesso ver law enforcemenot fficers
becausoef theo perationo f Fla.S tat.$ 48.031 (4)(a)3w, hichp rovidesth atd esignated
employeesa re to accepts ervicew ith respectt o “[s]ervice of a criminal witness
subpoenau pona law enforcemenot fficer,[but thatl no suchd esignatede mployee
is requiredt o accepts ervice[ i]f the appearanced atei s lesst han 5 daysf rom the
date of service.” (Emphasias dded).
Additionally, if the defendantsw antedt o engagei n reasonabled iscovery,
JudgeA leman’sa cceleratedtr ial datesl eft themw ith no othero ption but to forfeit
their speedytr ial rights.5
s Therei s no suggestionh eret hat the facts underlyingt he posteds tatementsw ere in any
way twisted or distorted. “If the [posted underlying facts] had been truncated or distorted in such
a way as to extractthe ffive remarksl from the context in which [they were] used” in the posting,
Conway’so pinionsm ight not be protectedb y the First AmendmentB. resler,3 98 U.S.a t 13.
o’But the [underlying facts] were accurate and fuII.” Id. at 13. [n short, Judge Aleman’s rulings
providedt he respondenwt ith an objectivelyr easonablbea sisi n fact to expressth e opinions
which he posted the following day on the JAABlog.
t3
E. There is no Factual or Legar support for the Baros
Allegationso r the Referee’sc onclusionst hat conway’s
statementsw ere Falsea nd rherefore, Noneo f conway’s
statementsw ere Made with Knowing Falsity or Reckless
Disregard for the Truth
Neither The Florida Bar nor the referee have brought forth any proof of any
kind suggestingt hat any of the factual representationms ade by Conway and
discussedh ereina bovew eref alse. Additionally,w hena ll of the statementos f fact
are reviewedi ndividually it is apparentt hat no evidenceh as been presentedto
substantiateth e existenceo f a false statemenot f fact. ln Austin the Court noteda
fundamentarl ule of law in casesw ith First Amendmenti mplicationsc ontaining
statementsw hich need to be examinedf or potential liability of monetary or
professionasl anction.T herein,t heC ourtd eclaredth at” [blefore the test of reckless
or knowing falsity can be met, there must be a false statement of fact.” Austin,
418U .S. at284.( Emphasias dded).A ccordingly,s incet her ecordb eforet his Court
is void of anyf alses tatementosf factt herei s noj ustifiabler easonto explorew hether
any of the factual statementsw ere made with knowing fatsity or with reckless
disregardfo r the truth.
F. Attorneys Play an Important Role in Exposing
Problems within the Judicial Svstem
t4
In its showc auseo rdert his Courth asr equestedth att her espondenbt em indful
ofthe policyi dentifiedin Fla. Bar v.R ay,797S o.2 d 556( Fla.2 001)o ‘thatattorney’s
comments’p lay an importantr ole in exposingv alid problemsw ithin the judicial
system.”‘ Courtsh aver ecognizedth at attorneysw ho work within the systems hould
not be inhibited from discussingw hat transpiresw ithin criminal courtrooms. As
noted in Gentile,
Because attorneys participate in the criminal justice system and are
trainedi n its complexitiest,h ey hold uniqueq ualificationsa s a source
of information about pending cases. Since lawyers are considered
crediblei n regardt o pendingl itigation in which they aree ngageda nd
arei n oneo fthe mostk nowledgeablpeo sitionst,h ey area crucials ource
of informationa ndo pinion… If the dangerso f their speecha risef rom
its persuasivenesfsro, m their ability to explainj udicial proceedingso, r
from the likelihoodt he speechw ill be believedt,h esea ren ot the sorto f
dangersth at can validater estrictions.T he First Amendmendl oesn ot
permit suppressioonf speechb ecauseo f its powert o commanda ssent.
(Internal quotation marks omitted)
Gentile,50Ul .S.a t 1056,1 057.
ln Greent heC oloradoB ar attemptedto disciplinea lawyerw ho hadp ublished
his opinion that a local judge was a racist. After finding that the lawyer had an
objectivelyr easonablbea sisi n fact for his opiniont he courts tated:
Restrictionso n attorneys peechb urdenn ot only the attorney’sri ght to
criticizeju dges,b ut alsoh inderthep ublic’sa ccestso thec lasso fpeople
in the best position to comment on the functioning of the judicial
system. Interest about judges is important in Colorado, where the
l5
public periodically votes whether to retain judges. The right of a lawyer
asa citizent o publiclyc riticizea djudicatoroy fficials. …i s particularly
meaningfulw here…t he adjudicatoryo fficials ares electedth rought he
electives ystem(. Internalq uotationm arkso mitted).
Green, at 1085. As noted above in White “[d]ebate on the qualifications of
candidates is at the core of our electoral process and of the First Amendment
freedoms, not at the edges.” (internal quotation marlcs omitted). W’hite,536 US at
781. Accordingly, Conway was performing the legitimate function of discussing
the qualifications ofajudicial official when he posted his comments pertaining to the
matters occurring within Judge Aleman’s court room.
lnBuckleyv. Valeo,424U.S. I;96 S. Ct. 612;46 L. Ed. 2d659 (1976)the
Court reviewed its prior opinions which explained that,
Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of
candidates are integral to the operation of the system of government
established by our Constitution. The First Amendment affords the
broadest protection to such political expression in order ‘to assure [the]
unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and
social changes desired by the people.” Roth v. United States, 354 U.S.
476,4 84 (1957). ..’lTlherei s practicallyu niversala greementth ata major
purpose of that Amendment was to protect the free discussion of
governmental affairs,… of course includ[ing] discussions of
candidates…M.’ illsv. Alabama,3 84 U.S.2 14,218( 1966).T hisnomore
than reflects our ‘profound national commitment to the principle that
debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open,’
Neyv YorkTimes Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964).In arepublic
where the people are sovereign, the ability of the citizenry to make
informed choices among candidates for office is essential, for the
T6
identities of those who are elected will inevitably shape the course
that we follow as a nation.
(Emphasisa dded).L astly,a lthoughC ONWAY’s wordsw erei nitially publishedo n
a bloga ndn otb y thep resst,h et eachingos f SheppardvM. axwell,384U .S.3 33,3 50;
86 S.C t. 15 07, 151 5,I 516;1 6L . Ed.2 d 60A,6 13( t966) area ppropriate.
A responsiblep ressh as alwaysb eenr egardeda s the handmaideno f
effectivej udicial administratione, speciallyi n the criminal field. Its
functioni n this regardi s documentebdy an impressivere cordo f service
over several centuries. The press does not simply publish information
about trials but guards against the miscarriage of justice by
subjecting the police, prosecutors, and judicial processes to
extensive public scrutiny and criticism. This Court has, therefore,
been unwilling to place any direct limitations on the freedom
traditionallye xercisedb y the news mediaf or what transpiresi n the
court room is public property. (Internalq uotationm arkso mitted).
(Emphasisa dded).
The respondendt uring Octobero f 2006 was of the opinion that numerous
defendants’ procedural rights were being trampled upon by Judge Aleman. He
observedJ udgeA leman implementa first trial date settingp olicy which stripped
defendantso f their Sixth Amendmentr ight to compulsoryp rocessa nd rendered
virtually meaninglestsh eir right to a speedytr ial asp rovidedf or in Fla. R. Crim. P.
3.191. Accordingly,h e perceivedJ udgeA lemant o be engagedin a courseo f
conducti ntentionallyd esignedto force defendanttso waivet heir speedytr ial right
L7
as promulgated for cogent reasons by this Supreme Court. He funher viewed these
actions to be in violation of Fla. Code Jud. Conduct, Canon 2,4. which provides that,
“Ajudge shall respect and comply with the law and shall actatall times in a manner
that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary”
and Canon 3B(2) which provides that, “Ajudge shall be faithful to the law and
maintain professionalc ompetencei n it.” It follows that by posting his comments- –
often in the form of rhetorical hyperbole — on the JAABlog about Judge Aleman’s
court room behavior, Conway was exercising what James Madison had declared to
be his First Amendment “right of freely examining public characters and
measures…”4 Elliot’s Debatesi n the FederalC onstitution( 1876)p . 575.( Emphasis
added). Accordingly, Conway’sfive remarlcs are protected by the First Amendment
ofthe constitution and this Court should reject his tendered conditional plea of guilty
to professional misconduct and order that the Florida Bar’s complaint against him be
dismissed.
CERTIFICATE OF FONT COMPLIANCE
I herebyc ertif that the font requirementso f Fla. R.App.P.9.210(a)(2) have
been complied with.

  Someone on FireDogLake just made the following comment when I mentioned the Chicago situation in my post http://my.firedoglake.com/janestillwater/2013/05/06/stuck-in-history-mothers-day-niles-bikers-charlie-chapman/

“BTW, Marin County, to the west of Berkeley, Calif, does the same corrupt sh** to its elderly that you say City of Chicago personnel is now doing.  The county lets its Elder Abuse professionals weed through any complaints about the happenings of the elderly, and whenever an elderly person is found to not have anyone available locally to help them, WHAM BAM THANK YOU man, that person is judged incompetent, and the home is then utilized by someone at the County Elderly agency, then eventually sold, often with the owner or their family getting nothing out of the ordeal.”

Response:

Slight correction to the comment, many say this is a decades tradition in Cook County Courts

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/tyranny_and_dark_money_in_the_michigan_supreme_court_former_justice_writes_/?utm_source=maestro&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly_email

also read the comments, they are very interesting.

her book is available here:

She wants to make the courts better, more honest, more ethical and more dependable, and so do I!

There is no evidence there is a summons, petition and notice of rights properly served upon her. Personnel at the Sheriff’s offices either won’t talk about service or confirm she was never served.  There is no proper affidavit of service that says I served a summons, petition and notice of  rights in large bold type upon Mary.

There is no evidence at all in the record, even assuming arguendo she was served, there is no further service to her of the time, date and place of hearing on December 7, 2012 and appointment of CT on December 10, 2012.  Sodini is jurisdictional and confirmed by In re Steinfeld and In re Tiffany.

There are numerous continuances of Carolyn’s petition, (9/21/09, 10/6/09, 10/23/09, 11/6/09, 11/10/09, 11/18/09) and sometimes Mary was present and sometimes she was not.  She was in Carolyn’s care and ordered by Connors to go home and CT never took her home–in clear defiance of prior court orders.  There is no evidence she was every served with these orders, shown them and there are no Certificates of Service they were mailed to her, or if in court, she was given a copy and signed off on the continuances.  There is no evidence Mary had a computer or could look up the dates on her own (she could not).  According to the Wyman decision, you will need to do an affidavit or declaration of all of this.

the ROA is done.  Mary came back to you alone and furious on or about Aug 31, 2013 when she was taken downstairs to the Sheriff’s office and returned saying she “wanted an atty” and “wanted to fight this” and didn’t want Carolyn as her guardian.

You had last POA.

Get a reply brief in and GET IT DONE.

YOU CAN DO THIS GLORIA AND STAY ON POINT.

joanne

PS and don’t forget in Ken’s hearing, AS said that by doing this and my blog creates “more work” for him that takes away from “his work”.  So for all of you out there, it is clear that AS and CF and the ARDC want to cut off your rights to free legal advice.  They don’t want Mary to know she has civil and human rights and she can “fight this.”  Gloria and her would have been aligned.  AS and CF say there was a conflict between Ken and Mary and myself and Mary when there was not.  She HAD the right to her own attorney, she HAD the right to dispute the guardianship.  What the tied in probate attorneys want is to get to your estate, deplete it and not bother with summons, notice, petition, an attorney for you or the attorney you want.

By telling you this, I shake up Probate and they “get honest”.

I don’t want to have to say this, I hate this.  I hate the fact I have a fight with the ARDC over all of this.  They are unfair, draining and debilitating.  But my choice has already been made.  I will blog for YOU the reader, for your grandma and grandpa and their human rights, civil rights and liberties.

I will post on the Citizen’s United case today for you.  Ken Ditkowsky was right.  Citizens United over rules tons of older cases and strongly says the government cannot control content oriented speech.  47 USC 230 says I have complete and clear immunity for my blog.  Chair Sang Yul Lee, yesterday during my “pre-hearing”, while he was busy saying I get discovery “only after” the hearing and “only if he thinks it helps”, told me that if I wanted to claim a “reporter shield law privilege” I’d better be sure it applies to me!

According to ARDC disciplinary rules now, you can’t get a list of the statements the ARDC claims are untrue, you can’t do any dispositive motions before your evidentiary hearing/trial.

The whole process has become a railroad.  This is what lawyers do to their own.

One lawyer was disciplined in his state for disclosing the fact that of 400+ lawyers disciplined in his state, only 4 came from large law firms.

I think as a patent attorney, for years going to Federal Court, I probably lived in a little bubble and maybe I liked it there.  But no more.  I see what is really going on, and I am not at all happy.

And the public distrusts us highly.  I wonder why.

But lawyers can do better, a whole lot better.  They can make their own disciplinary rules better and more helpful.  The ARDC can tell their counsel to cooperate with Respondents, help them, assist them.  The ARDC can recommit itself to the principles of upholding the US and Illinois State constitution.  In fact, the ARDC has programs for druggie and drunk lawyers and judges, why not mouthy ones that run blogs.

How is it that druggie, drunk lawyers get help and a pass, but us lawyers who run blogs trying help the system and make it better and fairer to the public are treat like pariahs?

Why can’t I say that Gloria (and others, they will testify) were snubbed, ignored and not given due respect in court?

I think there’s room for improvement.  I will publish the transcripts and you can all comment on them.  I think the ARDC and tribunal can do better on this case.

Citizen’s United demands it.

I don’t have an atty yet, and I don’t have much money, but what I have I will give to you.

I need someone tough, hard working and willing to go up against the ARDC.

You would think this is easy.  All I did was blog.  We have a right to Free Speech under the US and Illinois Constitutions.

Want a blogging case, a case to go up to the US Supreme Court?  Want to have fun poking at the belly of the (corrupt) underbeast in Illinois?  This could be your case.  Your cup of tea.

You will have to read and know all the best quotes from SCOTUS first amendment cases and esp. Citizens United that says content oriented speech is protected by the First Amendment no matter what is said.  Plus New York Times, plus Alvarez, etc.

You will have to put up with an ARDC that says I have a right to discovery only AFTER the trial/evidentiary hearing–only then IF I need it, I have a right to dispositive motions only AFTER the trial/evidentiary hearing (anyone point out to them this is effectively a ban on those, after the hearing are POST judgment motions, duh), etc.

It is litigation and due process rights clearly turned upside down.

And they do this to lawyers speaking out about corruption.

Come on, go ahead and prove your manliness.  Step up to the plate in the big leagues.  Turn those chicken nuggets brass.  And for all you chick lawyers out there that want to prove you are one tough hot shot chick lawyer, this is your case.  Honesty, ethics, the American Flag, all wrapped up in one convenient package.

And if no one responds to this post, there’s always Craig’s list for lawyers.  Or I just go native.

Done it so far.  Stomped apparently on a lot of last nerves.  Picked a lot of scabs, seen a lot of septicemia.  BUT I know I can get through this.

Many lawyers are on our side of justice, honor and ethics.  It’s just they won’t go up against the ARDC.

Hear that.  Lived it.  But I keep on going.

Let me know.  I’m looking for expert witnesses on corruption in courts (it’s okay if you experienced it) and Constitutional Law.  Maybe you need to read those con law cases you slept thru.

thanks

joanne

See below. And btw we went to the Sheriff’s offices today to inquire further about the lack of an affidavit or no affidavit for Mary Sykes and were told “we do not give out service information to anyone other than plaintiff’s”

OMGDS!  More corruption.  Layers and layers.  Excuse me, Mr. Deputy, but NOTHING YOU DO IN COURT IS CONFIDENTIAL.

Looks like he went to the same school for Constitutional law as did the deputies in the courtrooms that take away laptops and tablets for blogging and calendaring, Judge Evans who enforces this rule, and a host of judges who just want to keep things “quiet and under the table.”

Too bad the Bill of Rights does not agree with that!

LAW OFFICE OF
KENNETH DITKOWSKY
KENNETH DITKOWSKY
Thursday, June 13, 2013
MEMO TO: Mr. Peter Schmiedel:
5940 W. Touhy, Suite 230
Niles,IL 60714
(847) 600·3421 Telephone
(847) 600·3425 Fax
Email: Ken@DitkowskyLawOffice.com
Re: SERVICE ON MARY SYKES – IN RE: CONDUCT OF PETER SCHMIEDEL,
ADAM STERN, CYNTHIA FARENGA, AND OTHERS IN REFERENCE TO
ESTATE OF MARY SYKES AND LACK OF JURISDICTION ON MARY SYKES.
Dear Mr. Schmiedel,
Thank you for your letter. Unfortunately it is not helpful, except that it confmns
that there was never any service of process on Mary Sykes and for almost four
years you, Ms. Farenga, Mr. Stern and others have acted ultra vires knowing that
the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction to enter the oppressive orders that were
indeed entered to the alleged detriment of Mary Sykes, Gloria Sykes and others.
A check of the Sheriffs office public records reveals that they have no record of any
service on Mary Sykes on August 31, 2009 or any other date. Service of process on
a respondent is the way Illinois Courts obtain traditional jurisdiction. In disabled
persons cases a more procrustean criterion is necessary and service of process is
only part of the procedure. Thus, in order for the Circuit Court, Probate Division to
obtain jurisdiction Mary Sykes must have been actually served with summons. I
trust that you are aware that Ms. Gloria Sykes may waive service of process for
herself, but she cannot waive it for someone else, and if Mary Sykes was disabled,
she could not waive service of process.
Thus the fact remains that for almost 4 years the Circuit Court of Cook County
acted to deprive both Mary Sykes and Gloria Sykes of their Civil Rights without
jurisdiction. I make this statement based upon the fact that there is not a single
affidavit, return of service, or document indicating that any person authorized to
serve summons (or process) served Mary Sykes. We have spread of record the
Sherriff of Cook County’s entry that points out the attempt to accomplish the Bench
Service that you refer to in your letter was unsuccessful. The record speaks for
itself.
Pursuant to FRCP 11, I have undertaken to ascertain if Mary Sykes had been
served with process. I and others have conducted diligent searches of the
common law record of the Circuit Court and found no return of service or
other document that would attest to service of process being had. (I
understand that your law firm has the certified copy of the Record in its possession
at this time and therefore you can search the record yourself. If you returned the
FRCP 11 inquiry – re: Service of Summons on Mary Sykes in case 09 P4585
record to the Circuit Court, then you can fmd the first four volumes of the record
‘on line.,
This lack of service of process is a serious ‘due process’ problem that has to
be addressed immediately. I had some e-mail communications with Ms. Farenga
yesterday and I reiterated this same problem to her, to wit: A senior citizen was
hauled into the Probate Division and stripped of her liberty and property, yet she
was never served with process and no jurisdiction attached. Ergo, whether or not
her close relatives were served with the jurisdictionally required oral or written
notice 14 days prior to a competency hearing, the Court lacks jurisdiction over
Mary Sykes. The Rule of Law is that all orders entered by a Court lacking
jurisdiction are void. There is also presumption that you, Stem, Farenga and
the Judge were all aware of the law and the common law record.
What this means is that any action that your client, CT, took in relation to this
estate is void, unauthorized, and you knew or should have known such fact. Thus,
as an example, the drilling of the safety deposit box was unlawful. Thus, the
sequestering of Gloria’s award in the Lumberman case is unlawful. I do not have
to make a list and will not as a seasoned attorney is fully aware of the
consequences.
As you know, I have been communicating with the Federal Authorities and
demanding an investigation of the intolerable events that have been observed and
reported in the Sykes case. I am aware that certain judicial officials’ have
successfully requested that IARDC silence my calls for an HONEST complete and
comprehensive investigation; however, I believe that I have such a right under the
First Amendment and the recent Citizen’s United case and intend to continue my
quest for Justice for the persons targeted for “elder cleansing.” I am continuing to
make such a call and in light of your letter of June 13,2013 I am copying the US
Attorney and reiterating my call for a Civil Rights Investigation of Sykes case.
In all humility let me respectfully suggest that the obvious lack of jurisdiction over
Mary Sykes is a very serious breach of her Human Rights and remedial action must
be taken immediately. I would also recommend that you notify your Malpractice
Insurance carrier as Ms. Gloria Sykes’ sister (your client) is not expected to be
forgiving. When the Sodini case was first raised I invited a fresh look at
jurisdiction; however, it motivated an attempt to deny me my First Amendment
Rights. At this point in time, with the common record in front of you, it is my
opinion that you are aware that for almost 4 years you have allegedly acted in
concert with Farenga, Stem and others to deprive Mary Sykes, under color of law,
of her rights, privil and immunities. That is intolerable.
Cc: Honorable Eric Holder, Attorney General of the United States, Honorable
Mark Kirk, Senator, Honorable Jane L. Stuart, Judge of the Circuit Court of
Cook County. Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, Ms.
Gloria Sykes, Ms. JoAnne Denison.
FRCP 11 inquiry – re: Service of Summons on Mary Sykes in case 09 P4585
(A) Passport – PASSPORT June OS, 20 13, 13:2 4 :52
DSP NEXT SCREEN CIVIL WRIT MASTER RECORD SCREEN 01
C.P.U. ENTERED DATE/TIME: 09/01/2009 11:28 ADD OPER. SSA
TYPE OF CASE PR PROBATE DISABLED PERSON OPR. ID RFR
SHERI FF ‘ S NUMBER 334996-001A CASE NUMBER 09P004585 DI STRICT
MUNIC 1 MULT. SERVICE 001 PAUPER’S SU IT TYPE OF DOC . 100 SUMMONS
FILED DT 08-31-2009 DIE DT 08-31-2009 REC’D DT 08-31-2009 HELD BY
CORP. SEARCH DE FENDANT SYKES , MARY E
ADDRESS APT. NO . /HOUSE
PLAI NTIFF MARY E. SYKES
SERVICE INFORMATION
SERVICE INFO. WINDOW PERSONAL
IL.
TYPE OF SERVICE PRN – REASON NOT SERVED
SERVED ON SERVICE DATE MO- DA- YEAR TIME
SEX RACE AGE BY DEPUTY-STAR #
SG57
RETURNED DATE MO- DA- YEAR DATE RETURN TO CLERK 09-03 -2009 POSTED DATE MO- DA-YEAR
ADDITIONAL REMARKS
ATTY NO. 0000
ATTY NAME.: XX
ADDRESS … : XX
CITY …… : XX , XX 00000 0000 PH . 312 606 9100
TAX DEL’Q
SHERIFF’S NO.
TO RETURN TO INITIAL INQUIRY, USE PF7 FOR NEXT SCREEN, ENTER 02 PRESS PF4
PF7 INQUIRY PF8 GEN INQ. MENU PF9 MAIN MENU PF10 DB MENU
08/13/2013 12:55 FAX 312 728 1448
FISCHEL
& KAHN,LTD.
Attomeys at LAw

VIA ~’ACSIMILE (847-600-3425)
Kenneth Ditkowski
5940 W. Touhy, Suite 230
Niles, IL 60714
FISCHEL & KAHN. LTD.
June 13,2013
~001/001
155 NOR:l’llWALlU.1′. Df<.IVL,SUL’!~ 1′)50
C:HlCl\f;O, I]) lNors 60606
PnONF.: 312-726-0440 Pl\x: :’12-72(,-1448
http://www.fj~chdbhn.c()m
WRITER’S E-MAIL AD!JKfl~~:
pschmkdel@fiscl~.?Ik<1hn,com
Re: Sen-ice on Mary Sykes
Dear Mr. Ditkowsky:
With respect to your letter of June 6, 20 13, regarding service of process on Mary SyktJs in
the pending Probate case, 09 P 4585, be advised that your client, Gloria Sykes, admitted her
mother was served with process on August 31., 2009, by the Cook County SherifT at page 10 of
her revised brief in appeal No. 1-10-0808.
Reference to this service was also contained in the Appellee’s Rriefat page 3 wilh ~
citation to the record and to the alias summons, Vol. 1, C.25-27.
cc: Adam Swm (via email)
Cynthia Farenga (via email)
Sincerely,
FISC -& KAHN, LTD. 4
Peter Schmeidel

See the link below:

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleSCI.jsp?id=1202603901567&kw=Judge%20Strikes%20Law%20Banning%20Demonstrations%20at%20Supreme%20Court&et=editorial&bu=National%20Law%20Journal&cn=20130613&src=EMC-Email&pt=Daily%20Headlines&slreturn=20130513152425

The law said you couldn’t protest on the steps of the US Supreme Court because “it might affect the outcome of cases”.

But this judge rightfully responded:

“The absolute prohibition on expressive activity in the statute is unreasonable, substantially overbroad, and irreconcilable with the First Amendment,” wrote U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell in a 68-page ruling issued late Tuesday in the case Hodge v. Talkin.

Judge Howell further rejected the argument “[the law] is necessary to preserve the image of the court as an institution “not swayed by external influence.”

The comments so far are great too.   How is it that “the image of the court” is adversely affected by protesters when we are supposed to be an open and free democracy with the right to full disseminate our ideas and debate them and discuss them.

Kudos to our First Amendment heroine today–US Dist. Ct. Judge Beryl Howell.

My only question is, why did it take 64 years to do this?

First thing filed with the tribunal is a report so we have an agenda at 2:30 pm tomorrow for our conference call:

Report to the tribunal for June 13, 2013–organized

Next is my Motion for Interrogatories, because I have no idea which or what statements they claim on the blog are either “false or made with reckless disregard for the truth”

I have asked them numerous times for these and they respond with everything else but a listing of what they want to use.  I can’t make an exhibit list for my rebuttal, if I don’t have a list already of what items they will use.  It will be like tacking jello to a tree.

Proposed Interrogatories to Tribunal

Motion to file Interrogatories

And  finally, my favorite preparation for trial —

43 facts the KDD tribunal just got plain wrong.

Because I don’t have a list of what they will use, I guess I will have to use the 43 fact the KDD tribunal screwed up on.

One of the things that is interesting is that the letter today from the ARDC’s Sharon Opryszek complains I didn’t list the “addresses and phone numbers of witnesses.”

I don’t have them.  I only use email.  I think they have Gloria’s and Ken’s.  And I’m not too sure I should or can go out of my way to get them.  Cell phones cost money by the minute and I think the ARDC should show some respect and just email.

One of the things about the ARDC cases is that they are unlike any other litigation any attorney has ever experienced in these ways:

1.  You can’t file any dispositive motions, that is, motions that dispose of one or more claims.  (rule 235), but in directly another rule the Chair is directed to narrow issues for trial 260 (b) 1 to 2.

Do they even read their own rules?  This seems like a direct conflict to me.

2.  No one can file interrogatories, except with leave of court.  Of course, interrogatories are tools used to narrow issues for trial, so it’s strange these are limited.

3.  Requests for admission. It says under rule 251 you can get these, but when we served them, the ARDC refused to answer 90% of them.  Of course, they’re deemed admitted by that action, but still it doesn’t look good for the ARDC to be so evasive.  And now they’ve limited them to 30–rule 216 (f) which is no where near the number needed to be an effective tool in litigation any longer.  I believe it’s from attorneys who do not wish to type.

And I bet if I ask the ARDC tomorrow if I can serve another 30 more, it will be a resounding NO!

Anyone want to take up the other side of that bet.  I give you 10 to 1 odds.

The first set was enough trouble with them.

Further Ken said he only got a certain number of days to put on his defense–two days and they don’t give any more than 2 days.  But the rule 274 says trials continue from day to day until complete.

Another extremely troublesome matter with the tribunal is the inability to file motions, bring new cases to the attention of the Tribunal or discuss legal issues at all due to Rule 235 which forbids this.

All highly unusual, if you ask me.

It’s such as shame that the lawyers that people depend upon most, will be subject to such scrutiny and such dire tactics and such desperate unevenness when dispensing any meager attempts at justice upon their own.

I suggest this highly contributes to the sorry state of lawyers being in the bottom most portion of ethics and trustworthiness surveys.

It’s such a shame.

But at least you heard it here.  You can see what the state of the system which is apparently run by a machine has denigrated into.

An interesting experience.

JoAnne

So, let’s tell the entire story and YOU, the READER can be the judge:

First his cease and desist letter (and pay attention, CF, this guy did it right, only problem is his client doesn’t have a good enough reputation to get any damages and the “true” articles on his behavior are worse–Google doesn’t lie).

ASHMAN & STEIN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
150 NORTH WACKER DRIVE
SUITE 3000
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606
June 11,2013
via USPS and email
joanne@denisonlaw.com.
Ms. Joanne Denison
Denison Law
1512 N. Fremont Street, Suite 202
Chicago, II 60642
Re: Libelous Statements contained in blog posts
Dear Mr. Ditkowsky and Ms. Denison:
TELEPHONE
(312) 782-3484
FACSIMILE
(312) 782-4279
Please be advised that we represent Mr. Eric Rothner in connection with his claims
against you respecting the statements contained in the blogMaryG.Sykes.com., which is held out to the public as an “attorney blog fighting for the rights to free speech, integrity, honesty” and other rights.
We have leamedofstatements posted on the blog on or about March 17,2012. Under
the headline of “How the nursing home industry bilks the State of Illinois millions per year,
billions per decade,” Ken Ditkowsky asserts that “I also know that the Fed hauled … Mr.
Rothner before a grand jury” for alleged overcharging. Your choice of words, moreover,
is particularly calculated to smear and cast Mr. Rothner in a false light. The notion that Mr.
Rothner was “hauled” to a grand jury conjures the picture ofhim being placed in custody and transported to the bar of justice.
This statement is false. Mr. Rothner has never appeared before any grand jury,
voluntarily or involuntarily, for any reason, at any time. You had actual knowledge that your
statements to the contrary are false, or you published same with reckless disregard of the
truth.
Mr. Kenneth Ditkowsky
Ms. Joanne Denison
June 11,2013
Page 2
This falsehood, intentionally or recklessly published and disseminated to a wide
audience, and calculated to injure Mr. Rothner’s reputation and business practices,
constitutes libel per se. Your tacked-on legal disclaimer does not immunize either of you. The fact that you post (in little-seen boilerplate, many pages after the screaming headline and false accusation) that no one has been arrested or convicted of a crime does not give you license to publicly disseminate falsehoods about an individual’s business practices or reputation.
Your so-called dedication to “integrity and honesty” apparently is as phoney as the
false charges you publish.
Demand is therefore made that you:
1. immediately remove this libel and all other falsehoods from these posts; and
2. formally retract same and issue a sincere statement of apology directed to Mr.
Rothner.
Nothing herein should be construed as releasing, waiving or limiting any of our rights
or remedies under law.
Please contact me by June 17, 2013 to discuss the language, format and placement of
the retraction and apology.
Sincerely,
GDA:mr
c:\users\garysec2\docs\Rothner\6-11-20 13 Itr to Ditkowsky and Denison
From: Gary Ashman <gdashman@ashmanstein.com> [Edit Address Book]
To: ‘JoAnne M Denison’ <JoAnne@DenisonLaw.com>
Subject: RE: Libelous Statements contained in blog post
Date: Jun 12, 2013 11:07 AM
Thank you.  Your statement should be:
“An earlier post that we published wrongly stated that Mr. Eric Rothner had been hauled before a grand jury for alleged overcharging.  This information is false.  Mr. Rothner has never appeared or been summoned to any grand jury, at any time, for any reason.  We retract the statement in full, and we sincerely apologize to Mr. Rothner and his family.”

Please let me know if you have any question in this regard.

Gary D. Ashman
Ashman & Stein
150 North Wacker Drive
Suite 3000
Chicago, Il 60606
Phone:  312/782-3484
Fax:  312/782-4279
gdashman@ashmanstein.com

NOTICE: This E-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521, is confidential and may be legally privileged (including attorney/client and/or attorney/work product privilege). It is not intended for transmission to, receipt, or review by unauthorized persons. If you have received this transmission in error, please delete it from your system without reviewing or copying it, and notify the sender by e-mail or by calling Gary D. Ashman (312/782-3484), so that our records can be corrected. Thank you.

The kicker:

see this:

http://www.forestparkreview.com/News/Articles/9-21-2005/Pavillion-indictment-may-just-scratch-surface/

a far worse article linking Rothner nursing homes to fatal bedsores, closed nursing homes, etc.

If anyone else has any articles to link to, please pass them along.

Again, Mr. Rothner, can you start doing something GOOD in the world, and for the elderly in particular, for example start funding those who speak out informing people of their rights and how to HELP the elderly and not harm them, get a table for probate rights on the 18th floor and advise people of their rights, fund some civil rights litigation to let people take notes in circuit court, etc.?

I have published your retraction you wanted, now start DOING SOMETHING GOOD.

If anyone knows where Grant Goodman is, please have him contact me because I am looking for an expert witness in corruption for my case.

thanks

joanne

Link to Series Greed v. Guardianship

She will not be defeated.  She will keep on typing until her fingers bleed and fall off.

KDD and I will continue to provide “free legal advice” to Gloria and all the probate victims out there–NO MATTER WHAT THE ARDC SAYS.

We won’t be pushed around by clout.  The “clout” from the Record on Appeal knows there was no service AND YET THEY CONTINUE to violate the civil and human rights of everyone involved:  Most of all Gloria and Mary, other Sykes family and friends who are strenuously isolated from her, then Ken and I who suffer under prosecution persection, etc.

From: GLORIA Jean SYKES
Sent: Jun 11, 2013 10:51 AM
To: “kenditkowsky@yahoo.com” , “k_bakken@att.net” , scott evans , “joanne@denisonlaw.com” , Elaine NAsga , Sue Fege , Lucinda , LUCIUS VERENUS , richard busse indiana attorney , rudy bush , barbara Los Vegas , Annie NASGA , “K. Ditkowsky paralegal” , GLD , Dave Silver Iphone account , paulette , Law Office , Suzy Nicksic , Erma NASGA , Sherrif Dart , Don Johnson , mary wooley state police , barbara nasga , Barbara Stephens , Kelly Yost-Wright Maderer , Bev Cooper , “ecarter@atg.state.il.us” , states attorney , matt senator kirk , Gail Duncan , larry chambers paralegal , Larry Chambers , “vahrh1135@aol.com” , Congresswoman Jan , Joe Hosey reporter , SteveS , JoAnne Denison blog , Peter Schmiedel Carolyn’s 2nd attorney , Cynthia GAL , Adamm Stern GAL , Salam-news Erna , Chicago Tribune , “cindydamron@aol.com” , maria 60 Minutes , “60m@cbsnews.com” <60m@cbsnews.com>, “dateline@nbcuni.com” , “nightly@nbc.com” , brian williams nbc , Brian Nadig newsapers , Marti Truth Squad
Subject: FW: Ronald Reagan on his knees

Dear All,

I am certain a few of you are wondering how I could or would have the gall to email you this digital recording, below.  Well, the answer is simple:  its up to you to decide.   These few people who have chosen to be adversaries, have appeared before many different Courts/Judges and proclaimed demonization upon my good name and reputation, even writing letters to the ARDC and Judges calling me a liar — that, for instance I did not cover the John Wayne Gacy story — let alone meet Mr. Gacy days after his arrest in the office of the Cook County State’s Attorney and interview him.  I am certain these people will also come to arms and say I also never met the late President Ronald Reagan — or spent a few hours in his California home. The truth is, I did all of these stories and much more: I’ve been blessed in my career to have had such opportunities.  In fact, the opportunity to spent a few hours with Nancy and Pres. Reagan was because I was assigned a story about a little girl who had a rare cancer: she was dying and her prayers first to meet Pres. Reagan and second, she wanted a hand made quilt crafted with certain colors and shapes (my mother, Mary G. Sykes made this quilt and the Reagans granted her wish and allowed my professional TV crew into their home).   I was not a fan of Pres. Reagan, and his economics (Reaganomics) and in fact during the 1980s also did many stories that came as a result of his politics (supply-side economics and trickle-down economics to reduce the growth of government spending, the federal income tax and capital gains tax, et al), to reduce inflation, but I was a fan of his courage to speak out about his beliefs in God and how prayer was of his, as other great peoples’ (Lincoln and Washington) successes.  

In sending this to these people who believe that isolating my mother, terrorizing me (seizing my assets, personal and intellectual properties, selling my home, rendering me homeless and penniless, in order to silence me or bully me into waling away and not appealing the Probate and Forcible Entry and Detainer Divisions’ acting without jurisdiction, or their actions in other courts, I am asking each one to watch the digital recording below, and then look in the mirror.  I ask the ARDC, who refuses to prosecute attorney Peter Schmiedel, Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga, Joel Brodsky for violations against the Professional Codes of Conduct where Transcripts evidence said violations two-fold, because of the attorneys and Administrator’s need to stay their course and protect the attorneys who committed said violations as a means to cover-up their own involvement in perpetrating the isolation, drugging, medical and emotional abuses and undue influences perpetrated with blatant arrogance against my Mother.  

Without further ado, I ask each one of you to view this short video and if you are moved as any decent human being should be, then I ask that we all sit down at the table and agree to disagree but to et my Mother free so she can live out her life with the people she loves and trusts in her home (the sale was and is unlawful as the home is in a trust and the trust was NEVER vacated by Mother, giving Toepre the right to sell or take possession of).  I have over three dozen phone calls from my mother records (the reason why all calls were halted) and in each call my mother told me that every morning she prays for me and every night she prays for me and to return home.  No matter what you decide, I have my mother’s prayers and wishes memorialized and sooner than any of the adversaries would like, they will be published and the world will hear the voice of, and see the digital recordings of (along with transcripts of my Mother in Court) and the truth will be told.  

As my daddy taught me, “The truth leaves tracks…” and so in the shadow of my father’s words, and in my Mother’s prayers, along with the prayers of all of her family and friends, and people who neither my Mother or I have ever met, I send you this digital recording.  I appreciate any feed back, especially from the adversaries, who include the Cook County State’s Attorney, Sheriff Dart, the Attorney General, attorneys Peter Schmiedel, Adam Stern, Harvey Jack Waller and Cynthia FArenga.

And to close I will add the words that hang on the wall of Judge Stuart’s Courtroom, “In God We Trust”.  

Here’s one truth: Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga, Peter Schmiedle, Lea Black and the IARDC Administrator, et al, you have done a good job stealing all my assets, looting my safety deposite boxes, damaging or destroying all of my intellectual properties, stealing my Mother’s home and assets, and now attemptig to sell my home too, but you WILL NEVER TAKE AWAY THE ONE THING MY MOTHER AND I HAVE THAT YOUR CLIENT CAROLYN TOEREPE WILL NEVER HAVE AND HAS NEVER HAD, AND THAT IS THE LOVE AND TRUST MY MOTHER HAS IN AND FOR ME, AND A FOREVER LIFE WITH MY MOTHER.  As I believe in heaven I also believe in Hell and as my Aunt Yo expressed to Carolyn Toerpe, (and each one of you), “There’s a special place in Hell” for Toerpe.  We all have choices.  

The question the adversaries must make is simple:  is the money youve earned for doing significant harm to people (my mother and me, Aunt Yo, et al) worth it?  I pray to God it is not.

Yes, your client Carolyn  Toerpe told me on September 20, 2009, before she shoved  my mother into the refridgerator and my mother twisted her ankle, that I would never see or be able to talk to my Mother again — and that she she “hoped the stress caused the cancer to return and that this time the cancer would kill [me]”.  Well, even though Fred Toerpe beat the crap out of me, and the Cook County State’s Attorney is protecting him (for now), I’m still alive and very, healthy.  You have my mother, my best friend and love of my life, but I have her love and trust and God and the Angels are on my side.

And now, I am rambling, as attonry Peter Schmiedel pointed out in his most recent Motion to convince the Illinios Appellate Court to dismiss my FED appeal and force me to pay his legal fees….

But now you have a choice.

In God I also trust.

ON HIS KNEES
RONALD REAGAN
 
 
This is a rather short video that we all should watch,  appreciate and fully understand its meaning. It is also one that everyone in our  government should be forced to watch several times, at least until they get  it!!! If you are one of those that do not forward e-mails, please make this an  exception and pass this along to everyone in your address book.
 
http://www.youtube.com/embed/OvN1jTkzXbY?rel=0
 

Healthy Regards to all…

.Gloria Jean Sykes
Bon Ami Productions, Inc.
BELIEVE (BeLive) LLC

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Jun 10, 2013 8:53 PM
To: GLORIA Jean SYKES , Eric Holder , matt senator kirk , Chicago Tribune , steve huntly sun times , LUCIUS VERENUS , “vahrh1135@aol.com” , “foxnews_7D7B711AF105DCA690AB56169C0FF242@newsletters.foxnews.com” , Elaine NAsga , “k_bakken@att.net” , scott evans , GLD , Lucinda , NASGA
Cc: Sherrif Dart , states attorney , “ecarter@atg.state.il.us” , mary wooley state police
Subject: Re: ROA Sykes window service not completed

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

Dear Readers;

As you know, this blog is for YOU, the person who can no longer see grandma or grandpa, the person who listens to grandma and grandpa cry in a nursing home to go home or go to a loving home with relatives to care for her, but she can’t go–because the probate courts say so.

So, Ken and I have suffered and been prosecuted with ARDC complaints.  The problem is, we have done nothing wrong.  We talk about what YOU the reader wants to talk about. We take your side, give free legal advice, I draft form pleadings for you to use in court–all you pro-se’ers out there. 

And the ARDC apparently hates that.

I have to tell you, I have worked for large law firms that have cautioned and me and wanted to get rid of me for “giving it away for free”.  Yep, that’s right, got told “don’t work so hard for so little money.”  Well, I’m honest and I love to work.

The ARDC is going to have problems with me and Ken, well, because we’re not yellers and screamers and we don’t use foul language, so we can’t fall into the pattern of cases THEY want to use to disbar us.

We think.  We write.  We read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and we believed in all of that when our mother told us, memorize some of that stuff–it’s important.  Even my grandparents told me that.

Now I am older and my head is spinning about all of this.

And yet the legislatures–Federal and State keeps on churning out more ways to protect grandma and grandpa and Ken and I speaking out for both of them and keeping them out of nursing homes, and us telling you the truth IT IS A WIRED IN SYSTEM for a chunk of people out there.  And you can ask, well these people have a lot of money and my family has nothing so it won’t happen to me.

Think again, grasshopper.  The reality is, you can have nothing and if a wired in institution–you know the type that buys mega pharma psychotropics to chemically restrain anyone, gets ahold of someone who might have soc. security benefits, pension benefits, really anything or any “govt program” for the disabled (Danielle Murphy’s institution gets $300,000 per year– you could be in for the state tied in ride.

Don’t fool yourself.

So while Ken and I work tirelessly for you, and we are indeed the real thing, I struggle every month to make ends meet, I have long months where I turn down the heat to 60 degrees, turn off the A/C until it’s unbearable in here.  I live from month to month with no money—but it means no disgrace, no accusations from the ARDC for taking millions for no work (whew, I’m so glad of that), so I can blog for you.  And the ARDC can’t say it’s money motivated.

When I go to probate (true story) I had a probate atty AND a GAL say you won’t get paid for all that work and I (honestly) turned to them and said I don’t care.  They threatened to “tell the judge”.  True story.  I said “I don’t care”.  I don’t have any money, so there’s nothing to lose.  Go right ahead.  I am there to make sure that the WARD is cared for by the BEST person, not to make money.  So go ahead and cut my bill.  Tell me I won’t get paid.  Same ole same ole for me.

I grew up poor.  When I don’t work at large law firm (80% of my time in law), I don’t make much and I work hard.  Sounds like a fine plan for me.  I did my undergrad on a scholarship and my law degree GM (“generous mother or “General Motors”) paid for at Indiana University, so I’m not in a bind to take advantage over money.  I’m frugal.

If I don’t get a vacation this year and I work 80 hours per week BUT I keep grandma and grandpa safely at home for a few more days before being dumped in a nursing home and chemically restrained, I’m happy.

I’ll take a vacation when I’m dead. (There’s actually a song by that name, good song).

But I digress and it’s a long digression.  The reality is, the ARDC says I can’t blog for YOU.  I don’t know where the ARDC dug up attorneys to go after honest and ethical attys and say that Ken and I lie, and I don’t know how many times I can publish the fact that Mary Sykes was never served, but I will do it until my fingers bleed and fall off, that’s for sure.

So I filed a SLAPP or CPA motion.  SLAPP means (and I actually learned this in BAR review BARBARI, so thank you very much), Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation.  It evolved from mega corps going after citizens making public grievances and complaints which were groundless.  You know, where you buy a house in a subdivision, you are promised nirvana, but the model house you bought has leaky plumbing, a bad roof, bad furnance, etc. and so you take to the streets with your neighbors and protest. The developer, all high and mighty files a defamation suit against you.  So, the Illinois state legislature came up with SLAPP or the Illinois CAP or Citizens Participation Act.

Is the ARDC really any different?  I don’t represent Sykes.  i tried to back in 2009 but was booted out of the elite and gold palmed old attys club of probate.  I got over that.  So I blog.  I blog for Mary and Gloria, Wyman, Tyler, Bedin and Gore, etc. Whomever comes to me.  Whomever needs purchase and rest.

What does the ARDC do on May 7, 2013?  They deny my motion for SLAPP against them, without comment, without explanation, without findings of fact or conclusions of law.

They are obviously gold plated and high and mighty.  And I know that 130 E Randolph where they reside are pretty much part of “ivory towers”.  I get that.

So here is my Notice of Appeal and Docketing Statement to get everything going at the First District Court of Appeals.

And I know I am not particularly favored there.  I’ve had my $6 million dollar case lost due to corruption.  I know the system.  Gloria’s been up against it and she leads a line so well known on this blog and so well studied, there’s pretty much nothing left to the imagination.

The court of appeals is not an easy or pretty place.  it’s when your case gets on life support.

But no matter.  I publish this for you so you have a sample pleading and know that somewhere out there, in a very miniscule manner, there is hope.

Sykesblog Notice of Appeal and Docketing Statement

sorry, link button isn’t working, I’ll fix later

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwNXpuMUR0UmdVMEE/edit?usp=sharing

But I want you to know, I am still working for you and your rights and I will not abandon you.

JoAnne

Just to let you all know (and judging from KDD’s decision) I want to let you all know that this blog is practically contraband and prohibited like a meth lab in my home basement.  I almost have my response finished up to that, and it also isn’t pretty.

So, John Wyman’s decision wasn’t pretty. The justices practically tripped over themselves to kick it.  3 years, no jurisdiction?  What?  Can’t have that.

So they denied on whatever technicality they could find hoping I would go away.

Yesterday we filed the following:

Motion to Amend the Notice of Appeal

Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of Appeal

And I’m publishing all of this, so that YOU the reader can learn about how to do these things.  They should not be secret.  The ARDC should not be publishing opinions where they seem to strongly imply that my and KDD’s providing free legal advice to you the readers out there–even including Gloria, whom I think they fear like the black death plague, is entitled to it.  You all are entitled to this blog so you know what to expect when you get to probate.

We shot the red coats because they oppressed us.  We had no freedom of speech, no rights to “due process” or service of a summons and complaint.  The ARDC wants us to revisit the 1770’s and I for one am not willing.

Neither is Ken.

Let your elected officials know that grandma and grandpa are in trouble and need help.  They are being railroaded, shoved into guardianships and being ignored when they say they want an attorney to represent them–not an ice floe.

Mary was railroaded.  Her lack of summons and complaint is published below.

Mary’s lack of service by the Cook County Sheriff who will not do an affidavit or letter of non service

We don’t need another elder poster child.

Dear Readers:

Please see the link below and it appears that Attorney Grant Goodman has the same issues that attorneys are seeing hundreds of miles away in a cooler climate.

Arizona’s Maricopa County suffers from probate pillage and no due process either

So many of the quotes in this article, which btw is from ABC news who ran a series on probate, centers around the same issues in Cook County Probate–unconsitutional processes, dissipating/liquidating significant chunks of large estates.

I wonder if all this is a problem from time immemorial.

JoAnne

Dear Readers;

Yep, that’s it.  Nothing.  Mary has now been railroaded into a guardianship with no service. We went to the sheriff’s office after having obtained the Record on Appeal (ROA) and they confirmed that there was no service (and I won’t name name because the ARDC is chilling my speech right now).   BUT they refused to provide an affidavit or any evidence of “no service” other than two cryptic computer generated documents that somewhat indicate window service, BUT NO AFFIDAVIT.  Of course, if someone is served, there should be an affidavit of service, but what of “no service”?  Can’t we get one of those also?  Apparently not.  Our request to sign a prepared affidavit ended up with sorry, no can do.

I guess the sheriff’s offices does not want anyone to have any solid evidence that defendants weren’t served.

Ken is right, the courts are erroding our rights, taking away our liberties, taking away the right we used to have to say this is part of corruption in Cook County and has to end–and the newspapers write about all sorts of junk.

Yes, maybe the honey bees are dying because of Monsanto and other agra chem companies, but at the same time–mega corps are slowly taking away our rights as citizens to say that seniors are being isolated, that seniors are being wrongfully refused attorneys to protect them and make sure their interests are being taken into consideration, and TV is filled with violence and junk and sex that is apparently protected.

Video games with horrible life themes get a pass, but when grandma will get guardianized, isolated and ripped off with nary a blip on the screen, the country turns the other way.

Our nursing homes are filled with grandmas and grandpas that don’t want to be there. Their paid up homes and bank accounts pay for it, and they quickly die in nursing homes being isolated with bad food, and often they are given psychotropic drugs against their will and consent.  Nursing homes are one of the largest consuming facilities of psychotropic drugs which wreak havoc on heart, kidneys, liver, etc.–and there must be informed consent to the individual to administer them, but all of this is routinely bypassed (see, In re Tiffany posts).  Plus, there are no psychotropic drugs which are FDA approved for seniors, so what gives here?

And then, if you want to get elected, we have the Chicago Tribune article saying you must pay “the machine $30,000”–all from the mouth of a recently elected judge.

I see people going nuts and bezerk for animal rights, and that’s good, but if we don’t start protecting people first–in particular grandma and grandpa and their right to an attorney, their right to live in accordance with their advance directives, some mega corp will quietly take over and take away the rights of animal activists to do their work, well, because if humans no longer have or need their Bill of Rights, animals certainly don’t have one and that will be the end of that.

It’s good to protect the environment, it’s good to take care of Fluffy and Fido, don’t get me wrong.  But right now grandma and grandpa are in trouble, and placement in a nursing home against their will, drugging and isolating them seem the norm.

And if you think the politicians aren’t cozily in bed with this system. Think again.  In many nursing homes, the nursing home gets the senior to apply for an absentee ballot, and when they get there, they are filled out en masse–and not by grandma and grandpa who is drooling in the corner.

Where are the elections judges at the nursing homes and why don’t we have online voting yet? We know how many people live in a household according to driver’s licenses, why not do it that way?

Because there’s more going on, that’s why.

Write, call, fax your representative today and tell them the contributions to get a judgeship in Chicago must end and all seated judges must immediately disclose what and when they paid ANYONE and that includes “the machine”–either directly or indirectly.

Write, call or fax The Honorable Timothy Evans and ask him about all of this. Why wasn’t Mary served and why won’t the sheriff’s office provide affidavits of non-service to take to court.

Write or call your representative and demand online voting according to driver’s licenses and state ID’s for people that want this.  No one should control votes.  Any voting from a nursing home should be highly scrutinized and why isn’t the election board doing this?

JoAnne