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

FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET

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

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

Memorandum to ILLINOIS ARDC

To:  Mr. Jerome Larkin, Administrator

From:   Kenneth Ditkowsky

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

Dear Mr. Larkin,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kenneth Ditkowsky

AND joined in by JoAnne Denison /esignature/

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

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

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

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

Ken Ditkowsky
http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

Very Truly Yours,

/esignature/JoAnneMDenison/
JoAnne M. Denison

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

Advertisements

A reminder to Miscreant Attorneys–your pleadings DO have limits

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

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

See below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

joanne

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

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

Dear Readers;

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

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

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

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

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

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

The links:

File 1, Vol 4 a p 751 to 814

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

File 2, Vol 1 b p 122 to 250

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

File 3 Vol 1a-2 p 57 to 121

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

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

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

File 5 Vol 4a-2 p815 to 885

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

File 6 Vol 4b p886 to 1000

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

File 7 Vol 3b p 625 to 750

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

File 8 Vol 2b p 376 to 500

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

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

 

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

To the ARDC

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

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

More for the ARDC to censor–an old joke!

Old joke UPDATED for censorhsip:

In an effort to determine which among the CIA, the FBI and the Chicago Police Dept was the very best agency for law enforcement, a plan was devised to release a rabbit into the forest and see who could capture the rabbit first.

The FBI went into the forest.  They placed animal informants throughout. They questioned all plant and mineral witnesses.  After three months of extensive investigation they concluded that rabbits do not exist.

The CIA went into the forest.  After two weeks without a capture, they burned the forest killing everything in it, including the rabbit.  They made no apologies.
The rabbit deserved it.

The Chicago Police went into the forest.  They came out two hours later with a badly beaten bear.  The bear was yelling “Okay, I’m a rabbit, I’m a rabbit.

However, feeling left out of “who is the best” in eliminating crime and corruption in the forest, the ARDC begs to be included.

Court appointed probate bunnies CF and AS put on bunny suits and tell the rabbit they will help him, turns out the rabbit in the story stole a million carrots.  Solution?  They tell the probate court the carrots don’t exist, and the ARDC wants to know which honest forest attorney told the CIA, FBI or CPD anything so they can file a complaint against that bunny!

PS–The ARDC adds to the complaint the fact the forest attorney used the initial FBI, CIA, CPD, CF and AS because that looks suspect to them!  And they add it into the complaint….And please, no one EVER give the ARDC a match or gasoline, because that will be next.  ARDC bunnies with incendiary devices.  Who would’ve thought that?